to ensure consistency with AB 747 and introduces new policies consistent with AB 2684 (Extreme Heat) requirements. A new section, S- 10: Extreme Heat, establishes policies focused on expanding shade trees, constructing heat -resilient infrastructure, improving insulation in community facilities, and applying cool -surface materials to pu blic improvements. Additional policies, S -8.10 (Maintaining Evacuation Routes) and S -8.11 (Regional Evacuation Coordination), strengthen emergency preparedness and coordination across jurisdictional boundaries. The update also incorporates FEMA’s 2024 floodplain revisions and CalFire ’s 2025 Fire Hazard Severity Zone updates, ensuring Ontario’s hazard mapping reflects the most current federal and state data.
(d) Environmental Resources Element (SB 1000) : The Technical Amendment includes a focused revision to the Environmental Resources Element to ensure continued compliance with SB 1000, which requires cities that amend 2 or more General Plan elements to also review their Environmental Justice policies. As part of this review, the City evaluated the Environmental Justice map (Figure ER-01) using CalEnviroScreen indicators and 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) income data to confirm that identified areas reflect current conditions. Based on this analysis, Census Tract 19.06 is proposed for removal from the Environmental Justice map. The tract’s median household income now falls within the top ten percent of all tracts citywide , and the area has benefited from recent public investments, such as a 131 -acre portion of the Grand Park, which will expand the community's access to open space and recreational amenities. The changes demonstrate that Tract 19.06 no longer meets the criteria for a disadvantaged community under SB 1000. This refinement ensures that the City’s Environmental Justice policies and related funding remain directed toward neighborhoods with the greatest demonstrated need, maintaining consistency with SB 1000 and the broader intent of equitable community investment.
(e) Parks & Recreation Element : The Technical Amendment includes a map revision to Figure PR-01 to depict the Ontario Sports Empire . The updated figure reflects the City’s continuing investment in expanding recreational opportunities and improving equitable park access. The complex will serve as a major community destination and contribute to Ontario’s broader system of interconnected parks, open spaces, and trails that support active living and social engagement.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: The subject application was advertised as a hearing in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario (the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper).
COMMUNITY OUTREACH: TOP 2050 Technical Amendments were developed through a thorough and inclusive public engagement process. This process aimed to ensure that residents, stakeholders, and community partners could learn about, discuss, and provide feedback on the proposed updates. The City utilized various outreach methods both in- person and online to connect with a wide range of community members.
Engagement Overview
145
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025
The City provided residents with various opportunities to participate, including a dedicated multilingual project website, a community survey, in -person pop-up events, and a public open house. Collectively, these efforts generated hundreds of interactions and comments that informed policy refinements across the Parks and Recreation, Safety, Environmental Resources, and Mobility Elements. The outreach program also satisfied State requirements for public participation in general plan amendments. More information, see Attachment A: Community Engagement Overview.
Outreach Activities
Summer Pop-Ups (July 2025):
• Six outreach booths were hosted at the Ontario Town Square and Celebration Park North concert series, 3 in Northern Ontario, and 3 in Ontario Ranch. City staff shared information boards, answered questions, and distributed business cards linking to the online overview and community survey.
Community Service Fairs (June 14 and Sept 27, 2025):
• Information booths were held at Veterans Memorial Park and Bon View Park, engaging attendees about the project’s purpose and inviting survey participation.
National Night Out (Aug 5, 2025):
• Staff participated in the annual City event, replicating the summer pop-up format to engage residents across all districts.
Project Website (July–Oct 2025):
• The website myinput.com/OntarioTechGPA hosted project materials, timelines, and an overview of proposed updates in English, Spanish, Simplified Chinese, and Vietnamese. It received over 1,600 views and 936 unique visitors, with more than 125 contributors providing survey feedback.
Social Media Campaign:
• The City used its Instagram, Facebook, and X platforms (collectively reaching approximately 81,800 followers) to share project updates and event invitations.
Engagement averaged 63 likes on Instagram and 18 on Facebook per post.
Common discussion topics included housing affordability, air quality, truck routes, and parks.
Community Survey (July 9–Aug 8, 2025):
• The survey collected 125 responses on policy topics including extreme heat, flooding, open space, and truck route conflicts.
• Key Findings:
o Support for completing Grand Park and other planned parks. o Concern about flooding and extreme heat; calls for shade trees and cooling infrastructure.
146
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025
o Desire for truck route enforcement and noise buffers. o Emphasis on equitable resource allocation across neighborhoods.
Community Open House (Aug 21, 2025):
Held at the Ontario Senior Center, the open house drew about 20 attendees and featured 5 information stations corresponding to the updated Elements. Comments emphasized:
• Expanding pocket parks and safe bike lanes.
• Addressing air-quality impacts from warehouse development. • Reducing truck traffic near homes and schools.
• Adding shade trees and pedestrian connections.
AGENCY/DEPARTMENT REVIEWS: Each City agency/department has been provided the opportunity to review and comment on the subject application and recommend conditions of approval to be imposed upon the application. At the time of the Resolution preparation, recommended conditions of approval were provided and are appended to the attached Resolution as Attachment A.
AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (ALUCP) COMPLIANCE: The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670, et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the ONT ALUCP, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Cou nties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2 -2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2 -2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP.
On August 2, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted a Development Code Amendment to establish the Chino Airport (CNO) Overlay Zoning District (OZD) and Reference I, Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CNO ALUCP).
The CNO OZD and CNO ALUCP established the Airport Influence Area for Chino Airport, solely within the City of Ontario, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport I nfluence Area, as they relate to safety, airspace protection, and overflight 147
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025
impacts of current and future airport activity. The CNO ALUCP is consistent with policies and criteria set forth within the Caltrans 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The proposed Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ch ino Airport and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the CNO ALUCP. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information conta ined in the Application and supporting documentation against the CNO ALUCP compatibility factors, including Safety, Airspace Protection, Overflight. As a result, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the Chino ALUCP.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The environmental impacts of the Project were reviewed in conjunction with the TOP 2050 SEIR (SCH No. 2021070364; certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022).
The Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) (CEQA) and an Addendum has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts. Although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Certified Environmental Impact Report (Certified EIR) and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Certified EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed P roject, nothing further is required. The P roject will introduce no new significant environmental impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the Certified EIR , and all mitigation measures previously adopted by the Certified EIR , are a condition of project approval and are incorporated in the Addendum.
148
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025
TECHNICAL AMENDMENT APPENDIX:
New Policies:
Goal S -10: Reduced exposure to extreme heat for community members, critical infrastructure, and other assets.
S-10.1: Shade Trees and Structures . We expand the planting of shade trees and the installation of shade structures on City -owned property and rights -of-way, and encourage private property owners and other agencies to take similar actions. We prioritize shade trees and structures at parking l ots, transit stops, parks, community centers, and schools.
S-10.2: Heat-Resilient Infrastructure. We construct new infrastructure and retrofit existing infrastructure to remain operational during extreme heat events. We work with other public agencies and private utility companies to incorporate extreme heat resilience into their construction and retrofit activities.
S-10.3: Heat-Resilient Buildings. We work with community groups and local agencies to install air conditioning and improved insulation at facilities that serve vulnerable populations, including schools, senior care centers, community centers, and medical facilities.
S-10.4: Cool Surfaces. We install cool surfaces, including parking lots, roofs, roadways, and walking paths, as part of new or substantially renovated City facilities.
S-8.10: Maintaining Evacuation Routes. When evaluating City budgets, programming, and funding opportunities, we prioritize improvements and maintenance activities to ensure roadways that are identified as evacuation routes will be serviceable during emergency events.
S-8.11: Regional Evacuation Coordination. We work with neighboring jurisdictions and County agencies to ensure safe and effective evacuations across jurisdictional boundaries.
M-1.7: Evacuation Infrastructure. We evaluate changes to traffic signal timing, including the use of intelligent transportation system technology, and other traffic control features to support effective evacuations.
M-1.8: Evacuation Support for Transit-Dependent Populations. We partner with Omnitrans, senior service centers, and other relevant agencies to provide evacuation services for people lacking access to reliable private vehicles.
149
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025
Revised Policies:
S-3.5: Emergency Notifications. We maintain a public alert notification system that efficiently conveys information about imminent, developing, ongoing, and concluding emergency events and evacuation notifications to residents and visitors, working with network providers that translate information into other languages.
S-8.2: Emergency Management Plans and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan . We maintain, update, and adopt the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and incorporate by reference the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) current City of Ontario Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) into this Safety Element, as permitted by California Government Code Section 65302.6.
S-8.9: Backup Power in Critical Facilities. We require backup power be maintained in critical facilities, prioritizing facilities that can serve as evacuation centers. We encourage backup power solutions that include renewable energy components.
150
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025
Exhibit A.1: MOBILITY ELEMENT FIGURE M-04 TRUCK ROUTES (CURRENT)
151
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025
Exhibit A.2: MOBILITY ELEMENT FIGURE M-04 TRUCK ROUTES (PROPOSED)
152
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025
Exhibit B.1: SAFETY ELEMENT FIGURE S-03 FLOOD HAZARD ZONES (CURRENT)
153
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025
Exhibit B.2: SAFETY ELEMENT FIGURE S-03 FLOOD HAZARD ZONES (PROPOSED)
154
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025
Exhibit C.1: SAFETY ELEMENT FIGURE S-05 FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES (CURRENT)
155
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025
Exhibit C.2: SAFETY ELEMENT FIGURE S-05 FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES (PROPOSED)
156
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025
Exhibit D.1: ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES FIGURE ER-01 EJ AREAS (CURRENT)
157
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025
Exhibit D.2: ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES FIGURE ER-01 EJ AREAS (PROPOSED)
158
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025
Exhibit E.1: PARKS AND RECREATION FIGURE PR-01 P&R FACILITIES (CURRENT)
159
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025
Exhibit E.2: PARKS AND RECREATION FIGURE PR-01 P&R FACILITIES REVISED (PROPOSED)
160
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025
Attachment A:
Community Engagement Overview
(Document to follow this page)
161
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025
Resolution for File No. PGPA25-001
(Document to follow this page)
162
THE
ONTARIO PLAN
2050
TECHNICAL
AMENDMENTS
Community Engagement Summary
Prepared August 26, 2025
Table of Contents
Engagement Overview ...................................................................................................................... 1 Pop-Ups ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Summer Concerts .............................................................................................................................. 2 National Night Out ............................................................................................................................ 2 Social Media ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Website ................................................................................................................................... 4 Community Survey ............................................................................................................................. 5 Community Open House ................................................................................................................... 7 APPENDIX A: Community Survey Results
APPENDIX B: Community Open House Comments
163
Community Engagement Summary
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050
Outreach Summary (prepared 8/26/25) page 1 of 8
The Ontario Plan 2050
Technical Amendments
Engagement Overview
The City of Ontario conducted a variety of engagement
efforts to provide community members with opportunities to learn about, share thoughts, and provide feedback
that informs proposed recommendations and changes
within the scope of The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 technical amendments.
Outreach efforts included:
• A dedicated project website promoted through in -
person events and on City social media accounts
and accessible in English, Spanish, and Simplified
Chinese.
• Four Pop -Up events, 2 in Northern Ontario at the
Ontario Town Square summer concerts, and 2 in
Southern Ontario at Celebration Park summer
concerts.
• Participation in Ontario’s National Night Out
• One project community survey and project overview
promoted at summer pop -up events and on City
Social Media accounts.
• Social media posts sharing information about the
project, in -person engagement efforts, and the
community survey.
• One Community Open House sharing findings from
the prior engagement efforts, evaluation of
compliance with various state laws, and draft
recommended changes to TOP 2050.
• The Community will also have the opportunity to
speak at upcoming hearings this fall prior to Planning
Commission and City Council action.
164
Community Engagement Summary
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050
Outreach Summary (prepared 8/26/25) page 2 of 8
Pop-Ups
Summer Concerts
July 2025
Ontario Town Square and Celebration Park North
The City conducted four pop -ups at the summer concert series hosted by the City of Ontario throughout July, with two pop-ups in Northern Ontario, and two pop-ups in Southern Ontario as follows:
• Pop-up #1: July 9, 2025, Ontario Town Square
• Pop-up #2: July 16, 2025, Ontario Town Square
• Pop-up #3: July 24, 2025, Celebration Park North
• Pop-up #4: July 31, 2025, Celebration Park North
At each booth, City staff built community awareness, answered questions, and directed attendees to the online overview and community survey.
Information boards were posted at the Pop-Up events
Summer Community Service Fair
June 14, 2025
Veterans Memorial Park & Community Center, 1259 East D Street, Ontario CA 91764 September 27, 2025
Bon View Park & Community Center, 1010 S Bon View Ave, Ontario, CA 91761 National Night Out
August 5, 2025
The City also had a participated in the City of Ontario’s National Night Out on Tuesday, August 5, 2025 from 5 pm to 8 pm. The format of this booth was the same as the Summer Concert Pop-Ups.
Business Cards with links to
the webpage were shared
at pop-ups.
165
Community Engagement Summary
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050
Outreach Summary (prepared 8/26/25) page 3 of 8
Social Media
July 9, 2025 – December 2025
Instagram, Facebook, X
The City utilized its social media platforms, including Instagram, Facebook, and X, to conduct a social media educational campaign to provide information to the City’s audience to inform them about the required technical updates to The Ontario Plan. This method for online engagement is productive given that the City has 81,800 total followers across the three platforms. In this process, the City provides the purpose, overview, and ways for the public to get involved and learn more. These posts were strategically shared on these platforms prior to and leading up to the in-person events, like the pop-ups and open house.
The public engaged with social media posts through liking and commenting on the posts. Most of the social media engagement came from Instagram and Facebook with the average number of likes /reactions being 63 on Instagram, 18 on Facebook, and 2 on X . Comments varied by post, but most comments and questions centered on:
• Housing costs
• Lowering property taxes
• City council related
• Warehouses
• Specific improvements to local shopping centers
• Shaded trails
• R
egional transportation
• Parking enforcement
• Truck routes , specifically related to Euclid and
Boulder, Archibald,
• Truck Safety, like walkability, noise buffering
• Alleged criminal activity
• Gratitude for public engagement opportunities
• Great Park
• Bike infrastructure
• Recent federal enforcement
• Farmland changes
• Improving city staff quality
• Local air quality and related health issues
• S
urvey issues: not receiving survey information, not
b
eing able to change answers on the survey ,
su
ggestions to post the survey link,
• Downtown improvements
• Lack of open spaces
Instagram
Facebook
X
166
Community Engagement Summary
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050
Outreach Summary (prepared 8/26/25) page 4 of 8
Project Website
July 9, 2025 – December 2025
Myinput.com/OntarioTechGPA
The project website provides an overview of technical
amendments to The Ontario Plan, including a brief overview of the updates being considered by element, project timeline, project materials, and ways to get involved/previous outreach efforts.
The project website has was viewed over 1,600 times between July 9, 2025 and August 25, 2025. Within the same timeframe over 1,200 visits and 936 unique visitors (based on IP addresses), as seen in the image below. The online overview and survey was hosted on the project website with over 125 contributors sharing their thoughts and perspectives regarding the technical amendments.
The project website was available to in multiple languages, including Spanish, Simplified Chinese, and Vietnamese. Website viewers predominantly viewed the website in English (97%), followed by Chinese (2%), Spanish (1%) and Vietnamese (0.001%), as shown below. 167
Community Engagement Summary
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050
Outreach Summary (prepared 8/26/25) page 5 of 8
Community Survey
July 9, 2025 – August 8, 2025
Myinput.com/OntarioTechGPA
Survey overview
The City provided an online survey to capture the public’s input for the updates to portions of its Policy Plan, a component of The Ontario Plan, to address new state laws and reflect minor changes in mapping related to flooding and fire hazards, open space resources, disadvantaged communities, and truck
routes. This survey was structured to combine the overview of why these updates are necessary with open -ended spaces to receive the public’s thoughts and ideas on the topics of extreme heat, flood, and wildl ife hazards, open space, truck routes, and disadvantaged communities.
This survey was open from July 9, 2025 to August 8, 2025. During this period, 125 community members informed themselves
about The Ontario Plan technical amendments and
contributed their thoughts and ideas.
Survey snapshots
168
Community Engagement Summary
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050
Outreach Summary (prepared 8/26/25) page 6 of 8
Summary of survey responses
In general, survey responses reported the following items:
PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
• Strong support for completing planned parks, especially the Grand Park project in Ontario Ranch
SAFETY ELEMENT
• Support for evacuation planning and emergency preparedness • Concerns about flooding in specific neighborhoods (Nuvo Parkside area) • Interest in green infrastructure for stormwater management • Need for extreme heat protection, especially shade trees and cooling infrastructure • Emphasis on clear emergency communication systems
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ELEMENT
• Emphasis on ensuring resources reach communities most in need • Support for maintaining environmental protections regardless of income changes • Recognition that pollution affects all residents
• Interest in green infrastructure and tree planting programs
MOBILITY ELEMENT
• Heavy truck traffic passing by on residential area streets, especially along Ontario Ranch Road and Archibald Avenue
• Noise, vibration, and air quality impacts on homes and schools • Safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists
• Road damage from heavy vehicles
• Need for better enforcement of truck route restrictions Map Question
The survey also in vited respondents to
place markers on a map in areas where
they were aware of issues related to the
proximity of heavy- duty trucks and
sensitive receptors like hom es, s chools,
and parks. Most markers, shown as blue
dots to the left, were placed in Southern
Ontario, with concentrations along
Archibald Ave, Ontario Ra nch Road
(Edison Ave), and Haven Ave.
A comp lete recor d of all survey
responses and a larger map with related
comments is included as Appendix A.
169
Community Engagement Summary
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050
Outreach Summary (prepared 8/26/25) page 7 of 8
Community Open House
Thursday, August 21, 2025
Ontario Senior Center, East B Street, Ontario, CA
Open house overview
The City of Ontario hosted a Community Open House for the Ontario Plan’s Technical Amendments on August 21, 2025 at the Ontario Senior Center from 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm. The
Open House had five stations: 1) Project Summar y, Project Overview Presentation, and individual stations for the Parks and Recreation, Safety, Environmental Resources, and
Mobility Elements.
Sixteen attendees signed in, and approximately 4 attendees visited the event without signing in. The open house featured interactive boards to communicate proposed changes and
provide areas for attendees to share their thoughts on the draft changes under consideration . Attendees were also invited to discuss each topic with the City and Consultant Staff.
This document includes a summary of the comments shared at the meeting, as well as a transcription of all comments provided.
The City and Consultant team will consider the input herein while refining draft changes prior to public hearings.
170
Community Engagement Summary
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050
Outreach Summary (prepared 8/26/25) page 8 of 8
Summary of open house comments
PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
Community members shared a desire for m ore nearby pocket parks, safer bike lanes, improvements to Bon View Park, and it was noted that the city should consider habitat opportunities for species such as the burrowing owl.
SAFETY ELEMENT
Community members shared that there was a need for more shade- providing trees, trails, flowering plants, and walkable connections throughout Ontario for air quality. While these comments were posted under the Safety Element they relate more directly to the Parks and Recreation and Environmental Resources Elements.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ELEMENT
Attendees wanted to understand how the City plans to improve and address poor air quality and expressed concern over the development of new warehousing facilities that exacerbate air quality issues. An example of a new project on Bon View between Francis and Philadelphia and Mission and Holt was shared to illustrate the concern.
MOBILITY ELEMENT
Community members expressed concerns over tr uck traffic in specific areas of the city, expressing a need to reduce truck traffic at the intersection of Shaefer and Grove, and suggesting that North Bon View be removed as a truck route.
Attendees also requested that schools be shown on truck route maps and noted that the City should address trucks parking in residential areas , which creates traffic safety issues such as intersection blind spots.
OTHER COMMENTS
In addition to those related to the project, some attendees commented on land use items that are outside the scope of the technical amendment, including questions and concerns around “Prop 70 land,” farmland in Southern Ontario that was acquired by the County in 1988 using funds approved through a bond measure, Proposition 70, for the purposes of conservation, and desire for more public notic ing to those impacted by new development before zoning changes are considered . One commento r also noted ongoing issues with drug dealing near the intersection of Vineyard and 4
th.
A complete list of all comments received is included as Appendix B. 171
APPENDIX A: Community Survey Results
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050
Community Survey Results
APPENDIX A
July 9, 2025 – August 8, 2025
Community Survey Results
172
MyInput.com/OntarioTechGPA
Community Survey
Summary
Jul 09, 2025 - Aug 08, 2025
Project: Technical Amendment to The Ontario Plan
Form: Technical Amendment to The Ontario Plan
Exported: Aug 11, 2025, 12:49 PM
173
Open
Technical Amendment to The Ontario Plan
Technical Amendment to The Ontario Plan
125
Contributors
132
Contributions
Contribution Summary
1. Please share your thoughts or ideas, if any, about the amendments to the Safety Element under consideration
Long Text | Skipped: 114 | Answered: 18 (13.6%)
Sentiment
No sentiment data
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
Find another alternative away from the homes
Contribution 18 of 18 | August 2, 2025
Way too many road problems and pot holes due to commercial trucks Contribution 17 of 18 | August 1, 2025
I hope you consider some type of alert or sirens regarding fires and floods to the residents.
Contribution 16 of 18 | July 23, 2025
Please support community efforts to preserve open space land specifically parcels obtained by Proposition 70. These are required to be sustained "in perpetuity". I would like to see the 200 acres remain in Ontario.
Contribution 15 of 18 | July 21, 2025
As a resident of Nuvo Parkside (Archibald & Eucalyptus, 91762), our neighborhood experiences frequent street flooding after heavy rain, indicating a need for localized stormwater solutions. I urge the City to incorporate green infrastructure—such as bioswales and rain gardens—within parkways and cul-de-sacs to help infiltrate runoff and reduce peak flows. It’s also important to assess whether the storm drains and culverts serving Archibald and Eucalyptus were evaluated in the last hydrologic assessment, and if they are being upgraded to handle more intense rainfall events. Consistent maintenance schedules should be implemented to ensure debris is cleared from drains, culverts, and stormwater channels before each storm season. Additionally, I request the City prioritize equitable investment in flood mitigation infrastructure and green systems in Nuvo Parkside, ensuring it receives attention comparable to other neighborhoods. Finally, please clarify which streets or intersections in our area flood most often and whether homes or roadways along Archibald and Eucalyptus have experienced repeated standing water incidents. These efforts would significantly improve local flood resilience and inform updates to flood hazard mapping and stormwater policy.
Contribution 14 of 18 | July 16, 2025
Currently doesn’t seem like Ontario Ranch is considered to be in a major floor nor fire risk, so that’s a good thing and we should keep it that way
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 2 of 33174 Contribution 13 of 18 | July 16, 2025
Purple= flood zone? I wasn’t aware I resided in a flood zone. Your map should indicate: purple = flood zone.
Contribution 12 of 18 | July 15, 2025
Updates are good if all provisions are in placed, procedures tested and there are alternate plans in case it fails. And the time of response when assistance or help are needed should be included in this information.
Contribution 11 of 18 | July 10, 2025
I live approx. 0.10 miles south of the train tracks currently shown in a flood zone. I'm concerned the mapping may expand this area and impact nearby homes (me). I encourage the City to improve stormwater drainage on San Antonio Ave between State Ave and Mission Blvd, maintain clear culverts and rain gutters, and consider green infrastructure like rain gardens or bioswales. Adding permeable surfaces in public spaces and open space buffers could also help absorb runoff. I'd also suggest that the city please ensure clear communication of any flood zone changes.
Contribution 10 of 18 | July 10, 2025
I believe having homeless people in drain/sewer areas is a hazard in case of any flooding Contribution 9 of 18 | July 10, 2025
Agree this is necessary
Contribution 8 of 18 | July 10, 2025
Please remove trucks form driving on Ontario Ranch Road & Haven Ave. a lot of families crossing streets and often trucks go too fast, or cars swerve around them to pass.
Contribution 7 of 18 | July 10, 2025
ontario ranch road should be restricted from semi trucks and big rigged Contribution 6 of 18 | July 9, 2025
Santa Ana winds are a seasonal threat here, creating dangerous fire conditions, damaging property, and posing safety hazards for residents. We need to plan for wind-resistant infrastructure, tree maintenance, and emergency response readiness when these conditions arise. With more housing being developed near wildland areas, wildfire risk is increasing. We must invest in defensible space guidelines, firebreaks, and evacuation planning to protect Ontario Ranch as fire seasons become more extreme. Flooding remains a concern during heavy storms due to overburdened or outdated drainage systems. New development must be paired with modern stormwater management, including retention basins, green infrastructure, and upgraded sewer lines. Ontario Ranch is growing rapidly, and with growth comes increased exposure to natural disaster risks. Between the threat of wildfires, strong winds, and seasonal flooding, we need proactive planning. This means enforcing resilient building codes, emergency evacuation plans, investing in green infrastructure, and community education. Preparing now will reduce future damage, save lives, and protect our city’s long-term investment.
Contribution 5 of 18 | July 9, 2025
How were these flood maps created and what was used to determine the areas of flooding? Contribution 4 of 18 | July 9, 2025
Can you please stay out of the new development areas by Ontario Ranch. I have a hard time driving through chino to get home due to MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 3 of 33175 one lane of these big trucks.
Contribution 3 of 18 | July 9, 2025
Lots of traffic. But should be good
Contribution 2 of 18 | July 9, 2025
No changes. Looks good
Contribution 1 of 18 | July 9, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 4 of 33176
2. -
Multi Choice | Skipped: 43 | Answered: 89 (67.4%)
Answer choices Percent Count
I do not wish to comment at this time 100.00% 89
Total 100.00% 89
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 5 of 33177
3. Please share your thoughts or ideas, if any, about the amendments to the Parks & Recreation Element under consideration
Long Text | Skipped: 87 | Answered: 45 (34.1%)
Sentiment
No sentiment data
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
Having a running track / trail would be good. Ensuring park is safe vis a vis security also important. Kids play areas and picnic space helpful to bring families out. Good stand and clean bathrooms are a must.
Contribution 45 of 45 | August 3, 2025
More smaller scale parks are needed for the ontario ranch area. While the Great Park is a great addition and one reason why we bought a house here, it will take years to build and complete. We are tired of going to Eastvale just to enjoy outdoor unobstructed space. Also, a communtiy center is much needed. Majority are in North Ontario and it takes a lot of travel just going there. Westwind is also outdated and small for the new population
Contribution 44 of 45 | August 2, 2025
If u want parks for children, dont you think having trucks driving at such high speeds is dangerous? Contribution 43 of 45 | August 2, 2025
Super exciting. The Great Park proposed space looks amazing. As large as Central Park, can’t wait to see it come to life! Ontario needs to keep planting trees and hire the best arborists. It will help offset all these trucks. We need a canopy which will help air quality and provide relief during scorching heat.
Contribution 42 of 45 | August 2, 2025
We need our great park built asap
Contribution 41 of 45 | August 1, 2025
Please continue to build the proposed parks in the Ontario Ranch area.
Contribution 40 of 45 | August 1, 2025
Parks and recreation centers are great! No more warehouses as they cause more truck traffic, pollution and potential crimes.
Contribution 39 of 45 | August 1, 2025
Grand park should extend further to mill creek and all the way to Euclid. It would be better if it were wider on the western side. As wide as it is in phase 1. More city parks needed in Ontario ranch. Parks with dense amounts of trees to cool temperatures, offer shade for picnics, and water features like streams and lakes.
Contribution 38 of 45 | August 1, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 6 of 33178 More parks, less warehouses, more unique shopping/retail centers.
Contribution 37 of 45 | July 31, 2025
I strongly believe that Mountain View School Park needs to be updated. As a resident of the neighboring community, I do not find it enjoyable to take my children to this park due to the outdated metal equipment hat becomes scorching hot in the heat, is covered in graffiti, and sand. An updated park would allow for the surrounding children of the elementary and middle school to take advantage and get good use out of new and improved amenities, my children included.
Contribution 36 of 45 | July 27, 2025
How will traffic be during events.
Contribution 35 of 45 | July 26, 2025
Less houses, more grocery stores and places to eat.
Contribution 34 of 45 | July 25, 2025
More open spaces are needed in Ontario ranch area given the huge increase in housing beigg by built Contribution 33 of 45 | July 24, 2025
I noticed that the Grand Park is built slower rate versus Ontario Sports Complex and warehouses. Even though we pay our property taxes and yet we get no benefits to enjoy our community.
Contribution 32 of 45 | July 23, 2025
The park above eucalyptus needs to be focused on. The dust and dirt are covering the houses nearby Contribution 31 of 45 | July 23, 2025
Need more green space
Contribution 30 of 45 | July 23, 2025
For the new parks, like the one stretching from Haven to Campus, please plan for walking and jogging routes while crossing roadways.
Ideally, i would like to avoid crossing vehicle traff altogether Contribution 29 of 45 | July 23, 2025
The older section of the city doesn't have enough parks. I hope the city doesn't repeat this with the Ontario Ranch area of the city Contribution 28 of 45 | July 22, 2025
We need more safe, family friendly, open air spaces to play, relax, meet with others, etc. through the city. Community gardens spaces would be beneficial as well
Contribution 27 of 45 | July 21, 2025
Why not acknowledge the Proposition 70 parcels as Open Space also? Contribution 26 of 45 | July 21, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 7 of 33179 There should definitely be more recreation and parks available and less warehouses Contribution 25 of 45 | July 16, 2025
John Gavin Park and Jay Littleton Ballpark, Grove Memorial Park and the dog park are to remain and be improved, correct? No zoning change!
Contribution 24 of 45 | July 15, 2025
Yes please our community, families, kids need access to free admission Parks and Recreation Element. Security must also be considered.
More trees or greenery for clean air.
Contribution 23 of 45 | July 10, 2025
I’d like to know when the “Grand Park” will be started. Located between Archibald and Haven (behind Stater Bros). I’d also love to see more Pickleball courts, ideally with tall fences and wind blockers like Tennis courts have. Bike tracks would be great too, going around the park in a safe and isolated place away from cars.
Contribution 22 of 45 | July 10, 2025
Possibly add a park under the electrical lines on haven ave.
Contribution 21 of 45 | July 10, 2025
Looking forward to the completion of the Ontario Sport Empire facilities/park.
Contribution 20 of 45 | July 10, 2025
I live near Mission Blvd & Cypress Ave, where there are no nearby parks within safe walking distance, especially for dog owners.
Reaching Cypress Park or James R Bryant Park requires crossing major streets, some without crosswalks, like Cypress & Mission. I suggest adding safe pedestrian crossings, shaded walking paths, and a small dog-friendly green space or pocket park in this area to improve access to recreation for both residents and pets.
Contribution 19 of 45 | July 10, 2025
Parks are definitely a good way of getting the community involved Contribution 18 of 45 | July 10, 2025
Need walking / biking paths
Contribution 17 of 45 | July 10, 2025
More lanes should be added to Riverside Drive with the building of the new baseball stadium. It is very congested as is and will only get worse.
Contribution 16 of 45 | July 10, 2025
We need to get the Great Park moving. We were told within a year or two of moving here is would be open and now it’s been 3 years.
This will help the community by looking better, as well as great for all the families. Oh please, add shade sails to parks. It’s too hot in direct sun for kids
Contribution 15 of 45 | July 10, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 8 of 33180 Building more public hiking and multi use trails in Ontario Contribution 14 of 45 | July 9, 2025
Make more progress on grand park. It’s going so slow. I’ll be dead by the time it opens. Seriously. Speed up.
Contribution 13 of 45 | July 9, 2025
We love having large recreational areas planned and can’t wait for the great park to come to fruition.
Contribution 12 of 45 | July 9, 2025
There should be more pickle ball courts added.
Contribution 11 of 45 | July 9, 2025
Looking forward to all the new parks, especially trees and other vegetation! Ontario has sadly become overwhelmed with concrete warehouses, reducing its attractiveness as a place to live Contribution 10 of 45 | July 9, 2025
Where is the great park?
Contribution 9 of 45 | July 9, 2025
Still need more parks and recreation due to many new houses built in recent years Contribution 8 of 45 | July 9, 2025
The area under the electrical power lines off of Twinkle and Cheerful needs to be cleaned up to connect the Ontario trail.
Contribution 7 of 45 | July 9, 2025
Keep grand park! We need the green space!
Contribution 6 of 45 | July 9, 2025
Would prefer more parks and rec instead of housing in the Ontario ranch area.
Contribution 5 of 45 | July 9, 2025
Ontario Ranch great park construction is taking a very long time, in contrast to the sports complex which is happening extremely quickly.
Contribution 4 of 45 | July 9, 2025
More updates on the Grand Park. There’s not a lot of green space besides celebration parks for us Ontario Ranch residents so we’re banking on this park for leisure and activities
Contribution 3 of 45 | July 9, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 9 of 33181 Please keep homeless out of parks. Other than that, no amendments.
Contribution 2 of 45 | July 9, 2025
There are not enough parks planned to offset the huge amount of warehouses and semis.
Contribution 1 of 45 | July 9, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 10 of 33182
4. -
Multi Choice | Skipped: 67 | Answered: 65 (49.2%)
Answer choices Percent Count
I do not wish to comment at this time 100.00% 65
Total 100.00% 65
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 11 of 33183
5. Where have you noticed issues between sensitive receptors like homes, parks, and schools and heavy-duty truck traffic?
Map | Skipped: 29 | Answered: 103 (78%)
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 12 of 33 NOTE: a larger map is included at the end of the survey summary, along with a list of all comments placed on the map. Comments include a map ID reference number that can be keyed to a location on the larger map.
184
6. Please share your thoughts or ideas, if any, about the factors above Long Text | Skipped: 50 | Answered: 82 (62.1%)
Sentiment
No sentiment data
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
I wish someone from the city would come and spend a day in our home to see how disruptive the noise is at all hours of the day.
Contribution 82 of 82 | August 7, 2025
Get them out of ontario ranch road and residential areas Contribution 81 of 82 | August 2, 2025
Go around to where the dairy farms were
Contribution 80 of 82 | August 2, 2025
Truck routes should not be allowed in all residential neighborhoods. This includes Park Place, New Haven, and Esperanza. There needs to be some constant enforcement. Posted signs do not deter truck drivers if there is a lack of enforcement.
Contribution 79 of 82 | August 2, 2025
If we have larger roads, 4-6 lanes, I think we should look at the possibility of designating truck lanes along truck routes.
Contribution 78 of 82 | August 2, 2025
1. Truck routes should avoid residential areas and parks—these are sensitive spaces that deserve protection, especially as the city continues investing in public green spaces. 2. Freeway access should be prioritized to keep trucks on roads designed for heavy-duty traffic, reducing noise, pollution, and wear on smaller local streets. 3. Stronger enforcement is needed to keep trucks on designated routes—many currently divert through neighborhoods, undermining safety and air quality.
Contribution 77 of 82 | August 2, 2025
Utilize the 60 fwy for routes through o ratio ranch rd to get to areas in chino or beyond.
Contribution 76 of 82 | August 1, 2025
Consider nearby neighborhoods.
Contribution 75 of 82 | August 1, 2025
Please use soundwalls or vegetation in the Ontario ranch area as there is many trucks passing through.
Contribution 74 of 82 | August 1, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 13 of 33185 No trees or shrubs are enough to drown out all the noise these trucks create. Many neighbors that live on Archibald still complain about the noise and how much their walls and windows tremble from these heavy trucks.
Contribution 73 of 82 | August 1, 2025
The trucks need to be removed off of highly populated areas that contain schools or community centers. They also need to be removed from residential neighborhoods.
Contribution 72 of 82 | August 1, 2025
Truck routes that are near residential areas should be evaluated for other potential routes. Specifically Archibald through Ontario Ranch Rd to Merrill Ave. There many homes, and nearby parks, people/kids going for walks/runs. Too much pollution and noise.
Contribution 71 of 82 | August 1, 2025
Sound walls should be build along all the new homes that have been built and are being built in Ontario ranch. The 6 foot or so high wall is not enough. The walls should be 8 feet or higher. In the city of La Habra on imperial highway the city added 10+ foot sound walls where the homes were to reduce traffic noise. Although vegetation in Ontario ranch is denser than any other part of the city, I believe more trees need to be planted to create a natural wall between the homes and the road.
Contribution 70 of 82 | August 1, 2025
Please prevent trucks from driving in single bidirectional lanes and ensure truck routes are prioritized away from schools and home communities.
Contribution 69 of 82 | August 1, 2025
Many of the routes right now are only 1-2 lanes. They are not larger roads.
Contribution 68 of 82 | August 1, 2025
No trucks on Schaeffer or Haven
Contribution 67 of 82 | August 1, 2025
Consider what can be enforced because trucks go any route if not enforced for tickets.
Contribution 66 of 82 | August 1, 2025
I believe there needs to be more oversight on prohibiting truck routs entering residential areas specifically with smaller roads and single vehicles lanes such as rounds abouts that are located in residential areas, besides residential play gyms and such.
Contribution 65 of 82 | August 1, 2025
Directly truck traffic that do not impact residential communities. Invest in upgrading major route along industrial/business zone to accommodate heavy truck traffic influx, eg Euclid.
Contribution 64 of 82 | August 1, 2025
Restrict trucks to the freeways until the very closest exit to their destination, simple. There shouldn't be so many trucks driving through Ontario Ranch Rd, they then go on to damage the roads along the farm areas. With parks and school so close, trucks need to be kept AWAY.
Contribution 63 of 82 | July 31, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 14 of 33186 Trucks should not be in residential areas. They need to get off riverside and Archibald Contribution 62 of 82 | July 26, 2025
Archibald is a major road but also has major new builds happening. It should be reconsidered as it’s causing unhealthy pollution for newborns and young families moving in as well as safety for kids walking to nearby schools.
Contribution 61 of 82 | July 26, 2025
Prioritize police enforcement of commercial trucks and routes to ensure regulatory compliance and maintenance of these large vehicles.
A lot of this increased commercial activity is the result of the city opening the flood gates to large enterprises, such as Amazon, that are renown for their lax management and practices concerning commercial operators, all in the name of expediency. The city should take an equal approach with commercial enforcement.
Contribution 60 of 82 | July 25, 2025
Trucks should not be taking residential streets.
Contribution 59 of 82 | July 25, 2025
All trucks should be electric operating in the Ontario Ranch community. We have too many children breathing in truck fumes Contribution 58 of 82 | July 25, 2025
Truck routes should be avoided near residential areas with insufficient sound walls, vegetation and larger roads, but Ontario still has truck routes in these areas.
Contribution 57 of 82 | July 25, 2025
This for the most part makes sense. Volumes of trucks have heavily increased the last 3 years or so especially on Archibald and Merril and surrounding areas
Contribution 56 of 82 | July 25, 2025
Larger roads and more vegetation
Contribution 55 of 82 | July 24, 2025
Need to complete construction on roads. Seems like all roads in city take forever for construction to be completed, and trucks do not have alternate routes.
Contribution 54 of 82 | July 23, 2025
Stay away from residential areas and schools.ma
Contribution 53 of 82 | July 23, 2025
Too many trucks on residential streets
Contribution 52 of 82 | July 23, 2025
Yes! Signage to indicate what is and what's not a truck route and then the enforcement by the police. Very needed. Makes our MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 15 of 33187 residential neighborhoods walkable, peaceful, quiet and safe.
Contribution 51 of 82 | July 23, 2025
Doesn’t matter how you evaluate Truck routes. There is very little enforcement for trucks that violate. Trucks will go the easiest way for them, regardless of signs or designated routes. The City needs to first enforce the current routes and violations, not create more areas they will not enforce. SIGNS on streets are a joke!
Contribution 50 of 82 | July 23, 2025
please avoid residential areas in the schools. I have seen 16 wheelers trying to drive through residential areas when Archibald or Edison have street work. I realize they shouldn't, so let's just avoid the problem all together and don't put them anywhere. near school or homes
Contribution 49 of 82 | July 23, 2025
I believe creating a “semi only/truck only” lane would be beneficial to Ontario Ranch Rd and Archibald Ave- would ease flow of traffic.
Contribution 48 of 82 | July 22, 2025
Minimizing semi truck in the city would be a benefit to our air quality and quality of life in general. Being a city of warehouses is not a flex or an appealing place to call home. Many of us do not have the luxury to live elsewhere so we need to improve our home City.
Contribution 47 of 82 | July 21, 2025
You have made South Ontario into Warehouse Central despite no freeway access. You need to designate Euclid to the 60 freeway or create Merrill Ave to the I-15.
Contribution 46 of 82 | July 21, 2025
Francis between Euclid & Campus should not be a truck route it is a very narrow street with a school and single family homes Contribution 45 of 82 | July 21, 2025
Please have them away from the homes or with one lane each.
Contribution 44 of 82 | July 17, 2025
Use Hamner Ave. to access 60 fwy in a North and South direction as it’s near completion of widening of the roads in that commercial use area. Limonite Ave to go East and West to reduce the amount of Heavy duty semi truck on Ontario Ranch Rd. With still having access to the 15 fwy. Archibald Ave will also be a better access road off of the 60 fwy. Instead of having large semi trucks exit off the 15 fwy and driving west thru neighborhoods.
Contribution 43 of 82 | July 16, 2025
As a resident, we do not care about convenience for trucks to access their routes. We do not want to see them or breathe in their fumes.
Keep the truck routes strictly to major streets near freeways and away from residential areas as much as possible. I have not seen any presence of sound walls or vegetation to improve these situations; would be nice to see but I have little faith the city will properly address this because of the lack of space (due to overcrowding/poor city planning) and propensity to favor more warehouses and constant housing developments over the betterment of the city and community Contribution 42 of 82 | July 16, 2025
Grove has large trucks all day long. Students are required to cross this street 2 and from school. There was a student fatality on G and Grove. Wiltsey, Mariposa, Del Norte south of the 10 and Vineyard, north of the 10.
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 16 of 33188 Contribution 41 of 82 | July 15, 2025
Rerouting the truck area would be ideal. We have major traffic with large trucks lots of pedestrians that walk in our area and the roads since I’ve been living here have been damaged so badly it is not safe. It’s actually very dangerous considering that we live in a community with lots of children that ride their bikes And multiple restaurants and grocery stores so close to the main road of large truck traffic.
Contribution 40 of 82 | July 13, 2025
If the city can’t accommodate a different route, I believe they should fix Archibald and remove the overlays and put holes from the street to try and prevent more damages to homes and apartment complexes. To try to eliminate more noise adding more trees on the street walk. Anything helps at this point, it’s way too noisy. Adding extra street lights to prevent them from going down the street at 60mph would help as well.
Contribution 39 of 82 | July 13, 2025
I’d like to offer a transportation-related suggestion for your consideration as development continues in the Ontario Ranch area. Based on current and planned land use, I believe Euclid Avenue, Ontario Ranch Road, and Merrill Avenue (eastbound) are better suited as major east-west and north-south thoroughfares. These roads provide direct access to key regional freeways including the 60, 71/91, and 15, making them ideal for high-volume traffic flow. Additionally, they run through primarily non-residential zones—such as warehouse districts, the airport, and the correctional facility—so the impact on residential communities would be minimal. In contrast, Archibald Avenue is expected to see more residential development, including housing, a park, and a school. Prioritizing heavy traffic along Archibald may negatively impact quality of life for future residents and school traffic safety. For these reasons, I recommend focusing future infrastructure upgrades and traffic planning on Euclid, Ontario Ranch Rd, and Merrill as preferred corridors for higher capacity movement, especially for vehicles accessing the freeway network.
Contribution 38 of 82 | July 12, 2025
Ideally large trucks never have to drive through heavy residential areas or heavily trafficked areas. I think having warehouses and such should be close to highways away from most public areas if possible. Safer for everyone.
Contribution 37 of 82 | July 10, 2025
Although grove give access to the freeway, the priority should be the residents. Our street is congested as it is, I have made many complaints about the back up, especially considering that the truck routes are not being respected. The residential homes are close to the street there is not enough trees, walls or other structures to block the noise. The truck traffic now causes our homes to rattle and shake already.
Contribution 36 of 82 | July 10, 2025
Trucks should be rerouted to bigger commercial area streets such as Miliken/ Hammer or Euclid Contribution 35 of 82 | July 10, 2025
Lots of good factors to consider.
Contribution 34 of 82 | July 10, 2025
I support prioritizing freeway access and connections to regional truck networks while minimizing the use of smaller local roads.
Contribution 33 of 82 | July 10, 2025
Definitely more signs of truck routes
Contribution 32 of 82 | July 10, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 17 of 33189 With the building of (now and those coming in the near future) many new neighborhoods and schools, those streets should not allow heavy truck traffic and previously allowed. Pedestrians, biciclists, children, etc. should be taken into consideration.
Contribution 31 of 82 | July 10, 2025
Please remove trucks form driving on Ontario Ranch Road & Haven Ave. a lot of families crossing streets and often trucks go too fast, or cars swerve around them to pass.
Contribution 30 of 82 | July 10, 2025
Yes. The trucks are messing up roads and there is already only one lane in and out of area Contribution 29 of 82 | July 10, 2025
Truck routes should not run right next to residential areas. Why can’t they all be in the industrial area? Archibald is all residential and more homes are being built. Semi trucks trying to pull around each other or just being generally slow make the drive to school ridiculous slow. The 3 mile drive can take 25 minutes.
Contribution 28 of 82 | July 10, 2025
Redirect trucks from using Archibald, between 60 fwy and Limonite Contribution 27 of 82 | July 10, 2025
No truck routes near residential areas. Archibald, between 60fwy and Limonite Contribution 26 of 82 | July 10, 2025
Ontario Ranch is a growing residential area, and the constant truck traffic is creating serious noise issues. I live just off Ontario Ranch Rd., and the noise from passing trucks is often loud enough to rattle the windows. This kind of heavy traffic doesn’t belong on a road that runs through a developing neighborhood. Trucks should be rerouted to alternate roads better suited for heavy loads — not only to reduce the noise, but also to prevent further damage to the roadway.
Contribution 25 of 82 | July 10, 2025
Avoid areas that travel along residential communities.
Contribution 24 of 82 | July 10, 2025
It’s really hard to say with some many warehouses and a few Amazon warehouse in my area.
Contribution 23 of 82 | July 9, 2025
Trucks should not be using local/residential roadways. More education and enforcement is needed.
Contribution 22 of 82 | July 9, 2025
I am writing to express my concern about Ontario Ranch Rd being designated as part of the current truck routes. I live along this road, and the heavy truck traffic has become a serious issue for my family. The high volume of large trucks, combined with their speed, loud braking, and frequent horn use, creates constant noise disturbances. The loud squealing brakes, trucks hitting bumps, and vibrations even cause our house to shake. This not only disrupts our daily lives but also frequently wakes up our two young babies, day and night. I kindly ask the city to reconsider Ontario Ranch Rd as a designated truck route. Redirecting truck traffic to more appropriate roads would greatly improve the quality of life for residents in this area, especially families with young children. Thank you for taking the time to MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 18 of 33190 consider this concern. I would appreciate any updates on possible actions or future plans regarding this route.
Contribution 21 of 82 | July 9, 2025
These are great evaluations. Please note Ontario Ranch Rd. All of these are now issues for the community residing on this street.
Contribution 20 of 82 | July 9, 2025
Truck routes should be avoided through streets that are lined with homes. If unavoidable, sound barriers should be installed to limit noise. Limiting speed and hours of use in residential areas should also be implemented.
Contribution 19 of 82 | July 9, 2025
No trucks on archibald through residential. Specifically between limonite and riverside drive Contribution 18 of 82 | July 9, 2025
1. Designated Truck Routes • Work with the city to designate specific arterial roads or highways (like the 60, 15, or 10 Freeways nearby) for truck use. • Post clear “No Through Trucks” signage on residential streets. 2. Time-Based Restrictions • Implement truck curfews (e.g., no heavy trucks from 10 PM–6 AM). • Limit truck traffic during school drop-off and nighttime hours to reduce disturbance. 3. Bypass Routes • Propose a truck bypass route that guides trucks around the residential zone (e.g., via major commercial corridors or industrial zones). • Utilize existing commercial corridors like Milliken Ave or Haven Ave (if applicable) that are already designed to support heavy traffic. 4. Weight Limit Signs • Add weight-restriction signage to discourage large semi-trucks unless making local deliveries. 5. Speed Bumps & Raised Crosswalks • Install traffic-calming measures to discourage speeding and make the route less appealing to trucks. 6.
Enforcement & Monitoring • Request increased patrols or camera enforcement to catch unauthorized or non-local trucks. 7. Industrial Traffic Containment • Encourage zoning that keeps industrial or logistics traffic within industrial parks or warehouse districts. • Require new developments to include truck access plans that avoid neighborhood disruption. 8. Community Feedback Loop • Propose a resident- city feedback portal for people to report excessive truck noise, traffic, or violations in real time.
Contribution 17 of 82 | July 9, 2025
One of the most alarming issues is the routine disregard for red lights and traffic laws by some semi-truck drivers. This is not just anecdotal, it’s something residents witness on a regular basis. The sheer size and weight of these vehicles turn what would be a minor infraction by a car into a potentially fatal disaster. Intersections near neighborhoods and schools should never be high-risk zones, yet they have become exactly that due to reckless truck behavior. In addition to safety, there is the constant and excessive noise created by these vehicles, particularly from engine braking (“jake brakes”) and the vibrations from heavy loads. This disrupts sleep, increases stress levels, and degrades overall quality of life for nearby residents. Noise levels often exceed acceptable thresholds, especially at night when truck traffic remains high.
Contribution 16 of 82 | July 9, 2025
Have you considered Euclid, Merrill, and Ontario Ranch in-lieu of Archibald? Archibald has so much homes and future schools coming in that there isn’t enough infrastructure built around the new homes to prevent vibration and loud noise. This will give the trucks access to the 15, 60, 71, and 91.
Contribution 15 of 82 | July 9, 2025
No more huge warehouses!!! And no more townhomes!!!
Contribution 14 of 82 | July 9, 2025
Direct them to business and park uses only
Contribution 13 of 82 | July 9, 2025
Ontario Ranch has an over abundance of trucks traveling throughout residential communities.
Contribution 12 of 82 | July 9, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 19 of 33191 Trucks use riverside daily all day long, 1 lane roads only. And drive fast Contribution 11 of 82 | July 9, 2025
I want the trucks to have other options that allows us to get in and out of the city easier.
Contribution 10 of 82 | July 9, 2025
There should be more sound walls for the New Haven community or to reroute trucks so they are not taking E Ontario Ranch road.
Contribution 9 of 82 | July 9, 2025
Truck routes have no place in such a heavily residential area. The Ontario Ranch area is a heavily residential area that continues to grow daily. With that growth naturally comes more traffic. Archibald becomes increasingly busy every month as more and more homes are built. Traveling on Archibald in the mornings and afternoons becomes challenging with Archibald having such heavy truck traffic on top of the residential traffic. The noise, traffic, health risks, road damage and pollution these trucks cause have no place in a residential area. No amount of trees planted can help with the noise pollution or fumes those diesel trucks throw near our homes. All they do is add to the traffic on Archibald.
Contribution 8 of 82 | July 9, 2025
We need to make archibald truck free. I feel that with all the new housing developments it is affecting our air pollution and overall our quality of living. They also are doing great damage to our road. Creating horrible pot holes every rain season.
Contribution 7 of 82 | July 9, 2025
We need larger roads in Ontario Ranch. With such a high density population south of the 60 freeway, one lane roads are unacceptable.
Contribution 6 of 82 | July 9, 2025
Yes and please rebuild Ontario Ranch Rd W/B of Archibald please. With the closures of nearby parallel streets, we depend on that road now and it is too narrow for the traffic.
Contribution 5 of 82 | July 9, 2025
I would love for eucalyptus near Archibald to not be used as a truck route due to all the noise, pollution and vibrations when they drive by. Sometimes the trucks will idle right by my house late at night.
Contribution 4 of 82 | July 9, 2025
Provide better surface or make different routes.
Contribution 3 of 82 | July 9, 2025
Create specifically marked truck route lanes or signs. The traffic on Archibald and Milliken and Ontario Ranch Rd has become a nightmare. There are too many trucks surrounding these neighborhoods.
Contribution 2 of 82 | July 9, 2025
I believe trucks should drive in Archibald to the 60 freeway and maybe Limonite to get to the 15 freeway. Avoid Ontario Ranch Rd and Merrill.
Contribution 1 of 82 | July 9, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 20 of 33192
7. Please share any other factors that should be considered when evaluating the City’s truck route system Long Text | Skipped: 66 | Answered: 66 (50%)
Sentiment
No sentiment data
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
Truck routes should be routed through industrial areas not directly through residential/suburban areas especially not where there is a school and people like to walk and ride their bikes.
Contribution 66 of 66 | August 7, 2025
Families and children
Contribution 65 of 66 | August 2, 2025
Ontario PD needs to enforce the trucks routes. There seems to be very little enforcement. There may be an "event" to collaborate with CHP and other city police dept, but those not enough as it seems to happen once a year.
Contribution 64 of 66 | August 2, 2025
1. As the city grows, truck routes should be reevaluated regularly to ensure they reflect new housing developments, schools, and parks—so truck traffic doesn’t end up cutting through spaces meant for families. 2. Consider investing in signage, GPS enforcement tools, or clear visual cues that help keep trucks on route and alert drivers when they’re entering restricted or sensitive areas. 3. Explore creating buffer zones with soundwalls or vegetation along necessary truck corridors near neighborhoods to help reduce the impact on air quality and noise. Ontario needs more and more trees. For every warehouse we should get dozen tree. Bring us a canopy to purify the air!
Contribution 63 of 66 | August 2, 2025
Homes that line the street especially in these new developments. We are paying for melrose so the city can deal with these things as we pay the extra tax for it.
Contribution 62 of 66 | August 1, 2025
Stop building condensed homes we already have enough problems with the big rigs and population Contribution 61 of 66 | August 1, 2025
Please be considerate of areas where schools are located Contribution 60 of 66 | August 1, 2025
The city needs to use the backroads for such heavy truck traffic. Or alternate routes that don’t impact the residential areas. The amount of warehouses built so closely to residential areas should of never happened. This is why we have this problem now.
Contribution 59 of 66 | August 1, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 21 of 33193 The trucks need to be removed off of highly populated areas that contain schools or community centers. They also need to be removed from residential neighborhoods.
Contribution 58 of 66 | August 1, 2025
Noise, pollution and crime
Contribution 57 of 66 | August 1, 2025
Probably not possible, but it would have been nice if there was a specific street that was a truck route that was used mostly by trucks than regular vehicles. Like if eucalyptus was a truck route and they used it as an express way to get through the city. To alleviate traffic on regular main roads like Ontario ranch road. Although eucalyptus doesn’t connect to a freeway, maybe it would merge into the main road near the end to connect to the freeway.
Contribution 56 of 66 | August 1, 2025
Have crosswalk lights on the ground that flash when pedestrians are crossing. Trucks and cars drive too fast on city streets making it unsafe for pedestrian crosswalks.
Contribution 55 of 66 | August 1, 2025
There should be more frequent evaluation of roads in these areas. The amount of potholes that are constantly being created due to the congestion is extremely hazardous. The city is lacking in how promptly it responds to these conditions.
Contribution 54 of 66 | August 1, 2025
Stop allowing warehouses to be built so close to homes. The long term health impacts will certainly expose the city to lawsuits in the future.
Contribution 53 of 66 | July 31, 2025
Route them around the city and by industrial areas only Contribution 52 of 66 | July 26, 2025
Archibald is a major road but also has major new builds happening. It should be reconsidered as it’s causing unhealthy pollution for newborns and young families moving in as well as safety for kids walking to nearby schools.
Contribution 51 of 66 | July 26, 2025
Should have direct routes to freeway, perhaps truck only entrance to prevent them from re routing near residential areas.
Contribution 50 of 66 | July 25, 2025
There are large semi trucks constantly pulling onto Dolomite St. off of Archibald and turning around in the round about. This is a residential family neighborhood with a lot of kids running around and riding their bikes. The turn about is right across the park. I wish there were a sign that said not to turn in here. I saw a tree knocked over the other day. I suspect it was from a semi truck. There appears to be confusion since there is a large warehouse entry right next to Dolomite St.
Contribution 49 of 66 | July 25, 2025
The truck route on Merrill should be eliminated due to the excessive noise caused by the large trucks disturbing the daily life of the homes along the street. The street is not wide enough nor equipped with enough sound walls or vegetation to deter the noise and vibrations to the home which poses dangers of constant movement to the foundation. The trucks drive at fast speeds along the road MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 22 of 33194 and causes the entire house to shake multiple times a day. There is no rest from the noise since the trucks are large and produce more noise in addition to all the cars passing by.
Contribution 48 of 66 | July 25, 2025
Current truck routes especially down Archibald effect a huge number of homes especially homes right against Archibald. When trucks are driving to fast, speeding, overweight and braking hard it’s very notable and loud. Many people in Shadetree neighborhood have complained about it as well. Our house is right up against Archibald. Trucks should NOT be allowed in lanes closest to houses either as this crates more vibrations and is more noticeable for home owners.
Contribution 47 of 66 | July 25, 2025
Stop building so many warehouses near homes, then we wouldn’t have the issue.
Contribution 46 of 66 | July 23, 2025
Slower speed limits on truck many of them drive really fast on streets.
Contribution 45 of 66 | July 23, 2025
They should be charged extra for the damage to the streets. I don't know if that's been factored in to all of the warehousing. But warehouses should be paying more to the city for the extra wear on the streets. Have you looked into overpasses or underpasses on Euclid? So much of the 60 to the 71 they are just passing trough. But meanwhile residents are trying to get to the grocery store, daycare, swimming pools. And we have to dodge all of these big semi trucks just to get to daily life. What if they had a fast way to get from the 60 to the 71? Better yet, how about these trucks get back onto railroads! The railroads are meant for freight. They hog the 60, too! Which hurts commuters, hurts the local economy. I won't go on the 60 if I don't have to.
Contribution 44 of 66 | July 23, 2025
your criteria above same logical to me
Contribution 43 of 66 | July 23, 2025
I believe allocating a specific amount of hours in the day where trucks can use a specific route system like Ontario Ranch Rd and Archibald would ease flow of traffic and disturbance to residents surrounding these two major roads. It would also improve health and air quality for residents and children in nearby schools.
Contribution 42 of 66 | July 22, 2025
Trucks can still have access through Grove Ave to industrial area Contribution 41 of 66 | July 21, 2025
CHP conducting commercial truck inspection on Ontario Ranch road traveling East just after Haven Ave intersection which turns into two lanes from three. In a neighborhood is unsafe for all pedestrians and motorists.
Contribution 40 of 66 | July 16, 2025
Keep trucks away from residential communities, especially schools and parks. Think about residential routes and keep trucks away from those roads residents would be taking
Contribution 39 of 66 | July 16, 2025
I’m not too sure what the alternate route would be, but we are right off of the freeway so I’m not sure why we have so many trucks coming from Chino all the way up to sunrise Avenue and Hefner MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 23 of 33195 Contribution 38 of 66 | July 13, 2025
Consider all the new builds that have been or are being built. I understand the semi’s need access to the highway, please consider the high volume of holes that are now on Archibald.
Contribution 37 of 66 | July 13, 2025
Strict implementation is needed so those violators will think again violating them.
Contribution 36 of 66 | July 10, 2025
There are two schools less than a mile from each other, children use the cross walk on grove to cross with their bicycles. The air quality is bad enough, more pollution will make it impossible to enjoy the outdoors.
Contribution 35 of 66 | July 10, 2025
Haven Ave should be excluded from the truck route as it’s a heavy residential area and the street is already 2 narrow even for regular vehicles.
Contribution 34 of 66 | July 10, 2025
How close the homes are to the major roads and how much the trucks impact those housing developments and impact on the environment.
Contribution 33 of 66 | July 10, 2025
I urge the City to expand its evaluation by considering impacts on vulnerable communities, which include children, cyclists, and the growing aging population in Ontario. Many residents walk, bike/e-bike, or use their vehicles, especially near residential streets like Cypress Ave, which are not designed for truck traffic. These areas should be excluded from truck routes. The presence of green buffers, trees, and soundwalls should be required to mitigate noise and pollution near homes, parks, and schools. I also recommend using pedestrian and cyclist safety data, air quality, and traffic injury reports to guide future routing decisions. A health and equity-based approach will ensure Ontario grows in a way that’s safe, efficient, and livable for all.
Contribution 32 of 66 | July 10, 2025
Not near parks
Contribution 31 of 66 | July 10, 2025
Agree
Contribution 30 of 66 | July 10, 2025
Many of the truck routes were two lanes, and this was not a significant issue when this area was primarily dairy farms. Now, with many more people and homes, this needs to be changed.
Contribution 29 of 66 | July 10, 2025
Please remove trucks form driving on Ontario Ranch Road & Haven Ave. a lot of families crossing streets and often trucks go too fast, or cars swerve around them to pass.
Contribution 28 of 66 | July 10, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 24 of 33196 Road conditions
Contribution 27 of 66 | July 10, 2025
Please look at the residential areas!
Contribution 26 of 66 | July 10, 2025
Safety for diver's in personal vehicles as well as residents on foot (pedestrians). So accidents and loss of like no matter how big, or small can be avoided. Like our pets & wild life can be preserved as well. Thank you Contribution 25 of 66 | July 10, 2025
Homes in the vicinity and the fact Ontario Ranch is supposed to be an up and coming part of south Ontario yet we have tons of trucks driving up and down the road. Also the fact it’s dangerous to go on walks when we have grocery stores across the street and have to cross over Ontario ranch rd if we are walking from home.
Contribution 24 of 66 | July 10, 2025
Unfortunately city planners built industrial behind brand new communities. Total money grab for the city I get it but absolutely ruined quality of life. Where I live, I listen to trucks 24/7 honk horns, beeping and ramping into truck ramps. Also they are do maintenance at all hours of the night in their trucks. Directly behind shade tree. City neeeds an ordinance to not allow these to operate over certain hours.
Contribution 23 of 66 | July 10, 2025
Avoid residential area and school
Contribution 22 of 66 | July 10, 2025
Proximity to schools.
Contribution 21 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Try to avoid going thru residential areas, we have turnabouts in my neighborhood and plenty of trucks get stuck trying to go around them.
Contribution 20 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Recently, an Amazon rig mistakenly drove into a residential neighborhood just off Ontario Ranch Rd and got stuck on a roundabout.
This blocked traffic for homeowners for several hours and highlighted how easily large trucks can end up on streets that simply aren’t built to handle them.
Contribution 19 of 66 | July 9, 2025
should be restricted from ontario ranch road. causing too much traffic. and many kids bike and walk around this neighborhood with new haven
Contribution 18 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Too many trucks thru Ontario Ranch.
Contribution 17 of 66 | July 9, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 25 of 33197 The air quality that impacts the homes along the truck route.
Contribution 16 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Away from homes and schools
Contribution 15 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Heavy truck traffic on Archibald Ave happening nearly every hour, day and night. The noise is constant, our entire house shakes, and it’s become impossible to sleep. My young puppy is also terrified by the rumbling. This is a residential area — we shouldn’t be living with this level of disruption. Please consider immediate solutions, including: • Rerouting trucks away from residential streets • Enforcing truck curfews or restricted hours • Installing “No Through Truck” signage • Adding noise and vibration mitigation measures Our neighborhood deserves peace and safety.
Contribution 14 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Time-of-Day Restrictions • Consider limiting truck travel during peak residential hours or late at night when noise impacts are most disruptive. • Nighttime curfews for non-essential truck traffic can dramatically improve residents’ quality of life without severely impacting freight delivery. Truck Size and Weight Limits by Zone • Some routes may be appropriate for smaller delivery trucks but not for full-length semi-trucks. Evaluating road wear, turning radius needs, and line of sight is critical. • Weight restrictions can reduce road damage and improve safety, especially on aging infrastructure not built for frequent heavy-load traffic.
Contribution 13 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Keep truck routes hidden and in areas that are medium to dense residential. Euclid is the perfect area where the prison and a majority of warehouse and commercial are.
Contribution 12 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Chino ave and Archibald
Contribution 11 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Truck parks in middle of neighborhoods isn't helpful when no routes take trucks there.
Contribution 10 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Along Edison ave, there are lots of truck stops (Truck rest places where truckers can park and sleep overnight)Which created additional trafffic by truckers.
Contribution 9 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Have them avoid the one streets near Ontario ranch.
Contribution 8 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Also, semi-trucks keep turning off of E Ontario Ranch road and right on S Sunrise and that street is incredibly narrow. I’ve seen at least 6 Amazon semi-trucks do this.
Contribution 7 of 66 | July 9, 2025
The growing population in Ontario Ranch needs to be considered given the amount of commuters that use Archibald on a daily basis to reach the freeways. The amount of traffic the trucks cause for residents is ridiculous. Trucks often take up 3-4 lanes on Archibald making it difficult for traffic to flow properly.
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 26 of 33198 Contribution 6 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Please make ut so that they stay on the larger industrial streets like haven Contribution 5 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Avoiding neighborhoods
Contribution 4 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Consider pedestrian bridges to help minimize pedestrian and truck traffic interaction.
Contribution 3 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Potential schools, no trucks should come across those streets.
Contribution 2 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Wider streets, trees, and walls will help with the noise.
Contribution 1 of 66 | July 9, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 27 of 33199
8. -
Multi Choice | Skipped: 104 | Answered: 28 (21.2%)
Answer choices Percent Count
I do not wish to comment at this time 100.00% 28
Total 100.00% 28
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 28 of 33200
9. Please share your thoughts or ideas, if any, about how the city should evaluate the designation of disadvantaged communities
Long Text | Skipped: 99 | Answered: 33 (25%)
Sentiment
No sentiment data
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
While I understand the city’s intent to refine the Environmental Justice map using updated income data, I encourage caution in removing higher-income areas too quickly. “Higher income” on paper doesn’t always reflect lived experience—many residents are still struggling with housing costs, inflation, and health impacts from pollution. Everyone’s feeling the strain, and removing neighborhoods could unintentionally leave real needs unaddressed. Please ensure decisions are made with context, not just census numbers.
Contribution 33 of 33 | August 2, 2025
Ontario Ranch is becoming overpopulated stop building condos and build more residential homes also instead of adding fast food restaurants have nice restaurants Like Victoria Gardens Contribution 32 of 33 | August 1, 2025
The pollution in Ontario is insane. All areas should still be including for any advances to help eliminate pollution. Income shouldn’t matter.
Contribution 31 of 33 | August 1, 2025
All communities lining the 60 freeway are environmentally disadvantaged as the 60 in Ontario was ranked the most polluting freeway in the country. Ontario ranch would be environmentally disadvantaged because of the dairies. Fecal matter in the air.
Contribution 30 of 33 | August 1, 2025
All new housing build communities need to removed from disadvantaged communities.
Contribution 29 of 33 | August 1, 2025
I strongly believe that the area in Ontario Ranch, W of Milliken and S of Ontario Ranch Road, needs to reconsider the stores going in.
The area is of elegance and the stores going in are of low end business. We should strive to have a Trader Joe’s, Mendocino Farms, Urbane Cafe, California Fish Grill, Lululemon, Wood Ranch, etc… Get rid of Ross and 5 Below, please and thank you.
Contribution 28 of 33 | July 27, 2025
Remove it. This keeps people who are up to no good an idea to be around the areas that are “considered” more affluent.
Contribution 27 of 33 | July 26, 2025
I don’t know I just want the grand park to be built.
Contribution 26 of 33 | July 23, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 29 of 33201 Makes sense. i see some shades areas have new homes, probably not disadvantaged any more Contribution 25 of 33 | July 23, 2025
I understand it's state law. However I feel this data can be used against the city by developers. Like redlining was used by the banking system. Developers might not want to invest unless there is more city money to sweeten the pot.
Contribution 24 of 33 | July 22, 2025
Disadvantaged communities need safe open air spaces, garden spaces, access to affordable healthy shopping options and ready access to public transportation to allow them to move easily in and out of their neighborhoods. Resources such as community mobile health care and libraries set up in easily accessible locations would allow all residents to enjoy an enhanced quality of life Contribution 23 of 33 | July 21, 2025
How do you consider the Eden Glen area to be a disadvantaged area? Contribution 22 of 33 | July 21, 2025
City should reevaluate the flight patterns out of local airport. The homes south of Francis are experiencing more planes at all hours now especially larger jets from UPS, FedEx and Amazon flying after midnight Contribution 21 of 33 | July 21, 2025
I commend the City of Ontario for its commitment to environmental justice and for utilizing CalEnviroScreen to identify disadvantaged communities. However, I believe that solely relying on this tool may overlook certain communities that are disproportionately affected by environmental and health burdens. Research indicates that CalEnviroScreen may underrepresent immigrant populations and communities facing specific health challenges not captured by the tool's current indicators, such as chronic respiratory conditions prevalent among non-English-speaking residents. To ensure a more inclusive and accurate designation of disadvantaged communities, I recommend that the City consider integrating additional local data sources, such as health surveys, community feedback, and socioeconomic indicators not currently reflected in CalEnviroScreen. This approach aligns with the guidance from the California Office of Planning and Research, which emphasizes the importance of using multiple models and local data to assess environmental justice .
Furthermore, I suggest that the City engage with local community organizations and residents to gather qualitative insights that may not be captured through quantitative data alone. This participatory approach can help identify areas where residents experience environmental and health burdens, ensuring that resources and policies are directed to those who need them most.
Contribution 20 of 33 | July 16, 2025
The areas below Ontario Ranch Road should also be considered Environmental Justice Communities because of the excessive construction and warehouses which causes excessive dust and hazardous air quality.
Contribution 19 of 33 | July 16, 2025
The general air quality, freeway pollution, and noise greatly affects my quality of life. The impact on residents general health and ability to enjoy outside activities, as well as damage to the health of young children is obvious.
Contribution 18 of 33 | July 15, 2025
Resources, accessibility to schools, grocery stores, and access to public transportation should be evaluated on the designation of disadvantaged communities
Contribution 17 of 33 | July 11, 2025
Include Grove and walnut; grove and riverside.
Contribution 16 of 33 | July 10, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 30 of 33202 Please do not remove the areas that are within the environmental justice areas, just based on income levels. Even though we might have a high income, does not mean that we are not disadvantaged environmentally based on where our homes are located. If our homes are located in an environmental justice community, the city needs to prioritize it regardless of income level. Housing is expensive in California.
Contribution 15 of 33 | July 10, 2025
I support the use of CalEnviroScreen as a starting point, but I encourage the City to go further by layering in local data and lived experience when evaluating disadvantaged community designations. For example, my neighborhood near Mission Blvd & Cypress Ave faces overlapping challenges: proximity to industrial truck traffic, lack of pedestrian infrastructure, limited access to parks, and rising heat impacts. These local conditions may not be fully captured by state tools alone. I urge the City to consider additional indicators such as park access within a 10-minute walk, sidewalk and crossing safety, localized truck volumes, air quality, and the needs of seniors and low-income families. Community feedback and qualitative data should also inform updates. Disadvantaged area designations should reflect both environmental burdens and infrastructure gaps to ensure equity-driven investments reach the residents most in need.
Contribution 14 of 33 | July 10, 2025
House shakes from all the trucks that pass by on Merrill and archibald Contribution 13 of 33 | July 10, 2025
While I can appreciate the care for disadvantage communities. Ontario as a whole has been around so long that environmental implications affect us all. Not taking care of issues in the city as a unit would not be cost effective as well as the disadvantaged areas with trash and pollution are so intertwined
Contribution 12 of 33 | July 10, 2025
Yes I agree Ontario ranch residents make more then the average resident of Ontario and should be removed from this program.
Contribution 11 of 33 | July 10, 2025
The city should consider other factors directly related to pollution than just census income data to determine designation of environmentally disadvantaged neighborhoods.
Contribution 10 of 33 | July 9, 2025
Consider warehouse and truck route compared to schools and homes. Too close. Too dirty Contribution 9 of 33 | July 9, 2025
• The designation process should not lead to policies or projects that unintentionally disrupt community safety, increase transient populations, or attract crime. • There needs to be a clear distinction between providing long-term resources for underserved residents and opening the door to temporary encampments or programs that lack oversight and contribute to instability.
Contribution 8 of 33 | July 9, 2025
Please consider the amount and data of future residences who will be living in the homes being built on Archibald, Edison, and Eucalyptus. The data you have seems outdated and not reliable.
Contribution 7 of 33 | July 9, 2025
Do not reroute truck routes to the disadvantaged areas.
Contribution 6 of 33 | July 9, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 31 of 33203 Agree that Ontario Ranch should be removed from the designation of disadvantaged communities.
Contribution 5 of 33 | July 9, 2025
I’m not sure and I’m unclear on how they’ve helped improve my health. I think they should continue to focus on all highlighted areas and not only on disadvantaged communities.
Contribution 4 of 33 | July 9, 2025
Avoid archibald
Contribution 3 of 33 | July 9, 2025
The Ontario Ranch community is impacted because of the warehouses, the existing dairies seem to produce poor air quality and trash and debris makes its illegal dumping a problem.
Contribution 2 of 33 | July 9, 2025
Disadvantaged communities should solely evolve around Euclid and Mission areas as well as Holt areas.
Contribution 1 of 33 | July 9, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 32 of 33204
10. -
Multi Choice | Skipped: 62 | Answered: 70 (53%)
Answer choices Percent Count
I do not wish to comment at this time 100.00% 70
Total 100.00% 70
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 33 of 33205 83•
Q)
>
';f: 3:
,,
C
0 co
•
1S-•A·,
QJ 'V//�-, >
"'o'etva� 1l'""''Sit====:
l i� i_ � � �c
.92 � ! j�'--W:Philadelphia:St l=====�===�-=Philadelphia:St-, 113s 9. 123 Q) • Q)
�
]
-�--==··:::=:1 .. = �===:;;=:===��====ill �
49 :
1 :�16 =====:::::::::- i�
I � 106 175
�
• 104
1 •
10, •
lf
4 I II m 178 1,4 19 15 65 81 " 1!'/l 174
7 ,Riverside:0r::1:'-,,i,,1====�Riverside:0r-= •=========•= •:•=-•-===•-•• <'e-i'=Jg-•,=====l:C:== I 122 176 � "
J �:JJ�:, ,::,Jr:5
_
§
_
J
�hino:Ave
�
•
•ii
107 103, 10s, 1 7 � o 41 5� 170 146, 155, 7 12 'if.
J� T
163
13, 17, 22, 33, 1:2] 25, 52, is
;s
�
• is� !
J
'!.
Schaefer-·Ave----
1 �}/�
,
4�\!�· 16
d)
9 �
76, 161
• 55 54 � • 180 �
171. 186. 195. ti 8. 93 7 43 � � 165 5 140 (f)
I
• • ' • •• e il • •• 126 • 172 100 , • ,,- 90 I 32 30 125 31 89 ;; • � • .�, � 53 ======Edison=Ave--e QJ---•-•1======.e,=--- ••-••-- ·,re=-•'= • 11 105 109> 179 , 50 ' ' 153 � 36 • 991191 124, 145, 156, •
� � 60, 79 9, 110, 181, 182, 197
0 3, 35, 4o, 44 �" 98, 130 4, 10, 143 141, 6 66, 74, 87 e,r,e 26, 111, 148, 150 • 144, 164, 190 I I 119 168 151, 187 191 � .,,,,,,. ••
58 •; 152 e __ ..,,,. ••
159 � 48 •• ,61 113 59 42 ··i 149 129 ,,,,,. •• , -Merrill•Ave•• ··-··-·· ·-•; • • • • i
28 •• .,••
•78 l36 116 114 .,,,,,,. •• ,· � I 34 •• ,·· �
! ....... ,2, 20, 27, 47 <fl
L 37, 57J:IY" I 691 97• 117 r=-1overdale·Rd====E--12i--:Ji�l5B 20-;-ns,--15· "' • • • • ro-- .,,,,,,. •• ,·· 189, 194
Ill !
Where have you
noticed issues
between sensitive
receptors like homes,
parks, and schools and
heavy-duty truck
traffic?
• I have noticed an issue in this location
(see attac
hed table to read associated
comments)
[=] CityBoundary
L .. r----, ..J County Boundary
J
2-0-s-o...--■
THE ONTARIO PLAN
A �FT
.. 0 1,500 3,000 6,000
Source: PlaceWorks, 2025 Date: 8/20/25
206
APPENDIX A: Community Survey Results
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
Where have you noticed issues between sensitive receptors like homes, parks, and schools and heavy-duty truck traffic? Map ID Address Comment
1 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880
The constant rattling of our home due to the high volume of trucks going down Archibald at all hours is extremely disruptive to our lives. When we bought this home this was not open as a truck route and had we of known the traffic was going to be this si
2 15066 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
Have almost been hit by a truck several times while riding my bike with my children because trucks fail to stop behind the crosswalk or fail to look before making the turn from Archibald to Merrill
3 9391 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 heavy traffic route for trucks even though they are not supposed to be there
4 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91762
Ontario Ranch road needs to be light vehicles only! 10 wheeler trucks drive like maniacs in this residential area! Ontario Ranch was envisioned to be the IE?s crown jewel.
5 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91762
Truck routes on Ontario Ranch Rd should stop at Mill Creek Avenue. There are too many polluting trucks passing through to get to city of Chino and vice versa. With a future high school being located there and the New Haven community, semi trailers should
6 11111 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
Semi trucks are constantly taking Eucalyptus Ave as a "shortcut" to warehouses. They come through from the hours of 11pm to 3am. This includes Amazon and Fedex trucks. Also, I have actual security footage of this happening. This is a residential neighbor
7 4010 New Haven Drive, Ontario, California 91761 Trucks have been stuck here multiple time even though it?s not a truck route. It?s always by this roundabout which shares sidewalk to park 8 3121 La Avenida Drive, Ontario, California 91761
Trucks have been seen coming through and even stuck on roundabout.
Worrisome as school
Is being built.
9 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91762 So incredible loud and pollute air in neighborhoods near all 6 parks near by
10 4154 Cloverdale Way, Ontario, California 91761
The whole Ontario ranch road shakes the foundation of our town home, as these big diesel trucks seem to run through this street all day long and night.
11 3990 South Sunrise Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 There has been multiple trucks turning on Sunrise Avenue off of Ontario Ranch. They have been getting stuck on this narrow street that runs in immediately into a neighborhood. There should be a sign saying there is no truck route for the safety of childr
12 South Jacobson Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
The Ontario ranch road needs to be re evaluated for truck route as there is too many trucks passing through especially after Sunrise Avenue. This area has become more residential and there is a lot of pedestrians walking to the supermarket.
13 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880
The amount of trucks that impact all of Archibald is of concern. With increased truck activity comes more pollution and increased traffic. The amount of homes being built already is adding to the traffic in this residential area and trucks are just aggra
14 8825 East Riverside Drive, Ontario, California 91761 Riverside & Vineyard 15 2685 East Riverside Drive, Ontario, California 91761 Riverside & Archibald 16 2410 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Archibald & 60 freeeay onramp 17 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880 Archibald & Ontario Ranch 18 9711 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Archibald & Eucalyptus 19 9675 East Riverside Drive, Ontario, California 91761 Riverside & Westwind Community Center Survey respondents placed the below comments on a map of existing truck routes Community Survey Results (8/26/25)
(Map Comments 1 of 10)207
APPENDIX A: Community Survey Results
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
Where have you noticed issues between sensitive receptors like homes, parks, and schools and heavy-duty truck traffic? Map ID Address Comment
Survey respondents placed the below comments on a map of existing truck routes 20 2680 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Intersection of Merrill Ave and Archibald through Summer trucks are seen commuting.
21 9711 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Trucks are seen using Eucalyptus Ave before and after Archibald. 22 9602 Edison Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
Archibald from Ontario Ranch Rd through Merrill Ave should be not be a truck route as there is a large residential community there and trucks go on Eucalyptus Ave and Merrill Ave after Archibald. They should use Walker or Grove or another route where the
23 9450 Chino Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
There are way too many trucks traveling on Chino Ave. Our house backs up to Chino and every time a track passes it rattles the whole house and is very loud. It feels like an earthquake. Please reroute them! 24 13146 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Too many trucks on Archibald. Causes a lot of traffic delays. 25 13898 South Archibald Avenue, Ontari o, California 91761 Trucks drive fa st and shake surrounding houses. 26 South Turner Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
I live off of Ontario ranch road and New Haven drive. My condo lines against Ontario ranch road. The noise from the big rigs engine, brakes, and shaking of the trailer are loud and intrusive. The weight of the trailers driving by also shake the home and
27 2680 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 A not of big rig traffic creating a lot of noise pollution. 28 4980 Celebration Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Big rigs go down Merril even though it is not a truck route. 29 13950 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
The city of created a road specific for trucks that was separate from traditional traffic so regular community members could get around town more easily and safely. Or make Ontario ranch road like a parkway with limited amount of intersections and no bus
30 8381 Edison Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Slow trucks and one lane road 31 9060 Edison Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Slow trucks and One lane road 32 7469 Edison Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Slow trucks and One lane road 33 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880 Heavy semi truck traffic between Archibald/Edison and Archibald/Limonite with constant pot holes as a result. 34 5984 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880 Heavy semi truck traffic between Archibald/Edison and Archibald/Merril + Archibald/ Limonite with constant pot holes as a result. 35 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91710 Heavy truck traffic on Eucalyptus. Most outlets that lead West going towards streets such as Edison, Eucalyptus, Merrill are congested. 36 Edison Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Heavy truck traffic on Edison. Most outlets that lead West going towards streets such as Edison, Eucalyptus, Merrill are congested. 37 2580 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Heavy truck traffic on Merrill. Most outlets that lead West going towards streets such as Edison, Eucalyptus, Merrill are congested. 38 13628 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
The morning and afternoon/evening traffic is horrendous! Kids are walking to/from school coming from all of these areas and should have safer paths. Occasionally large trucks go this way and if it?s not a truck it?s cars speeding by day and night like it
39 13191 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
People cutting off each other and causing so many bear accidents trying to cut/jump the line of cars at the stop light. The morning and afternoon/evening traffic is horrendous! Kids are walking to/from school coming from all of these areas and should hav
40 9139 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91710 Trucks go through this route. Enforcement is needed to prevent trucks using disallowed routes.
Community Survey Results (8/26/25)
(Map Comments 2 of 10)208
APPENDIX A: Community Survey Results
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
Where have you noticed issues between sensitive receptors like homes, parks, and schools and heavy-duty truck traffic? Map ID Address Comment
Survey respondents placed the below comments on a map of existing truck routes 41 2686 Dolomite Street, Ontario, California 91761
I live in Shale and Dolomite and our neighborhood experiences constant issues where 18 wheelers make their way into our round about attempting to make a U turn back onto Archibald Ave. They go as far as the round about located 15 yards away from the comm
42 2599 East Scarlett Lane, Ontario, California 91762
Heavy truck traffic from Merrill to Archibald negatively impacting residential communities and should limit truck limits i.e. size and route large trucks to Euclid.
43 3330 Yountville Drive, Ontario, California 91761
The truck traffic around all our homes needs to stop. Trucks need to be restricted to the freeways until they reach the nearest exit to their destination. There are new schools coming up and parks where everyone is outdoors. The health impact is going to
44 9391 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
There are no truck signs along Eucalyptus Ave but the signs are poorly placed, too small, and hardly enforced.
Trucks often slam on their brakes and speed through the streetlights passing Ivy Ave.
Our homes and windows shake and neighbors have complain 45 2573 Crane Court, Ontario, California 91761
A lot of truck noise and block offs for school drop off on archibald.
Also the pollution is super unsafe and unhealthy for these growing neighborhoods that are moving here to start new families or with very young families.
46 961 Merrill Avenue, Chino, California 91762
Tractor Trailer trucks operating from this area and when traveling east or west on Merrill, to get to either Archibald or Euclid, constantly occupy the inside lane on these 2 way 2 lane roadways. In doing so, they impact the flow of traffic and visibilit
47 2680 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Tractor trailers traveling North on Archibald also regularly utilize the inside #1 and #2 lanes out of the 3 or 4 available lanes.
48 Parkview Street, Ontario, California 91762 Commercial vehicles, including tractors, some with a reefer trailer, and some without, have parked in this area to idle during overnight hours. 49 2390 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 The westbound 60 on ramp from Archibald is poorly timed. One vehicle at a time per lane and metered to allow 1 vehicle every 5 seconds during rush hour is unreasonable. Fix this as large trucks negatively affect this more.
50 10573 Edison Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Trucks and high traffic here. Due to construction the road has been closed but when it's open trucks non stop all night long. Small road too. 51 13898 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Significant noise and traffic. Trucks will occasionally reroute through the neighborhood and cause damage to landscaping.
52 2682 Dolomite Street, Ontario, California 91761
There are large semi trucks constantly pulling onto Dolomite St. off of Archibald and turning around in the round about. This is a residential family neighborhood with a lot of kids running around and riding their bikes. The turn about is right across th
53 3480 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761 Too many trucks 54 13749 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 The road is too small for the trycjs 55 Turner Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 This a residential road and trucks should not be there. 56 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91762 There are too many trucks traveling too fast . They should be electric Community Survey Results (8/26/25)
(Map Comments 3 of 10)209
APPENDIX A: Community Survey Results
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
Where have you noticed issues between sensitive receptors like homes, parks, and schools and heavy-duty truck traffic? Map ID Address Comment
Survey respondents placed the below comments on a map of existing truck routes 57 2580 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Trucks are too loud behind residential area and cause vibrations impacting daily life
58 14692 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Too congested with trucks 59 2510 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Too congested with trucks 60 9811 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761 Too congested with trucks 61 9131 Merrill Avenue, Chino, California 91762 Too congested with trucks 62 Parkview Street, Ontario, California 91762 Loud especially in early morning and evening. Create loud braking noise, vibrations and traffic around Shadetree neighborhood.
63 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880 Truck should continue down Edison in order to get to where houses near Merrill or Eucalytps
64 Mission Boulevard, Ontario, California 91761 Very congested 65 2963 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Lots of trucks 66 2440 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Lots of trucks using Eucalyptus Ave every day. Need more traffic enforcement.
67 9602 Edison Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Trucks drive too fast along road and drive unsafely death have occurred due to these trucks
68 14692 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Unsafe trucks 69 15066 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Trucks drive fast along Archibald 70 9655 Chino Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Trucks using Chino even though it?s not a truck route 71 2460 South Euclid Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
Daycare facility. I have had so many close calls trying to drop off and pick up my kids. With the heavy truck traffic. The trucks also run the red lights that I had to stop walking my kids across euclid it is not safe. 72 East Walnut Street, Ontario, California 91761 I think walnut should be designated as a non truck route. This street is used for people to get to the junior high and otherwise residential. 73 666 East Oak Hill Street, Ontario, California 91761
I realize the parts of campus north of Philadelphia may be needed for truck routes, but at that point all trucks should be limited since this is residential. We like to walk here and better if we have low speed limits and calm and peaceful walks, with fr
74 Millenium Paseo, Ontario, California 91762
All streets below Ontario Ranch Rd and Archibald is in too close proximity to homes, schools and parks. In addition, streets designated as ?no trucks? allowed are constantly used by semi trucks in this area, including Eucalyptus and Merrill west of Archi
75 13146 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Use Hamner instead of Archibald. There's a school near here, and apartment complexes with school bus pickups. With residential on both sides south of Riverside, I'd suggest no more trucks on Archibald. 76 2727 La Avenida Drive, Ontario, California 91761 I see a new school on this street. Route trucks around this area. 77 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880 This truck route cuts through the large green space. Give the open space for people priority,
78 8191 Merrill Avenue, Chino, California 91710 instead of Archibal d how about Grove? currently all farmland in irrigation. 79 9876 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91762 Too close in proximity to residents and schools 80 13950 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Too close to residents/housing and schools. Creates mass traffic jams 81 3151 East Riverside Drive, Ontario, California 91761 All along this stretch of Riverside Dr Semi trucks with trailers are consistently coming from Archibald down to Milliken and coming off the 60 fwy down Haven to Ontario Ranch I have asked OPD why isn?t there more motorcycles OPD and the answer I got was
82 10545 East Riverside Drive, Ontario, California 91761 Trucks still use this residential street between Hamner and Haven or Archibald. Need better signage at Hamner.
Community Survey Results (8/26/25)
(Map Comments 4 of 10)210
APPENDIX A: Community Survey Results
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
Where have you noticed issues between sensitive receptors like homes, parks, and schools and heavy-duty truck traffic? Map ID Address Comment
Survey respondents placed the below comments on a map of existing truck routes 83 426 East Francis Street, Ontario, California 91761 Why is Francis between Euclid and Campus a truck route considering that is a residential area and also a school zone
84 3450 Creekside Drive, Ontario, California 91761
Semis are always on Haven causing major traffic in the morning. They?re not suppose to be on that road bit they are. It?s dangerous as the street is so narrow already.
85 13191 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Dangerous 86 13950 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 New area of residential homes, great parks, and multiple new schools. All heavy duty semi trucks should be rerouted off of Ontario Ranch Rd. 87 4526 Forsyth Paseo, Ontario, California 91762
As a resident of Nuvo Parkside, I appreciate the City's efforts to manage truck traffic through designated routes to protect neighborhoods.
However, I've noticed that heavy-duty trucks often pass through residential areas, especially near major roads lik
88 2910 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
This is our go to park and there are always big rig trucks driving through here even when they?re not supposed to be. I?ve only seen police citing them a handful of times
89 9490 Edison Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Edison/Ontario Ranch Road narrows to one lane going through these farms and is always congested with trucks
90 4114 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761
Always so many trucks congesting this area. It?s unsightly and uninviting to come to Ontario Ranch after exiting the 15 freeway to be greeted by so many trucks and warehouses
91 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880 So many trucks in all lanes of Archibald northbound 92 2121 South Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Truck Route to close to residential neighborhoods and school 93 3950 South Silver Oak Way, Ontario, California 91761 Have seen trucks pass through this residential area. 94 13751 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Have seen trucks go through this single and sometimes double lane road.
It?s residential on both sides.
95 14040 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 It?s getting harder to live with the constant semi-truck traffic on Archibald.
The noise is nonstop, even at night, and it?s nearly impossible to sleep. My house shakes like there?s an earthquake every time a truck passes, and it?s caused damage inside m
96 14040 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Big trucks are constantly making lots of noise and shaking the houses on this street. We have cracks on our ceiling and it feels like constant earthquakes.
97 15066 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 too much trucks 98 9811 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91762 New homes are being built in this area. Adding or adjusting a truck route here would not be ideal as it would cause more traffic for the community 99 Griffith Court, Ontario, California 91762
New business are being built here. Would not recommend to have a truck route here as there as also new homes being built across from the lot. It would cause even more traffic.
100 3130 La Avenida Drive, Ontario, California 91761
An elementary school is being built here. Children will be walking home or families would be walking towards the nearest plaza center on Archibald Ave for food, etc. Would not recommend to have a truck route or adjust a truck route to this general area.
101 13751 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
There are many children and adults who go for walks around the neighborhood and it can be very dangerous having semi trucks and trailers traveling nearby. Also the roads are not going to be able to hold up against the weight considering how much vibratio
102 2802 Deer Creek Loop, Ontario, California 91761
Pls dont give access or implement restrictions of truck entries using ?short cut? access within community housing like Canvas Park going to Neu Houses.
Community Survey Results (8/26/25)
(Map Comments 5 of 10)211
APPENDIX A: Community Survey Results
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
Where have you noticed issues between sensitive receptors like homes, parks, and schools and heavy-duty truck traffic? Map ID Address Comment
Survey respondents placed the below comments on a map of existing truck routes 103 13950 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 This is a residential area and a heavy traffic intersection. Trucks add pollution, noise and potential for deadly accidents near homes. 104 1202 Saint Andrews Court, Ontario, California 91761 I live in the levy Dickey neighborhood. Grove is not a truck route south of the 60, however the truck routes are not respected. Do not add a truck route Grove south of the 60 or north of riverside Dr. Our street is damaged enough and continued use has m
105 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761 Trailer trucks will turn into neighborhood causing a hazard. 106 2598 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Near a school, it can get really congested mornings and afternoon 107 13146 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Mostly residential area now 108 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91762
Lots of trucks rumble down the road here. Very close to lots of housing developments. Road shakes, houses shake, too loud. too much diesel pollution. The truck route on ontario ranch road needs to be redirected. 109 3990 South Sunrise Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 housing developments. Trucks too close to the houses. 110 4050 New Haven Drive, Ontario, California 91761 new housing communities. Redirect truck routes. 111 10924 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91762 new housing communities. Redirect truck routes. 112 428 South Cypress Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 I live near Cypress Ave & Mission Blvd, and I've noticed a significant increase in heavy-duty truck traffic along Cypress (a residential street not designated as a truck route). This poses safety risks to pedestrians, especially children and dog walkers,
113 9467 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
Trucks are too heavy and loud, the houses shake and causes structural damage to the houses and residents can hear the trucks all hours, disturbing sleep. Pollution and traffic congestion concerns also! 114 2510 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
Trucks are too heavy and loud, the houses shake and causes structural damage to the houses and residents can hear the trucks all hours, disturbing sleep. Pollution and traffic congestion concerns also! 115 2580 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
Trucks are too heavy and loud, the houses shake and causes structural damage to the houses and residents can hear the trucks all hours, disturbing sleep. Pollution and traffic congestion concerns also! 116 2672 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
Trucks are too heavy and loud, the houses shake and causes structural damage to the houses and residents can hear the trucks all hours, disturbing sleep. Pollution and traffic congestion concerns also! Other routes are becoming available , this isn?t ne
117 2680 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
Trucks are too heavy and loud, the houses shake and causes structural damage to the houses and residents can hear the trucks all hours, disturbing sleep. Pollution and traffic congestion concerns also! 118 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880
Trucks are too heavy and loud, the houses shake and causes structural damage to the houses and residents can hear the trucks all hours, disturbing sleep. Pollution and traffic congestion concerns also! 119 14692 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
Trucks are too heavy and loud, the houses shake and causes structural damage to the houses and residents can hear the trucks all hours, disturbing sleep. Pollution and traffic congestion concerns also! 120 2680 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
Trucks are too heavy and loud, the houses shake and causes structural damage to the houses and residents can hear the trucks all hours, disturbing sleep. Pollution and traffic congestion concerns also! Community Survey Results (8/26/25)
(Map Comments 6 of 10)212
APPENDIX A: Community Survey Results
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
Where have you noticed issues between sensitive receptors like homes, parks, and schools and heavy-duty truck traffic? Map ID Address Comment
Survey respondents placed the below comments on a map of existing truck routes 121 2650 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
Trucks are too heavy and loud, the houses shake and causes structural damage to the houses and residents can hear the trucks all hours, disturbing sleep. Pollution and traffic congestion concerns also! 122 8821 East Riverside Drive, Ontario, California 91761 Riverside Dr. is too narrow and too congested; 123 3500 East Philadelphia Street, Ontario, California 91761 Haven should not have heavy duty truck traffice; too many neighborhoods and schools.
124 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761 There are way too many trucks, especially during the day for all these neighborhoods in Ontario Ranch area
125 8533 Edison Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
This two lane road should not have heavy duty truck traffic or lanes should be added. This road is a main artery for people going and coming from work in Ontario Ranch area.
126 4114 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761
Please remove trucks form driving on Ontario Ranch Road & Haven Ave. a lot of families crossing streets and often trucks go too fast, or cars swerve around them to pass.
127 13950 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
Please remove trucks form driving on Ontario Ranch Road & Haven Ave. a lot of families crossing streets and often trucks go too fast, or cars swerve around them to pass.
128 13191 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
Please remove trucks form driving on Ontario Ranch Road & Haven Ave. a lot of families crossing streets and often trucks go too fast, or cars swerve around them to pass.
129 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
Please remove trucks form driving on Ontario Ranch Road & Haven Ave. a lot of families crossing streets and often trucks go too fast, or cars swerve around them to pass.
130 9811 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761 All of Ontario ranch road extremely impacted into chino. Roads are a mess. Please update truck route
131 2635 East Scarlett Lane, Ontario, California 91762 Trucks are always shaking my house, waking my family up and making it impossible to have open windows
132 2580 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 The trucks blow the red light regularly. This neighborhood is full of families and small children. It?s only a matter of time before some is hurt 133 14692 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Truck traffic is heavy. Many kids walking to school have to cross where semi trucks don?t always stop
134 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880
This is supposed to be a park. Semi trucks are going to make this less enjoyable. Who wants to walk to the park amongst all the trucks. Or be at the park with all the exhaust?
135 2680 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
Redirect trucks from using Archibald, between 60 fwy and Limonite Safety for diver's in personal vehicles as well as residents on foot (pedestrians). So accidents and loss of like no matter how big, or small can be avoided. Like our pets & wild life can
136 9131 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
Redirect trucks from using Archibald, between 60 fwy and Limonite Safety for diver's in personal vehicles as well as residents on foot (pedestrians). So accidents and loss of like no matter how big, or small can be avoided. Like our pets & wild life can
137 14040 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Redirect trucks from using Archibald, between 60 fwy and Limonite Safety for diver's in personal vehicles as well as residents on foot (pedestrians). So accidents and loss of like no matter how big, or small can be avoided. Like our pets & wild life can
Community Survey Results (8/26/25)
(Map Comments 7 of 10)213
APPENDIX A: Community Survey Results
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
Where have you noticed issues between sensitive receptors like homes, parks, and schools and heavy-duty truck traffic? Map ID Address Comment
Survey respondents placed the below comments on a map of existing truck routes 138 2251 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Redirect trucks from using Archibald, between 60 fwy and Limonite Safety for diver's in personal vehicles as well as residents on foot (pedestrians). So accidents and loss of like no matter how big, or small can be avoided. Like our pets & wild life can
139 3030 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Redirect trucks from using Archibald, between 60 fwy and Limonite Safety for diver's in personal vehicles as well as residents on foot (pedestrians). So accidents and loss of like no matter how big, or small can be avoided. Like our pets & wild life can
140 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91762 Ontario Ranch main coordidor 141 2727 Amberly Privado, Ontario, California 91762 Ontario Ranch Rd 142 13610 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Currently there are trucks that run up and down Archibald all day and night. This area is also 55mph. It makes living here extremely annoying due to the amount of noise. Our house is always shaking from the trucks speeding by. It feels unsafe
143 3420 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761 I believe Ontario Ranch Road needs to be reevaluated as a heavy duty truck street. As I do believe it should not be used as a trucking route. 144 9139 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91710 Large amount of trucks still use this roadway although not a truck route. 145 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91762
Trucks frequently turn down these narrow residential road off Ontario ranch road which blocks traffic as they attempt to reverse their actions.
This often takes 30-60min. Please add clear road signs in these residential areas that these are not truck rou
146 13950 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Large trucks on Ontario ranch road create disturbance for residential houses next to the road.
147 3410 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761
Ontario ranch road is heavily populated with lots of young children crossing. With the new school coming off Turner there will be even more kids crossing Ontario Ranch street. Less trucks will make it a safer street for all.
148 3420 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761 The trucks on this route slow traffic down a lot. 149 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Between Merrill and Archibald. Already designated as no trucks, yet constantly used by them.
150 3410 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761
I am writing to express my concern about Ontario Ranch Rd being designated as part of the current truck routes. I live along this road, and the heavy truck traffic has become a serious issue for my family.
The high volume of large trucks, combined with
151 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761
Ontario Ranch Rd. From Archibald to the Hamner Ave. This is a residential street big rig trucks should not be allowed to drive on this street. They are loud, they brakes wake up our children at all hours of the day and night.
Especially those of us that
152 14692 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
This section of Archibald is lined with homes that are only a few yards from the street. There are a significant volume of big rig trucks that travel on Archibald in the area at nearly 60 mph, causing the homes to shake. My backyard faces Archibald and t
153 5200 Hamner Avenue, Ontario, California 91752 Stop trucks using Archibald ave through residential. Send them further west then north / south.
Community Survey Results (8/26/25)
(Map Comments 8 of 10)214
APPENDIX A: Community Survey Results
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
Where have you noticed issues between sensitive receptors like homes, parks, and schools and heavy-duty truck traffic? Map ID Address Comment
Survey respondents placed the below comments on a map of existing truck routes 154 15066 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
There are trucks passing by almost every hour, including during late-night and early-morning hours, and it has made it incredibly difficult for me to sleep. The noise is loud and persistent, and what?s worse, my entire house shakes and rumbles whenever t
155 3490 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761 Trucks constantly running red lights, noise is excessive 156 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91762 Excessive noise 157 13950 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Excessive noise and trucks running red lights 158 2650 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Road is too close to residential. Causes homes to vibrate and extremely loud noise
159 14692 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Truck route is too close to homes and park where children walk across.
Causes homes to vibrate when trucks move through
160 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880 THIS IS WHERE A FREAKEN PARK IS. WHAT ARE YOU GUYS THINKING?!? 161 13892 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Isn?t this where a soon to be planned school will be? 162 13150 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Homes are here?.. 163 13573 Euclid Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Why isn?t the truck route on Euclid where there is a majority of commercial and warehouses???
164 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91710 Constantly see large trucks taking this route. Signs aren?t working. 165 3955 South Sunrise Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 There is several trucks driving through our community on Sunrise off Ontario Ranch. They run over the islands and get very close to the cars that are parked. They should be using Mill Creek street but they don?t.
Especially the Amazon trucks, they drive
166 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91710 Trucks should avoid using this route since there?s residential homes here.
Also, it?s next to the great park that?s being built near here. 167 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880 Disruptive to neighborhood 168 South Turner Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Disruptive to neighborhood 169 13742 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Disruptive to neighborhood 170 13610 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 There is some sort of tuck depot here but new homes being built right behind and around it. So many trucks on Archibald. They try to make u- turns to try and get to the depot and barely have room to do so. 171 9602 Edison Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
Edison/Ontario Ranch Rd. Are only 2 lanes in many areas and there are always large trucks. They are also along all of the side streets off of Edison.
172 2767 Kendall Lane, Ontario, California 91761 We have a lot of truck noise. We live on the corner of Ontario Ranch Rd and Archibald.
173 10401 East Riverside Drive, Ontario, California 91761 Always on this road all hours of the day 174 3850 East Riverside Drive, Ontario, California 91761 Always on this road by school even during school hours 175 South Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Often on this road during peak hours 176 1919 East Riverside Drive, Ontario, California 91761 Always on this road 177 1201 East Riverside Drive, Ontario, California 91761 This is a main truck road, multiple always on road 178 12953 Baker Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Actually thought this was a truck route 179 9060 Edison Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Very high traffic because of the trucks and narrow turns makes it dangerous for cars when trucks take turn.
180 3632 East Moonlight Street, Ontario, California 91761 Amazon semi trucks get lost on this street several times a week. They get stuck and have to back out. It?s also very loud for residents. 181 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91762 It is loud to have trucks speeding down this road. 182 3987 South Sunrise Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Semi trucks accidentally enter here and get stuck. 183 3865 South Twinkle Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Semi trucks drive down this street to drop off building materials.
Community Survey Results (8/26/25)
(Map Comments 9 of 10)215
APPENDIX A: Community Survey Results
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
Where have you noticed issues between sensitive receptors like homes, parks, and schools and heavy-duty truck traffic? Map ID Address Comment
Survey respondents placed the below comments on a map of existing truck routes 184 3490 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761 Several houses now line Ontario Ranch Road and street traffic will only increase once the school is done.
185 14692 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
The traffic on Archibald and Merrill is out of control. It?s a residential area and the amount of trucks that use this route cause a lot of traffic and pollution to the area. Mornings are particularly horrible. Combining the heavy flow of trucks along w
186 14040 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 The big rigs drive through our neighborhood at all hours of the night. When they hit the smallest bumps in the road it creates a lot of noise. But even more so when they hit the larger bumps on the corner of our intersection it shakes our entire condo ca
187 4041 New Haven Drive, Ontario, California 91761
Trucks are constantly running the red light at this intersection. There have been several accidents and is becoming a danger to pedestrians in the neighborhood.
188 13191 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Narrow roads used by trailers and construction trucks. Only one lane traffic for all citizens south of Riverside.
189 2680 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
The Shadetree community is impacted by large trucks. On Merrill Ave, the recently opened W/B lanes are taken at high speed by drivers, and would be safer if it was a right-turn only to slow traffic at the intersection of Merrill and Charlotte.
190 9391 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
A lot of noise and vibrations (feels like an earthquake when big rigs are going over the bridge on eucalyptus. Starting to notice cracks in house walls and foundation.
191 East Parkview Street, Ontario, California 91762 The Shadetree community is surrounded by truck traffic in route to anywhere including schools, parks, or shopping.
192 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91710 No trucks are to be passing on Eucalyptus (between Carpenter and Archibald) but trucks continue to use Eucalyptus with no consequences. 193 13898 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Too many trucks. We hear them at night. There is a part that sounds loud when truck passes. Makes homes shake a bit.
194 15066 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
There are several trucks that continue to enter Merrill east of Archibald to take a shortcut. There are signs posted but it doesn?t deter truckers from entering and congesting neighborhood route. We need better signs, speed bumps, or more education.
195 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880
This portion of Archibald should restrict traffic especially considering the Grand Park that is being built. The truck route should be changed where they have to go north on another side street near the warehouses. 196 3440 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761 Heavy truck traffic on Ontario Ranch Rd. It's loud throughout the day and night.
197 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761
Semi traffic has heavily increased and often slows down traffic because they are in every lane. They also run red lights passing through all the homes on Ontario ranch road.
Community Survey Results (8/26/25)
(Map Comments 10 of 10)216
APPENDIX B: Community Open House Comments
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050
Comments Received at 8/21/25 Open House page 1 of 6
APPENDIX B
August 21, 2025
Community Open House Comments
Project Overview
Comments Board
Prop 70? Overview Boards
Makes better use of Prop 70 land Overview Boards
What are the community sentiments for preserving prop 70 land - farmland? Overview Boards
Why are zoning being changed to allow developers to build in our neighborhoods with no notice for the people who live in the neighborhoods
Overview Boards
Overview Boards
217
APPENDIX B: Community Open House Comments
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050
Comments Received at 8/21/25 Open House page 2 of 6
Community Open House Comments (cont’d)
Parks and Recreation Element
Comments Board
lack of new pocket parks to serve more community members near their homes. No safe access on foot/wheels.
2- Parks & Recreation Element
Comment
Bike Routes 1,2,3. More Bike Routes 1 in ATP. 2- Parks & Recreation Element Comment
Habitat opportunities - what about species like burrowing owls. 2- Parks & Recreation Element Comment
The mayor whined about bikes on the sidewalk. What is the plan for safer bike lanes and trails?
2- Parks & Recreation Element
Comment
Bon View Park, next to Bon View Elementary, needs:
• lights in the back area of the track
• add dog poop add dog poop receptacles because people take dogs there and don't pick up
• more shade not ornament trees
2- Parks & Recreation Element
Comment
1-Evaluating Rewilding Opportunities / Current and
Updated Parks Map
2- Parks & Recreation Element
Comments
218
APPENDIX B: Community Open House Comments
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050
Comments Received at 8/21/25 Open House page 3 of 6
Community Open House Comments (cont’d)
Safety Element
Comments Board
Need more trees, trails, and flowering plants 2 - Current and Updated Flood Map / Safety Element Comments
We need walking trails throughout Ontario with trees that provide shade (not palm trees) that contribute to cleaning our air 2 - Current and Updated Flood
Map / Safety Element Comment
1-Proposed Policy Changes / Current and Updated
Fire Map
2-Current and Updated Flood Map / Safety Element
Comments
219
APPENDIX B: Community Open House Comments
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050
Comments Received at 8/21/25 Open House page 4 of 6
Community Open House Comments (cont’d)
Environmental Resources Element
Comments Board
Ontario has some of the worst air quality in the U.S. What is the plan to improve air quality in Ontario?
1-Current and proposed
Environmental Justice Areas
Why build industrial warehouses, buildings within the community that contribute to pollution hazards. An example is new construction on Bon View between Francis and Philadelphia and Mission and Holt. 1-Current and proposed
Environmental Justice Areas
1-Current and Proposed Environmental Justice Areas
2-Evaluating Environmental Justice Areas
220
APPENDIX B: Community Open House Comments
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050
Comments Received at 8/21/25 Open House page 5 of 6
Community Open House Comments (cont’d)
Mobility Element
Comments Board
Shaefer and Grove have too many trucks. Need to stop. 1- Current & Proposed Truck Routes Corner of Bon View and Philadelphia. Remove North Bon View 1- Current & Proposed Truck Routes Can schools be on the map? 2-Evaluating Truck Routes
Address trucks parking in residential areas, causing blind spots at intersections 2-Evaluating Truck Routes
1-Current & Proposed Truck Routes
2-Evaluating Truck Routes
221
APPENDIX B: Community Open House Comments
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050
Comments Received at 8/21/25 Open House page 6 of 6
Community Open House Comments (cont’d)
General Comment Cards
# Comments
1 Intersection of Bon View and Philadelphia is unsafe for the community and students who attend Bon View Elementary School. Drivers don’t stop, which creates a safety concern for students who are risking getting hit by cars. There have been incidents of pedestrians getting hit. Students walking home after 3:00 pm are in danger of getting hit because cars don’t stop to allow students to cross. 2 We have a serious problem with drug dealing on the corner of Vineyard and 4 th Avenue in Ontario. We
call the police several times a week and we want more police patrols in the area.
222
RESOLUTION NO. PC25-053
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE AN ADDENDUM TO THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, PURSUANT TO
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT, AS AMENDED, FOR FILE NO. PGPA25-001.
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario (Applicant) filed an Application for a General Plan Amendment (File No. PGPA25-001) to consider updates to The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Policy Plan (General Plan) involving the Mobility, Safety, Environmental Resources, and Parks & Recreation Elements. The amendments would:
(1) Update the Mobility Element to revise truck route designations and add evacuation-related policies (Assembly Bill (AB) 98, AB 747);
(2) Confirm that existing Policy Plan policies satisfy Senate Bill ( SB) 1425 requirements for equitable access to open space, climate resilience, and rewilding opportunities;
(3) Update the Safety Element to incorporate the 2023 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and 2024 Evacuation Assessment, add evacuation and extreme heat policies (AB 747, AB 2684), and update hazard mapping; and
(4) Update the Environmental Resources Element to refine identification of Environmental Justice Areas (SB 1000) and update the Parks & Recreation Element to reflect the Ontario Sports Empire; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for TOP on January 27, 2010, 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 TOP on January 27, 2010, and issued Resolution No. 2010- 004; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario certified the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), for the General Plan Amendment for TOP 2050 Technical Update on August 16, 2022; and
WHEREAS, TOP 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) was certified on August 16, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as Certified EIR), in which development and use of the Project site was discussed; and
223
Planning Commission Resolution
Addendum for File No. PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025
WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario has prepared and approved for attachment to the certified SEIR , an A ddendum to the Certified SEIR (hereinafter referred to as S EIR Addendum) in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with State and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively referred to as CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the S EIR Addendum concluded that implementation of the Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment that were previously analyzed in the Certified SEIR, and that the Certified SEIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary to a project, but the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required; and
WHEREAS, the City determined that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR would occur from the Project, and that preparation of an Addendum to the Certified SEIR was appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario is the lead agency on the Project, and the Planning Commission is the recommending body for the General Plan Amendment (File No. PGPA25-001); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the S EIR Addendum for the Project, has concluded that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent of supplemental EIR have occurred, and intends to take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR Addendum for the Project is on file in the Planning Department, located at 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764, is available for inspection by any interested person at that location and is , by this reference, incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario, as follows:
SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the recommending body for the General Plan Amendment (File No. PGPA2 5-001), the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project . Based upon the facts and information contained in 224
Planning Commission Resolution
Addendum for File No. PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025
the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of this Project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to TOP 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) , certified by the Ontario City Council on August 16, 2022, in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002; and
(2) The SEIR Addendum and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(3) The City's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and
(4) All previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of project approval, as they are applicable to the Project, and are incorporated herein by this reference; and
(5) The SEIR Addendum contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project , and reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and
(6) There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts.
SECTION 2: Additional Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the Addendum, all related information presented to the Planning Commission, and the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, the Planning Commission finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required for the Project, as the Project:
(1) Does not constitute substantial changes to the Certified SEIR that will require major revisions to the Certified SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
(2) Does not constitute substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Certified SEIR was prepared, that will require major revisions to the Certified SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and
225
Planning Commission Resolution
Addendum for File No. PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025
(3) Does not contain new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Certified SEIR was certified/adopted, that shows any of the following:
(a) The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified SEIR; or
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified SEIR; or
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the City declined to adopt such measures; or
(d) Mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified SEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the City declined to adopt.
SECTION 3: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 and 2 , above, the Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council finds that based upon the entire record of proceedings before it, and all information received, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will constitute substantial changes to the C ertified SEIR, and does hereby approves the SEIR Addendum, attached hereto as " Attachment A," and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 4: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the Applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.
SECTION 5: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.
SECTION 6: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.
226
227
228
Planning Commission Resolution
Addendum for File No. PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025
ATTACHMENT A:
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report
(State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364)
(Addendum to follow this page)
229
City of Ontario
TOP 2050 TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
October 2025 | SEIR Addendum
230
October 2025 | Addendum to the TOP 2050 SEIR
SCH No. 2021070364
TOP 2050 TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
City of Ontario
Prepared for:
City of Ontario
Contact: Thomas Grahn, Principal
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
231
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR A DDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
TABL E OF CONT ENTS
O CTO BER 2025 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Environmental Checklist............................................................................................... 1 Project Information ............................................................................................................. 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................................ 2
1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Environmental Procedures ................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Current TOP 2050 (Approved Project) ................................................................. 1-3
1.3 Prior Environmental Documentation ................................................................... 1-5
2. Project Description ......................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Project Location ................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Description of the Proposed Project .................................................................... 2-1
3. Environmental Analysis .................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ..................................................................... 3-5
3.3 Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 3-10
3.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................... 3-17
3.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 3-23
3.6 Energy ................................................................................................................ 3-27
3.7 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................... 3-30
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................ 3-38
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials...................................................................... 3-41
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................ 3-47
3.11 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................... 3-54
3.12 Mineral Resources .............................................................................................. 3-56
3.13 Noise .................................................................................................................. 3-58
3.14 Population and Housing ..................................................................................... 3-64
3.15 Public Services .................................................................................................... 3-66
3.16 Recreation .......................................................................................................... 3-71
3.17 Transportation/Traffic ........................................................................................ 3-74
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................... 3-79
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................. 3-85
3.20 Wildfire ............................................................................................................... 3-90
4. Findings .......................................................................................................... 4-1 232
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR A DDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
TABL E OF CONT ENTS
ii PlaceWorks
5. List of Preparers ............................................................................................. 5-1
6. References ..................................................................................................... 6-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A TOP 2050 Technical Amendments
Appendix B Tribal Consultation
Appendix C Euclid Avenue Truck Route Relocation
List of Figures
Figure 1 Regional and Local Vicinity Map .......................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2 Aerial Map ............................................................................................................ 2-7
233
O CTO BER 2025 1
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Title: TOP 2050 Technical Amendments
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Ontario
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, California 91764
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Thomas Grahn, Principal
909.395.2036
Project Location: City of Ontario.
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
City of Ontario
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, California 91764
General Plan Designation: Citywide.
Zoning: Citywide.
Description of Project:
The City is proposing to update the Mobility, Safety, Environmental Resources, and Parks & Recreation Elements of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan (TOP) to address new state laws enacted through Assembly and Senate Bills (AB/SB): AB 98, AB 747, , and AB 2684, and to evaluate potential implications for environmental justice policies per SB 1000. The proposed updates do not include any land use changes, nor do they expedite, initiate, or permit any ground-disturbing activities.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The City of Ontario is in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County and is surrounded by the cities of Chino and Montclair and unincorporated San Bernardino County to the west; the cities of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga to the north; the city of Fontana and unincorporated 234
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
EN VIR ON MENTAL CHEC KLIST
2 PlaceWorks
San Bernardino County to the east; and the cities of Eastvale and Jurupa Valley to the south. The city is in the central part of the Upper Santa Ana River Valley, bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the north; the Chino Hills, Puente Hills, and San Jose Hills to the west; the Santa Ana River to the south; and Lytle Creek Wash on the east.
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required (e.g., Permits, Financing Approval, or Participating Agreement):
None
Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determi nation of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? The City sent initial notification letters to California Native American tribes and tribal contacts on April 23, 2025. Responses were received from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation. The tribes confirmed that there are no conflicts with the proposed Technical Amendment and no consultation was requested.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Chapter 3 of this document summarizes the environmental impact conclusions of the Certified EIR and concludes that the proposed project meets the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for preparation of an Addendum.
235
O CTO BER 2025 1-1
1. INTRODUCTION
This document is an Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050), State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364, which was certified in August 2022 (Certified EIR). The Technical Amendment to TOP (proposed project) includes new and modified goals, policies, and figures of the Safety Element, revised figures and new policies in the Mobility, and updated figures in the Environmental Resources and Parks & Recreation Elements of the Policy Plan. The proposed changes address new State legislative requirements and established State laws that have been enacted since TOP 2050’s original adoption. The updated policies and figures can be found in Appendix A of this addendum.
1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum focuses on whether implementation of the proposed project would require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the potential for new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following conditions are met:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substanti al increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
236
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
1. INT RODUCTI ON
1-2 PlaceWorks
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
A supplement to an EIR (supplemental EIR), which is narrower in scope than a subsequent EIR, may be prepared if any of the above criteria apply, but “only minor changes or additions would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15163(a)). In the absence of the need to prepare either a subsequent or supplemental EIR, an addendum to a previously certified EIR may be prepared. Section 15164 states:
(a) The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. (d) The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. (CEQA Guidelines § 15164) 237
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
1. INT RODUCTI ON
O CTO BER 2025 1-3
This Addendum to the Certified EIR has been prepared because evaluation of the proposed project did not find any of the circumstances requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR. As demonstrated in Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, of this Addendum, the proposed project would not result in impacts that differ from the approved project, and it would not trigger the need for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under the criteria in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a) and 15163(a). The proposed project would not change the assumptions made under the Certified EIR.
The proposed project is consistent with the Certified EIR and would not require changes to the approved project. This Addendum demonstrates that no substantial changes are proposed to the approved project or have occurred in the development area covered by the Certified EIR that would require major revisions to the Certified EIR or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][1]). Therefore, the impacts of the proposed project are within the levels and types of environmental impacts disclosed in the Certified EIR.
▪ The proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of the impacts of the approved project due to substantial changes in circumstances since the certification of the EIR (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][2]). ▪ In addition, no information that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Certified EIR was certified has been revealed that shows new or substantially more severe significant impacts would result (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][3]). ▪ There are no new or considerably different mitigation measures that would substantially reduce one or more significant impacts of the approved project but that are not adopted.
Because this Addendum does not identify new or substantially more severe significant impacts, circulation for public review and comment is not necessary (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164[c]).
However, the City of Ontario has considered this Addendum together with the previously certified EIR prior to adoption of the proposed project, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(d).
1.2 CURRENT TOP 2050 (APPROVED PROJECT)
The City regulates development of land uses through TOP2050. TOP 2050 consists of a six-part component framework: 1) Vision, 2) Governance Manual, 3) Policy Plan (General Plan), 4) City Council Priorities, 5) Implementation, and 6) Tracking and Feedback. The plan described the community’s direction at a point in time (2009) and integrated it into a single guidance system that would shape Ontario 20 years or more into the future. 238
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
1. INT RODUCTI ON
1-4 PlaceWorks
TOP 2050 Policy Plan includes the following elements:
▪ The Land Use Element establishes how land is developed, used, and arranged to ensure compatibility and add value to the community in terms of function, design, and fiscal return. ▪ The Housing Element ensures greater production, preservation, and improvement of housing in the community in the context of existing and future housing needs, constraints to the production of housing, and available land and financial resources. ▪ The Parks and Recreation Element establishes broad direction for the Ontario park system and recreation programs, emphasizing the vital role parks and recreation programs play in economic development, land use, housing, community health, infrastructure, and transportation goals.
▪ The Environmental Resources Element addresses how resources are managed comprehensively using systems that are environmentally and economically sustainable and meet growth demand in Ontario.
▪ The Community Economics Element articulates the City’s approach to developing and maintaining the local economy, retaining and attracting further investments, and connecting economic development with the City’s long-term fiscal health. ▪ The Safety Element addresses how the City protects life, property, and commerce from impacts associated with human-made and natural hazards, disasters, and other threats to public safety; also identifies ways the City can establish strategies to adapt to increased hazard risks and strategies to become more resilient.
▪ The Mobility Element coordinates the circulation system with future land use patterns and buildout to satisfy local and subregional mobility needs, as well as access and connectivity among the various neighborhoods, centers, corridors, and districts. ▪ The Community Design Element establishes design guidance and requirements to protect existing investments; achieve sustainable environments; add value to the community; and create safe and pleasant places where people want to live, work, and recreate. ▪ The Social Resources Element improves equitable access to quality and accessible health care, education, community services, and cultural activities—critical components to achieving a prosperous, more equitable, and complete community and key to addressing environmental justice issues in disadvantaged areas of Ontario. 239
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
1. INT RODUCTI ON
O CTO BER 2025 1-5
1.3 PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
The proposed project is a technical update to the approved project; therefore, this Addendum relies on the findings of the 2022 Draft SEIR and 2022 Final SEIR and, per CEQA Guidelines section 15164, contains all the information necessary to ensure that the Addendum fully evaluates the proposed project.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15148 and 15150, this Addendum incorporates the 2022 Certified SEIR (and its constituent parts) by reference. All documents incorporated by reference are available for review at the City of Ontario Community Development Department at 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, CA 91764. A summary of the 2022 Certified EIR follows. 2022 DRAFT SEIR FOR THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050
The City of Ontario circulated the 2022 Draft SEIR for a 45-day public review period beginning May 9, 2022, and ending June 23, 2022, and 20 topics were evaluated in detail in the SEIR.
The following impacts were considered less than significant without mitigation:
▪ Aesthetics
▪ Agricultural and Forestry Resources
▪ Biological Resources
▪ Energy
▪ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
▪ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
▪ Hydrology and Water Quality
▪ Land Use and Planning
▪ Mineral Resources
▪ Population and Housing
▪ Public Services
▪ Recreation
▪ Utilities and Service Systems
▪ Wildlife
The following impacts were identified as having potentially significant impacts that could be mitigated, avoided, or substantially lessened.
▪ Cultural Resources (Archeological Resources)
▪ Geology and Soils (Paleontological Resources)
240
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
1. INT RODUCTI ON
1-6 PlaceWorks
▪ Tribal Cultural Resources
The SEIR identified the following environmental categories as having significant and unavoidable impacts that could not be alleviated by incorporating mitigation. ▪ Air Quality (AQMP Consistency, Regional Construction Emissions, Regional Operation Emissions, and Cumulative Health Risk)
▪ Cultural Resources (Historic Resources)
▪ Noise (Construction Noise, Construction Vibration, and Airport Land Use Compatibility) ▪ Transportation (Vehicle Miles Traveled)
The City of Ontario approved The Ontario Plan 2050 and certified the TOP 2050 SEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) on August 16, 2022.
241
O CTO BER 2025 2-1
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Ontario is in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County and is surrounded by the cities of Chino and Montclair and unincorporated San Bernardino County to the west; the cities of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga to the north; the City of Fontana and unincorporated San Bernardino County to the east; and the cities of Eastvale and Jurupa Valley to the south (see Figure 1, Regional Location and Vicinity Map, and Figure 2, Aerial Map). The City is in the central part of the Upper Santa Ana River Valley, bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the north; the Chino Hills, Puente Hills, and San Jose Hills to the west; the Santa Ana River to the south; and Lytle Creek Wash on the east.
The City comprises approximately 50 square miles (32,022 acres), including the 8,200-acre Ontario Ranch in the southern part of the City—formerly known as the New Model Colony (NMC) and formerly the City’s sphere of influence (SOI). The northern, more urbanized part of the City is known as the Original Model Colony (OMC) in reference to the City’s founding as a model colony for cities in terms of layout and infrastructure. Generally, the City is bounded by Benson Avenue and Euclid Avenue on the west; Interstate 10 (I-10), 8th Street, and 4th Street on the north; Etiwanda Avenue and Hammer Avenue on the east; and Merrill Avenue and the San Bernardino/Riverside County boundary on the south. Regional circulation to and through the City is provided by I-10 and State Route (SR) 60, east to west, and by I-15 and SR-83 (Euclid Avenue), north to south. The City is also home to the Ontario International Airport (ONT) and proximate to Chino Airport.
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
2.2.1 Project Description
The project is an update of the Mobility, Safety, Environmental Resources, and Parks & Recreation Elements of the Policy Plan component of TOP 2050. The Policy Plan serves as the City’s General Plan. The General Plan is a state-required legal document that provides guidance to decision-makers regarding the allocation of resources and determining the future physical form and character of development in the City. It is the official statement of the City regarding the extent and types of development needed to achieve the community’s physical, economic, social, and environmental goals. Although the Policy Plan is composed of individual sections, or “elements,” that each address a specific area of concern, the Policy Plan embodies a comprehensive and integrated planning approach for the jurisdiction. This section of the 242
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
2. PR OJECT DESCRIPTI ON
2-2 PlaceWorks
addendum summarizes the proposed updates to the Policy Plan elements and the TOP 2050 updates can be found in Appendix A, TOP 2050 Technical Amendments
PROPOSED POLICY PLAN UPDATES
The City is proposing to update these elements to address new state laws enacted through the following Assembly and Senate Bills (AB/SB): AB 98, AB 747, and AB 2684, and to address potential implications for environmental justice policies per SB 1000. Importantly, the proposed updates do not include any land use changes, nor do they expedite, initiate, or permit any ground-disturbing activities. A general description of the proposed updates follows:
Mobility Element. The City proposes updates to its truck routes, which remove the truck route designation for Philadelphia Street between Grove Avenue and Euclid Avenue and Euclid Avenue between I-10 and Mission Boulevard (see TOP Figure M-04, Truck Routes, in Appendix A). To provide an adequate goods movement network while reducing exposure to sensitive receptors (AB 98). The City also proposed new policies (Policy M-1.7 and M-1.8) to ensure mobility planning considerations align with the City’s evacuation planning efforts and ensure that the Mobility Element is internally consistent with the Safety Element ▪ M-1.7: Evacuation Infrastructure. We evaluate changes to traffic signal timing, including the use of intelligent transportation system technology, and other traffic control features to support effective evacuations.
▪ M-1.8: Evacuation Support for Transit-Dependent Populations. We partner with Omnitrans, senior service centers, and other relevant agencies to provide evacuation services for people lacking access to reliable private vehicles.
Safety Element. The City proposes to incorporate its 2023 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) and 2024 Evacuation Assessment (AB 747) by reference, along with policy changes related to incorporation of the LHMP by reference (Policy S-8.2), and evacuation planning (refinements to Policies S-3.5, S-8.9, and new Policies S-8.10 and S-8.11). In addition, a new goal (Goal S-10) and several polices (Policies S-10.1 through S-10.4) are proposed in the Safety element to address extreme heat (AB 2684). Finally, the City proposes updates to its flood and fire hazard mapping based on new maps published by state and federal agencies (see TOP Figures S-03, Flood Hazard Zones, and S-05, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, in Appendix A).
Policy refinements related to the incorporation of the LHMP by reference (additions shown as underlined text):
▪ S-8.2: Emergency Management Plans and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. We maintain, update, and adopt the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and incorporate by reference the City’s current City of Ontario Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) into this Safety Element by reference, as permitted by California Government Code Section 65302.6. 243
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
2. PR OJECT DESCRIPTI ON
O CTO BER 2025 2-3
Policy refinements related to evacuation planning (AB 747) (additions shown as underlined text):
▪ S-3.5: Emergency Notifications. We maintain a public alert notification system that efficiently conveys information about imminent, developing, ongoing, and concluding emergency events and evacuation notifications to residents and visitors, working with network providers that translate information into other languages. ▪ S-8.9: Backup Power in Critical Facilities. We require backup power be maintained in critical facilities, prioritizing facilities that can serve as evacuation centers. We encourage backup power solutions that include renewable energy components.
New policies related to evacuation planning (AB 747):
▪ S-8.10: Maintaining Evacuation Routes. When evaluating City budgets, programming, and funding opportunities, we prioritize improvements and maintenance activities to ensure roadways that are identified as evacuation routes will be serviceable during emergency events.
▪ S-8.11: Regional Evacuation Coordination. We work with neighboring jurisdictions and County agencies to ensure safe and effective evacuations across jurisdictional boundaries.
New goal and policies related to extreme heat (AB 2684):
▪ Goal S-10: Reduced exposure to extreme heat for community members, critical infrastructure, and other assets.
⚫ S-10.1: Shade Trees and Structures. We expand the planting of shade trees and the installation of shade structures on City-owned property and rights-of-way, and encourage private property owners and other agencies to take similar actions. We prioritize shade trees and structures at parking lots, transit stops, parks, community centers, and schools.
⚫ S-10.2: Heat-Resilient Infrastructure. We construct new infrastructure and retrofit existing infrastructure to remain operational during extreme heat events. We work with other public agencies and private utility companies to incorporate extreme heat resilience into their construction and retrofit activities. ⚫ S-10.3: Heat-Resilient Buildings. We work with community groups and local agencies to install air conditioning and improved insulation at facilities that serve vulnerable populations, including schools, senior care centers, community centers, and medical facilities.
244
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
2. PR OJECT DESCRIPTI ON
2-4 PlaceWorks
⚫ S-10.4: Cool Surfaces. We install cool surfaces, including parking lots, roofs, roadways, and walking paths, as part of new or substantially renovated City facilities.
Environmental Resources Element. The City also proposes a minor change in methodology to remove the highest income census tracts from consideration as a disadvantaged community (see TOP Figure ER-01, Environmental Justice Areas, in Appendix A).
Parks & Recreation Element. The City proposes a minor map update to TOP Figure PR-01, Parks and Recreational Facilities, to reflect the recently approved Ontario Regional Sports Complex (see Appendix A).
245
PlaceWorks
ONTARIO TECHNICAL AMENDMENT EIR ADDENDUM
25$1*(
)8//(5721
$1$+(,0
%5($
%8(1$
3$5.
3/$&(17,$
<25%$/,1'$
/$+$%5$
81,1&25325$7('
/D0LUDGD
&RYLQD
/D+DEUD
+HLJKWV
/D9HUQH
&ODUHPRQW
:KLWWLHU
'LDPRQG%DU
:DOQXW
:HVW&RYLQD
3RPRQD
,UZLQGDOH
%DOGZLQ
3DUN
&,7<2)
)217$1$
&,7<2)
83/$1'
&,7<2)&+,12
&,7<2)
&2/721
&,7<2)
5$1&+2
&8&$021*$
&,7<2)
&+,12
+,//6
&,7<2)
%(51$5'
&,7<2)
5,$/72
&,7<2)
217$5,2
($679$/(
&2521$
-8583$9$//(<
5,9(56,'(
125&2
3RQG
/DNH
/DNH0DWKHZV
/\WOH
&UHHN:DVK
%5$&.(77
),(/'
$,53257
&$%/($,53257
&+,12$,53257
&2521$
081,&,3$/
$,53257
)/$%2%
$,53257
)8//(5721
081,&,3$/
$,53257
217$5,2
,17(51$7,21$/
$,53257
5,9(56,'(
081,&,3$/
$,53257
6$1%(51$5',12&2817<
/26$1*(/(6&2817<
6$1%(51$5',12&2817<
5,9(56,'(&2817<
6$1 %(51$5',12&2817<
25$1*( &2817<
/26$1*(/(6&2817<
25$1*(&2817<
5,9(56,'(&2817<
25$1*( &2817<
6$1%(51$5',12
.(51
9(1785$
/26$1*(/(6
5,9(56,'(25$1*(
6$1',(*2
&LW\RI2QWDULR
Source: LA, Riverside, San Bernardino, OC 2021 Date: 2/23/2022 4,0002,000
FT
1,0000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 3-1
Regional Location and
Vicinity Map
City Boundary
Parks and Open Space
Ontario City Boundary
County Boundary
Unincorporated County
Airports
Figure 1
Regional Location and Vicinity Map
Source: City of Ontario 2021.
0 Scale (Miles)
4 Parks and Open Space
Ontario City Boundary
Airports
Unincorporated County
County Boundary
City Boundary
CITY
OF ONTARIO
246
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
2. PR OJECT DESCRIPTI ON
2-6 PlaceWorks
This page is intentionally left blank.
247
PlaceWorks
ONTARIO TECHNICAL AMENDMENT EIR ADDENDUM
Date: 3/4/2022Source: The City of Ontario 2021
%&'(
%&'(
%&'(
|ÿ
|ÿ
%&'(
¬r
¬r
County of
San Bernardino
County of Riverside
60 60
10 15
15 10
CITY OF
MONTCLAIR
CITY OF
UPLAND
CITY OF
FONTANA
CITY OF CHINO
CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
S EUCLID AVE
S CAMPUS AVE
N HAVEN AVE
S SULTANA AVE
S GROVE AVE
N
M
ILLIKEN
AVE
S ARCHIBALD AVE
E RIVERSIDE DR
E G ST
W D ST
N VINEYARD AVE
N SAN ANTONIO AVE
S
SAN
ANTONIO
AVE
N SULTANA AVE
N GROVE AVE
S ETIWANDA AVE
S MOUNTAIN AVE
E PHILADELPHIA ST
W FOURTH ST
N CAMPUS AVE
N MOUNTAIN AVE
N BENSON AVE
E D ST
W MISSION BLVD
N EUCLID AVEW G ST
E FOURTH ST
S
HAVEN
AVE
S MILLIKEN AVE
W PHILADELPHIA ST
E EIGHTH ST
S TURNER AVE
W FRANCIS ST
S VINEYARD AVE
E JURUPA ST
E AIRPORT DR
S BENSON AVE
E INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
E MISSION BLVD
N ETIWANDA AVE
S SUMNER
S WINEVILLE AVES VINTAGE AVE
E EDISON
E SANTA ANA
E HOLT
S HAMNER
E EUCALYPTUS
E SCHAEFER
E MERRILL
E CHINO
EASTVALE
JURUPA VALLEY
CHINO AIRPORT
ONTARIO
INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT
PROJ E CT D E SCR IPTI ON
Figure 3-2
Aerial Map
¬r Airport
Ontario City Boundary
Adjacent City Boundary
County Boundary
Unincorporated County
0 5,000 10,0002,500
FT
Figure 2
Aerial Map
Source: City of Ontario 2021.
0 Scale (Feet)
5,000
Adjacent City Boundary
Ontario City Boundary
Airport
Unincorporated County
County Boundary
CITY
OF ONTARIO
248
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
2. PR OJECT DESCRIPTI ON
2-8 PlaceWorks
This page is intentionally left blank.
249
O CTO BER 2025 3-1
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This chapter provides evidence to substantiate the conclusions in the environmental checklist.
Each section briefly summarizes the conclusions of the Certified EIR and discusses the following three conditions pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162:
▪ Condition 1, 15162(a)(1–2). Whether the proposed project represents a substantial change that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. ▪ Condition 2, 15162(a)(3)(A–B). Whether substantial changes in the circumstances under which the proposed project is being undertaken will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
▪ Condition 3, 15162(a)(3)(C–D). If new information shows that the proposed project would have one or more new significant effects; that significant effects would be substantially more severe than previously described; that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would be feasible and substantially reduce impacts, but project proponents decline to adopt them; or that new or previously rejected mitigation measures or alternatives would be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more project impacts, but project proponents decline to adopt them.
If none of the above conditions are met, the analysis identifies where impacts of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact or no impact, and thus would meet the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for preparation of an addendum
3.1 AESTHETICS
3.1.1 Summary of Impacts Identified for the Approved Project The Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would not substantially obstruct views of the San Gabriel Mountains, the City’s most prominent scenic resource. Ontario does not contain or adjoin a State-designated scenic highway. The closest is State Route 142, five miles west of the city limits; therefore, the approved project would have no impact on State scenic highways.
The Certified EIR found that future development would be subject to the City’s Development Code, which would ensure less than significant impacts for visual quality and scenic quality. New development would introduce additional light sources, particularly in Ontario Ranch; however, impacts would be less than significant with adherence to the City’s lighting standards. In 250
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-2 PlaceWorks
summary, the Certified EIR concluded that aesthetic impacts were less than significant or of no impact.
3.1.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
LTS No No No Yes
b) Substantially damage
scenic resources,
including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and
historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
NI No No No Yes
251
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-3
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
c) In nonurbanized areas,
substantially degrade
the existing visual
character or quality of
public views of the site
and its surroundings?
(Public views are those
that are experienced
from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the
project is in an urbanized
area, would the project
conflict with applicable
zoning and other
regulations governing
scenic quality?
LTS No No No Yes
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare
which would adversely
affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
LTS No No No Yes
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = topic not analyzed in Certified EIR
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would not substantially obstruct views of the San Gabriel Mountains, the City’s most prominent scenic resource. The proposed project does not include new goals or policies related to scenic vistas. No development or land use changes are proposed as part of the proposed project. Thus, no new impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. 252
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-4 PlaceWorks
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would not impact scenic resources along a scenic highway. The City of Ontario is served by three freeways: I-10, I-15, and SR-60, which are not designated scenic highways by the California Department of Transportation. Therefore, no impacts on scenic resources would occur as part of the proposed project, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The Certified EIR found that future development would be subject to the City’s Development Code, which would ensure less than significant impacts for visual quality and public views. The proposed project includes focused updates to goals and policies of the Mobility , Safety, Environmental Resources, and Parks & Recreation Elements. Although the new and modified goals and policies do not specifically address visual quality, the new and modified policies are not expected to result in adverse visual impacts. For example, Policy S-10.4, Cool Surfaces , encourages the installation of cool surfaces would primarily affect roofing or paving materials designed to reflect heat, which are typically visually compatible with existing development and do not alter the overall character of the area. Similarly, policies relate d to evacuation routes, emergency access, or extreme hea t mitigation focus on operational or safety improvements rather than physical changes to visual character within the city . As a result, these amendments would not change the City’s visual quality. Additionally, no development or land use changes are proposed. Development projects in the City would continue to be subject to the City’s Development Code. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The Certified EIR identified that adherence to the City’s lighting standards would ensure less than significant impacts for light and glare. The City is primarily built out, and a significant amount of ambient light and glare from urban uses already exists . The proposed project does not include any physical development in the city which would result in additional light and glare.
Although the new goals and policies do not specifically address visual quality, they are not expected to result in adverse visual impacts. The proposed project includes Policies S-10.2, S-10.3, and S-10.4, which promote heat resilient buildings and cool surfaces. These policies could result in new sources of glare as the heat resilient buildings are typically lighter and color and reflective 253
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-5
to reduce heat, however all changes would be required to adhere to the design standards of the City of Ontario Development Code (Section 9 -1.3325, Light, Glare, and Heat) and Downtown Ontario Design Guidelines ensures that light and glare from new developments associated with the approved project would be minimized and that significant impacts would not occur.
The proposed project includes focused updates to goals and policies of the Mobility, Safety, Environmental Resources, and Parks & Recreation Elements and does not include changes to the buildout of TOP. The Mobility Element Figure M-04, Truck Routes, would be revised to reflect existing truck routes in the City. However, the changes to the truck route designations would not result in new streetlights that generate new sources of light and glare. No new sources of lighting are proposed. New development within the City would continue to be subject to the City’s lighting standards and design guidelines, as applicable. Therefore, no new impacts on substantial light or glare would occur as part of the proposed project. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
3.1.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related to aesthetics were identified in the Certified EIR.
3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
3.2.1 Summary of Impacts Identified for the Approved Project The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not result in impacts to agricultural or forest resources. The approved project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural use because the City no longer designates land for agricultural use under the current General Plan. Similarly, the approved project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use or land under Williamson Act contracts because remaining contracts would still be subject to expiration or cancellation before development. The approved project would not conflict with zoning for forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production Zones because no such designations exist in the City. Additionally, the approved project would not indirectly induce the conversion of farmland or forest land outside the City. In summary, the Certified EIR concluded that impacts to agricultural and forest resources would either result in no impact or remain less than significant. 254
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-6 PlaceWorks
3.2.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of
the California Resources
Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
No
Impact No No No Yes
b) Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
LTS No No No Yes
255
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-7
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
c) Conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public
Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public
Resources Code
section 4526), or
timberland zoned
Timberland Production
(as defined by
Government Code
section 51104(g))?
NI No No No Yes
d) Result in the loss of forest
land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest
use?
NI No No No Yes
e) Involve other changes in
the existing environment
which, due to their
location or nature, could
result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or
conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
LTS No No No Yes
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = topic not analyzed in Certified EIR
256
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-8 PlaceWorks
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? The Certified EIR identified that in 2022, there were 2,342 acres of Farmland within the City.
However, the Certified EIR identified less than significant impacts to Farmland because TOP does not designate agricultural land uses in the city; therefore, the approved project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural uses.
The proposed project would not directly or indirectly result in physical development; rather, the proposed project includes focused updates to goals and policies of the Mobility, Safety, Environmental Resources, and Parks & Recreation Elements. The proposed project does not include new goals or policies that specifically address Farmland. TOP 2050 land use plan does not identify agricultural lands within the City at buildout. The removal of a portion of Philadelphia Street and Euclid Avenue from the Truck Route Map in the Mobility Element (see Figure M-04, Truck Routes, in Appendix A) would not have an effect on Farmland. Likewise, the new and modified policies related to evacuation routes would help ensure efficient evacuation during an emergency but would not alter any existing land use designations or Farmland in the City. No development or land use changes are proposed as part of the updated goals and policies of the proposed project. In summary, the proposed project would not, directly or indirectly, introduce new development or land use changes that would involve the conversion of Farmland to nonfarm use. Thus, no new impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The Certified EIR identified that c urrent nonrenewed contracts would expire between 2021 and 2027. Therefore, the Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use or land under Williamson Act contracts, as remaining contracts would still be subject to expiration or cancellation before development. The proposed project includes focused updates to goals and policies of the Mobility, Safety, Environmental Resources, and Parks & Recreation Elements and does not involve changes to the land uses in the City . The proposed project does not include new goals or policies that address existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no new impacts on existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract would occur as part of the proposed project. Thus, no new impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code 257
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-9
section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not conflict with zoning for forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production Zones. There are no land use designations or zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production in the City of Ontario.
Consequently, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Thus, no impact would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not result in the loss of forest land.
As described in the Certified EIR, native habitats and vegetation communities are virtually absent throughout Ontario. There is no forest land in Ontario, and therefore the proposed project would not result in conversion of forest land to nonforest use. Thus, no impact would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not directly or indirectly induce the conversion of farmland or forest land outside the City. As discussed above, the proposed project does not include land use changes or new/modified goals or policies that address existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no new impacts on farmland and forest land would occur as part of the proposed project. Additionally, there is no forest land in Ontario. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in conversion of forest land to nonforest use or farmland into non-agricultural use. No new impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
3.2.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related to agriculture and forestry resources were identified in the Certified EIR.
258
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-10 PlaceWorks
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3.1 Summary of Impacts Identified for the Approved Project The Certified EIR determined that the approved project would be inconsistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (South Coast AQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) because buildout under the plan would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). Incorporation of Mitigation Measures 3-2 and AQ-1 into future development projects for the operation phase would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the approved project.
Buildout under the approved project would result in both short- and long-term air quality impacts that exceed South Coast AQMD thresholds and contribute to regional nonattainment conditions. Although mitigation measures and TOP policies would reduce emissions where feasible, construction and operational emissions associated with the approved project would remain significant and unavoidable.
The approved project could expose sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TACs). While individual developments would meet health risk thresholds, the cumulative increase in TACs, especially from expanded industrial uses, would raise health risks in the region, particularly in environmental justice communities. This impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
The Certified EIR did not identify any significant odor impacts associated with the approved project. Therefore, impacts from potential odors generated from industrial land, residential and other nonresidential land uses, and construction-generated odors were considered less than significant.
3.3.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
259
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-11
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality
plan?
SU No No No Yes
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net
increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the
project region is non-
attainment under an
applicable federal or
state ambient air quality
standard?
SU No No No Yes
c) Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant
concentrations?
SU No No No Yes
d) Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors) adversely
affecting a substantial
number of people?
LTS No No No Yes
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = topic not analyzed in Certified EIR
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The Certified EIR determined that the approved project would be inconsistent with the South Coast AQMD’s AQMP because buildout under the plan would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). Mitigation Measures 3-2 and AQ-1 for the operation phase would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions associated with 260
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-12 PlaceWorks
buildout of the approved project to the extent feasible. However, impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable.
The proposed project does not include new goals or policies that relate to air quality. The new and modified goals and policies proposed in the technical amendments are primarily related to Emergency evacuation and reducing extreme heat. Policies S-10.2, S-10.3, and S-10.4 promote heat resilient buildings and cool surfaces, and would promote lighter building materials to reduce heat, which would have a co-benefit of reducing energy use for new construction. No development or land use changes are proposed as part of the proposed project.
The removal of a portion of Philadelphia Street and Euclid Avenue from the City’s Truck Routes would not result in a substantial change in truck distribution on the City’s roadway network (see Appendix A, TOP Figure M-04, Truck Routes). As identified in the Euclid Avenue Truck Route Relocation Recommendations and Operations Assessment (see Appendix C), at most there would be a maximum of 28 trucks on Mountain Avenue between State Street to Mission Boulevard and 23 trucks on Grove Avenue between Airport Drive to Mission Boulevard in the year 2050 scenario that would be rerouted from the removal of these two segments from the City’s Truck Routes. However, the proposed project would not generate new trips or result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from this redistribution.
Like the approved project, Mitigation Measures 3-2 and AQ-1 would be applicable for new development associated with the proposed project. Thus, no new impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The Certified EIR identified that construction and operational phase air quality impacts of the approved project would be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures 3-1, 3-2, and AQ-1 would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction and operation of the approved project to the extent feasible. However, impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable.
The proposed project would not result in additional development in the City because no land use changes are proposed as part of the proposed project. The new and modified Safety Element and Mobility Element policies address evacuation and extreme heat in the City. New evacuation policies are included to ensure that people can safely evacuate the City in an emergency and that emergency service vehicles can travel through the City quickly and efficiently. The proposed Environmental Justice Areas map and Park and Recreation Facilities map includes updates to remove the highest income track from TOP Figure ER-01 and add the Ontario Regional Sports Complex to TOP Figure PR-01 (see Appendix A). 261
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-13
Additionally, the Mobility Element Figure M-04, Truck Routes, would be revised to safely accommodate additional truck traffic and avoid residential areas and sensitive receptors, as defined by Government Code Section 65098 (AB 98). No additional truck traffic would be generated as the proposed project only includes changes to the Truck Route maps and not physical or land use changes within the City. The proposed changes to the Truck Routes would remove the two route segments which are primarily located in residential areas near sensitive receptors. The proposed truck routes would mainly reflect the roadways that trucks are currently using to access the freeways. As described in Appendix C, at most there would be a maximum of 28 trucks on Mountain Avenue between State Street to Mission Boulevard and 23 trucks on Grove Avenue between Airport Drive to Mission Boulevard in the year 2050 scenario that would be rerouted from the removal of these two segments from the City’s Truck Routes.
The potential rerouted trucks are not new trips. The amount of trucks in the City would remain the same and there would not be an increase in truck VMT. Like the approved project, Mitigation Measures 3-2 and AQ-1 would be applicable for new development associated with the proposed project. Thus, no new impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The Certified EIR identified that the approved project, in addition to cumulative development, could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air toxics, primarily as a result of an increase in warehouse and associated truck traffic within the City. Policy ER4-9, Health Risk Assessments, would ensure mobile sources of TACs not covered under South Coast AQMD permits are considered during subsequent project-level environmental review by the City of Ontario; however, implementation of the approved project would generate TACs that could contribute to elevated levels in the air basin (cumulative). The Certified EIR identifies cumulative impacts related to health risk as a significant and unavoidable impact of the approved project.
The proposed project would not introduce new development or land use changes that would result in an increase in non-residential square footage, including warehouses and associated truck traffic. The proposed project includes a revision to Mobility Element Figure M-04, Truck Routes, to safely accommodate additional truck traffic and avoid residential areas and sensitive receptors, as defined by Government Code Section 65098 (AB 98). The removal of a portion of Philadelphia Street and Euclid Avenue from the City’s Truck Routes would not result in a substantial change in truck distribution on the City’s roadway network (see Appendix A, TOP Figure M-04, Truck Routes). As identified in the Euclid Avenue Truck Route Relocation Recommendations and Operations Assessment (see Appendix C), at most there would be a maximum of 28 trucks on Mountain Avenue between State Street to Mission Boulevard and 23 trucks on Grove Avenue between Airport Drive to Mission Boulevard in the year 2050 scenario that would be rerouted from the removal of these two segments from the City’s Truck Routes.
The total amount of trucks in the City would remain the same and the additional 23 to 28 trucks 262
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-14 PlaceWorks
on Mountain Avenue and Grove Avenue would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.1
The proposed project also includes updates to the Environmental Resources Element, which removes the highest-income census tract from consideration as a disadvantaged community, and updates to the Safety Element to ensure effective and efficient evacuation routes, address extreme heat, and incorporate the most recent Flood and Fire maps published by state and federal agencies. These policy and map updates would not change any land use designations or expose sensitive receptors to increased pollution concentrations. Like the approved project, Policy ER-4.9 would be applicable for new development associated with the proposed project.
Thus, no new impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The Certified EIR did not identify significant odor impacts associated with the approved project.
The proposed project would not introduce new development or land use changes that would involve emissions and odors. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
3.3.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measures were taken directly from the Certified EIR. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the Certified EIR are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and underline for new, inserted text.
MM 3-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds
1 The South Coast AQMD Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects Working Group identified in their Working Group Meeting #6, held on November 6, 2024, that the number of trucks it would take to trigger 10 in a million health risk on roadways is 951 trucks (South Coast AQMD 2024). 263
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-15
of significance, the City of Ontario building department shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include:
▪ Require fugitive dust control measures that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403, such as:
o Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. o Applying water every four hours to active soil disturbing activities. o Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials. ▪ Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 3 Tier 4 interim or higher exhaust emission limits.
▪ Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
▪ Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.
▪ Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s website at: http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/Super- Compliant_AIM.pdf.
These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Department.
MM 3-2 The City of Ontario shall evaluate new development proposals within the City and require all developments to include access or linkages to alternative modes of transportation, such as transit stops, bike paths, and/or pedestrian paths (e.g. sidewalks).
AQ-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning 264
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-16 PlaceWorks
Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Planning Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
▪ For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions. ▪ Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use. ▪ Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 sec. 2485). ▪ Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
▪ Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 of CALGreen (Residential Voluntary Measures).
▪ Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
▪ Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 and Section A5.106.8.2 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures; Residential Voluntary Measures).
▪ Applicant-provided appliances shall be Energy Star–certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, 265
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-17
clothes washers, and dryers). Installation of Energy Star–certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City during plan check.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4.1 Summary of Impacts Identified for the Approved Project The Certified EIR determined that the approved project would not directly affect sensitive species. The Certified EIR also identified that compliance with existing regulations would ensure that implementation of the approved project would not have an adverse impact on riparian or sensitive habitats. Compliance with the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and policies in TOP would ensure less-than-significant impacts to sensitive species and habitat.
The Certified EIR found that compliance with existing regulations would ensure that implementation of the approved project would not have an adverse impact on jurisdictional waters. Projects that have the potential to result in impact to waters of the State would be subject to approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and may require a Section 404 permit under the CWA or consultation with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a Section 7 take permit, in accordance with the applicable permits.
The Certified EIR identified that implementation of the proposed project would not adversely affect wildlife movement. No regional wildlife movement corridors have been identified in the City. Additionally, all projects would comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) for migratory birds.
The Certified EIR identified that it would not conflict with the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSFLF) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) because the approved project would increase land use intensity but would not result in development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the City. 266
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-18 PlaceWorks
3.4.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through
habitat modifications, on
any species identified as
a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in
local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations,
or by the California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
LTS No No No Yes
b) Have a substantial
adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural
community identified in
local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or
by the California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
LTS No No No Yes
267
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-19
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
c) Have a substantial
adverse effect on state
or federally protected
wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal,
filling, hydrological
interruption, or other
means?
LTS No No No Yes
d) Interfere substantially
with the movement of
any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife
species or with
established native
resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
LTS No No No Yes
e) Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance?
LTS No No No Yes
268
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-20 PlaceWorks
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
f) Conflict with the
provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or
other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
LTS No No No Yes
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = topic not analyzed in Certified EIR
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The Certified EIR identified that development in accordance with the approved project could result in the loss of sensitive species due to habitat modification and removal; however, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels after compliance with requirements of the California and federal Endangered Species Acts as well as mitigation fees that would be paid by specific projects for the acquisition and management of sensitive habitats.
The proposed project does not result in changes to the Open Space land use designations that have the potential affect sensitive habitat. Ontario is almost completely developed with urban and agricultural uses, with no large open areas of native habitat. As described in the Project Description, the proposed project includes new and modified policies related to evacuation routes within the City; however, it would not create new evacuation routes or physically alter biological habitat. Amended policies addressing extreme heat would promote cooling within the City, providing potential benefits to biological resources. The proposed project also includes updates to the Parks and Recreation Element, specifically TOP Figure PR-01, which adds the 269
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-21
previously approved Ontario Regional Sports Complex and would not result in an impact to biological habitat. Like the approved project, new development within the City would also be subject to the requirements of the California and federal Endangered Species Act. Additionally, no development or land use changes are proposed. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not have substantial adverse impacts to surface-water areas or to riparian or aquatic vegetation in surface-water areas or flood control channels because projects potentially affecting riparian habitat would be required to mitigate potential impacts through the existing permitting process.
As described in the Project Description, the proposed project includes new and modified policies related to evacuation routes within the City; however, it would not create new evacuation routes or physically alter biological habitat. Amended policies addressing extreme heat would promote cooling within the City, providing potential benefits to biological resources.
The proposed project also includes updates to the Parks and Recreation Element, specifically TOP Figure PR-01 (see Appendix A), which adds the previously approved Ontario Regional Sports Complex and would not result in any impact to biological habitat. Additionally, like the approved project, new development associated with the proposed project would be subject to existing biological resources regulations as part of the permit process. The proposed project would not introduce new development or land use changes that would involve riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not have substantial adverse impacts on jurisdictional waters. As identified in the Project Description, the proposed project includes new and modified policies related to evacuation routes within the City; however, it would not create new evacuation routes or physically alter biological habitat. Amended policies addressing extreme heat would promote cooling within the City, providing potential benefits to biological resources. The proposed project also includes updates to the Parks and Recreation Element, specifically TOP Figure PR-01 (see Appendix A), which adds the previously approved Ontario Regional Sports Complex and would not result in any impact to biological habitat. Like the approved project, new development associated with the proposed project would be also subject to existing biological resources regulations as part of the permit process. Additionally, 270
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-22 PlaceWorks
the proposed project would not introduce new development or land use changes that would involve state or federally protected wetlands. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not significantly impact the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species because no regional wildlife movement corridors were identified in the City, and most of the City is ill suited for the purposes of wildlife movement. The proposed project does not include new goals or policies related to native, migratory, or wildlife species. As described in the Project Description, the proposed project includes new and modified policies related to evacuation routes within the City; however, it would not create new evacuation routes or physically alter biological habitat.
Amended policies addressing extreme heat would promote cooling within the City, providing potential benefits to biological resources. The proposed project also includes updates to the Parks and Recreation Element, specifically TOP Figure PR-01 (see Appendix A), which adds the previously approved Ontario Regional Sports Complex and would not have any impact to wildlife migration. No development or land use changes are proposed. Like the approved project, development in the City associated with the proposed project would continue to be required to comply with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. As described previously, the new and modified policies of the Mobility Element (Truck Routes map changes), Safety Element (policies related to the updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, including extreme heat and evacuation), Environmental Resources Element (technical adjustments to the environmental justice areas map), and the Parks & Recreation Element (adding the Ontario Regional Sports Complex) are not policies that have the potential to conflict with existing policies and ordinances in Ontario.
Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
271
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-23
The Certified EIR determined that the approved project would not conflict with the DSFLF HCP .
The proposed project would not introduce, directly or indirectly, new development or land use changes on lands identified as habitat for the DSFLF. The proposed project includes new and modified policies related to evacuation routes within the City; however, it would not create new evacuation routes or physically alter the DSFLF HCP . Amended policies addressing extreme heat would promote cooling within the City, providing potential benefits to biological resources however it would not alter the DSFLF HCP. The proposed project also includes updates to the Parks and Recreation Element, specifically TOP Figure PR-01 (see Appendix A), which adds the previously approved Ontario Regional Sports Complex but would not have any impact to the DSFLF HCP. Like the approved project, the proposed project would not conflict with the DSFLF HCP. No impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
3.4.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related to biological resources were identified in the Certified EIR.
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.5.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Approved Project The Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would result in a less than significant impact to archeological resources and the potential to disturb human remains with mitigation incorporated; however, impacts to historic resources were identified as a significant and unavoidable impact of the approved project
272
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-24 PlaceWorks
3.5.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
a) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a
historical resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
SU No No No Yes
b) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
LTS No No No Yes
c) Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
Insert No No No Yes
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = topic not analyzed in Certified EIR/Adopted MND
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
The Certified EIR identified that impacts from buildout of the approved project could impact historic resources classified Tier III in the City. Mitigation Measure 5-1 was identified to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with loss of historic resources. However, historic resources impacts were identified as a significant and unavoidable impacts in the Certified EIR.
The proposed project does not include new goals or policies that are applicable to historical resources. New policies are included in the Safety Element to ensure that people can safely evacuate the City in an emergency and that emergency service vehicles can travel through the City quickly and efficiently. The Safety Element includes updates to TOP Figure ER-01 (see 273
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-25
Appendix A) remove the highest income track the City’s environmental justice areas. Changes to TOP Figure PR-01 add the Ontario Regional Sports Complex to the City’s park and recreational facilities map (see Appendix A). No development or land use changes are proposed and as such no adverse changes to historical resources would occur. Additionally, like the approved project, new development associated with the proposed project would be subject to the City’s Development Code tier system and Mitigation Measure 5-1, as applicable. Thus, no new impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project could impact archaeological resources.
Ground-disturbing activities, particularly in areas that have not previously been developed with urban uses (“native soils,” which include agricultural lands), have the potential to damage or destroy archaeological resources that may be present on or below the ground surface.
Mitigation Measure 5-2 was incorporated into the approved project to identify, protect, and preserve archeological resources. The proposed project does not include new goals or policies for protection of archaeological resources. As described previously, the new and modified policies of the Mobility Element (Truck Routes map changes), Safety Element (policies related to the updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, including extreme heat and evacuation), Environmental Resources Element (technical adjustments to the environmental justice areas map, and the Parks & Recreation Element (adding the Ontario Regional Sports Complex) are not policies that have the potential to result in ground disturbing activities and thus affect archeological resources in the City. Since the proposed project is a policy level document and does not include development or land use changes, there would be no impacts to archeological resources. Like the approved project, new development associated with the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 5-2. Thus, no new impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would comply with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 so as not to disturb human remains. The proposed project would not introduce new development or land use changes that would involve local policies or ordinances protecting human remains. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. 274
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-26 PlaceWorks
3.5.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measures were taken directly from the Certified EIR. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the Certified EIR are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and underline for new, inserted text.
MM 5-1 Historic or potentially historic resources in the City shall be evaluated for historic significance through the City’s tier system prior to the issuance of plan or development approvals. Pursuant to City’s Development Code (Chapter 7, Historic Preservation), mitigation measures for all Tier III Historic Resources shall include the following
a) Each historic resource shall be fully documented and cataloged pursuant to Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) standards, to provide a record of the resource, including, but not limited to: [i] the preparation of site plans, floor plans, exterior and interior elevations, and detail drawings of character defining features (such as moldings, stairs, etc.); and [ii] photographs of the resource, including the exterior, interior, and interior and exterior character defining features (such as moldings, light fixtures, trim patterns, etc.). b) A mitigation fee established pursuant to Section 7.01.030 (Historic Preservation Mitigation Fee) shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for Tier III historic resources. Fees for Tier I and II historic resources shall be determined during the Environmental Impact Report process. The fees established for Tier III will be used as a reference point for establishing fees for Tier I and II historic resources.
c) A Certificate of Appropriateness shall not be issued for the demolition of an historic resource, either in whole or in part, until such time that a demolition permit application and a replacement structure has been approved by the City, and appropriate permits have been issued for its construction, unless: [i] a waiver is granted pursuant to Subsection H (Replacement Structure Waiver for Historic Resources Located within Industrial Zoning Districts) of Section 4.02.050; [ii] a deferral of the replacement structure requirement is granted pursuant to Subsection G (Replacement Structure Deferral) of Section 4.02.050; or [iii] demolition is required pursuant to Section 7.01.050 (Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions) of this Development Code.
d) In an effort to preserve features and artifacts from historic resources, a determination whether items within or on the resource should be salvaged must be 275
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-27
made by the Planning Department and may include the local historical society prior to the issuance of the demolition permit. The applicant shall be responsible for the removal, relocation, storage, and donation of such items selected for salvaging. The applicant shall provide an inventory of salvaged items to the Planning Department, and shall include a list of each item name, description, and dimension (as necessary), and the location of each item on a floor plan.
MM 5-2 In areas of documented or inferred from evident archaeological and/or paleontological resource presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the presence/absence of such resources. On properties where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements:
▪ Archaeologists and/or paleontologist shall be retained for the project and will be on call during grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities. ▪ Should any cultural resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director or designee is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources. ▪ Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by a San Bernardino County Certified Professional Archaeologist/Paleontologist. If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates, and other special studies; submit materials to a museum for permanent curation; and provide a comprehensive final report including a catalog with museum numbers.
3.6 ENERGY
3.6.1 Summary of Impacts Identified for the Approved Project The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. The approved project includes policies related to land use and transportation planning and design, energy efficiency, public and active transit, and renewable energy generation that minimize building and transportation-related energy demands overall and thus demands on nonrenewable sources of energy. 276
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-28 PlaceWorks
The Certified EIR identified that implementation of the approved project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The approved project includes an Environmental Resources Element and Safety Element that support the statewide goal of transitioning the electricity grid to renewable sources and employ best practices regarding energy-saving standards.
3.6.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
a) Result in potentially
significant
environmental impact
due to wasteful,
inefficient, or
unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or
operation?
LTS No No No Yes
b) Conflict with or obstruct
a state or local plan for
renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
LTS No No No Yes
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = topic not analyzed in Certified EIR/Adopted MND
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy 277
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-29
resources during project construction or operation. New policies are included in the Safety Element to ensure that people can safely evacuate the City in an emergency and that emergency service vehicles can travel through the City quickly and efficiently. The Safety Element includes updates to TOP Figure ER-01 (see Appendix A) remove the highest income track the City’s environmental justice areas. Changes to TOP Figure PR-01 add the Ontario Regional Sports Complex to the City’s park and recreational facilities map (see Appendix A).
The proposed project includes amendment to the Safety Element to address extreme heat. The new and modified goals and policies would potentially reduce energy use associated with building energy cooling. For example, Policy S-10.4, Cool Surfaces, encourages the installation of cool surfaces (roofing or paving materials) designed to reflect heat. Policy amendments related to extreme heat would help the City reduce the heat island effect and could result in a reduction in energy use.
Mobility Element Figure M-04, Truck Routes, would be revised, but these changes would not result in an increase in trips or truck VMT in the City. The removal of a portion of Philadelphia Street and Euclid Avenue from the City’s Truck Routes would not result in a substantial change in truck distribution on the City’s roadway network (see Appendix A, TOP Figure M-04, Truck Routes). As identified in the Euclid Avenue Truck Route Relocation Recommendations and Operations Assessment (see Appendix C), at most there would be a maximum of 28 trucks on Mountain Avenue between State Street to Mission Boulevard and 23 trucks on Grove Avenue between Airport Drive to Mission Boulevard in the year 2050 scenario that would be rerouted from the removal of these two segments from the City’s Truck Routes. However, the proposed project would not generate new trips or result in an increase in VMT from this redistribution.
Additionally, no development or land use changes are proposed as part of the proposed project.
Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? The Certified EIR determined that the approved project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The proposed project includes policy revisions to the Safety Element and Environmental Resources Element that further support transitioning the electricity grid to renewable sources and employ best practices regarding energy-saving standards. No development or land use changes are proposed. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
278
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-30 PlaceWorks
3.6.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related to energy resources were identified in the Certified EIR.
3.7 Geology and Soils
3.7.1 Summary of Impacts Identified for the Approved Project The Certified EIR identified that development of approved project would adhere to the California Building Code to ensure that residents, employees, and visitors in Ontario would not be adversely affected by potential seismic hazards. Additionally, the Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The approved project would also not exacerbate geologic hazards in the City, such as on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Development associated with the approved project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
Development pursuant to the approved project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems that would not be supported by soils in the City.
The Certified EIR concluded that implementation of the approved project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource. However, paleontological resources impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 279
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-31
3.7.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
a) Directly or indirectly
cause potential
substantial adverse
effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the
most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map,
issued by the State
Geologist for the
area or based on
other substantial
evidence of a known
fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and
Geology Special
Publication 42.
LTS No No No Yes
ii) Strong seismic
ground shaking? LTS No No No Yes
iii) Seismic-related
ground failure,
including
liquefaction?
LTS No No No Yes
iv) Landslides? LTS No No No Yes
280
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-32 PlaceWorks
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
LTS No No No Yes
c) Be located on a geologic
unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would
become unstable as a
result of the project, and
potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
LTS No No No Yes
d) Be located on expansive
soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994),
creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to
life or property?
LTS No No No Yes
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater
disposal systems where
sewers are not available
for the disposal of
wastewater?
LTS No No No Yes
281
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-33
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
f) Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource
or site or unique
geologic feature?
LTS/M No No No Yes
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = topic not analyzed in Certified EIR/Adopted MND
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
The Certified EIR identified that development of the approved project would adhere to the California Building Code to ensure residents, employees, or visitors in Ontario would not be adversely affected by potential seismic-related hazards. There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones in Ontario. The nearest such zones are along the Chino Fault, approximately three miles southwest of the City, and along the Cucamonga Fault, approximately 4.5 miles to the north. Impacts from surface rupture were identified as less than significant in the Certified EIR.
The proposed project does not include new goals or policies that are expected to direct or indirect impact geological resources. No development or land use changes are proposed.
Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
282
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-34 PlaceWorks
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
The Certified EIR identified that the Upper Santa Ana River Valley and vicinity contain a number of known earthquake faults, thus potentially subjecting residents, visitors, and workers to strong seismic ground shaking. However, projects developed pursuant to the approved project would be required to meet the most current seismic safety requirements in the CBC.
The proposed project would not introduce new development in the City. As described previously, the new and modified policies of the Mobility Element (Truck Routes map changes), Safety Element (policies related to the updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, including extreme heat and evacuation), Environmental Resources Element (technical adjustments to the environmental justice areas map), and the Parks & Recreation Element (adding the Ontario Regional Sports Complex) are not policies that have the potential to increase risk to geohazards within Ontario. The Safety Element includes new and modified policies to ensure that people can safely evacuate the City in an emergency and that emergency service vehicles can travel through the City quickly and efficiently. The Environmental Resources Element includes updates to TOP Figure ER-01 to remove the highest income track from TOP (see Appendix A). The Parks & Recreation Element include updates to TOP Figure PR-01 to add the Ontario Regional Sports Complex to Figure TOP PR- 01 (see Appendix A). The proposed amendments to TOP do not involve goals or policies related to geological hazards. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not exacerbate geologic hazards in the City. The Certified EIR identified that two of the three factors contributing to liquefaction susceptibility are present or potentially present in the City: 1) potential for strong earthquakes and 2) young, loose, unconsolidated sediments. The third factor, groundwater within approximately 50 feet of surface, is not known to occur in the Ontario area today but has in the past.
The proposed project would not introduce new development in the City. As described above, the new and modified policies of the Mobility Element (Truck Routes map changes), Safety Element (policies related to the updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, including extreme heat and evacuation), Environmental Resources Element (technical adjustments to the environmental justice areas map), and the Parks & Recreation Element (adding the Ontario Regional Sports Complex) are not policies that have the potential to increase risk to geohazards within Ontario. Amendments to the Safety Element do not involve goals or policies related to geological hazards. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. 283
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-35
iv) Landslides?
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not exacerbate geologic hazards in the City. The Certified EIR did not identify areas with substantial unstable soils that would result in on- or off-site landslides. Ontario is mostly level and exhibits no substantial elevation changes or unusual geographic features. The potential for landslides to affect any projects under the proposed project is considered negligible. Development within the City would be required to meet the most current seismic safety requirements in the CBC to reduce substantial impacts.
The proposed project would not introduce new development in the City. The proposed project includes amendment to the Safety Element policies to ensure that people can safely evacuate the City in an emergency and that emergency service vehicles can travel through the City quickly and efficiently. The Environmental Resources Element includes updates to TOP Figure ER-01 to remove the highest income track from TOP (see Appendix A). The Parks & Recreation Element adds the Ontario Regional Sports Complex to TOP Figure PR-01 (see Appendix A). The proposed amendments to TOP 2050 do not involve goals or policies related to geological hazards. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The Certified EIR identified that implementation of the approved project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The Certified EIR identified that young alluvial sediment and wind-blown sand underlying the City are generally granular, poorly consolidated, and very susceptible to erosion. Grading increases the potential for erosion when protective vegetation is removed, natural drainage patterns are altered, and slopes are constructed. As a result, development pursuant to the approved project could indirectly expose people and structures to hazards arising from soil erosion. However, compliance with CBC would ensure less-than-significant impacts related to soil erosion in the City.
The proposed project would not introduce new development in the City. As described above, the new and modified policies of the Mobility Element (Truck Routes map changes), Safety Element (policies related to the updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, including extreme heat and evacuation), Environmental Resources Element (technical adjustments to the environmental justice areas map), and the Parks & Recreation Element (adding the Ontario Regional Sports Complex) are not policies that have the potential to increase risk to geohazards within Ontario. The proposed amendments to TOP 2050 do not involve goals or policies related to soil erosion. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
284
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-36 PlaceWorks
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not exacerbate geologic hazards in the City, such as on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
The central and western portions of the City are shown to have a low risk of soil subsistence (0 to 5 centimeters reduction in elevation) due to decreasing groundwater supplies to the west of the City. Compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans for individual projects by the City Engineer would ensure that no significant impacts would occur.
The proposed project would not introduce new development in the City. The proposed policies and maps are primarily within the Safety Element and Mobility Element and focus on evacuation and extreme heat. New evacuation policies are included to ensure that people can safely evacuate the City in an emergency and that emergency service vehicles can travel through the City quickly and efficiently. The proposed Environmental Justice Areas map and Park and Recreation Facilities map include updates to remove the highest income track from TOP Figure ER-01 and adds the Ontario Regional Sports Complex to TOP Figure PR-01 (see Appendix A). Amendments to the Safety Element do not involve goals or policies related to unstable soils. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? The Certified EIR identified that development associated with the approved project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. The Certified EIR identified that there are likely to be expansive soils in the southern parts of the City, where there are silts, sandy silts, and silty clays. Projects in the southern part of the City could expose persons or structures to potentially significant hazards from expansive soils, but compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans by the City Engineer would ensure no significant impacts would occur.
The proposed project would not introduce new development in the City. The proposed policies and maps are primarily within the Safety Element and Mobility Element and focus on evacuation and extreme heat. New evacuation policies are included to ensure that people can safely evacuate the City in an emergency and that emergency service vehicles can travel through the City quickly and efficiently. The proposed Environmental Justice Areas map and Park and Recreation Facilities map include updates to remove the highest income track from TOP Figure ER-01 and adds the Ontario Regional Sports Complex to TOP Figure PR-01 (see Appendix A). Amendments to the Safety Element do not involve goals or policies related to 285
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-37
expansive soils. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The Certified EIR identified that septic tanks would not be used in the City. The proposed project would not introduce, directly or indirectly, new development in the City. Like the approved project, development under the proposed project would be connected to the City’s sewer system. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project could impact paleontological resources; however, Mitigation Measure 5-2 would ensure impacts are mitigated to less-than-significant levels. Quaternary Older Alluvial sediments in the City may contain significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources and are therefore considered highly sensitive. Older Pleistocene alluvial sediments can yield fossil remains, often found at depths of 10 feet or more below the modern ground surface. In addition, there has been one paleontological resource discovered within the City’s boundaries, as recorded by the Archaeological Information Center at San Bernardino County Museum. As a result, there is a moderate-to-high possibility of finding additional paleontological resources within City boundaries at depths of 10 feet or more below the ground surface.
The proposed project would not introduce, directly, or indirectly, new development or modify policies that protect paleontological resources in the City. Like the approved project, new development would be required to adhere to Mitigation Measure 5-2 to reduce impacts to less- than-significant levels. No new impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
3.7.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measures were taken directly from the Certified EIR. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the Certified EIR are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and underline for new, inserted text.
286
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-38 PlaceWorks
MM 5-2 In areas of documented or inferred archaeological and/or paleontological resource presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the presence/absence of such resources. On properties where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements:
▪ Archaeologists and/or paleontologist shall be retained for the project and will be on call during grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities. ▪ Should any cultural resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director or designee is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources. ▪ Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by a San Bernardino County Certified Professional Archaeologist/Paleontologist. If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates, and other special studies; submit materials to a museum for permanent curation; and provide a comprehensive final report including a catalog with museum numbers.
3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
3.8.1 Summary of Impacts Identified for the Approved Project The Certified EIR identified that implementation of Ontario’s Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) would meet the GHG reduction target established under SB 32 and Executive Order S-03-05 and progress to the State’s carbon neutrality goal, and thus result in less than significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts associated with the approved project. Goals and policies in TOP and actions in the CCAP would minimize GHG emissions generated by the residential and nonresidential land uses in the City.
287
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-39
3.8.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No
Changes or
New
Informatio
n Requiring
Preparatio
n of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact
on the environment?
LTS No No No Yes
b) Conflict with an
applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing
the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
LTS No No No Yes
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = topic not analyzed in Certified EIR
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
The Certified EIR identified that implementation of the CCAP would meet the City’s GHG reduction goals and reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. The proposed project includes amendment to the Safety Element to address extreme heat. The new and modified goals and policies would potentially reduce energy use associated with building energy cooling.
For example, Policy S-10.4, Cool Surfaces, encourages the installation of cool surfaces (roofing or paving materials) designed to reflect heat. Policy amendments related to extreme heat would help the City reduce the heat island effect and could result in a reduction of GHG emissions.
While the Mobility Element Figure M-04, Truck Routes, would be revised (see Appendix A), these changes would not result in an increase in truck VMT in the City. No additional truck 288
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-40 PlaceWorks
traffic would be generated as the proposed project only includes changes to the Truck Route maps and would not result in land use changes within the City. The removal of a portion of Philadelphia Street and Euclid Avenue from the City’s Truck Routes would not result in a substantial change in truck distribution on the City’s roadway network (see Appendix A, TOP Figure M-04, Truck Routes). The proposed changes to Figure M-04 are only removing two segments from the truck route map to ensure trucks are not near sensitive receptors. As described in Appendix C, at most there would be a maximum of 28 trucks on Mountain Avenue between State Street to Mission Boulevard and 23 trucks on Grove Avenue between Airport Drive to Mission Boulevard in the year 2050 scenario that would be rerouted from the removal of these two segments from the City’s Truck Routes. The potential rerouted trucks are not new trips. The amount of trucks in the City would remain the same and there would not be an increase in truck VMT. Since the proposed changes are localized and there are no regional changes, this would not affect GHG.
Other new and modified policies include changes to the Safety Element (policies related to the updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for evacuation), Environmental Resources Element (technical adjustments to the environmental justice areas map), and the Parks & Recreation Element (adding the Ontario Regional Sports Complex) are not policies that have the potential generate GHG emissions.
No development or land use changes are proposed as part of the proposed project. Like the approved project, new development associated with the proposed project would be subject to the strategies identified in the Ontario CCAP . Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project was consistent with statewide strategies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Scoping Plan and the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) Connect SoCal. No development or land use changes are proposed as part of the proposed project.
As described previously, the new and modified policies of the Mobility Element (Truck Routes map changes), Safety Element (policies related to the updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for evacuation), Environmental Resources Element (technical adjustments to the environmental justice areas map), and the Parks & Recreation Element (adding the Ontario Regional Sports Complex) are not policies that have the potential to conflict with Ontario’s or the California’s GHG reduction plans.
289
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-41
The proposed project includes amendments to the Safety Element to address extreme heat in accordance with SB 2684. Goals and policies added to address extreme heat as a result of climate change would be a beneficial impact of the proposed project. For example, Policy S-
10.4, Cool Surfaces, encourages the installation of cool surfaces (roofing or paving materials) designed to reflect heat, which would lower building energy use. Thus, new and modified goals and policies related to extreme heat would help the City reduce the heat island effect, which could result in a reduction of GHG emissions.
Additionally, like the approved project, new development associated with the proposed project would be subject to the strategies identified in the Ontario CCAP . Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
3.8.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related to GHG emissions resources were identified in the Certified EIR.
3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.9.1 Summary of Impacts Identified for the Approved Project The Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would involve the transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. The Certified EIR also concluded that properties in the City are included on a list of hazardous materials sites. The approved project would comply with federal, state, and local regulations. Furthermore, the approved project concluded that consistency reviews of the proposed land uses with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Ontario International Airport (ONT) and Chino Airport would prevent significant impacts. In addition, buildout of the approved project would not affect the implementation of an emergency response or evacuation plan. With regard to urban and wildland fire threats, adherence to existing regulations and review of building plans by the Ontario Fire Department would reduce risks from fires to the City. Impacts resulting from the approved project were identified as less than significant upon implementation of regulatory requirements in the Certified EIR. 290
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-42 PlaceWorks
3.9.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
a) Create a significant
hazard to the public or
the environment
through the routine
transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?
LTS No No No Yes
b) Create a significant
hazard to the public or
the environment
through reasonably
foreseeable upset and
accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into
the environment?
LTS No No No Yes
c) Emit hazardous
emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile
of an existing or
proposed school?
LTS No No No Yes
d) Be located on a site
which is included on a
list of hazardous
materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government
Code § 65962.5 and, as a
LTS No No No Yes
291
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-43
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
result, would it create a
significant hazard to the
public or the
environment?
e) For a project located
within an airport land
use plan or, where such
a plan has not been
adopted, within two
miles of a public airport
or public use airport,
would the project result
in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for
people residing or
working in the project
area?
LTS No No No Yes
f) Impair implementation
of or physically interfere
with an adopted
emergency response
plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
LTS No No No Yes
g) Expose people or
structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving
wildland fires?
LTS No No No Yes
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = topic not analyzed in Certified EIR
292
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-44 PlaceWorks
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would increase the number of businesses and residents in the City, which would increase the amount of hazardous materials being transported, stored, and manufactured and the number of people being exposed to these materials. Buildout in accordance with the approved project would result in an increase in the frequency of transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials associated with commercial and industrial growth within Ontario, especially around ONT.
Current regulations would continue to regulate the handling of hazardous substances to reduce potential releases and exposure and the risks of transporting, storing, treating, and disposing of hazardous materials and waste. No development or land use changes are directly or indirectly proposed as part of the proposed project. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Impacts of the approved project were identified as less than significant due to compliance with federal, state, and City regulations, along with TOP policies. No development or land use changes are directly or indirectly proposed as part of the proposed project. Like the approved project, new development associated with the proposed project would continue to adhere to the federal, state, and City regulations governing hazardous materials. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Hazardous Waste Overlay Districts do not allow placement of facilities that handle, manufacture, or transport hazardous waste within 2,000 feet of a residential or institutional lot line (Ontario Development Code Sections 9 1.2815, 9 1.2830). Thus, like the approved project, the proposed project would not result in the placement of hazardous waste-generating facilities within a quarter mile of a school. No development or land use changes are directly or indirectly proposed as part of the proposed project. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. 293
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-45
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The Certified EIR identified that there are land uses within Ontario are on a list of hazardous materials sites; however, existing regulations and Safety Element policies of TOP would ensure that development would not exacerbate existing hazards. No development or land use changes are directly or indirectly proposed as part of the proposed project. Development within the City would continue to be regulated by existing regulations and policies of TOP . Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project is within the airport influence area of the ONT and Chino Airport; however, land uses are consistent with the airport safety zones. It is the policy of the City to coordinate with the airport authorities to ensure that proposed land uses within the airport safety zones are consistent with the land-use compatibility plans for the Chino Airport and ONT. The City requires land-use compatibility reviews for designated areas near an airport in addition to compatibility with noise and safety zones in terms of land-use density and height. Furthermore, the City requires permits for development prior to construction.
No development or land use changes are directly or indirectly proposed as part of the proposed project. Development in the City within the ONT or Chino Airport safety zones would continue to be reviewed for compatibility. Thus, no new impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The Certified EIR found that the approved project would not interfere with an emergency evacuation plan. According to the Vulnerability Analysis conducted as part of TOP 2050, the threat of flood is Ontario’s greatest hazard because large portions of the City are within the flood zone. The approved project included substantial improvements in transportation infrastructure planned to accommodate the increase in population in the City in the event of an emergency. Like the approved project, the proposed project would not directly result in physical development; rather, the proposed project includes focused updates to goals and policies of the Mobility, Safety, Environmental Resources, and Parks & Recreation Elements. The proposed 294
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-46 PlaceWorks
project includes amendment to the Safety Element policies to ensure that people can safely evacuate the City in an emergency and that emergency service vehicles can travel through the City quickly and efficiently (see Policies S-8.10, S-8.11, M-1.7, and M-1.8). These policies would not interfere with an adopted emergency response to emergency evacuation plan, and would result in environmental benefits to ensure that evacuation in the city is safe and efficient.
No development or land use changes are proposed as part of the updated goals and policies of the proposed project; nonetheless, projects in the City facilitated by the approved project and proposed project would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for conformance to local policies or ordinances of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. In summary, the proposed project would not introduce new development or land use changes that would involve local policies or ordinances of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Thus, no new impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
The Certified EIR determined that the City is outside of the state responsibility area, and CAL FIRE has determined that the City contains no areas subject to very high wildfire risk. Like the approved project, the proposed project would not directly result in physical development; rather, the proposed project includes focused updates to goals and policies of the Mobility, Safety, Environmental Resources, and Parks & Recreation Elements. The updated Safety Element includes the 2023 CAL FIRE maps, which designate the City of Ontario as a local responsibility area.
No development or land use changes are directly or indirectly proposed as part of the proposed project. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
3.9.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related to hazards were identified in the Certified EIR. 295
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-47
3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.10.1 Summary of Impacts Identified for the Approved Project The Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would increase surface-water flows into drainage systems in the watershed. However, stormwater infrastructure would be designed to accommodate flows in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual.
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would increase pollutant concentrations during construction activities, but pollutant discharges would be minimized through implementation of best management practices (BMP) specified in the Water Quality Management Plan.
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would also increase the amount of impervious surfaces in the City, but this increase would not hinder the groundwater recharge efforts of the Chino Basin Watermaster.
The Certified EIR identified that portions of the City are in the 100-year flood hazard zone, but the City would require structures to be above the base flood elevation. Portions of the City are in the inundation area for the San Antonio Dam, but the probability of catastrophic failure is low, especially with existing emergency evacuation procedures. Lastly, the Certified EIR identified that implementation of the approved project would not create hazards of inundation by seiche or mudflow.
296
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-48 PlaceWorks
3.10.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No
Changes or
New
Informatio
n Requiring
Preparatio
n of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste
discharge requirements
or otherwise
substantially degrade
surface or groundwater
quality?
LTS No No No Yes
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially
with groundwater
recharge such that the
project may impede
sustainable groundwater
management of the
basin?
LTS No No No Yes
c) Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern
of the site or area,
including through the
alteration of the course
of a stream or river or
through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i) result in substantial
erosion or siltation
on- or off-site;
LTS No No No Yes
297
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-49
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No
Changes or
New
Informatio
n Requiring
Preparatio
n of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
ii) substantially increase
the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a
manner which would
result in flooding on-
or off-site;
LTS No No No Yes
iii) create or contribute
runoff water which
would exceed the
capacity of existing or
planned stormwater
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
LTS No No No Yes
iv) impede or redirect
flood flows? LTS No No No Yes
d) In flood hazard, tsunami,
or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due
to project inundation?
LTS No No No Yes
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a
water quality control
plan or sustainable
groundwater
management plan?
LTS No No No Yes
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = topic not analyzed in Certified EIR
298
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-50 PlaceWorks
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
The Certified EIR identified that the development associated with the approved project would increase surface-water flows into drainage systems within the watershed. Projects considered for approval under the approved project would be required to prepare project-specific hydrology studies, as prescribed in the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. Furthermore, projects would be mandated to comply with BMPs for compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. No significant impacts were identified in the Certified EIR.
No development or land use changes are directly or indirectly proposed as part of the proposed project. Like the approved project, future development under the proposed project is required to include BMPs and meet the NPDES permit requirements to ensure water quality standards continue to be met. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not hinder the groundwater recharge efforts of the Chino Basin Watermaster. Projects considered for approval are required to prepare project-specific hydrology studies as prescribed in the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. Projects must comply with BMPs consistent with NPDES requirements.
No development or land use changes are directly or indirectly proposed as part of the proposed project. Like the approved project, new development under the proposed project would be required to submit site-specific hydrology studies and comply with NPDES requirements. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? The Certified EIR identified that development would increase surface-water flows into drainage systems within the watershed. Projects considered for approval are required to prepare project-specific hydrology studies as prescribed in the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. Furthermore, projects are mandated to comply with BMPs for compliance with NPDES requirements. The City would also encourage the use of low- 299
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-51
impact development strategies to intercept runoff, slow the discharge rate, increase infiltration, and reduce discharge volumes. No significant impacts were identified in the Certified EIR.
The proposed project does not include new goals or policies that are applicable to local policies or ordinances to drainage patterns. No development or land use changes are directly or indirectly proposed as part of the proposed project. Like the approved project, new development under the proposed project would be required to submit site-specific hydrology studies and comply with NPDES requirements. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
The Certified EIR identified that the proposed project would increase impervious surfaces but would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would cause flooding. Future development projects in accordance with the approved project would implement BMPs outlined in their Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) to reduce flooding impacts due to runoff during construction as well as BMPs in water quality management plans (WQMPs) to reduce the potential for post-construction flooding impacts. The City’s standard conditions of approval for new development also require the preparation of hydrology studies and drainage analyses that document the peak runoff rates from the developed site and evaluate the capacity of the storm drain system to accept these flow rates. Additionally, TOP Policies ER-1.6, ER-1.7, S-2.1, S-2.5, and S-2.6 direct the City to incorporate strategies to capture, slow, or treat runoff and to reduce the flooding potential down-gradient of new development. No significant impacts were identified in the Certified EIR.
No development or land use changes are directly or indirectly proposed as part of the proposed project. The proposed project includes an update to TOP Figure S-03, Flood Hazard Zones, based on new maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (see Appendix A). Like the approved project, new development under the proposed project would be required to implement BMPs to reduce the potential for post- construction flooding impacts. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
The Certified EIR identified that the proposed project would increase impervious surfaces but would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would impact water quality. Projects considered for approval are required to 300
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-52 PlaceWorks
prepare project-specific hydrology studies as prescribed in the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. In compliance with the MS4 Permit and San Bernardino County Stormwater Program, new development projects would also be mandated to install stormwater treatment BMPs that retain the 2-year, 24-hour rainfall event. The City, under TOP Policy ER-1.6, encourages the use of low-impact development strategies to intercept runoff, slow the discharge rate, increase infiltration, and reduce discharge volumes. No significant impacts were identified in the Certified EIR.
The proposed project does not include new goals or policies related to water quality. No development or land use changes are directly or indirectly proposed as part of the proposed project. Like the approved project, new development under the proposed project would be required to submit site-specific hydrology studies and implement BMPs to comply with the NDPES requirements. Thus, no new impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
The Certified EIR identified that the proposed project would increase impervious surfaces but would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would cause flooding. The proposed project includes an update to TOP Figure S-03, Flood Hazard Zones, based on new maps published by FEMA (see Appendix A). The updated maps showed to changes to 100-year flood zone and a portion of the 500-year flood zone was changed to Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee. There were no additional flood zones designated in the City. TOP Figure S-03 shows that only small portions of the City are in the 100-year floodplain, and they are adjacent to flood control channels, detention basins, and creeks (FEMA 2024). The City has integrated several policies as part of TOP to address potential developments within the 100-year flood zone (e.g., TOP Policies S-2.1, S-2.2, S-2.3, S-2.4, and S-2.5). In addition to these policies, the Ontario Municipal Code, Chapter 13, Flood Damage Prevention Program, requires that a development permit be obtained prior to development in a special flood hazard area to ensure that the site is reasonably safe from flooding and flood hazards.
No development or land use changes are directly or indirectly proposed as part of the proposed project. Like the approved project, new development under the proposed project would be required to adhere to the regulatory requirements to ensure that new structures in a special flood hazard area have elevations above the base flood elevation.
Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
301
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-53
The Certified EIR identified that the proposed project would not exacerbate risk of flood hazards, tsunamis, or seiches or risk release of pollutants due to inundation. Ontario is not on the coast and would not be affected by tsunamis. The western and southern portions of the City are in the dam inundation zone of San Antonio Dam. However, the probability of dam failure is very low, and Ontario has never been impacted by a major dam failure. In addition, dam owners are required to maintain emergency action plans that include procedures for damage assessment and emergency warnings. Lastly, there are no large bodies of water that would result in a seiche during seismic activity. The reservoirs/aboveground water tanks in the City are enclosed, minimizing the possibility of a seiche. No development or land use changes are directly or indirectly proposed as part of the proposed project. The proposed project does not include modifications to the existing policies related to these types of flood hazards. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not obstruct or conflict with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The City’s groundwater supplies are from the Chino Groundwater Basin, which is adjudicated and managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster. Future development would be required to adhere to the State General Construction Permit, implement a project-specific SWPPP , and adhere to the City’s Erosion and Sediment Control Plan requirements. These requirements ensure that future development does not adversely impact surface and groundwater quality. In addition, implementation of low impact development and BMPs would ensure that water quality is not impacted during future development. The City manages both the potable and nonpotable supplies to ensure withdrawals from the Chino Groundwater Basin do not exceed the safe yield for the Basin, as per the Chino Basin Watermaster's Optimum Basin Management Program (OBMP). Therefore, the project would not obstruct or conflict with the OBMP and impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project does not include new or modified goals or policies related to the OBMP.
No development or land use changes are directly or indirectly proposed. Like the approved project, new development under the proposed project would be required to implement project- specific BMPs to ensure that new development does not affect surface or groundwater quality.
Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
302
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-54 PlaceWorks
3.10.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related to hydrology and water quality were identified in the Certified EIR.
3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
3.11.1 Summary of Impacts Identified for the Approved Project The Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would not divide an established community and that the approved project is consistent with the ONT and Chino airport land use compatibility plans and the SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (Connect SoCal). Implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval ensured that no significant impacts would occur.
3.11.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
a) Physically divide an
established community? LTS No No No Yes
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact
due to a conflict with
any land use plan, policy,
or regulation adopted
for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
LTS No No No Yes
303
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-55
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = topic not analyzed in Certified EIR
a) Physically divide an established community?
As identified in the Certified EIR, the City of Ontario is an urbanized area, and implementation of the approved project would not physically divide an established community. Thus, impacts were identified as less than significant in the Certified EIR. The proposed project does not alter land use designations, and thus would not physically divide an established community. The proposed project includes a minor map update to TOP Figure PR-01, Parks and Recreational Facilities, to reflect the recently approved Ontario Regional Sports Complex (see Appendix A).
This update is limited to TOP Figure PR-01 and would not result in any physical construction or expansion of recreational facilities, as the Ontario Regional Sports Complex has already been approved, and would not require changes to land use designations. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not conflict with land use plans and policies that were adopted to avoid or lessen a physical environmental effect. The Certified EIR identified that the approved project is consistent with the majority of Connect SoCal’s goals and its policies. Additionally, the approved project did not conflict with the ONT or Chino airport land use compatibility plans (ALUCP).
The City of Ontario has prepared an ALUCP for ONT in accordance with the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics’ California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. A consistency determination analysis for the ONT was prepared by the City and submitted to the ONT-IAC Technical Advisory Committee, who found that the approved project is consistent with the ALUCP for ONT. For Chino Airport, projects accommodating the approved project in this area would be required to 304
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-56 PlaceWorks
meet the conditions of the Chino Airport Authority and the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Conditions include those determining appropriate land uses, maximum population density, maximum site coverage, height restrictions, and required notification/disclosure areas based on the noise contours and runway protection, approach, and Part 77 zones of the FAA. Additionally, TOP includes policies that ensure airport planning compatibility and consistency (Policies LU-5.1 through LU-5.8 and M-5.2).
No development or land use changes are directly or indirectly proposed as part of the proposed project. Like the approved projects, new development within the airport influence area would require review from the airport authority. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
3.11.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related to land use and planning were identified in the Certified EIR.
3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
3.12.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Approved Project The Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource due to existing regulations and land uses. Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, impacts of the approved project would be less than significant.
305
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-57
3.12.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
a) Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that
would be a value to the
region and the residents
of the state?
LTS No No No Yes
b) Result in the loss of
availability of a locally
important mineral
resource recovery site
delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
LTS No No No Yes
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = topic not analyzed in Certified EIR
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
The Certified EIR identified that active mines or quarries producing construction aggregates in the City are predominantly on the eastern side. The land-use designations in TOP allow for mining operations to extract minerals in the MRZ-2 areas. However, prior to permitting a use that would threaten the extraction of minerals in an MRZ-2 area, the City is required under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) to prepare a statement specifying its reasons for permitting the proposed use, and consider the importance of these minerals to their market region as a whole. Thus, impacts were identified as less than significant in the Certified EIR. 306
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-58 PlaceWorks
All of the existing active mines within the City would continue to operate upon implementation of the proposed project. The proposed project would not change the land-use designations or affect the ability of mining operations to extract minerals in the MRZ-2 areas. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. As described above, mining operations will still be allowed in the city, and there would be no loss of availability of locally important mineral resources recovery sites. No development or land use changes are directly or indirectly proposed as part of the proposed project. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
3.12.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related to mineral resources were identified in the Certified EIR.
3.13 NOISE
3.13.1 Summary of Impacts Identified for the Approved Project The Certified EIR concluded that implementation of the approved project would not result in long-term operation-related noise that would exceed established standards.
The Certified EIR identified that sensitive land uses within the 65 dBA CNEL (community noise equivalent level) noise contour of the ONT airport would be exposed to substantial levels of airport-related noise. Mitigation Measure 12-1 would reduce airport noise impacts to the extent feasible; however, this impact was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the approved project.
The Certified EIR identified that construction activities associated with the approved project would expose sensitive uses to strong levels of groundborne vibration and construction noise. In addition, construction activities would substantially elevate noise levels in the vicinity of noise- sensitive receptors. Mitigation Measures 12-2 and 12-4 would reduce construction-related noise and vibration impacts to the extent feasible; however, construction noise and vibration were identified as significant unavoidable impacts of the approved project. 307
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-59
3.13.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
a) Generation of a
substantial temporary or
permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project
in excess of standards
established in the local
general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other
agencies?
SU No No No Yes
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise
levels?
SU No No No Yes
c) For a project located
within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has
not been adopted,
within two miles of a
public airport or public
use airport, would the
project expose people
residing or working in
the project area to
excessive noise levels?
SU No No No Yes
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = topic not analyzed in Certified EIR 308
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-60 PlaceWorks
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The Certified EIR concluded that implementation of the approved project would not result in long-term operation-related noise that would exceed established standards. Additionally, TOP includes policies to minimize traffic noise impacts in the City (e.g., Policies S-4.2, S-4.4, and S-
4.5). However, the Certified EIR identified that construction-related noise impacts from the approved project would elevate noise levels at sensitive land uses. Mitigation Measure 12-4 requires that construction contractors implement best management practices during construction activities to limit construction noise levels at sensitive receptors. However, construction noise impacts were significant and unavoidable.
The proposed project would not result in any land use changes; thus, no development would occur as part of the proposed project. However, Mobility Element Figure M-04, Truck Routes, would be revised to reflect existing truck routes in the City (see Appendix A). The intent of these changes to the City’s truck route would be to safely accommodate additional truck traffic and avoid residential areas and sensitive receptors, as defined by Government Code Section 65098 (AB 98). The removal of a portion of Philadelphia Street and Euclid Avenue from the City’s Truck Routes would not result in a substantial change in truck distribution on the City’s roadway network. As identified in the Euclid Avenue Truck Route Relocation Recommendations and Operations Assessment (see Appendix C), at most there would be a maximum of 28 trucks on Mountain Avenue between State Street to Mission Boulevard and 23 trucks on Grove Avenue between Airport Drive to Mission Boulevard in the year 2050 scenario that would be rerouted from the removal of these two segments from the City’s Truck Routes. No additional truck traffic would be generated and the proposed project does not include any land use changes or development. Given that there would not be more than 28 additional trucks per day on any roadway within the City as a result of the changes to the City’s truck routes, there would not be a noticeable (i.e., more than 3 dB) increase in traffic noise near sensitive receptors.
Like the approved project, future development in accordance with the proposed project would be required to adhere to the City’s Municipal Code, which restricts construction activities to the daytime hours, and the Mitigation Measures in the Certified EIR. However, no new impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would result in construction activities that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial vibration and groundborne noise. No operational 309
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-61
vibration impacts were identified. Mitigation Measures 12-2 would reduce impacts associated with construction activities to the extent feasible; however, due to the proximity of construction activities to sensitive uses and potential longevity of construction activities, construction- related vibration would be significant and unavoidable.
The proposed project would not result in any land use changes, and no development would directly or indirectly occur as part of the proposed project. Like the approved project, future development in accordance with the proposed project would be required to adhere to the City’s Municipal Code, which restricts construction activities to the daytime hours, and to the Mitigation Measures in the Certified EIR. No new impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The Certified EIR identified that sensitive land uses within the 65 dBA CNEL (community noise equivalent-level) noise contour of the ONT would be exposed to substantial levels of airport- related noise. Mitigation Measure 12-1 was incorporated to reduce impacts. While interior noise levels are required to achieve the interior noise limits of Title 24 and Title 25 of CCR, which require structures to achieve 45 dBA CNEL, exterior noise levels may continue to exceed the noise compatibility criteria for the City. Consequently, airport noise compatibility was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the approved project.
No development or land use changes are directly or indirectly proposed as part of the proposed project. Like the approved project, development associated with the proposed project would be required to adhere to the requirements of Mitigation Measure 12-1 to achieve the 45 dBA CNEL noise levels. Thus, no new impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
3.13.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measures were taken directly from the Certified EIR. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the Certified EIR are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and underline for new, inserted text.
MM 12-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits for any project that involves a noise-sensitive use within the 65 dBA CNEL contour of the Ontario International Airport, the project property owner/developers shall retain an acoustical engineer to conduct an 310
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-62 PlaceWorks
acoustic analysis and identify, where appropriate, site design and/or required building acoustical improvements (e.g., sound transmission class rated windows, doors, and attic baffling), to ensure compliance with the City’s Noise Compatibility Criteria and the California State Building Code and California Noise Insulation Standards (Titles 24 and 21 of the California Code of Regulations).
MM 12-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, individual projects that involve vibration-intensive construction activities, such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers near sensitive receptors shall be evaluated for potential vibration impacts. For construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, within 100 feet of nonengineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g.,
0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for nonengineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses shall be used, such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded.
MM 12-4 Construction activities associated with new development that occurs near sensitive receptors shall be evaluated for potential noise impacts. Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction activities in the City of Ontario. Construction plans submitted to the City shall identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans. The City of Ontario Planning and Building Departments shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits.
▪ Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 6:00 pm Monday through Friday and 9:00 am to 6:00 pm Saturdays and Sundays, as prescribed in Municipal Code Section 5-29.09.
311
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-63
▪ During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best-available noise control techniques wherever feasible (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re-design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds).
▪ Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools.
▪ Stationary equipment such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses. ▪ Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
▪ Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes established by the City Planning and Building Agency. ▪ At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.
▪ Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
▪ During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws. 312
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-64 PlaceWorks
▪ Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line-of-sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq. Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that has a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier and may be lined on the construction side with an acoustical blanket, curtain, or equivalent absorptive material.
3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
3.14.1 Summary of Impacts Identified for the Approved Project The Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would directly result in population growth in the project area. Buildout of the approved project would not displace people or housing and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated upon regulatory compliance and compliance with the approved project policies and programs.
313
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-65
3.14.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
a) Induce substantial
unplanned population
growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by
proposing new homes
and businesses) or
indirectly (for example,
through extension of
roads or other
infrastructure)?
LTS No No No Yes
b) Displace substantial
numbers of existing
people or housing,
necessitating the
construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
LTS No No No Yes
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = topic not analyzed in Certified EIR
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The Certified EIR identified that implementation of the approved project would accommodate population growth through land-use designations, goals, and policies that would provide a vision and guide growth in the City. The Certified EIR identified that although growth accommodated by the approved project would exceed SCAG’s regional growth forecasts, the approved project would improve the jobs-housing balance in the San Bernardino County 314
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-66 PlaceWorks
subregion, and impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, the approved project would accommodate future growth by providing infrastructure and associated public services to accommodate the projected growth. The proposed project does not include any changes to buildout or population compared to the approved project. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not displace people or housing and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing. The approved project guides planning for new growth in the City, in part through designation of land uses that result in additional housing. The land-use plan provides land-use designations for a variety of housing types and provides for additional residential opportunities. The proposed project does not include any changes to buildout or population compared to the approved project. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
3.14.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related to population and housing were identified in the Certified EIR.
3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
3.15.1 Summary of Impacts Identified for the Approved Project The Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would cause both fire protection services and police services to expand due to the introduction of new structures, residents, and workers within the City’s boundaries. Schools have the capacity to accommodate the buildout and population increase under the approved project. However, impacts of the approved project would be less than significant upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval.
The Certified EIR identified that the Ontario library system would expand in response to the demand for library services and facilities and personnel caused by the introduction of new structures, residents, and workers into the City’s boundaries upon buildout of the approved project.
315
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-67
The Certified EIR identified that implementation of the approved project would generate additional residents that would increase the use of existing park and recreational facilities but park dedications and payment of in-lieu fees would ensure impacts are less than significant.
3.15.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
a) Result in substantial
adverse physical impacts
associated with the
provision of new or
physically altered
governmental facilities,
need for new or
physically altered
governmental facilities,
the construction of
which could cause
significant
environmental impacts,
in order to maintain
acceptable service
ratios, response times,
or other performance
objectives for any of the
public services:
LTS No No No Yes
Fire protection? LTS No No No Yes
Police protection? LTS No No No Yes
Schools? LTS No No No Yes
Parks? LTS No No No Yes
Other public facilities? LTS No No No Yes
316
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-68 PlaceWorks
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = topic not analyzed in Certified EIR
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would result in an increased number of people within the City, thereby resulting in an increase in demand for fire services and facilities.
To ensure the provision of adequate fire protection services, the City of Ontario has established a Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program to provide funding for services within the City. Fees collected from developers are placed in a fire services fund that can be expended for the acquisition or construction of new fire services facilities and for the improvement or expansion of the City’s existing fire service capabilities, provided that such expenditure from the fund has been authorized by the City Council. In addition, future projects are reviewed by the City of Ontario and the Ontario Fire Department on an individual basis and are required to comply with requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued. The Certified EIR determined that adherence to the City’s Governance Manual process to achieve the City’s development goals in phases, working within the budget and infrastructure constraints of the City, ensures that sufficient revenue would be available for necessary service improvements to provide for adequate fire facilities, equipment, and personnel upon buildout of TOP . Impacts to fire services were identified as less than significant.
The proposed project does not include new goals or policies that address fire protection The proposed project includes amendments to the Safety Element included to ensure that people can safely evacuate the City in an emergency and that emergency service vehicles can travel 317
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-69
through the City quickly and efficiently. Applicable goals and policies related to fire protection would remain the same as identified in TOP 2050. The proposed project does not include any changes to buildout or population compared to the approved project. Therefore, the proposed project does not result in additional demand for fire and emergency services beyond that identified in the Certified EIR. Like the approved project, new development associated with the proposed project would be required to pay DIF and be reviewed by the Ontario Fire Department to ensure compliance with the regulations at the time the building permits are issued. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
Police protection?
The Certified EIR identified that buildout of the approved project would result in an increase in demand for police protection services, which in turn would require the hiring of new staff and building of new facilities. Future projects would also be reviewed by the City of Ontario on an individual basis and required to comply with regulations in effect at the time building permits are issued (e.g., payment of DIF). The police services would receive adequate funding through the City’s general fund to cover project needs. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the Governance Section of TOP would encourage collaboration between City departments, programs, and other involved agencies to achieve the City’s development goals in phases that are within the fiscal and infrastructure limitations of the City. Impacts to police services were identified as less than significant.
The proposed project does not include new goals or policies related to police protection. The new and modified policies of the Mobility Element (Truck Routes map changes), Safety Element (policies related to the updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for evacuation and extreme heat), Environmental Resources Element (technical adjustments to the environmental justice areas map), and the Parks & Recreation Element (adding the Ontario Regional Sports Complex) are not policies related to the City’s public service facilities, including police and emergency services. Applicable goals and policies to police protection would remain the same as identified in the TOP 2050. The proposed project does not include any changes to buildout or population compared to the approved project. Therefore, the proposed project does not result in additional demand for police services beyond that identified in the Certified EIR. Like the approved project, new development associated with the proposed project would be required to pay DIF and be reviewed by the Ontario Police Department to ensure compliance with the regulations at the time the building permits are issued. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
Schools?
The Certified EIR identified that development in accordance with the approved project would require payments to the corresponding school district for the construction of new schools.
Developers would be required to pay the impact fees levied by each school district, set within 318
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-70 PlaceWorks
the limits of California Senate Bill 50 (SB 50). The Certified EIR identified that payment of impact fees reduced impacts to a less than significant level.
The proposed project does not include new goals or policies addressing school services. The proposed project does not include any changes to buildout or population compared to the approved project. Therefore, the proposed project does not result in additional demand for school services beyond that identified in the Certified EIR. Like the approved project, new development associated with the proposed project would be required to pay SB 50 fees. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
Parks?
The Certified EIR identified that implementation of the approved project would generate additional residents that would increase the use of existing park and recreational facilities but park dedications and payment of in-lieu fees would ensure impacts are less than significant.
Population growth associated with the approved project buildout would increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks. New development is required to provide three acres per 1,000 residents in accordance with the City’s park dedications and in-lieu fee regulations. Fees collected go toward acquiring the three acres of public parkland per 1,000 residents generated by the development. Impacts were identified as less than significant.
The proposed project includes a minor map update to TOP Figure PR-01, Parks and Recreational Facilities, to reflect the recently approved Ontario Regional Sports Complex (see Appendix A).
This update is limited to TOP Figure PR-01 and would not result in any physical construction or expansion of recreational facilities, as the Ontario Regional Sports Complex has already been approved. The proposed project does not include new goals or policies related to park services or parklands. The proposed project does not include any changes to buildout or population compared to the approved project. Therefore, the proposed project does not result in additional demand for parks and park services beyond that identified in the Certified EIR. Like the approved project, new residential development associated with the proposed project would be required to adhere to the City’s park dedication requirements and/or in-lieu fees. Thus, no new impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
Other public facilities?
The Certified EIR identified that The Ontario library system would expand in response to the demand for library services and facilities and personnel caused by the introduction of new structures, residents, and workers into the City’s boundaries upon buildout of the approved project. buildout of TOP would result in an increase in demand for library services in the City.
Future projects would also be reviewed by the City of Ontario on an individual basis and would be required to comply with requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued (e.g., 319
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-71
payment of DIF). The City’s general fund and payment of fees would offset the costs associated with library services; therefore, impacts to library services were identified as less than significant in the Certified EIR.
The proposed project does not include new goals or policies that affect library services. The new and modified policies of the Mobility Element (Truck Routes map changes), Safety Element (policies related to the updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for evacuation and extreme heat), Environmental Resources Element (technical adjustments to the environmental justice areas map), and the Parks & Recreation Element (adding the Ontario Regional Sports Complex) are not policies related to the City’s public service facilities, including library services. Applicable goals and policies to library services would remain the same as identified in the TOP 2050. The proposed project does not include any changes to buildout or population compared to the approved project. Therefore, the proposed project does not result in additional demand for library services beyond that identified in the Certified EIR. Like the approved project, new development associated with the proposed project would be reviewed by the City to ensure compliance with the regulations at the time the building permits are issued. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
3.15.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related to public services were identified in the Certified EIR.
3.16 RECREATION
3.16.1 Summary of Impacts Identified for the Approved Project The Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would generate additional residents, which would increase the use of existing park and recreational facilities. Project implementation would result in environmental impacts from the provision of new and/or expanded recreational facilities. Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and compliance with TOP policies and programs, impacts of the approved project would be less than significant. 320
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-72 PlaceWorks
3.16.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
a) Increase the use of
existing neighborhood
and regional parks or
other recreational
facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the
facility would occur or be
accelerated?
LTS No No No Yes
b) Include recreational
facilities or require the
construction or expansion
of recreational facilities
which might have an
adverse physical effect on
the environment?
LTS No No No Yes
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = topic not analyzed in Certified EIR
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
The Certified EIR identified that population growth associated with the approved project buildout would increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks. New development is required to provide three acres per 1,000 residents in accordance with the City’s park dedications and in-lieu fee regulations. Fees collected go toward acquiring the three acres of public parkland per 1,000 residents generated by the development. Impacts were identified as less than significant.
321
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-73
The proposed project does not include new goals or policies that address park services and parklands. However, the proposed project includes a minor map update to TOP Figure PR-01, Parks and Recreational Facilities, to reflect the recently approved Ontario Regional Sports Complex (see Appendix A). This update is limited to Figure PR-01 and would not result in any physical construction or expansion of recreational facilities, as the Ontario Regional Sports Complex has already been approved. The proposed project does not include any changes to buildout or population compared to the approved project. Therefore, the proposed project does not result in additional demand for parks or park services beyond that identified in the Certified EIR. Like the approved project, new residential development associated with the proposed project would be required to adhere to the City’s park dedication requirements and/or in-lieu fees. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The Certified EIR identified that approved project would warrant expansion of the equestrian and hiking trails and construction of improved bikeways throughout the City. TOP goals, policies, and actions and existing federal, state, and local regulations would mitigate potential adverse impacts to the environment that may result from buildout of the Land Use Plan, including expansion of parks, recreational facilities, and multiuse trails. Furthermore, subsequent environmental review would be required for development of park projects in the Land Use Plan.
Consequently, the Certified EIR did not identify significant impacts regarding construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
The proposed project includes a minor map update to TOP Figure PR-01, Parks and Recreational Facilities, to reflect the recently approved Ontario Regional Sports Complex (see Appendix A).
This update is limited to Figure PR-01 and would not result in any physical construction or expansion of recreational facilities, as the Ontario Regional Sports Complex has already been approved. The proposed project does not include new goals or policies that specifically address parks. The proposed project does not include any changes to buildout or population compared to the approved project. Therefore, the proposed project does not trigger the need for additional parkland beyond that identified by the approved project. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
3.16.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related to recreation were identified in the Certified EIR. 322
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-74 PlaceWorks
3.17 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
3.17.1 Summary of Impacts Identified for the Approved Project The Certified EIR identified that the approved project is consistent with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and the performance and safety of such facilities, and would not combine with other area projects to result in significant impacts to such facilities. Impacts associated with alternative transportation policies were identified as a less-than-significant impact. The Certified EIR identified that the approved project’s impacts to emergency response and evacuation are less than significant. The Certified EIR identified that the Mobility Element adequately addresses potentially hazardous conditions (sharp curves, etc.), potential conflicting uses, and emergency access.
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would result in a significant cumulative impact for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a result of a substantial increase in population in the City. The Certified EIR includes Mitigation Measure T-1, which requires discretionary projects in the City to demonstrate compliance with the City’s VMT Guidelines. However, cumulative impacts were identified as a significant and unavoidable impact of the approved project.
3.17.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
a) Conflict with a program,
plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the
circulation system,
including transit,
roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
LTS No No No Yes
b) Conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA SU No No No Yes
323
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-75
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
Guidelines § 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase
hazards due to a
geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
LTS No No No Yes
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access? LTS No No No Yes
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = topic not analyzed in Certified EIR
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The Certified EIR identified that the approved project is consistent with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and the performance and safety of such facilities, and would not combine with other area projects to result in significant impacts to such facilities.
The proposed project does not include modifications to the City Mobility Element goals and policies regarding multi-model transportation options. Therefore, the proposed project does not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system. The proposed project would not introduce new development or land use changes that would involve conflicts with program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system.
Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
324
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-76 PlaceWorks
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would result in a significant cumulative VMT impact as a result of a substantial increase in population within the City. TOP includes goals, policies, and actions related to VMT. Additionally, the Certified EIR included Mitigation Measure T-1 to reduce potential impacts for future discretionary projects. Future discretionary projects are required to consider transportation demand management (TDM) measures consistent with those identified in the Mobility Element. TDM techniques include incentives to use transit; incentives to form carpools rather than drive alone; and locating home, work, and shopping closer together to shorten travel distances. However, VMT impacts under the approved project were identified as significant and unavoidable.
The proposed project would not result in additional development in the City because no land use changes are proposed as part of the proposed project. However, Mobility Element Figure M-04, Truck Routes. The intent of these changes would be to safely accommodate additional truck traffic and avoid residential areas and sensitive receptors, as defined by Government Code Section 65098 (AB 98). The removal of a portion of Philadelphia Street and Euclid Avenue from the City’s Truck Routes would not result in a substantial change in truck distribution on the City’s roadway network (see Appendix A, TOP Figure M-04, Truck Routes). As identified in the Euclid Avenue Truck Route Relocation Recommendations and Operations Assessment (see Appendix C), at most there would be a maximum of 28 trucks on Mountain Avenue between State Street to Mission Boulevard and 23 trucks on Grove Avenue between Airport Drive to Mission Boulevard in the year 2050 scenario that would be rerouted from the removal of these two segments from the City’s Truck Routes. However, the proposed project would not generate new trips or result in an increase in VMT from this redistribution. The proposed changes to Figure M-04 are only removing two segments from the truck route map to ensure trucks are not near sensitive receptors. As described in Appendix C, at most there would be a maximum of 28 trucks on Mountain Avenue between State Street to Mission Boulevard and 23 trucks on Grove Avenue between Airport Drive to Mission Boulevard in the year 2050 scenario that would be rerouted from the removal of these two segments from the City’s Truck Routes. The potential rerouted trucks are not new trips. The amount of trucks in the City would remain the same and there would not be an increase in truck VMT. Since the proposed changes are localized and there are no regional changes, this would not affect GHG.
Like the approved project, Mitigation Measure T-1 would be applicable for new discretionary projects in the City to ensure that new development includes TDM strategies. Thus, no new impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
325
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-77
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The Certified EIR identified that the Mobility Element adequately addresses potentially hazardous conditions (sharp curves, etc.), potential conflicting uses, and emergency access. No development or land use changes are proposed as part of the proposed project. The proposed project does not include modifications to the City Mobility Element goals and policies regarding traffic hazards. New and modified Policies S-8.10, S-8.11, M-1.7, and M-1.8 ensure that evacuation routes and traffic signaling technology are prepared for safe and effective evacuation. These policies would not cause any hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses and would promote a more efficient evacuation. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project’s impacts to emergency response and evacuation are less than significant. According to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2018), interstate highways would serve as major emergency response and evacuation routes. The proposed project includes the updated to the Safety Element to incorporate the 2023 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and the 2024 Evacuation Assessment, consistent with AB 747, which outlines evacuation routes and response throughout the City and would ensure adequate emergency access throughout the City. Additionally, the Ontario Fire Department reviews development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance. Review of emergency access is also included as part of the City’s Design Review process.
The proposed project would not introduce new development or land use changes that would involve conflicts with program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing emergency access. The proposed project includes amendment to the Safety Element policies to ensure that people can safely evacuate the City in an emergency and that emergency services vehicles can travel through the City quickly and efficiently (see Policies S-8.10, S-8.11, M-1.7, and M-1.8). These policies would promote a more efficient evacuation and ensure that emergency access and evacuation is adequate within the City. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
3.17.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measures were taken directly from the Certified EIR. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the Certified EIR are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and underline for new, inserted text.
326
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-78 PlaceWorks
T-1 Prior to approval of discretionary projects subject to VMT reduction analysis, applicants shall demonstrate compliance with the City’s VMT Guidelines for CEQA assessment of VMT impacts. For projects with VMT per Service Population exceeding the County’s significance threshold, a mitigation plan shall be developed and implemented.
Mitigation should consist of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures analyzed under a VMT-reduction methodology consistent with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Final Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (2021) and approved by the City of Ontario (if applicable). Examples of measures include but are not limited to:
▪ Pedestrian Network Improvements: constructing new sidewalks and/or improving damaged or substandard sidewalks that connect to a larger pedestrian network.
▪ Construct or Improve Bike Facilities: constructing new or enhancing a single existing Class I, II or IV bike facility that connects to a larger bike network. ▪ Construct or Improve Bike Boulevards: implementing a Class III bike boulevard on a local or collector street that is one travel lane in each direction, has a design speed of 25 mph or less and a design volume of 5,000 ADT or less.
▪ Expand Bikeway Networks: constructing a network of interconnected new Class I, II, or IV bike facilities.
▪ Provide End of Trip Bicycle Facilities: constructing facilities that support cyclists such as bike parking, lockers, and showers.
▪ Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments: funding infrastructure improvements such as traffic signal modifications and roadway signing and striping that are dedicated to improving transit travel times and reliability. ▪ Transit Passes: proving discounted or free transit fare to a specific geographic area, population group, or to the general public.
▪ Vanpool Program: providing groups of 5 to 15 people with direct shuttle service between their workplace and residence.
▪ Carshare Program (conventional or EV): providing access to a shared fleet of on-demand vehicles for short-term use/rental. Best practice is to discount 327
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-79
carshare membership and provide priority parking for carshare vehicles to encourage use of the service.
▪ Bikeshare Program (conventional or EV): providing access to a shared fleet of on-demand bicycles for short-term use/rental. Best practice is to discount bikeshare membership and dedicate bikeshare parking to encourage use of the service.
▪ Rideshare Program: providing access to and encouraging the use of a ridesharing platform or service. This could be an app, website, or other service that provides ride-matching coordination services. ▪ Community-Based Travel Planning (CBTP): CBTP is a residential based approach to outreach, performed by trained advisors, that provides households within a targeted geographic area with customized information, incentives, and support to encourage the use of transportation alternatives in place of single occupancy vehicles.
▪ Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program: CTR programs can be mandatory or voluntary, and involve providing information, coordination, services, infrastructure, and/or incentives for alternative modes such as ridesharing, vanpool, transit passes, and cycling
3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.18.1 Summary of Impacts Identified for the Approved Project The Certified EIR identified impacts to prehistoric archeological resources, which include tribal cultural resources, as a potentially significant impact of the approved project. As part of the Certified EIR, the City of Ontario conducted tribal consultation pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) to identify resources that may be of cultural value to California Native American tribes.
Mitigation Measures 5-3, 5-4, TCR-1, and TCR-2 were incorporated into the Certified EIR to reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant levels. 328
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-80 PlaceWorks
3.18.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15164
a) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a tribal
cultural resource,
defined in Public
Resources Code § 21074
as either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape
that is geographically
defined in terms of the
size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place,
or object with cultural
value to a California
Native American tribe,
and that is:
LTS/M No No No Yes
i) Listed or eligible for
listing in the
California Register of
Historical Resources,
or in a local register
of historical
resources as defined
in Public Resources
Code section
5020.1(k), or
LTS/M No No No Yes
ii) A resource
determined by the
lead agency, in its
discretion and
supported by
LTS/M No No No Yes
329
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-81
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15164
substantial evidence,
to be significant
pursuant to criteria
set forth in
subdivision (c) of
Public Resources
Code § 5024.1. In
applying the criteria
set forth in
subdivision (c) of
Public Resource
Code § 5024.1, the
lead agency shall
consider the
significance of the
resource to a
California Native
American tribe.
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = topic not analyzed in Certified EIR
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
330
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-82 PlaceWorks
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
The Certified EIR identified impacts to tribal cultural resources as a potentially significant impact of the approved project. Mitigation Measures 5-3, 5-4, TCR-1, and TCR-2 were incorporated to reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant levels.
The City sent initial notification letters to California Native American tribes and tribal contacts on April 23, 2025, pursuant to SB 18 (See Appendix B, Tribal Consultation). Responses were received from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation. The tribes confirmed that there are no conflicts with the proposed technical amendments. The proposed project does not include new goals or policies that affect tribal cultural resources in the City. The new and modified policies of the Mobility Element (Truck Routes map changes), Safety Element (policies related to the updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for evacuation and extreme heat), Environmental Resources Element (technical adjustments to the environmental justice areas map), and the Parks & Recreation Element (adding the Ontario Regional Sports Complex) are not policies that have the potential to result in ground disturbing activities that could affect tribal cultural resources. Therefore, no new impacts on tribal cultural resources would occur as part of the proposed project. The proposed project would not introduce directly or indirectly new development or land use changes that would involve tribal cultural resources. Thus, no new impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
3.18.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measures were taken directly from the Certified EIR. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the Certified EIR are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and underline for new, inserted text.
MM 5-3 Upon receipt of an application for a proposed project subject to CEQA and is within the City’s jurisdiction, the City’s representative shall consult with the relevant tribe(s)’ representative(s) to determine if the proposed project is within a culturally sensitive area to the tribe. If sufficient evidence is provided to reasonably ascertain that the site is within a [tribal] culturally sensitive area, an archaeologist shall prepare then a cultural resources assessment. The findings of the cultural resources assessment shall be incorporated into the CEQA documentation. A copy of the report shall be forwarded to 331
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-83
the tribe(s). If mitigation is recommended in the CEQA document, the procedure described in Mitigation Measure 5-4 shall be followed.
MM 5-4 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for a proposed project for which the CEQA document defines cultural resource mitigation for potential tribal resources, the project applicant shall contact the designated tribe(s) to notify them of the grading, excavation, and monitoring program. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Ontario and the tribal representative(s) to develop mitigation measures that address the designation, responsibilities, and participation of tribal monitors during grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities; scheduling; terms of compensation; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The City of Ontario shall be the final arbiter of the conditions for projects within the City’s jurisdiction.
TCR-1 Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring. The project archaeologist, in consultation with interested tribes, the developer, and the City of Ontario, shall develop an archaeological monitoring plan (AMP) to address the details, timing, and responsibility of archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. Details in the AMP shall include:
1. Project-related ground disturbance (including, but not limited to, brush clearing, grading, trenching, etc.) and development scheduling;
2. The development of a rotating or simultaneous schedule in coordination with the developer and the project archeologist for designated Native American Tribal Monitors from the consulting tribes during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities on the site: including the scheduling, safety requirements, duties, scope of work, and Native American Tribal Monitors’ authority to stop and redirect grading activities in coordination with all project archaeologists (if the tribes cannot come to an agreement on the rotating or simultaneous schedule of tribal monitoring, the Native American Heritage Commission shall designate the schedule for the onsite Native American Tribal Monitor for the proposed project);
3. The protocols and stipulations that the developer, City, Tribes, and project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.
332
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-84 PlaceWorks
At least 30 days prior to application for a grading permit and before any brush clearance, grading, excavation, and/or ground disturbing activities on the site, the developer shall retain a tribal cultural monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources.
Pursuant to the AMP , a tribal monitor from the consulting tribe shall be present during the initial grading activities. If tribal resources are found during grubbing activities, the tribal monitoring shall be present during site grading activities.
TCR-2 Treatment and Disposition of Cultural Resources. In the event that Native American cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during the course of any ground-disturbing activities, including but not limited to brush clearance, grading, trenching, etc., for the proposed project, the following procedures will be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:
1. Temporary Curation and Storage: During the course of construction, all discovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure location on-site or at the offices of the project archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts from the project site will need to be thoroughly inventoried with tribal monitor oversight of the process;
2. Treatment and Final Disposition: The landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and nonhuman remains as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City of Ontario with evidence of same:
a. Accommodate the process for on-site reburial of the discovered items with the consulting Native American tribes or bands. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloging, basic analysis, other analyses as recommended by the project archaeologist and approved by consulting tribes, and basic recordation have been completed; all documentation should be at a level of standard professional practice to allow the writing of a report of professional quality;
b. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository in San Bernardino County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79, and therefore the resource would be professionally curated and made 333
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-85
available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility in San Bernardino County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation; c. For purposes of conflict resolution, if more than one Native American tribe or band is involved with the project and cannot come to an agreement as to the disposition of cultural materials, materials shall be curated at the San Bernardino County Museum by default; d. At the completion of grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities on the site, a Phase IV Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City documenting monitoring activities conducted by the project archaeologist and Native Tribal Monitors within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the impacts to the known resources on the property; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources; provide evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pregrade meeting; and, in a confidential appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the archaeologist. All reports produced will be submitted to the City, County Museum, and consulting tribes.
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems
3.19.1 Summary of Impacts Identified for the Approved Project The Certified EIR concluded that water supply and delivery systems would also be adequate to meet the approved project requirements.
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project’s additional wastewater would be adequately treated in accordance with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and California Department of Public Health requirements and would not require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities.
The Certified EIR identified that storm that existing and proposed storm drainage systems would accommodate growth.
The Certified EIR identified that buildout of the approved project would be served by landfills with sufficient permitted capacities to accommodate the project’s solid-waste disposal needs. 334
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-86 PlaceWorks
The Certified EIR identified that existing and/or proposed facilities would also be able to accommodate project-generated utility demands (i.e., electricity and natural gas). Impacts to utilities would be less than significant upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval.
3.19.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
a) Require or result in the
relocation or
construction of new or
expanded water,
wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage,
electric power, natural
gas, or
telecommunications
facilities, the
construction or
relocation of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
LTS No No No Yes
b) Have sufficient water
supplies available to
serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable
future development
during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
LTS No No No Yes
c) Result in a
determination by the
wastewater treatment
provider which serves or
LTS No No No Yes
335
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-87
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
may serve the project
that it has adequate
capacity to serve the
project’s projected
demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in
excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local
infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the
attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
LTS No No No Yes
e) Comply with federal,
state, and local
management and
reduction statutes and
regulations related to
solid waste?
LTS No No No Yes
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = topic not analyzed in Certified EIR
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The Certified EIR did not identify significant impacts to wet and dry infrastructure, such as water, wastewater, stormwater, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities.
Development associated with the approved project would result in an increased demand for wet and dry infrastructure. However, review of the infrastructure facilities by the City of Ontario, payment of DIFs, connection fees and agreements, and existing regulatory requirements ensure that infrastructure would be expanded to keep pace with urban development associated with the approved project.
The proposed project does not include new goals or policies that specifically address wet and dry infrastructure. The proposed project does not include any changes to buildout or population compared to the approved project. Therefore, there is no increase in water, wastewater, 336
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-88 PlaceWorks
stormwater, or energy demand associated with the proposed project. Like the approved project, new developments would be required to pay their fair share for expansion of infrastructure in the City. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? The Certified EIR concluded that water supply and delivery systems would also be adequate to meet the approved project requirements. The approved project would result in an increase in development and demand for potable and nonpotable water in the City. However, the Ontario Municipal Water Company’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) considers the growth associated with the approved project. Additionally, TOP Policies ER-1.1 through ER-1.4 ensure that water demand does not outpace water supply and that water conservation measures are implemented. State requirements and code requirements also result in enhanced water efficiency and conservation. Compliance with the state and local water efficiency and conservation requirements and goals and policies of TOP would ensure less than significant impacts.
The proposed project does not include new goals or policies that affect water supply. The proposed project does not include any changes to buildout or population compared to the approved project. Like the approved project, new development associated with the proposed project would be required to adhered to enhance water efficiency and conservation requirements of the City. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project’s additional wastewater would be adequately treated in accordance with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and California Department of Public Health requirements and would not require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. The Certified EIR identified that future growth in accordance with the approved project would result in an increase in wastewater flow to the Inland Empire Utilities Agency’s (IEUA) regional water reclamation plants. To ensure that the regional water reclamation plants have sufficient capacity to serve new development in addition to existing development, the IEUA prepares a wastewater treatment master plan annually with flow projections for all of its contracting agencies. IEUA has a capital improvement plan to develop needed capacity and charges a capacity fee to new development to fund the needed capacity. The IEUA improvement plan is sequenced based on 337
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-89
the rate of development to ensure adequate treatment capacity exists at the time building permits are issued without premature construction of unneeded capacity.
The proposed project does not include new goals or policies that affect wastewater. The proposed project does not include any changes to buildout or population compared to the approved project. Like the approved project, new development associated with the proposed project would be funded from sewer connection/usage fees and the Capital Improvement Plan budget. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? The Certified EIR identified that buildout of the approved project would be served by landfills with sufficient permitted capacities to accommodate the project’s solid-waste disposal needs.
The approved project would result in an increase in solid-waste disposal in the City. New development would require the need for additional service trucks, collection bins, and personnel, which would be offset by payment of development impact fees.
The proposed project does not include new goals or policies that affect solid waste. The proposed project does not include any changes to buildout or population compared to the approved project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in additional solid waste generation in the City compared to the approved project. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The City of Ontario has met this waste diversion requirement through local recycling programs and participation in regional recycling programs. Thus, the City of Ontario has met the state requirements for waste diversion and complies with regulations related to solid waste. The Certified EIR did not identify significant solid waste impacts associated with the approved project.
The proposed project does not include new goals or policies that affect solid waste disposal. The proposed project does not include any changes to buildout or population compared to the approved project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in additional solid waste generation in the City compared to the approved project. Like the approved project, new development associated with the proposed project would be required to adhere to the State’s waste diversion laws, including AB 341 (recycling for commercial and multifamily residential land uses) and AB 1826 (organic waste diversion requirements). Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. 338
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-90 PlaceWorks
3.19.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related to utilities were identified in the Certified EIR.
3.20 Wildfire
3.20.1 Summary of Impacts Identified for the Approved Project The City is outside of the State Responsibility Area (SRA), and CAL FIRE has determined that the City contains no areas subject to very high wildfire risk. However, the City recognizes that even though fuel loading is light in Ontario and fire risk comes primarily from urban fires, not wildfires, there is some risk related to wildfires. The City has implemented policies as part of the approved project to help reduce risk of wildfire. In summary, the Certified EIR concluded that impacts to wildfire, resulting from implementation of the approved project, would be less than significant.
3.20.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones:
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
a) Substantially impair an
adopted emergency
response plan or
emergency evacuation
plan?
LTS No No No Yes
b) Due to slope, prevailing
winds, and other LTS No No No Yes
339
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-91
Conditions Requiring Subsequent Review
Would the Project:
Level of
Impact in
Certified
EIR
Condition 1:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(1–2)
Condition 2:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(A–B)
Condition 3:
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15162(a)(3)(C–D)
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15164
factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a
wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of
a wildfire?
c) Require the installation
or maintenance of
associated
infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water
sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in
temporary or ongoing
impacts to the
environment?
LTS No No No Yes
d) Expose people or
structures to significant
risks, including
downslope or
downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage
changes?
LTS No No No Yes
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = topic not analyzed in Certified EIR 340
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-92 PlaceWorks
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The Certified EIR identified that the Mobility Element adequately addresses emergency access and no impacts to emergency services would occur. The City has adopted roadway classification standards in Policy M1-1 that include roadway design standards as part of TOP , precluding the construction of any unsafe features. Additionally, a review of emergency access is included as part of the City’s Design Review process. The proposed project includes an update to the Safety element to include by reference the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2023) and the Ontario Evacuation Assessment (2024). The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan includes goal and policies to reduce the threat of hazards and incorporated content from the Ontario Emergency Operation Plan to ensure preparedness and response to hazardous events (Ontario 2023).
Consistent with AB 747, the City prepared an Evacuation Assessment (2024), which includes recommendation to ensure adequate evacuation within the City in the event of evacuation.
Additionally, the Ontario Fire Department reviews development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance.
The proposed project would not introduce new development or land use changes that would involve conflicts with program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing emergency access. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not result exacerbate wildfire risks or expose people or structures to significant risks that may occur following a wildfire (e.g., landslides, mudflows, and flooding). The Certified EIR determined that the City is outside of the SRA, and CAL FIRE has determined that the City contains no areas subject to very high wildfire risk. However, the City recognizes that even though fuel loading is light and fire risk comes primarily from urban fires, not wildfires, there is some risk related to wildfires. There are many resources available to address wildland fires should they arise, including the CAL FIRE 2019 Strategic Fire Plan for California, the California Fire Code, County of San Bernardino Multi- jurisdiction Hazard Management Plan, the Ontario LHMP , and fire services from the Ontario Fire Department. With adherence to these building practices, development and infrastructure associated with TOP 2050 would not exacerbate risk or result in post-wildfire hazards (e.g., landslides, mudflows, and flooding). Additionally, TOP contains the policies to prevent wildfire hazards and support the community during wildfire events (Policies S-3.4, S-3.6, S-3.8, S-3.9, S-
8.3, S-8.5, and CD-2.8).
341
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
O CTO BER 2025 3-93
The updated Safety Element includes the 2023 CAL FIRE maps, which designate the City of Ontario as a Local Responsibility Area; however, there continue to be no areas subject to very high wildfire risks (CAL FIRE 2023). Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? The Certified EIR identified that Ontario is in an area of moderate wildland fire threats and no impact would occur. To help protect the City and its residents from fire hazards, Ontario has enacted building and fire codes. Future projects would be reviewed by the City and the Ontario Fire Department on an individual basis and would be required to comply with requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued.
The proposed project would not introduce directly or indirectly new development or land use changes that would involve local policies or ordinances of wildland fires. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The Certified EIR identified that Ontario is in an area of moderate wildland fire threats and that no impact would occur. The approved project would increase impervious surfaces but would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would impact flooding, runoff, or landslides. Projects considered for approval are required to prepare project- specific hydrology studies as prescribed in the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. Future development projects in accordance with the approved project would implement BMPs outlined in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) to reduce flooding impacts due to runoff. No significant impacts were identified in the Certified EIR.
No development or land use changes are proposed as part of the proposed project. The proposed project includes an update to TOP Figure S-03, Flood Hazard Zones, based on new maps published by FEMA (see Appendix A). The updated TOP Figure S-03 would improve overall safety and reduce the risk of flooding by providing the City with the most up-to-date Flood Hazard Zones. Like the approved project, new development under the proposed project would be required to implement BMPs set by state law to reduce the potential for post-construction flooding impacts. Thus, no impacts would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
342
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
3. ENVIRON MENTA L ANAL YSIS
3-94 PlaceWorks
3.20.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
No mitigation measures related to wildfires were identified in the Certified EIR.
343
O CTO BER 2025 4-1
4. FINDINGS
As summarized below, and for the reasons described in Section 3, Environmental Analysis, of this Addendum, the City of Ontario has concluded that the proposed project meets the conditions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 and that therefore an Addendum to the Certified EIR is the appropriate CEQA document to address the proposed project.
As previously discussed, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum to an EIR or MND may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or MND have occurred. The following restates the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 as they relate to the proposed project. ▪ No substantial changes are proposed in the project that would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to a new significant environmental effect or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect. (Section 15162[a][1]) ▪ No substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken will require major revisions of the previous EIR because of a new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. (Section 15162[a][2])
▪ No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified, shows that:
⚫ The proposed project would have significant effects not discussed in the Certified EIR. ⚫ Significant effects will be substantially more severe than in the Certified EIR. ⚫ Mitigation measures or alternatives that the Certified EIR found infeasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce significant effects of the proposed project, but the City declines to adopt them.
⚫ Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified EIR would substantially reduce significant effects on the environment, but the City declines to adopt them. (Section 15162[a][3]) 344
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
4. FINDINGS
4-2 PlaceWorks
This page is intentionally left blank.
345
O CTO BER 2025 5-1
5. LIST OF PREPARERS
REPORT PREPARERS
PLACEWORKS
Nicole Vermillion, Principal
Emma Haines, Associate
LEAD AGENCY
CITY OF ONTARIO
Robert Morales, Associate Planner
Thomas Grahn, Principal Planner
Kimberly Ruddins, Assistant Planner Director
346
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
5. LIST OF PRE PARE RS
5-2 PlaceWorks
This page is intentionally left blank.
347
O CTO BER 2025 6-1
6. REFERENCES
CAL FIRE. 2023. State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Fire Resource Assessment Program.
https://34c031f8-c9fd-4018-8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/ osfm-website/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard -severity-zones/fire-hazard-severity-zones-map-2022/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps -2022-files/fhsz_county_sra_11x17_2022_sanbernardino_3.pdf?rev=208ee27d 5010412185a0ae9d6767251b&hash=71286B8B3138D0FE369A4B7AE763C183.
FEMA. 2024, June. FEMA National Flood Hazard Map.
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=ontario%20CA.
Ontario, City of. 2022, August. The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050) and Certified EIR. SCH:
2021070364.
––––––. 2023, November 11. 2023 City of Ontario Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/migrated-files/Ontario-Files/Fire/ Ready%2520Ontario/Ontario%2520LHMP .pdf.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). 2024, November 6.
Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects Working Group. Working Group Meeting #6. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/ceqa-policy- development-(new)
348
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
6. RE FERENC ES
6-2 PlaceWorks
This page is intentionally left blank.
349
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
A PPEN DICES
O CTO BER 2025
Appendix A TOP 2050 Technical Amendments
350
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
A PPEN DICES
PlaceWorks
This page is intentionally left blank.
351
TOP 2050 Technical Amendments
NEW POLICIES
PlaceWorks recommends the addition of the following new goal and policies to the Safety and Mobility Elements of The Ontario Plan, as shown in underlines for added text.
Goal S-10: Reduced exposure to extreme heat for community members, critical infrastructure, and other assets.
S-10.1: Shade Trees and Structures . We expand the planting of shade trees and the installation of shade structures on City -owned property and rights -of-way, and encourage private property owners and other agencies to take similar actions. We prioritize shade trees and structures at parking lots, transit stops, parks, community centers, and schools.
S-10.2: Heat-Resilient Infrastructure. We construct new infrastructure and retrofit existing infrastructure to remain operational during extreme heat events. We work with other public agencies and private utility companies to incorporate extreme heat resilience into their construction and retrofit activities.
S-10.3: Heat -Resilient Buildings. We work with community groups and local agencies to install air conditioning and improved insulation at facilities that serve vulnerable populations, including schools, senior care centers, community centers, and medical facilities.
S-10.4: Cool Surfaces. We install cool surfaces, including parking lots, roofs, roadways, and walking paths, as part of new or substantially renovated City facilities.
S-8.10: Maintaining Evacuation Routes . When evaluating City budgets, programming, and funding opportunities, we prioritize improvements and maintenance activities to ensure roadways that are identified as evacuation routes will be serviceable during emergency events.
S-8.11: Regional Evacuation Coordination. We work with neighboring jurisdictions and County agencies to ensure safe and effective evacuations across jurisdictional boundaries.
M-1.7: Evacuation Infrastructure. We evaluate changes to traffic signal timing, including the use of intelligent transportation system technology, and other traffic control features to support effective evacuations.
M-1.8: Evacuation Support for Transit-Dependent Populations. We partner with Omnitrans, senior service centers, and other relevant agencies to provide evacuation services for people lacking access to reliable private vehicles.
REVISED POLICIES
PlaceWorks recommends the following revisions to the existing Safety Element, as shown in strike-through for deleted text and in underlines for added text.
S-3.5: Emergency Notifications. We maintain a public alert notification system that efficiently conveys information about imminent, developing, ongoing, and concluding emergency events and evacuation 352
notifications to residents and visitors, working with network providers that translate information into other languages.
S-8.2: Emergency Management Plans and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan . We maintain, update, and adopt the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and incorporate by reference the City’s current City of Ontario Local Hazard Mitigation Plan ( LHMP) into this Safety Element by reference, as permitted by California Government Code Section 65302.6.
S-8.9: Backup Power in Critical Facilities . We require backup power be maintained in critical facilities , prioritizing facilities that can serve as evacuation centers. We encourage backup power solutions that include renewable energy components.
353
Environmental Justice Areas
Source: CES4 2021, City of Ontario 2025
%&'(
%&'(
%&'(
|ÿ
|ÿ
%&'(
County of
San Bernardino
County of Riverside
60 60
10 15
15 10
CITY OF
MONTCLAIR
CITY OF
UPLAND
CITY OF
FONTANA
CITY OF CHINO
CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
S EUCLID AVE
S CAMPUS AVE
N HAVEN AVE
S SULTANA AVE
S GROVE AVE
N
M
ILLIKEN
AVE
E RIVERSIDE DR
E G ST
W D ST
N VINEYARD AVE
N SAN ANTONIO AVE
S
SAN
ANTONIO
AVE
N SULTANA AVE
S ARCHIBALD AVE
N GROVE AVE
S ETIWANDA AVE
S MOUNTAIN AVE
E PHILADELPHIA ST
W FOURTH ST
N CAMPUS AVE
N MOUNTAIN AVE
N BENSON AVE
E D ST
W MISSION BLVD
N EUCLID AVEW G ST
E FOURTH ST
S
HAVEN
AVE
S MILLIKEN AVE
W PHILADELPHIA ST
E EIGHTH ST
S TURNER AVE
W FRANCIS ST
S VINEYARD AVE
E JURUPA ST
E AIRPORT DR
S BENSON AVE
E INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
ONTARIO RANCH RD
E MISSION BLVD
N ETIWANDA AVE
MERRILL AVE
S WINEVILLE AVES VINTAGE AVE
E EDISON AVE
E SANTA ANA ST
E HOLT AVE
S HAMNER AVE
E SCHAEFER AVE
E EUCALYPTUS AVE
E CHINO AVE
EASTVALE
JURUPA VALLEY
Figure ER-01
EN VI RONM E NTAL R E SOU RCE S
Environmental Justice Community
Ontario City Boundary
County Boundary
0 5,000 10,0002,500
FT
Date: 8/14/25
A-3
354
Truck Routes
Source: The City of Ontario 2025
%&'(
%&'(
%&'(
|ÿ
|ÿ
%&'(
County of
San Bernardino
County of Riverside
60 60
10 15
15 10
CITY OF
UPLAND
CITY OF
FONTANA
CITY OF CHINO
CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
S EUCLID AVE
S CAM
PUS AVE
N HAVEN AVE
S SULTANA AVE
S GROVE AVE
N
M
ILLIKEN
AVE
E RIVERSIDE DR
E G ST
W PHILLIPS ST
W D ST
N VINEYARD AVE
N SAN ANTONIO AVE
S SAN ANTONIO AVE
N SULTANA AVE
S ARCHIBALD AVE
N
GROVE
AVE
S ETIW
ANDA AVE
S M
OUNTAIN AVE
E PHILADELPHIA ST
W FOURTH ST
N CAM
PUS AVE
N M
OUNTAIN AVE
N BENSON AVE
E D ST
N EUCLID AVE
W G ST
E FOURTH ST
S
HAVEN
AVE
S M
ILLIKEN AVE
W PHILADELPHIA ST
E EIGHTH ST
S TURNER AVE
W FRANCIS ST
S VINEYARD AVE E JURUPA ST
E AIRPORT DR
S BENSON AVE
E INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
ONTARIO RANCH RD
E MISSION BLVD
N ETIW
ANDA AVE
MERRILL AVE
S WINEVILLE AVE
S VINTAGE AVE
E EDISON AVE
E SANTA ANA ST
E HOLT AVE
S HAM
NER AVE
E SCHAEFER AVE
E EUCALYPTUS AVE
E CHINO AVE
EASTVALE
JURUPA VALLEY
Figure M-04
MOBIL ITY
County Boundary
Ontario City Boundary
Railroad
State DOT Network
Truck Route
Adjacent Agency Truck Route
0 5,000 10,0002,500
FT
Date: 8/14/25
355
Park & Recreational Facilities
Source: The City of Ontario 2025
%&'(
%&'(
%&'(
|ÿ
|ÿ
%&'(
^
^ ^
^
^
^
^
County of
San Bernardino
County of Riverside
60 60
10 15
15 10
CITY OF
MONTCLAIR
CITY OF
UPLAND
CITY OF
FONTANA
CITY OF CHINO
CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
S EUCLID AVE
S CAMPUS AVE
N HAVEN AVE
S SULTANA AVE
S GROVE AVE
N
M
ILLIKEN
AVE
E RIVERSIDE DR
E G ST
W PHILLIPS ST
W D ST
N VINEYARD AVE
N SAN ANTONIO AVE
S SAN ANTONIO AVE
N SULTANA AVE
S ARCHIBALD AVE
N
GROVE
AVE
S ETIWANDA AVE
S MOUNTAIN AVE E PHILADELPHIA ST
W FOURTH ST
N CAMPUS AVE
N MOUNTAIN AVE
N BENSON AVE
E D ST
N EUCLID AVEW G ST
E FOURTH ST
S
HAVEN
AVE
S MILLIKEN AVE
W PHILADELPHIA ST
E EIGHTH ST
S TURNER AVE
W FRANCIS ST
S VINEYARD AVE
E JURUPA ST
E AIRPORT DR
S BENSON AVE
E INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
ONTARIO RANCH RD
E MISSION BLVD
N ETIWANDA AVE
MERRILL AVE
S WINEVILLE AVES VINTAGE AVE
E EDISON AVE
E SANTA ANA ST
E HOLT AVE
S HAMNER AVE
E SCHAEFER AVE
E EUCALYPTUS AVE
E CHINO AVE
EASTVALE
JURUPA VALLEY
1 2 3
4 5
6 7
Figure PR-01
PAR KS & RE CR E ATI ON
0 5,000 10,0002,500
FT
County Boundary
Ontario City Boundary
Rail Network
Existing Park
Existing Parkway
Existing Trail
Planned Park
^ Community Center
1. Anthony Munoz Community Center
2. Armstrong Community Center
3. De Anza Community & Teen Center
4. Dorothy A Quesada Community Center
5. Ontario Senior Center
6. Veterans Memorial Community Center
7. Westwind Community Center
Date: 8/14/25
A-5
356
Flood Hazard Zones
Source: The City of Ontario 2025, FEMA 2025
Figure S-03
SAF E TY
%&'(
%&'(
%&'(
|ÿ
|ÿ
%&'(
County of
San Bernardino
County of Riverside
60 60
10 15
15 10
CITY OF
MONTCLAIR
CITY OF
UPLAND
CITY OF
FONTANA
CITY OF CHINO
CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
S EUCLID AVE
S CAMPUS AVE
N HAVEN AVE
S SULTANA AVE
S GROVE AVE
N
M
ILLIKEN
AVE
E RIVERSIDE DR
E G ST
W D ST
N VINEYARD AVE
N SAN ANTONIO AVE
S
SAN
ANTONIO
AVE
N SULTANA AVE
S ARCHIBALD AVE
N GROVE AVE
S ETIWANDA AVE
S MOUNTAIN AVE
E PHILADELPHIA ST
W FOURTH ST
N CAMPUS AVE
N MOUNTAIN AVE
N BENSON AVE
E D ST
W MISSION BLVD
N EUCLID AVEW G ST
E FOURTH ST
S
HAVEN
AVE
S MILLIKEN AVE
W PHILADELPHIA ST
E EIGHTH ST
S TURNER AVE
W FRANCIS ST
S VINEYARD AVE
E JURUPA ST
E AIRPORT DR
S BENSON AVE
E INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
ONTARIO RANCH RD
E MISSION BLVD
N ETIWANDA AVE
MERRILL AVE
S WINEVILLE AVES VINTAGE AVE
E EDISON AVE
E SANTA ANA ST
E HOLT AVE
S HAMNER AVE
E SCHAEFER AVE
E EUCALYPTUS AVE
E CHINO AVE
EASTVALE
JURUPA VALLEY
Ontario City Boundary
County Boundary
Rail Network
Flood Zone
FEMA 100-Year Floodplain
FEMA 500-Year Floodplain
Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee
0 5,000 10,0002,500
FT
Date: 8/14/25
A-6
357
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Source: CalFire 2025
%&'(
%&'(
%&'(
|ÿ
|ÿ
%&'(
County of San Bernardino
County of Riverside
County of San Bernardino
County of Los Angeles
60 60
10 15
15 10
CITY OF
RIALTO
CITY OF
MONTCLAIR
CITY OF
CHINO HILLS
CITY OF
UPLAND
CITY OF
FONTANA
CITY OF CHINO
CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
CITY OF
ONTARIO
CORONACORONA
EASTVALE
JURUPA VALLEY
NORCO
RIVERSIDE
DIAMOND BAR
POMONA
LA VERNE
GLENDORA
CLAREMONT
SAN DIMAS
0 5,000 10,0002,500
FT
Figure S-05
SAF E TY
Ontario City Boundary
County Boundary
Fire Hazard Severity Zone in Local Responsibility Area
Very High
High
Moderate
Fire Hazard Severity Zone in State Responsibility Area
Very High
High
Moderate
Date: 8/14/25
A-7
358
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
A PPEN DICES
O CTO BER 2025
Appendix B Tribal Consultation
359
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
A PPEN DICES
PlaceWorks
This page is intentionally left blank.
360
/0/1/2 /3 /4 /4 /5
/6 /7 /8 /i255 /10 /11 /12 /13 /i255 /14 /15 /i255/16/17/12 /18 /19 /11 /14 /8 /i255/20/14/12 /11 /15 /11 /21 /18 /12 /11 /14 /17 /i255 /14 /15 /i255 /22 /23 /17 /23 /19 /18 /24 /i255 /25 /24 /18 /17 /i255 /25 /14 /24 /11 /21 /13 /i255 /26/27/23/17 /28/27/23/17 /12 /i255 /29 /i255 /30 /31 /i255 /32 /33 /34 /19 /14/27/35/4 /36/37 /38 /2 /i255/40/4/38 /41 /3 /37 /42 /i255 /43 /44/0/45/46 /47 /48 /49 /50 /51 /52 /46 /53 /50 /54 /55 /44/0/56/45 /46 /47 /48 /49 /50 /51 /52 /46 /i255 /50 /57/40/58/51 /58 /55 /59 /35 /50 /59 /58 /60 /46 /i255 /52 /35/0/56/61 /62 /63 /64 /57/58 /54/0/49/63 /65 /66 /55 /61 /57 /53 /59 /67 /44 /48 /51 /45 /35 /46 /48 /58 /61 /58 /46 /51 /59 /55 /44 /48 /51 /45 /48 /46 /66 /46 /46 /68 /48 /66 /68 /50 /48 /69 /70 /66 /69 /71 /71 /46 /57 /72 /66 /70 /70 /69 /54 /46 /63 /65 /48 /70 /63 /73 /74 /35/0/54/46 /35 /59 /i255/40/0 /35/50 /75 /76 /18 /12/23/77 /37/78/i255 /70 /44 /65 /66 /44 /65 /73 /65 /68 /i255 /66 /79 /66 /72 /i255 /61 /40 /80/14/52/41 /36/38 /81 /37 /3 /37 /82 /4 /i255 /50 /78/83/81/82 /81 /42 /2 /38 /41 /2 /81 /4 /82 /i255 /43 /41 /78/83/81/82/84/85/41 /36 /38 /81 /37 /3 /37 /82 /4 /81 /82 /78 /81 /41 /82 /42 /86 /4 /38 /85 /75 /87 /88 /i255 /90 /91 /92 /93 /94 /95 /96
/i255
/97 /98 /92 /93 /99 /i255 /95 /100 /101 /i255 /102 /100 /91 /i255 /95 /100 /101 /91 /i255 /91 /103 /104 /105 /100 /93 /104 /103 /106 /i255
/107 /103 /104 /96 /i255 /108 /98 /88 /104 /i255 /88 /104 /i255 /92/i255 /105 /100 /109 /88 /110 /95 /111 /100 /93 /109 /95 /i255/112/103/93 /103 /91 /92 /109 /i255 /113 /109 /92 /93 /i255 /114/115/103/93 /94/115/103/93 /108 /i255 /116 /88 /108 /98 /i255 /93 /100 /i255 /105 /91 /100 /105 /100 /104 /103 /94 /i255 /94 /103 /117 /103 /109 /100 /105/115/103/93 /108 /96 /i255/118 /91 /92 /94 /88 /93 /118 /96 /i255 /100 /91 /118 /91 /100 /101 /93 /94 /111 /94 /88 /104 /108 /101/91 /119 /88 /93 /118 /i255 /92 /110 /108 /88 /117 /88 /108 /88 /103 /104 /106 /120/103/i255 /92 /105 /105 /91 /103 /110 /88 /92/108 /103 /i255 /95 /100 /101 /91 /i255 /110 /100 /93 /102 /88 /91/115/92/108 /88 /100 /93 /i255 /92 /93 /94 /i255 /116 /88 /109 /109 /i255 /103 /93 /104 /101 /91 /103 /i255 /95 /100 /101 /91 /i255 /97 /91 /88 /119 /103 /i255 /88 /104 /i255 /93 /100 /108 /88 /102 /88 /103 /94 /i255 /104 /98 /100 /101 /109 /94 /i255 /92 /93 /95 /i255 /102 /101/108 /101 /91 /103 /i255 /105 /91 /100 /121 /103 /110 /108 /88 /93 /117 /100 /109 /117 /103 /i255 /118 /91 /100 /101 /93/94 /i255 /94 /88 /104 /108 /101 /91 /119 /92 /93 /110 /103 /106 /i255
/97 /98 /92 /93 /99 /i255 /95 /100 /101 /96
/i255
/i255
/122 /123 /124 /125 /126 /127 /i255/129/123/126
/130 /131 /125 /132
/133 /134 /134 /135 /136 /137 /138 /139 /140/i255 /142 /143 /138 /144 /144 /140 /145 /146 /147 /146 /i255 /148 /i255 /149 /i255 /150/139 /145 /140 /140 /139 /i255/151/144/139 /138 /145 /137 /135 /i255/152/133/153 /i255 /154 /155 /156 /157 /158 /142 /159 /i255 /160 /154 /147 /154 /161 /i255 /146/154 /162 /163 /164 /158 /146 /164 /165/166/135/145 /138 /143 /140 /134/167/151/144/139 /138 /145 /137 /135 /136 /138 /168 /169 /135 /170 /171/171/171/172/173/174 /175 /176 /177 /178 /173 /179 /176 /172 /180 /173 /181 /i255
/i255
/i255
/i255
/i255
/i255
/183 /184 /185/186/187/i255 /188 /189 /190 /191 /192 /193/194 /193 /195 /196 /i255 /197 /198/199/192/195 /192 /200 /201 /191 /189 /202 /196 /195 /i255 /203 /189 /198/199/192/195/204/205/189 /190 /191 /192 /193 /194 /193 /195 /196 /192 /195 /198 /192 /189 /195 /200 /206 /196 /191 /205 /207 /208 /209 /210 /211 /187 /i255/212/193/198 /195 /193/200 /198 /189 /213 /214 /i255 /197 /215 /191 /192 /194 /i255 /216 /217 /214 /i255 /216 /218 /216 /219 /i255 /220 /216 /221 /219 /220 /i255 /222 /223 /224 /185 /187 /i255 /225 /196 /190 /193 /191 /201 /i255 /223/196 /191 /189 /194 /193 /200 /i255 /203 /225/223/196/191 /189 /194 /193 /200/204/196/195 /201 /189 /191 /192 /196 /226 /189 /206 /205 /196 /227 /207 /208 /228 /229 /230 /209 /231 /211 /187 /i255 /225 /193 /221 /i255/232 /192 /201 /213 /i255 /196 /233 /i255 /234 /195 /201 /189 /191 /192 /196 /221 /i255 /235 /196 /202 /236 /226 /189 /202 /196 /195 /i255 /196 /233 /i255 /188 /193 /195 /193 /191 /189 /194 /i255 /222 /194 /189 /195 /i255 /222 /196 /194 /192 /226 /213 /i255 /197/199/193/195 /198/199/193/195 /201 /i255 /237 /i255 /238 /239 /i255 /220 /240 /i255
/241 /103 /92 /91 /i255 /242 /100 /119 /103 /91 /108 /96 /97 /98 /92 /93 /99 /i255 /95 /100 /101 /i255 /102 /100 /91 /i255 /95 /100 /101 /91 /i255 /103/115/92/88 /109 /106 /97 /100 /i255 /110 /100 /93 /102 /88 /91/115/96/i255 /88 /104 /i255 /108 /98 /88 /104 /i255 /92 /i255 /118 /103 /93 /103 /91 /92 /109 /i255 /105 /109 /92 /93 /i255 /92/115/103/93 /94/115/103/93 /108 /i255 /100 /93 /109 /95 /243 /i255 /244 /102 /i255 /93 /100 /i255 /118 /91 /100 /101 /93 /94 /111 /94 /88 /104 /108 /101 /91 /119 /88 /93 /118 /i255 /92 /110 /108 /88 /117 /88 /108 /88 /103 /104 /i255 /92 /91 /103 /105 /91 /100 /105 /100 /104 /103 /94 /i255 /92 /104 /i255 /105 /92 /91 /108 /i255 /100 /102 /i255 /108 /98 /88 /104 /i255 /105 /91 /100 /121 /103 /110 /108 /96 /i255 /116 /103 /i255 /94 /100 /i255 /93 /100 /108 /i255 /98 /92 /117 /103 /i255 /102 /101 /91 /108 /98 /103 /91 /i255 /110 /100 /93 /110 /103 /91 /93 /104 /i255 /92 /108 /i255 /108 /98 /88 /104 /i255 /108 /88/115/103/106 /i255 /87 /100 /116 /103 /117 /103 /91 /96 /i255 /116 /103 /99 /88 /93 /94 /109 /95 /i255 /91 /103 /245 /101 /103 /104 /108 /i255 /108 /98 /92 /108 /i255 /88 /102 /i255 /92 /93 /95 /i255 /102 /101 /108 /101 /91 /103 /i255 /118 /91 /100 /101 /93 /94 /i255 /94 /88 /104 /108 /101 /91 /119 /92 /93 /110 /103 /i255 /88 /104 /i255 /92 /93 /108 /88 /110 /88 /105 /92 /108 /103 /94 /96 /i255 /100 /101 /91 /i255 /97 /91 /88 /119 /103 /i255 /119 /103 /i255 /93 /100 /108 /88 /102 /88 /103 /94 /i255 /88 /93 /92 /94 /117 /92 /93 /110 /103 /106
/246 /247 /248 /247 /249 /246 /96 /i255 /250 /251 /246 /252 /i255 /114/253/242 /254 /251 /i255 /255 /88 /108/95/i255 /100 /102 /i255/0/93 /108 /92 /91 /88 /100 /251 /i255/1/100 /108 /88 /102 /88 /110 /92 /108 /88 /100 /93 /i255 /100 /102 /i255/112/103/93 /103 /91 /92 /109 /i255 /113 /109 /92 /93 /i255 /113 /100 /109 /88 /110/95/i255 /114/115/103/93 /94/115/103/93 /108 /i255/2/i255/3/90 /i255/4 /5/i255 /111 /i255/1/88 /110 /100 /109 /103 /i255/6/103 /91/115/88/109 /88 /100 /93 /i255 /111 /i255/0/101 /108 /109 /100 /100 /99 /92 /119 /100 /101 /108 /251 /119 /109 /92 /93 /99 /243 /116 /88 /93 /94 /100 /116 /244 /94/7 /3/103 /110 /100 /93 /94 /92 /91/95/242 /103 /92 /94 /88 /93/118/113 /92 /93 /103 /249/5 /4/247 /252 B-1361
/0 /1 /2 /3 /i255 /5 /1 /6 /7 /5 /8 /2 /9
/0 /5 /7 /10 /8 /11 /i255 /12 /7 /13 /7 /2
/14 /5 /15 /16 /7 /13 /i255 /17 /8/18/15/10 /15 /2 /3 /5 /7 /3 /15 /19 /1 /i255 /20 /21 /21 /5 /8 /15 /10 /7 /3 /21 /5 /i255 /22/7/16 /5 /15 /1 /13 /1 /23 /21 /i255 /0 /7 /10 /8 /i255 /21 /24 /i255/25/15/2 /2 /15 /21 /10 /i255 /26 /10 /8 /15 /7 /10 /2 /i255 /27 /i255 /28 /15 /29 /30 /i255 /31 /7 /3 /15 /21 /10 /32/33/i255/0 /21 /34 /i255 /35 /36 /35
/20 /21 /19 /15 /10 /7 /9 /i255 /20 /17 /i255 /i255/36 /37 /38 /39 /35 /33/24/24 /15 /40 /1 /41 /i255 /42 /43 /43 /27 /35/36 /44 /27 /44 /38 /42 /38 /45 /1 /16 /2 /15 /3 /1 /41 /i255 /i255/46 /46/46 /47 /48 /49 /50 /51 /52 /53 /54 /53 /55 /56 /52 /55 /57 /52 /49 /55 /58 /47 /56 /51 /48 /i255 /60 /48 /49 /50 /51 /52 /53 /54 /53 /55 /56 /52 /55 /57 /52 /49 /55 /58 /47 /56 /51 /48 /61/i255 /i255
/i255
/62 /63 /64 /i255 /66 /64 /67 /68 /69 /70 /i255 /71 /63 /64 /66 /64/i255 /72 /73 /74 /66 /68 /64 /75 /64 /76 /69 /i255 /77 /78 /75 /79 /78 /66 /64 /i255 /79 /63 /66 /68 /80 /64 /81 /i255 /82 /69 /66 /i255 /83 /69 /66 /64 /i255 /79 /63 /73 /70 /i255 /79 /71 /64 /75 /80 /64 /i255 /79 /63 /69 /78 /84 /73 /70 /81 /i255 /85 /64 /73 /66 /84 /i255 /64 /70 /77 /69 /83 /86 /73 /84 /84 /64 /81 /i255 /83 /69 /84 /79 /i255 /69 /82 /i255 /87 /69 /84 /i255/88/70/67 /64 /75 /64 /84 /i255 /89 /69 /78 /70 /79 /85 /90 /83 /69 /66 /64 /i255 /79 /63 /73 /70 /i255 /63 /73 /75 /82 /i255 /69/82 /i255 /92 /66 /73 /70 /67 /64 /i255 /89 /69 /78 /70 /79 /85 /i255 /73 /70 /81 /i255 /86 /69 /66 /79 /68 /69 /70 /84 /i255 /69 /82 /i255 /93 /68 /80 /64 /66 /84 /68 /81 /64 /i255 /73 /70 /81 /i255 /94 /73 /70 /i255 /95 /64 /66 /70 /73 /66 /81 /68 /70 /69 /i255 /77 /69 /78 /70 /79 /68 /64 /84 /96 /i255 /97 /79 /i255 /71 /73 /84 /i255 /79 /63 /64 /i255 /75 /73 /74 /69 /66 /i255 /69 /82 /79 /63 /64 /i255 /72 /73 /74 /66 /68 /64 /75 /64 /76 /69 /i255 /71/63 /69 /i255 /74 /78 /68 /75 /79 /i255 /79 /63 /64 /i255 /83 /68 /84 /84 /68 /69 /70 /84 /90 /i255 /66 /73 /70 /77 /63 /69 /84 /i255 /73 /70 /81 /i255 /79 /63 /64 /i255 /86 /78 /64 /74 /75 /69 /84 /i255 /69 /82 /i255 /87 /69 /84 /i255/88/70/67 /64 /75 /64 /84 /96 /i255 /62 /63 /64 /85 /i255 /71 /64 /66 /64 /i255 /79 /66 /73 /68 /70 /64 /81 /i255 /68 /70 /i255 /79 /63 /64 /i255 /79 /66 /73 /81 /64 /84/90 /i255 /73 /70 /81 /i255 /79 /63 /64 /85 /i255 /81 /68 /81 /i255 /79 /63 /64 /77 /69 /70 /84 /79 /66 /78 /77 /79 /68 /69 /70 /i255 /73 /70 /81 /i255/83 /73 /68 /70 /79 /64 /70 /73 /70 /77 /64 /90 /i255 /73 /84 /i255 /71 /64 /75 /75 /i255 /73 /84 /i255 /79 /63 /64 /i255 /82 /73 /66 /83 /68 /70 /67 /i255 /73 /70 /81 /i255 /83 /73 /70 /73 /67 /68 /70 /67 /i255 /63 /64 /66 /81 /84 /i255 /69 /82 /i255 /75 /68 /80 /64 /84 /79 /69 /77 /99 /96 /i255 /62 /63 /64 /i255 /72 /73 /74 /66 /68 /64 /75 /64 /76 /69 /i255 /73 /66 /64 /i255 /79 /63 /64 /i255/69 /70 /64 /84 /i255 /71 /63 /69 /i255 /81 /68 /81 /i255 /73 /75 /75 /79 /63 /68 /84 /i255 /71 /69 /66 /99 /90 /i255 /73 /70 /81 /i255 /79 /63/64 /85 /i255 /66 /64 /73 /75 /75 /85 /i255 /73 /66 /64 /i255 /79 /63 /64 /i255 /82 /69 /78 /70 /81 /73 /79 /68 /69 /70 /i255 /69 /82 /i255 /79 /63 /64 /i255 /64 /73 /66 /75 /85 /i255 /64 /77 /69 /70 /69 /83 /85 /i255 /69 /82 /i255 /79 /63 /64 /i255 /87 /69 /84 /i255/88/70/67 /64 /75 /64 /84 /i255 /73 /66 /64 /73 /96 /i255 /62 /63 /73 /79 /100 /84 /i255 /73 /i255 /77 /69 /70 /79 /66 /68 /74 /78 /79 /68/69 /70 /i255 /79 /63 /73 /79 /i255 /87 /69 /84 /88/70/67 /64 /75 /64 /84 /i255 /63 /73 /84 /i255 /70 /69 /79 /i255 /66/64 /77 /69 /67 /70 /68 /101 /64 /81 /102 /102 /79 /63 /64 /i255 /82 /73 /77 /79 /i255 /79 /63 /73 /79 /i255 /68 /70 /i255 /68 /79 /84 /i255 /64 /73 /66 /75 /85 /i255 /81 /64 /77 /73 /81 /64 /84 /90 /i255 /71 /68 /79 /63 /69 /78 /79 /i255 /79 /63 /64 /i255 /72 /73 /74 /66 /68 /64 /75 /64 /76 /69 /90 /i255 /79 /63 /64 /i255 /77 /69 /83 /83 /78 /70 /68 /79 /85 /i255 /84 /68 /83 /86 /75 /85 /i255 /71 /69 /78/75 /81 /i255 /70 /69 /79 /i255 /63 /73 /80 /64 /84 /78 /66 /80 /68 /80 /64 /81 /96
/i255
/33/10/i255/103/1/8 /9 /i255 /17 /104 /5
/i255 /39 /35 /9 /i255 /39 /44 /39 /105 /i255 /7 /3 /i255 /37 /37 /41 /35 /39 /106 /17/25/i255/107 /21 /16 /1 /5 /3 /i255/25/21/5 /7 /13 /1 /2 /i255 /108/109/110/111/112 /113 /114 /115 /116/117/111/118 /119 /113 /112 /120 /111 /121 /113 /122 /123 /111 /124/125 /i255 /45 /5/21 /3 /1 /41 /126 /1 /7 /5 /i255 /9 /i255/17 /10 /8 /5 /1 /45 /i255 /12 /7 /13 /7 /2 /9 /i255 /20 /30 /7 /15 /5 /104 /1 /5 /2 /21 /10 /i255
/14 /30 /1 /i255 /20 /15 /3 /11 /i255 /21/24 /i255/33/10/3 /7 /5 /15 /21 /i255 /15 /2 /i255 /104 /5 /21 /19 /15 /8 /15 /10 /6 /i255 /10 /21 /3 /15 /40 /1 /9 /i255 /104 /127 /5 /2 /127 /7 /10 /3 /i255 /3 /21 /i255 /12 /1 /10 /7 /3 /1 /i255 /0 /15 /13 /13 /i255 /128 /12 /0 /129 /i255 /37 /42 /9 /i255 /5 /1 /6 /7 /5 /8 /15 /10 /6/i255 /7 /i255 /104 /5 /21 /104 /21 /2 /1 /8 /104 /21 /13 /15 /40 /11 /27 /13 /1 /19 /1/13 /i255 /7/18/1/10 /8/18/1/10 /3 /i255 /3 /21 /i255 /130 /131 /132 /i255/134/135/136 /137 /138 /139 /140 /i255 /141 /142 /137 /135 /i255 /128/22/1/10 /1 /5 /7 /13 /i255 /32 /13 /7 /10 /129 /143 /i255 /14 /30 /15 /2 /i255 /7/18/1/10 /8/18/1/10 /3 /i255 /15 /2 /i255 /16/1 /15 /10 /6 /15 /10 /15 /3 /15 /7 /3 /1 /8 /i255 /3 /21/i255 /40 /21/18/104/13 /11 /i255 /45 /15 /3 /30 /i255 /5 /1 /40 /1 /10 /3 /i255 /40 /30 /7 /10 /6 /1 /2 /i255 /15 /10 /i255 /12 /3 /7 /3 /1 /i255 /13 /7 /45 /9 /i255 /15 /10 /40 /13 /127 /8 /15 /10 /6 /41 /144 /145 /i255 /147/148 /i255 /128 /3 /5 /127 /40 /149 /i255 /5 /21 /127 /3 /1 /i255 /104 /13 /7 /10 /10 /15 /10 /6 /129 /9 /144 /145 /i255 /150/151 /150 /i255 /128 /1/18/1/5 /6 /1 /10 /40 /11 /i255 /1 /19 /7 /40 /127 /7 /3 /15 /21 /10 /i255 /104 /13 /7 /10 /10 /15 /10 /6 /129 /9 /152 /145 /i255 /153/151 /154 /155 /i255 /128 /40 /13 /15/18/7/3 /1 /i255 /7 /8 /7 /104 /3 /7 /3 /15 /21 /10 /129 /9 /152 /145 /i255 /154/156 /148 /151 /i255 /128 /30 /7 /29 /7 /5 /8 /i255/18/15/3 /15 /6 /7 /3 /15 /21 /10 /i255 /24 /21 /5 /i255 /19 /127 /13 /10 /1 /5 /7 /16 /13 /1 /i255 /104 /21 /104 /127 /13 /7 /3 /15 /21 /10 /2 /129 /9 /i255 /7 /10 /8 /152 /145 /i255 /153/157 /157 /157 /i255 /128 /1 /10 /19 /15 /5 /21 /10/18/1/10 /3 /7 /13 /i255 /158 /127 /2 /3 /15 /40 /1 /i255 /15 /10 /3 /1 /6 /5 /7 /3 /15 /21 /10 /129 /143 /i255
/14 /30 /15 /2 /i255 /15 /2 /i255 /7 /i255 /159/160 /161 /162 /163 /164 /165 /160 /166 /161 /164 /i255 /167 /159 /168 /169 /170 /171 /i255 /7 /10 /8 /i255 /8 /21 /1 /2 /i255 /166 /160 /170 /i255 /162 /166 /172 /160 /161 /172 /171 /i255 /169 /166 /164 /i255 /168 /171 /172 /171 /161 /160 /159/173/171/166 /170 /174 /i255 /175 /176 /160 /167 /166 /168 /i255 /168/162 /177 /170 /167 /176 /178 /169 /166 /163 /171 /174 /160 /176 /i255 /163 /160 /166 /177 /170 /176 /167/163 /170 /162 /160 /166 /143 /i255 /26 /3 /2 /i255 /104 /127 /5 /104 /21 /2 /1 /i255 /15 /2 /i255 /3 /21 /i255 /149 /1 /1 /104 /i255 /3 /30 /1 /i255 /20 /15 /3 /11 /179 /2 /i255/22/1/10 /1 /5 /7 /13 /i255 /32 /13 /7 /10 /i255 /7 /13 /15 /6 /10 /1 /8 /i255 /45 /15 /3 /30 /i255 /40 /127 /5 /5 /1/10 /3 /i255 /12 /3 /7 /3 /1 /5 /1 /180 /127 /15 /5 /1/18/1/10/3 /2 /143
/i255
/17 /13 /3 /30 /21 /127 /6 /30 /i255 /3 /30 /15 /2 /i255 /7/18/1/10 /8/18/1/10 /3 /i255 /8 /21 /1 /2 /i255 /10 /21 /3 /i255 /104 /5 /21 /104 /21 /2 /1 /i255 /13 /7 /10 /8 /i255 /127 /2 /1 /i255 /40 /30 /7 /10 /6 /1 /2 /i255 /21 /5 /i255 /104 /30 /11 /2 /15 /40 /7 /13 /i255 /15/18/104/7 /40 /3 /2 /9 /i255 /3 /30 /1 /i255 /20 /15 /3 /11 /5 /1 /2 /104 /1 /40 /3 /2 /i255 /3 /5 /15 /16 /7 /13 /i255 /15 /10 /3 /1 /5 /1 /2 /3 /2 /i255 /7 /10 /8 /i255 /15 /10 /19 /15 /3 /1 /2 /i255 /11 /21 /127 /5 /i255 /3 /5 /15 /16 /1 /i255 /3 /21 /i255 /104 /5 /21 /19 /15 /8 /1 /i255 /15 /10 /104 /127 /3 /i255 /5 /1 /6 /7 /5 /8 /15 /10 /6 /i255 /7 /10 /11 /i255 /104 /21 /3 /1 /10 /3 /15 /7 /13 /i255 /40 /127 /13 /3 /127 /5 /7 /13 /5 /1 /2 /21 /127 /5 /40 /1 /2 /143
/26 /24 /i255 /11 /21 /127 /5 /i255 /3 /5 /15 /16 /1 /i255 /45 /21 /127 /13 /8 /i255 /13 /15 /149 /1 /i255 /3 /21 /i255 /15 /10 /15 /3 /15 /7 /3 /1 /i255 /40 /21 /10 /2 /127 /13 /3 /7 /3 /15 /21 /10 /i255 /127 /10 /8 /1 /5 /i255 /12 /0 /i255 /37 /42 /9 /i255 /104 /13 /1 /7 /2 /1 /i255 /5 /1 /2 /104 /21 /10 /8 /i255 /45 /15 /3 /30 /15 /10 /i255 /147 /157 /i255 /168 /169 /164 /177 /i255 /21 /24 /5 /1 /40 /1 /15 /19 /15 /10 /6 /i255 /3 /30 /15 /2 /i255 /10 /21 /3 /15 /40 /1 /143 /i255/103/1/i255 /45 /1 /13 /40 /21/18/1/i255 /3 /30 /1 /i255 /21 /104 /104 /21 /5 /3 /127 /10 /15 /3 /11 /i255 /3 /21 /i255 /1 /10 /6 /7 /6 /1 /i255 /24 /127 /5 /3 /30 /1 /5 /143 /i255
/105 /181 /182 /181 /39 /105 /9 /i255 /36 /41 /105 /35 /i255 /17/25/107 /183 /41 /i255 /20 /15 /3/11/i255 /21 /24 /i255/33/10/3 /7 /5 /15 /21 /41 /i255 /31 /21 /3 /15 /24 /15 /40 /7 /3 /15 /21 /10 /i255 /21 /24 /i255/22/1/10 /1 /5 /7 /13 /i255 /32 /13 /7 /10 /i255 /32 /21 /13 /15 /40/11/i255 /17/18/1/10 /8/18/1/10 /3 /i255 /184 /i255 /12 /0 /i255 /37 /42 /i255 /27 /i255 /31 /15 /40 /21 /13 /1 /i255 /185 /1 /5/18/15/13 /15 /21 /10 /i255 /27 /i255/33/127/3 /13 /21 /21 /149 /7 /16 /21 /127 /3 /41 /16 /13 /7 /10 /149 /186 /45 /15 /10 /8 /21 /45 /26 /8 /187 /12 /1 /40 /21 /10 /8 /7 /5/11/107 /1 /7 /8 /15 /10/6/32 /7 /10 /1 /39 /42 /39 /181 /35 B-2362
/0 /1 /2 /3 /i255 /5 /1 /6 /7 /5 /8 /2 /9
/i255
/10 /11 /12 /13 /14 /15 /i255/17/11/14 /18 /19 /13 /20
/21 /22 /22 /23 /24 /25 /26 /27 /28 /i255 /30 /31 /26 /32 /32 /28 /33 /34 /35 /34 /i255 /36 /i255 /37 /i255 /38 /27 /33 /28 /28 /27 /i255/39/32/27 /26 /33 /25 /23 /i255/40/21/41 /i255 /42 /43 /44 /45 /46 /30 /47 /i255 /48 /42 /35 /42/49 /i255 /34 /42 /50 /51 /52 /46 /34 /52 /53/54/55/56 /57/58 /59 /60/61/62/63/64 /57 /56 /65 /55 /66 /57 /67 /68 /55 /69 /70/70/70/71 /72 /73 /74 /75 /76 /77 /72 /78 /75 /71 /79 /72 /80 /i255
/i255
/i255
/82 /83 /84 /83 /85 /82 /9 /i255 /86 /87 /82 /88 /i255 /89/90/91 /92 /87 /i255 /93 /94 /3/95/i255 /96 /97 /i255/98/99/3 /7 /5 /94 /96 /87 /i255 /100 /96 /3 /94 /97 /94 /101 /7 /3 /94 /96 /99 /i255 /96 /97 /i255/102/1/99 /1 /5 /7 /103 /i255 /104 /103 /7 /99 /i255 /104 /96 /103 /94 /101/95/i255 /89/105/1/99 /8/105/1/99 /3 /i255 /106 /i255 /107 /0 /i255 /108 /109 /i255 /110 /i255 /100 /94 /101 /96 /103 /1 /i255 /111 /1 /5/105/94/103 /94 /96 /99 /i255 /110 /i255/98/112/3 /103 /96 /96 /113 /7 /114 /96 /112 /3 /87 /114 /103 /7 /99 /113 /115 /116 /94 /99 /8 /96 /116 /117 /8 /118 /107 /1 /101 /96 /99 /8 /7 /5/95/91 /1 /7 /8 /94 /99/6/104 /7 /99 /1 /85 /109 /88 /83 /88 B-3363
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
A PPEN DICES
O CTO BER 2025
Appendix C Euclid Avenue Truck Route Relocation
364
T OP 2050 TECHNICAL AME NDME NT S SE IR ADDE NDUM
CIT Y O F ONTARIO
A PPEN DICES
PlaceWorks
This page is intentionally left blank.
365
3750 University Avenue | Suite 225 | Riverside, CA 92501 | (951) 274-4800 | Fax (951) 684-4324 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: October 7, 2025
To: Jay Bautista, City of Ontario
From: Paul Herrmann, T.E.
Jolene Hayes, AICP
Brian Wolfe
Subject: Euclid Avenue Truck Route Relocation Recommendations and Operations Assessment
OC24-1072
Overview
In June 2024, pursuant to a request from the City of Ontario, Caltrans relinquished State Route 83 (SR 83), Euclid Avenue, to the City. The City pursued relinquishment of Euclid Avenue to remove the truck route designation from Mission Boulevard to Interstate 10 (I-10) as part of a downtown revitalization plan.
This segment of Euclid Avenue, completed in 1883, consists of a very wide, grassy median lined with Eucalyptus trees and fronted primarily by sensitive receptors consisting of homes, parks, daycare facilities, convalescent homes, and schools, including the historic Chaffey High School (named for George and William Chaffey, the City’s founders). Euclid Avenue also serves as the primary access to the City’s downtown where the median has historically been used for community events like the famous “Christmas on Euclid” event known for its nativity scenes and craft fair.
Euclid Avenue provides direct access to both I-10 and SR 60 so removal of the truck route designation requires Caltrans’ approval based on the following analyses:
1) Review of access to truck-served businesses
2) Existing truck volumes
3) Availability and viability of alternative truck routes There are no major freight generators that rely on this segment of Euclid Avenue for access , and removal of the truck route designation would not preclude delivery vehicles from serving 366
Jay Bautista, City of Ontario
October 7, 2025