Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, December 2, 2025 (part 3 of 4)

commercial uses in the downtown area. The analysis contained herein will demonstrate that the removal of the truck route designation on Euclid Avenue conforms with Assembly Bill 98 (Reyes, 2024) and the associated “cleanup legislation”, Senate Bill 415 (2025), whereby it aims to remove through truck traffic from a key community corridor in the City of Ontario. Furthermore, the analysis will confirm that removal of the truck route designation on Euclid Avenue will result in a shift of through truck traffic to parallel routes that have the capacity to accommodate the additional traffic.

Analysis
Fehr & Peers completed a truck route relocation assessment as part of the City of Ontario Downtown Traffic Study. The following assessment considered two alternatives: 1) removal of the truck route designation, and 2) weight restrictions to prohibit trucks from using Euclid Avenue.

Removing the truck route designation along Euclid Avenue would improve roadway conditions through Downtown Ontario for residents, visitors, and employees by shifting trucks to alternative corridors. Per the findings of the analysis, removal of the truck route designation on Euclid Avenue is not expected to result in degraded Level of Service (LOS) along alternative, parallel truck routes.

The remainder of this memorandum is divided into the following sections:

1. Existing Conditions

2. Regulatory Landscape

3. Policy Alternatives

4. Operations Assessment

5. Recommendations
Existing Conditions
Within the study area, there are six truck routes designated by the City of Ontario, as shown in Figure 1.

367
Ontario Downtown Traffic Study
Existing Truck Routes
Figure 1
Fourth St
Holt Blvd
Vineyard Ave
Mountain Ave
Euclid Ave
Grove Ave
Mission Blvd
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 32
33 34
Study Intersections
City Truck Route
Adjacent City Truck Route
State DOT Network
#
368
Jay Bautista, City of Ontario
October 7, 2025

Page 4 of 20 ends

North-South Truck Routes
• Euclid Avenue: Euclid Avenue is a six-lane north-south facility and has a speed limit of 35 to 40 miles per hour. Euclid Avenue runs through Downtown Ontario with direct ingress and egress to I-10 and SR-60.
• Mountain Avenue: Mountain Avenue is a four-lane north-south facility that parallels Euclid Avenue to the west of Downtown Ontario with a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour. Mountain Avenue runs through commercial and industrial areas with direct ingress and egress to I-10 and SR-60.
• Grove Avenue: Grove Avenue is a four-lane north-south facility that parallels Euclid Avenue to the east of Downtown Ontario. Grove Avenue has a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour, provides direct ingress and egress access to SR-60, and indirect ingress and egress to I-10, Chino Airport, and Ontario International Airport.

East-West Truck Routes
• Fourth Street: Fourth Street is a two- to four-lane east-west facility north of Downtown Ontario with a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour. Fourth Street is designated as a truck route east of Grove Avenue and provides access to I-10. • Holt Boulevard: Holt Boulevard is a four-lane east-west facility south of Downtown Ontario. Holt Boulevard has a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour. In the study area, Holt Boulevard runs through commercial and industrial land uses and connects to I-10, SR-71, and Ontario International Airport. Holt Boulevard is designated as a truck route east of Grove Avenue.
• Mission Boulevard: Mission Boulevard is a four- to five-lane east-west facility south of Hoult Boulevard and Downtown Ontario with a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour.

In the study area, Mission Boulevard runs through commercial and industrial land uses and provides access to SR-60, I-15, SR-71, and Ontario International Airport. Mission Boulevard is designated by Caltrans as a state truck route.

Existing Truck Traffic
Vehicle classification counts were collected in May 2024 along the three north-south truck routes within the study area. The existing weekday volumes by vehicle classification are shown in Table

1. As shown in Table 1, truck volumes are highest along Grove Avenue. Along Euclid Avenue in Downtown Ontario, less than two percent of all vehicles are classified as trucks with three or more axles.
369
Jay Bautista, City of Ontario
October 7, 2025

Page 5 of 20 ends

Table 1: Existing Truck Volumes, May 2024
Truck
Route Segment Vehicle
Axles
Vehicle Volumes
AM Peak PM Peak Daily Total Share of
Total
Mountain
Avenue
State Street
to Mission
Boulevard
2-Axle 121 82 1,585 5.2%
3-Axle 15 10 175 0.6%
≥4-Axle 20 18 394 1.3%
Passenger
Vehicle 1,969 2,404 28,578 93.0%
J Street to
4th Street
2-Axle 69 45 879 3.2%
3-Axle 13 5 131 0.5%
≥4-Axle 22 12 259 0.9%
Passenger
Vehicle 1,670 1,900 26,457 95.4%
Euclid
Avenue
Mission
Boulevard
to Holt
Boulevard
2-Axle 79 81 1,170 4.3%
3-Axle 11 12 146 0.5%
≥4-Axle 24 13 326 1.2%
Passenger
Vehicle 1,775 2,179 25,359 93.9%
H Street to I
Street
2-Axle 55 42 862 3.6%
3-Axle 13 7 145 0.6%
≥4-Axle 15 8 235 1.0%
Passenger
Vehicle 1,767 1,884 22,736 94.8%
Grove
Avenue
Airport
Drive to
Mission
Boulevard
2-Axle 156 148 2,341 5.3%
3-Axle 27 32 498 1.1%
≥4-Axle 52 47 1,126 2.6%
Passenger
Vehicle 2,746 3,398 39,807 90.9%
I Street to
4th Street
2-Axle 57 55 868 4.0%
3-Axle 14 8 131 0.6%
≥4-Axle 14 7 169 0.8%
Passenger
Vehicle 1,248 1,530 20,495 94.6%
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
370
Jay Bautista, City of Ontario
October 7, 2025

Page 6 of 20 ends

Existing Truck Trip Distribution
Trip distribution refers to the directions of approach and departure that vehicles would use to travel to and from the Project study area. Fehr & Peers analyzed truck origin-destination and top- route data from Streetlight, a big data vendor that utilizes anonymous connected vehicle data to summarize trip behavior, to develop a trip distribution for trucks in the Downtown area.

As shown in Table 2, over 85 percent of truck trips along Euclid Avenue are pass-through trips, or trips that do not start or end in Downtown Ontario. Trips to and from downtown primarily utilize Holt Avenue to the east and Euclid Avenue to the north and south. A summary of top routes for inbound and outbound truck trips is provided in Figure 2.

Table 2: Truck Traffic in Downtown Ontario (Euclid Avenue) Pass Through
Downtown Ontario
Start/Stop in
Downtown Ontario
Percent of Truck
Traffic 88% 12%
Source: Streetlight Data, 2023.

371
Ontario Downtown Traffic Study
Truck Trip Distribution
)LJXUH
Inbound Truck Trip Distribution
Outbound Truck Trip Distribution
Downtown Ontario
16%27%
37%
25%
12%
8% 22%
28%
Source: Streetlight Data, 2023
Note: Numbers do not add to 100% as trips on local streets were excluded. 372
Jay Bautista, City of Ontario
October 7, 2025

Page 8 of 20 ends

Regulatory Landscape
Fehr & Peers reviewed the California Vehicle Code, Caltrans truck regulations, the Ontario Plan, and the Ontario Municipal Code to identify rules and regulations associated with both truck route designation and roadway weight restrictions.

Vehicle Classifications
Vehicles are classified into nine (9) categories, as defined by the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
1 Traffic counts are often collected by vehicle
classification to support operational analysis.

Classes 1-3: Light-Duty
The first three classes encompass non-commercial, light-duty vehicles commonly referred to as passenger vehicles. These three classifications represent automobiles, such as cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUV), minivans, and light-duty trucks (pick-up trucks):
• Class 1: Motorcycles – All two or three-wheeled motorized vehicles. This category includes motorcycles, motor scooters, mopeds, motor-powered bicycles, and three-wheel motorcycles.
• Class 2: Passenger Cars – All sedans, coupes, and station wagons manufactured primarily for the purpose of carrying passengers and including those passenger cars pulling recreational or other light trailers.
• Class 3: Other Two-Axle, Four-Tire Single Unit Vehicles – Included in this classification are pickups, panels, vans, and other vehicles such as campers, motor homes, ambulances, hearses, carryalls, and minibuses.

Classes 4-6: Medium-Duty
Medium-duty vehicles include medium sized trucks and some full-size trucks, primarily used commercially:
• Class 4: Single-unit, four-wheeled vehicles with gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) between 14,001 and 16,000 pounds. This includes buses, box trucks (typically used for deliveries to neighborhood stores and restaurants), and walk-in trucks and city delivery trucks (e.g., FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc.).

1 USDOT FHWA vehicle classifications accessed on 9/26/2024 at: Office of Highway Policy Information - Policy | Federal Highway Administration (dot.gov)
373
Jay Bautista, City of Ontario
October 7, 2025

Page 9 of 20 ends

• Class 5: Two-axle, six-tire, single-unit vehicles – Trucks between 16,001 and 19,500 pounds fall into this class. This consists of tow-trucks, dump trucks, larger delivery and walk-in trucks.
• Class 6: Three-axle, medium-duty commercial trucks – Vehicles in this class weigh between 19,501 and 26,000 pounds, such as cement trucks and the cab without a trailer of a semi-truck (also called a bobtail or tractor). This classification and Classes 7-9 require the driver to obtain a commercial drivers license.

Classes 7-8: Heavy-Duty
Heavy-duty trucks, commonly referred to as “semi-trucks” or “big rigs” typically fall into the following two classifications. Class 7 and 8 trucks are the most common, and in California, “California Legal” Class 7 and 8 trucks are permitted to use any roadway unless expressly prohibited. The configuration of a “California Legal” truck is shorter than the federal truck size limit as the federal size limit with a wheelbase of 67 feet is difficult for many local roadways to accommodate.
• Class 7: Single-unit vehicles with four or more axles and a GVWR ranging from 26,001 to 33,000 pounds. This category is commonly associated with local delivery trucks with “day cabs”, such as grocery store delivery trucks.
• Class 8: Vehicles with four or more axles and GVWR over 33,000 pounds – this category is most referred to when describing semi-trucks. However, this category also includes cement and dump trucks.

Implementing Truck Route Designations
Local jurisdictions have the authority to designate and undesignate truck routes within their jurisdiction. Pursuant to Assembly Bill 98 – Warehouse Build Standards (2024), which was recently superceded by Senate Bill 415 Planning and Zoning (signed into law on October 3, 2025), cities named as “warehouse concentration region” jurisdictions are required to update their general plan circulation elements to “Identify and establish specific travel routes for the transport of goods, materials, or freight…” 2. Ontario is named as a warehouse concentration region jurisdiction. The removal of the truck route designation on this segment of Euclid Avenue is consistent with SB 415 (Reyes, 2025).

Design Considerations
Truck routes are typically designed to provide access to heavy-duty vehicles. Truck routes should be designed to accommodate turning radius at intersections and points of ingress and egress

2 California Government Code Section 65302.02
374
Jay Bautista, City of Ontario
October 7, 2025

Page 10 of 20 ends

required for trucks to safely turn without overtaking lanes or driving over infrastructure, such as curbs, sidewalks, and raised medians.

California Vehicle Code (CVC)
The CVC regulates the size and weight of vehicles that are permitted to operate without restriction on California roadways. These “California Legal Trucks” are shorter than the maximum truck length permitted under federal law pursuant to the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982, which established federal vehicle size and weight limits. California legal trucks have a maximum turning radius of 50 feet, whereas STAA trucks have a maximum turning radius of 67 feet. The California Vehicle Code (CVC) provides Caltrans the authority to designate STAA truck access routes (CVC Section 35401), which are routes capable of carrying the longer STAA trucks. Mission Boulevard is classified as an STAA truck access route in the City of Ontario.

However, local agencies have the sole authority to designate local truck routes. Caltrans is responsible for maintaining an up-to-date database of truck routes, publishing information about state and local truck routes, and regularly adds or removes truck routes in accordance with city council resolutions.

City of Ontario General Plan
Section M-4, Goods Movement, in The Ontario Plan (General Plan), adopted 2021, outlines key goals and policies regarding truck circulation in the City:
• M-4.1: The City shall designate and maintain a truck route network that provides safe and efficient goods movement while minimizing conflicts with noise sensitive land uses. This is implemented through truck route design such as buffer space between pedestrian a nd bicycle facilities.
• M-4.2: The City shall work with surrounding cities and transportation agencies to plan efficient regional truck routes that minimize environmental impacts. • M-4.4: The City supports efforts to reduce and eliminate the negative environmental impact of goods movement through the planning and implementation of truck routing and supporting clean fueling/recharging and electrified truck parking.

City of Ontario Municipal Code:

The Ontario Municipal Code specifies additional policies related to truck routes and commercial vehicle circulation.
• Sec. 4-6.1304. Truck Routes: Truck routes are designated by the Ontario City Council and the City Traffic Engineer. Truck routes are to have the appropriate signage that permits the use of vehicles that exceed a maximum gross weight of five tons. Vehicles that exceed a maximum gross weight of five tons must use truck routes except if they are making pick up or deliveries to restricted streets or to deliver construction materials. 375
Jay Bautista, City of Ontario
October 7, 2025

Page 11 of 20 ends

• Sec. 4-6.1805. Revocation of Route: The City Traffic Engineer may nullify a truck designated route if it has inadequate truck traffic, if the route is difficult for large vehicles to navigate, or if the presence of trucks causes hazardous traffic conditions for pedestrians or other vehicles. A City Council resolution revoking the truck route designation is required.
• Sec. 4-6.1009. Restricted for certain commercial vehicles: Except in industrial zones and on designated truck routes, it is unlawful for a commercial vehicle exceeding gross weight of five (5) tons to remain standing upon any street in the City. Commercial vehicles may only be parked while making pickups or deliveries of goods or during emergencies.

Implementing Roadway Weight Limits
Establishing roadway weight limits falls under the purview of USDOT and Caltrans. The CVC allows local agencies to pursue weight restrictions that prohibit heavy vehicles, notably trucks, from operating on local roads (CVC Sections 21101 (c), 35712 (a), and 35706); however, local agencies cannot unilaterally place weight restrictions on local roadways, and stringent rules are associated with weight restricting roadways that provide direct ingress and/or egress to the State Highway System, such as Euclid Avenue (CVC 35714(c)).

For the purposes of this study, Caltrans weight restriction process is outlined below. The details of Caltrans’ weight restriction process is provided in Table 3.

Caltrans Roadway Weight Restriction Process
As a first step, the City should inform Caltrans District 8 DTAM/DTC staff about the proposed weight restriction. Caltrans staff will provide guidance on how best to proceed, including information about how to justify the weight restriction and input and feedback on analyses conducted. The current contact is Yong H. Kim at Caltrans District 8. His contact information is provided as follows:

Yong H. Kim,
Caltrans District 8 DTAM/DTC,
(909) 356-3758
[email protected]
The local jurisdiction must apply for the weight restriction through Caltrans. Applications are considered on a case-by-case basis. Per Caltrans, “the suggested procedures are not intended to abrogate the use of discretion in evaluating applications.” The application guidelines are contained below in Table 3.
376
Jay Bautista, City of Ontario
October 7, 2025

Page 12 of 20 ends

Table 3: Caltrans Process for Implementing Local Roadway Weight Restrictions Step Description
1) Prepare a Draft
Truck Restriction
Ordinance or
Resolution
When proposing a truck restriction, the local agency prepares a draft ordinance or resolution of the proposed truck restriction and informs the appropriate Caltrans District Truck Access Manager (DTAM).

If the restriction is initiated by Caltrans, the DTAM takes the lead and informs the locals of the proposed restriction; and requests the locals' support of such restriction by adoption of an ordinance or resolution.

The draft ordinance or resolution is required to cite the CVC Section(s) providing the justification for the truck restriction. The DTAM notifies the Headquarters Office of Commercial Vehicles Operations (CVO) in writing soon after learning of a truck rest
riction proposal, and forwards copies of the draft restriction proposal to CVO and other functional units for review and comments.
2) Prepare Initial
Study
The proposing agency prepares the Initial Study, which provides the information necessary to justify the proposed restriction and indicates whether the proposed restriction is subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. The Initial Study entails preliminary submittal of information by Caltrans, local agencies, and California Highway Patrol staff, as well as initial comments from the trucking industry, affected industries, and citizen groups, and so on. It should include the proposed restriction type, location, existing conditions, pertinent truck data, alternatives, maintenance and safety considerations on the alternative route(s), any initial public comment, and conditions that may involve further CEQA compliance. 3) Public Review,
Comment Period,
Conduct Public
Hearing
During the public review period, the proposing agency gives public notice of the proposed truck restriction, and public hearings can be advertised and held. The Notice of Hearing shall be given for not less than 10 days and the hearing shall be at the county seat of the county in which the affected highway is situated, or at some other place convenient to the portion of the highway affected. The hearing shall be conducted by one or more engineers appointed by the proposing Agency. All documentation acquired to date regarding the proposed truck restriction should be available for public review prior to the public hearing. 4) Receive
Comments and
Prepare Final Truck
Restriction Report
All comments received must be considered and resolved. If the proposed restriction is to move forward, local agency prepares a final truck restriction report and forwards to the DTAM, or DTAM prepares the final restriction report for the Caltrans proposed restriction. This final report includes all comments, revisions, and the draft restriction ordinance or resolution. The Caltrans Traffic Operations Deputy District Director forwards the truck restriction package with the District's recommendations to the Caltrans Traffic Operations Division Chief at Headquarters. (See the checklist for the contents of the truck restriction report, following these guidelines.) 5) Caltrans Traffic
Operations Submits
Recommendation
to the Director's
Office
The CVO, in cooperation with Caltrans Headquarters Environmental and Legal Divisions, prepares a recommendation regarding the truck restriction and submits it to the Caltrans Director's Office. Establishing lesser KPRA distances must also be approved by the Secretary of the California State Transportation Agency. 6) Caltrans Director
Issues Written
Approval
If approved, the Caltrans Director issues a written approval of the truck restriction report and the draft ordinance or resolution for the truck restriction. 377
Jay Bautista, City of Ontario
October 7, 2025

Page 13 of 20 ends

Step Description
7) Pass Final Truck
Restriction
Ordinance or
Resolution
Approval by Caltrans of the truck restriction with the proposed ordinance or resolution by the locals shall constitute an approval by it of the alternate route(s) so designated.
8) Erect Restriction
Signs and Enforce
Restriction
Caltrans shall erect suitable signs at each end of the affected portion of the highway and at such other points as the Department deems necessary to give adequate notice of the truck restriction. No ordinance or resolution enacted by the locals shall be effective until signs giving notice are posted at all entrances to the highway or part thereof affected. Signs erected by the locals within the State right-of-way must be done so under an encroachment permit issued by the Department of Transportation.

Source: California Vehicle Code and Caltrans Legal Basis for Truck Restrictions Policy Alternatives
Alternative 1: Local Truck Route Designation Removal
This alternative removes the existing truck route designation along Euclid Avenue between Mission Boulevard and I-10 in the City of Ontario. The truck route designation would be retained on the southern segment of Euclid Avenue between Mission Boulevard and Riverside Drive. (South of Riverside Drive, Euclid Avenue is fully contained within the City of Chino and provides critical truck access to existing and planned industrial uses in Ontario located along Eucalyptus and Merrill Avenues.)
By removing the truck route designation, commercial vehicles would be prohibited from utilizing Euclid Avenue unless they are “coming from an unrestricted highway having ingress and egress by direct route to and from the restricted highway when necessary for the purpose of making pickups or deliveries of goods, wares, and merchandise from or to any building or structure located on the restricted highway or for the purpose of delivering materials to be used in the actual and bona fide repair, alteration, remodeling, or construction of any building or structure upon the restricted highway for which a building permit has previously been obtained

3.” This option would prohibit
trucks from using Euclid Avenue as a through route, but it would continue to allow trucks serving local businesses to use Euclid Avenue. Trucks can utilize Mountain Avenue and Grove Avenue for north-south through trips and Mission Boulevard and/or I-10 to access these parallel routes. This measure has been implemented by other cities that have relinquished Caltrans facilities, including Euclid Avenue north of 16
th Street in the City of Upland.4
This alternative can be implemented in accordance with Ontario Municipal Code Section 4 -6.1805 where the City Traffic Engineer may nullify a truck route designation if approved by the City

3 California Vehicle Code Section 35714 (c)
4 City of Upland Municipal Code Section 10.52.130 (b), https://ecode360.com/44424998 378
Jay Bautista, City of Ontario
October 7, 2025

Page 14 of 20 ends

Council. Implementation would require removal of the existing truck route signage and ongoing enforcement by Ontario Police Department (OPD). Enforcement would be challenging given OPD would be required to trail trucks to ensure that they are using Euclid Avenue as the most direct access to their origin or destination.

Alternative 2: Commercial Vehicle Weight or Size Restrictions The CVC does allow local jurisdictions to implement weight restrictions on local roadways, but per the steps outlined in Table 3, the process is challenging and cannot be implemented unilaterally by the City, especially on non-residential corridors with direct ingress and egress to the State Highway System. Weight restrictions on roadways with direct access to the interstate and St ate highway systems requires substantial justification to obtain approval. This tactic is typically limited to local residential streets, unimproved facilities in unincorporated areas, or roadways with bridges that are not capable of carrying heavy vehicles.

Approval of a weight restriction requires adoption of a City Ordinance, approval by Caltrans and the Secretary of the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), and adoption of an ordinance by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors.

If approved, implementation would require an amendment to the Ontario Municipal Code allowing for alternative weight or size restrictions along designated roadways in the City, installation of signage by Caltrans at the Euclid Avenue offramps from I-10, and signage along Euclid Avenue with the posted weight restriction and truck route signage directing truck drivers to alternate routes.

Operations Assessment
Fehr & Peers analyzed the potential network-wide impacts of the two truck route alternatives:
• No Project Alternative (Maintain Truck Route Designation) • Alternative 1: Full Truck Route Removal
• Alternative 2: Heavy-Duty Truck Restriction (vehicles with four or more axles) Traffic Volume Forecasts
Traffic volume forecasts were prepared for the six study roadway segments using the version of SBTAM that was updated as part of The Ontario Plan (The City’s General Plan Update) Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The model has a Base Year (2019) scenario and a Future Year (2050) scenario. Within the City of Ontario, the Base Year (2019) model assumes a roadway network and Socio-Economic Dataset (SED) consistent with year 2019 and the Future Year (2050) model represents the Adopted General Plan Buildout roadway network and SED. 379
Jay Bautista, City of Ontario
October 7, 2025

Page 15 of 20 ends

Traffic growth between base and future years was reviewed and added to existing (2024) traffic counts to prepare the 2050 roadway segment forecasts. Interim Year (2035) roadway segment forecasts were estimated by linearly interpolating between Existing Conditions and Future Year (2050) conditions. Vehicle classification estimates for future year scenarios were developed by maintaining the existing vehicle fleet mix.

Truck Trip Redistribution
Trucks from Euclid Avenue were redistributed to Mountain Avenue and Grove Avenue based on the existing truck trip distribution. It was assumed that 60 percent of the re-routed trucks would utilize Grove Avenue while 40 percent of the re-routed trucks would utilize Mountain Avenue due to the higher levels of industrial activity along Grove Avenue. Under the full truck route removal scenario, 15 percent of three-axle trucks were retained along Euclid Avenue, accounting for the trucks serving the Downtown area.

Analysis Methodology
Capacity assessment was performed based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 7 th Edition
methodology. This methodology determines the level-of-service (LOS) based on a Volume-to- Capacity (V/C) ratio, letter grade criteria LOS A through F. As shown in Table 4, these grades range from LOS A (minimal delay) to LOS F (congested conditions). LOS E represents at -capacity operations. For the City of Ontario, LOS D is the minimum acceptable standard for roadways.

Table 4: Level of Service (LOS) Grades
Level of Service V/C Ratio
A 0.000-0.600
B 0.601-0.700
C 0.701-0.800
D 0.801-0.900 (City Minimum Standard)
E 0.901-1.000
F Greater than 1.000
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition, 2017.

Results
LOS estimates for existing conditions, interim year (2035) conditions, and future year (2050) conditions for no project and both alternatives are presented in Tables 5 through 7. In Table 8, these results are compared against the traffic forecasts in The Ontario Plan.

380
Jay Bautista, City of Ontario
October 7, 2025

Page 16 of 20 ends

Table 5: Existing Conditions (2024) Roadway Segment LOS Roadway Segment Existing
Lanes Capacity Total
Volume
Existing

LOS / V/C
Ratio
Mountain
Avenue
State Street to Mission Boulevard 4 37,400 30,732 D / 0.82 J Street to 4th Street 4 37,400 27,726 C / 0.74
Euclid
Avenue
Mission Boulevard to Holt
Boulevard 4 37,400 27,001 C / 0.72
H Street to I Street 6 56,000 23,978 A / 0.43
Grove
Avenue
Airport Drive to Mission Boulevard 6 56,000 43,772 C / 0.78 I Street to 4th Street 4 37,400 21,663 A / 0.58
Note: Segments exceeding LOS D City threshold are bolded.

Source: Fehr & Peers

381
Jay Bautista, City of Ontario
October 7, 2025

Page 17 of 20 ends

Table 6: Interim Year (2035) Roadway Segment LOS Results Note: Segments exceeding LOS D City threshold are bolded.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

Roadway Segment
No Project
Lanes /
Capacity
Plus Project
Lanes /
Capacity
No Project
Volume
Full Reroute
Volume
Partial
Reroute
Volume
No
Project
LOS /
V/C
Ratio
Full
Reroute
LOS /
V/C
Ratio
Partial
Reroute
LOS /
V/C
Ratio
Mountain
Avenue
State Street to
Mission
Boulevard
4 / 37,400 4 / 37,400 32,170 32,440 32,380 0.86 0.87 0.87 J Street to 4th
Street 4 / 37.400 4 / 37.400 28,060 28,080 28,020 0.75 0.75 0.75 Euclid Avenue
Mission
Boulevard to
Holt
Boulevard
6 / 56,000 6 / 56,000 33,750 33,200 33,340 0.60 0.59 0.60 H Street to I
Street 6 / 56,000 4 / 37,400 27,730 27,220 27,360 0.50 0.73 0.73 Grove Avenue
Airport Drive
to Mission
Boulevard
6 / 56,000 6 / 56,000 52,210 52,510 52,420 0.93 0.94 0.94 I Street to 4th
Street 4 / 37,400 4 / 37,400 25,660 25,710 25,620 0.69 0.69 0.69 382
Jay Bautista, City of Ontario
October 7, 2025

Page 18 of 20 ends

Table 7: Future Year (2050) Roadway Segment LOS Results Note: Segments exceeding LOS D City threshold are bolded.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

Roadway Segment
No Project
Lanes /
Capacity
Plus Project
Lanes /
Capacity
No Project
Volume
Full Reroute
Volume
Partial
Reroute
Volume
No
Project
LOS /
V/C
Ratio
Full
Reroute
LOS /
V/C
Ratio
Partial
Reroute
LOS /
V/C
Ratio
Mountain
Avenue
State Street to
Mission
Boulevard
4 / 37,400 4 / 37,400 34,130 34,530 34,460 0.91 0.92 0.92 J Street to 4th
Street 4 / 37.400 4 / 37.400 28,510 28,370 28,300 0.76 0.76 0.76 Euclid Avenue
Mission
Boulevard to
Holt
Boulevard
6 / 56,000 6 / 56,000 42,950 42,240 42,420 0.77 0.75 0.76 H Street to I
Street 6 / 56,000 4 / 37,400 32,850 32,130 32,300 0.59 0.86 0.86 Grove Avenue
Airport Drive
to Mission
Boulevard
6 / 56,000 6 / 56,000 63,720 64,070 63,960 1.14 1.14 1.14 I Street to 4th
Street 4 / 37,400 4 / 37,400 31,100 30,920 30,820 0.83 0.83 0.82 383
Jay Bautista, City of Ontario
October 7, 2025

Page 19 of 20 ends

Table 8: The Ontario Plan (TOP) and Downtown Traffic Study Roadway Segment LOS Results (2050) Roadway Segment TOP
LOS / V/C Ratio
No Project
LOS / V/C Ratio
Full Reroute
LOS / V/C Ratio
Partial Reroute
LOS / V/C Ratio
Mountain Avenue
State Street to
Mission Boulevard 1.18 0.91 0.92 0.92
J Street to 4th Street 0.85 0.76 0.76 0.76
Euclid Avenue
Mission Boulevard to
Holt Boulevard - 0.77 0.75 0.76
H Street to I Street 0.70 0.59 0.86 0.86
Grove Avenue
Airport Drive to
Mission Boulevard 0.90 1.14 1.14 1.14
I Street to 4th Street 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.82
Note: Segments exceeding LOS D City threshold are bolded.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
384
Jay Bautista, City of Ontario
October 7, 2025

Page 20 of 20 ends

Conclusion
Based on our assessment of State law (SB 415), City policies, best practices, and potential impacts to adjacent truck facilities, Fehr & Peers recommends removing the truck route designation along Euclid Avenue as a first step and designating Mountain Avenue and Grove Avenue as preferred alternate routes for through trucks. Removing the truck route along Euclid Avenue reduces exposure to sensitive receptors located on Euclid Avenue, improves the quality of life for the community, supports the City’s economic revitalization of Downtown, and promotes pedestrian activity in the area by discouraging trucks from using it. This action will not eliminate access for deliveries to local businesses on Euclid Avenue. The redistribution of through trucks to Mountain Avenue and Grove Avenue will not result in significant truck traffic increases, and therefore, will esult in less than significant increases in noise and emissions compared to the no project condition.

If the City would like to further restrict trucks on Euclid Avenue, it is recommended that the City initiate conversations with Caltrans District 8 CTAP/CTP coordinators and seek guidance on how best to proceed.

385
RESOLUTION NO. PC25-054

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE FILE NO. PGPA25-001 A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE ONTARIO PLAN 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;
[2] CONFIRM THAT EXISTING POLICY PLAN POLICIES SATISFY

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,
AND UPDATE HAZARD MAPPING; AND [4] UPDATE THE

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ELEMENT TO REFINE

IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AREAS AND UPDATE

THE PARKS & RECREATION ELEMENT TO REFLECT THE ONTARIO
SPORTS EMPIRE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF — CITYWIDE. (SEE ATTACHMENTS 1 AND 2) (PART OF CYCLE 2 FOR THE 2025 CALENDAR YEAR)

WHEREAS, THE CITY OF ONTARIO, has filed an Application for the approval of a General Plan Amendment , File No. PGPA25-001, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as Application or Project); and

WHEREAS, the City of Ontario adopted the Policy Plan (General Plan) as part of the component framework for The Ontario Plan on January 27, 2010, and issued Resolution No. 2010-004; and

WHEREAS, the City of Ontario adopted a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the General Plan Amendment for The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Update on August 16, 2022, and issued Resolution No. 2022-129; and

WHEREAS, the City of Ontario has prepared a Technical Amendment (File No.

PGPA25-001) to TOP 2050 Policy Plan to maintain consistency with recent State legislation and supporting technical studies; and

WHEREAS, the Technical A mendment brings the Mobility Element into compliance with Assembly Bill 98 (AB 98) (Truck Route Planning) and AB 747 (Evacuation Assessment), including the removal of two existing truck-route segments and the addition of new evacuation-related policies M-1.7 and M-1.8; and 386
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, the Technical Amendment brings the Safety Element into compliance with AB 747 (Evacuation Assessment) and Senate Bill 2684 (Extreme Heat), through the addition of new policies S -10.1 through S -10.4 (Extreme Heat), S -8.10 (Maintaining Evacuation Routes), and S -8.11 (Regional Evacuation Coordination), and revisions to policies S-3.5, S-8.2, and S-8.9; and

WHEREAS, the Technical Amendment confirms that TOP remains consistent with Senate Bill 1425 (SB 1425) (Equitable Access and Climate Resilience) by demonstrating that existing goals and policies addressing park accessibility, natural-resource protection, and climate adaptation satisfy State requirements; and

WHEREAS, the Technical Amendment ensures compliance with SB 1000 (Environmental Justice) through a focused revision to Figure ER -01, Environmental Justice Areas, which removes Census Tract 19.06 based on 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) income data and recent park investments demonstrating the tract no longer meets the criteria for a disadvantaged community area; and

WHEREAS, the Technical Amendment includes a map revision to Figure PR -01, Parks & Recreational Facilities, to depict the Ontario Sports Empire , reflecting the City’s continued investment in recreational opportunities and equitable park access; and

WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and

WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and

WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) (CEQA); and

WHEREAS, as the first act ion on the Project on October 28, 2025, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve an addendum to TOP 2050 SEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) adopted by City Council on August 16, 2022, for File No. PGPA20-002. The addendum finds that the proposed Project introduces no new significant environmental impacts, and all previously adopted mit igation measures are incorporated into the Project by reference; and
387
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025

Page 3 ends

WHEREAS, on October 28, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; 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 Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based

upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds as follows:

(1) The environmental impacts of this Project were reviewed in conjunction with an TOP 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report — State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364 (Certified SEIR), which was certified by the Ontario City Council on August 16, 2022, in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002; and

(2) The 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 P roject approval, as they are applicable to the Project, and are incorporated herein by this reference; and

(5) The 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 388
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025

Page 4 ends

specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, the Planning Commission finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is not required for the Project, as the Project:

(1) Does not constitute substantial changes to the C ertified 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

(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: Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission finds that based upon the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of TOP 2050, as the Project site is not one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites Inventory contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 of the Housing Element Technical Report.

SECTION 4: Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) Compliance.

The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 , et seq.) 389
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025

Page 5 ends

requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

(1) On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area , as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. A s 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; and

(2) On August 2, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted a Development Code Amendment to establish the Chino Airport (CNO) Overlay Zoning District (OZD) and Reference I, Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CNO ALUCP). The CNO OZD and CNO ALUCP established the Airport Influence Area for Chino Airport, solely within the City of Ontario, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. The CNO ALUCP is consistent with policies and criteria set forth within the Caltrans 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The proposed Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Chino Airport and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the CNO ALUCP. As the 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 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.

SECTION 5: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above- referenced hearing, 390
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025

Page 6 ends

and upon the specific findings set forth in the Sections above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:

(1) The proposed General Plan Amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City; and

(2) The proposed General Plan Amendment would ensure continued consistency among the Policy Plan Elements and recent State mobility , safety, open space, and environmental justice requirements; and

(3) The General Plan A mendment advances the City’s long- term vision for a complete, resilient, and sustainable community consistent with TOP 2050 vision.

(4) The proposed General Plan Amendment amends the Mobility, Safety, Environmental Resources, and Parks & Recreation Elements of the TOP 2050 Policy Plan to maintain consistency with recent State legislation and supporting technical studies, and includes corresponding map, data, and policy revisions that strengthen the City’s long-range framework for growth, resiliency, and environmental justice compliance; and

(5) Opportunities for the involvement of citizens, California Native American Indian tribes ( Government Code Section 65352.3), public agencies, public utility companies, and civic, education, and other community groups, through public hearings or other means were implemented consistent with Government Code Section 65351.

SECTION 6: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in the Sections above, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THE CIT Y COUNCIL APPROVE the proposed General Plan Amendment, as depicted in Attachment A (Policy Plan Figure Revisions) & Attachment B (Technical Amendment Appendix).

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

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

391
392
393
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025

Page 9 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

Policy Plan Figure Revisions

(Document to follow this page)

394
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025

Page 10 ends

Exhibit A: MOBILITY ELEMENT FIGURE M-04 TRUCK ROUTES REVISED

395
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025

Page 11 ends

Exhibit B: SAFETY ELEMENT FIGURE S-03 FLOOD HAZARD ZONES REVISED

396
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025

Page 12 ends

Exhibit C: SAFETY ELEMENT FIGURE S-05 FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES

REVISED

397
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025

Page 13 ends

Exhibit D: ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES FIGURE ER-01 EJ AREAS REVISED

398
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025

Page 14 ends

Exhibit E: PARKS AND RECREATION FIGURE PR-01 P&R FACILITIES REVISED

399
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025

Page 15 ends

ATTACHMENT B:

Technical Amendment Appendix

(Document to follow this page)

400
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025

Page 16 ends

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 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.

401
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025

Page 17 ends

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. 402
RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING 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); and

(2) Confirm that existing Policy Plan policies satisfy Senate Bill (SB) 1425 requirements for equitable access to open space, climate resilience, and rewilding opportunities; and

(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 SEIR), in which development and use of the Project site was discussed; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario has prepared and approved for attachment to the certified Environmental Impact Report, an Addendum to the Certified SEIR (hereinafter referred to as SEIR 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 403

WHEREAS, the SEIR 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 previousl y certified SEIR if some changes or additions are necessary to a project, but the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental SEIR 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 P lan Amendment (File No. PGPA25-001); and

WHEREAS, on October 28, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Addendum and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution No. PC25-053, recommending that the City Council concluded that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred, and further recommending that the City Council take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the SEIR Addendum for the Project, has concluded that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent o r supplemental SEIR have occurred, and in tends 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 are on file in the Planning Department, located at 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764, are available for inspection by any interested person at that location and are, 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 City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:

SECTION 1. As the decision-making authority for the Project, The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds as follows:

404
(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

(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 City Council; 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. Based on the Addendum, all related information presented to the City Council, and the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, the City Council finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report is not required for the Project, as the Project:

(1) Does not constitute substantial changes to the Certified 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 identifie d 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 environment al effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and

(3) Does not contain new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligenc e 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

405
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more sig nificant effects of the Project, but the City declined to adopt such measures; or

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

SECTION 4. The Applic ant 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 th is 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. 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.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of December 2025.

_____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR

ATTEST:

_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
406

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )

I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2025- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held December 2, 2025, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK

(SEAL)

The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2025- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held December 2, 2025.

_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK

(SEAL)
407

ATTACHMENT A:

Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report
(State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364)

(Addendum to follow this page)

408

City of Ontario
TOP 2050 TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
October 2025 | SEIR Addendum

409

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

410
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 .......................................................................................................... 4-1 411
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

412

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 413
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.

414

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:
415
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) 416
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. 417
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. 418
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)
419
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.

420

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 421
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. 422
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.
423
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).

424
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
425
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.

426
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
427
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.
428

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 429
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
430
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. 431
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 432
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. 433
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
434
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

435
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 436
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.
437
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.
438
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 439
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). 440
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 441
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). 442
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 443
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, 444
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. 445
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
446
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
447
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 448
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, 449
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?
450
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
451
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 452
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. 453
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 454
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. 455
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 456
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.
457
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. 458
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
459
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
460
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.
461
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. 462
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.
463
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.

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.
465
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.
466
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 467
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.
468
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. 469
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
470
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

471
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. 472
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 473
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. 474
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.
475
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
476
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

477
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- 478
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 479
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?
480
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.
481
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
482
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 483
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.
484
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. 485
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. 486
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 487
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 488
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 489
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.
490
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. 491
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.
492
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 493
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.
494
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
495
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:

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 496
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 497
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., 498
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. 499
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.
500
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. 501
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
502
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.
503
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.
504
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.
505
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 506
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. 507
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
508
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
509
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 510
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.
511
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 512
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. 513
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
514
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, 515
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 516
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. 517
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
518
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 519
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).
520
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.
521
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.

522

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]) 523
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.

524

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

525
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.

526

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)

527
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.
528
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
529
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.

530
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-1.8: 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 531
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.

532
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
533
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
534
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
535
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
536
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
537
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
538
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.

539
/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-1540
/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-2541
/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-3542
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
543
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.
544

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 545
Jay Bautista, City of Ontario
October 7, 2025

Page 2 of 20 ends

Ontario City CouncilDecember 2, 2025

Ontario City Council
December 2, 2025