Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, December 2, 2025 (part 1 of 4)

CITY OF ONTARIO
Regular City Council/Housing Authority
Meeting

DECEMBER
2, 2025
City Hall
303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764

MAYOR PAUL S. LEON • MAYOR PRO TEM ALAN D. WAPNER
COUNCIL MEMBERS JIM W. BOWMAN, DEBRA PORADA AND DAISY MACIAS CITY CLERK SHEILA MAUTZ • TREASURER JAMES R. MILHISER
CITY MANAGER SCOTT OCHOA • CITY ATTORNEY RUBEN DURAN

WELCOME TO A MEETING OF THE ONTARIO CITY COUNCIL

All documents for public review are on ﬁle with the Records Management/City Clerk's Department located at 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764.

Anyone wishing to speak in person during public comment or on a particular item will be required to ﬁll out a blue slip. Blue slips must be turned in prior to public comment beginning or before an agenda item is taken up. The Clerk will not accept blue slips after that time.

To submit written public comments by email, please send your name, the agenda item you are commenting on, and your comments to
[email protected]
. The public comment
submission window opens at the time the agenda is published and remains open until 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. All comments received during this timeframe will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration before action is taken on the matter and will be entered into the record.

Speakers will be alerted when they have 1 minute remaining and when their time is up. Speakers are then to return to their seats and no further comments will be permitted.

In accordance with State Law, remarks during public comment are to be limited to subjects within Council's jurisdiction. Remarks on other agenda items will be limited to those items.

Remarks from those seated or standing in the back of the chamber will not permitted. All those wishing to speak including Council and Staff need to be recognized by the Chair before speaking.

CITY OF ONTARIO Regular City Council/Housing Authority Meeting CITY HALL 303 EAST B STREET, ONTARIO CA 91764 • www.OntarioCA.gov 1

ACCOMMODATIONS

If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's oﬃce at 909-395-2009. Notiﬁcation of 48 hours prior to the meeting will help the City make reasonable arrangements. Equipment for the hearing impaired is available in the Records Management Office.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

The regular City Council and Housing Authority meeting begins with Closed Session and Closed Session Comment at
6:00 p.m.

Public Comment at 6:30 p.m. immediately followed by the Regular Meeting and Public Hearings. No agenda item will be introduced for consideration after 10:00 p.m. except by majority vote of the City Council.

CALL TO ORDER
(OPEN SESSION)

ROLL CALL

Wapner, Bowman, Porada, Macias, Mayor/Chairman Leon

INFORMATION RELATIVE TO POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Agenda item contractors, subcontractors and agents may require member abstentions due to conﬂict of interests and ﬁnancial interests. Council Member abstentions shall be stated under this item for recordation on the appropriate item.

CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMENT

The Closed Session Public Comment portion of the Council/Housing Authority meeting is limited to matters appearing on the Closed Session. Additional opportunities for further Public Comment will be given during and at the end of the meeting.

CLOSED SESSION
GC 54956.9 (d) (1), CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, EXISTING LITIGATION:

David Villalobos: D.V., a minor by and through is GAL Griselda Viera v. City of Ontario, United States District Court, Los Angeles, Case No. 5:25-cv-00384-CV-SHK

GC 54956.9 (d) (1), CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, EXISTING LITIGATION:

Princessa Kemp; Estate of Kirk Kemp, by and thru its successor-in-Interest, Princessa Kemp; Jonathan Kemp, et al v. City of Ontario, Ontario Police Department, County of San Bernardino and CITY OF ONTARIO Regular City Council/Housing Authority Meeting CITY HALL 303 EAST B STREET, ONTARIO CA 91764 • www.OntarioCA.gov 2

ATTACHMENT:

20251202 Closed Session.docx
Does 1-25, Inclusive; location, Case No. 2PSCV02059

GC 54956.9 (d) (1), CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, EXISTING LITIGATION:

Robles, et al. v. City of Ontario et al., Case No. CIVDS2007038

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor pro Tem Wapner

INVOCATION
Pastor Maribel Zacapa, Iglesia De Dios de la Profecia

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney
PUBLIC COMMENTS 6:30 P.M.

The Public Comment portion of the Council/Housing Authority meeting is limited to 30 minutes.

An opportunity for further Public Comment may be given at the end of the meeting. Under provisions of the Brown Act, Council is prohibited from taking action on oral requests. As previously noted -- if you wish to address the Council, fill out one of the blue slips at the rear of the chambers and give it to the City Clerk.

AGENDA REVIEW/ANNOUNCEMENTS

The City Manager will go over all updated materials and correspondence received after the Agenda was distributed to ensure Council Members have received them. He will also make any necessary recommendations regarding Agenda modiﬁcations or announcements regarding Agenda items to be considered.

CONSENT CALENDAR

All matters listed under CONSENT CALENDAR will be enacted by one motion in the form listed CITY OF ONTARIO Regular City Council/Housing Authority Meeting CITY HALL 303 EAST B STREET, ONTARIO CA 91764 • www.OntarioCA.gov 3

1. BILLS & PAYROLL

2. RESOLUTIONS UPDATING AUTHORIZED DEPUTY CITY TREASURERS AND THE UPDATED

INVESTMENT POLICY

ATTACHMENT:

Investment Policy (2025) EXHIBIT A. 01

ATTACHMENT:

Updating Authorized Deputy City Treasurers 02 RESO- Local Agency Investment Fund RM

ATTACHMENT:

Updating Authorized Deputy City Treasurers 03 RESO- City Funds RM

3. A RESOLUTION DECLARING CITY OWNED PROPERTY SURPLUS LAND PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 54221, APPROVING THE NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY, AND FINDING

THAT SUCH DECLARATION IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
below – there will be no separate discussion on these items prior to the time Council votes on them, unless a member of the Council requests a speciﬁc item be removed from the Consent Calendar for a separate vote.

Bills October 31, 2025 through November 13, 2025, and Payroll October 19, 2025 through November 1, 2025.

That the City Council adopt Resolutions r
escinding Resolution Nos. 2024-202 and 2024-203;
and amending the list of Deputy City Treasurers authorized to invest City funds in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and other eligible investment securities and consider and approve the update to the City of Ontario's Investment Policy.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR

THE INVESTMENT OF INACTIVE FUNDS IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE TREASURY AND HEREBY RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2024-202.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE INVESTMENT OF CITY FUNDS AND HEREBY RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2024-203.

That City Council adopt a Resolution declaring the property located at a portion of 4000 East Ontario Center (Lot E) and 3737 East Concours Street (Lot H) identiﬁed with Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 210-205-20 and 210-204-36 as surplus land, approve the Notice of Availability, and ﬁnding that such declaration is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15060(C)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines and directing Staﬀ to issue a Notice of Exemption.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS AND DECLARING, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54221, THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT A PORTION OF 4000 E. ONTARIO CENTER (LOT E) AND 3737 E. CONCOURS STREET (LOT H), IDENTIFIED WITH ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 210-205- 20 AND 210-204-36, IS SURPLUS LAND, APPROVING THE NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY THEREFORE,

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO COMPLY WITH THE SURPLUS LAND ACT AND TAKING CITY OF ONTARIO Regular City Council/Housing Authority Meeting CITY HALL 303 EAST B STREET, ONTARIO CA 91764 • www.OntarioCA.gov 4

ATTACHMENT:

CC_Lot_E_Lot_H_SLA_RESO_RM.docx

4. A RESOLUTION DECLARING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54221 THAT

REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY IS EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND, AND FINDING THAT

SUCH DECLARATION IS NOT A PROJECT SUBJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

ATTACHMENT:

CC_315-325_W_D_ST_SLA_RESO

5. AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KIDMAN GAGEN

LAW, LLP, FOR CONSULTING AND LEGAL SERVICES

ATTACHMENT:

Amendment No. 1_Kidman Gagen Law LLP.pdf

6. AN AMENDMENT TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH INFO-COM BUSINESS

PRODUCTS FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF VARIOUS INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY AND FIELD EQUIPMENT FOR THE PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL STADIUM

PROJECT

RELATED ACTIONS, FINDING THAT SUCH DECLARATION IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL

REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15060(C)(3) OF THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES AND DIRECTING STAFF TO ISSUE A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION.

That City Council adopt a Resolution declaring the property located at 315-325 West D Street identiﬁed with Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 1048-576-01 through 1048-576-02, approve the property as exempt surplus land, and ﬁnding that such declaration is not a project subject environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA DECLARING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54221 THAT REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS 315-325 WEST D STREET (APNS 1048-576-01 THROUGH 1048-576-02) IS EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND, AND FINDING THAT SUCH

DECLARATION IS NOT A PROJECT SUBJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
That the City Council authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Kidman Gagen Law, LLP, of Irvine, California, for consulting and legal services in the amount of $150,000 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $300,000.

That the City Council take the following actions:

A
.

Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Goods and Services Agreement with Margaret C. Pett, Inc. DBA Info-Com Business Products (Info-Com), of Altadena, California, for the purchase and installation of various Information Technology (IT) and ﬁeld equipment for the Professional Baseball Stadium project in the amount of $10,567,226 for a total contract amount of $13,505,373 plus a 5% contingency of $528,361 for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $14,327,549, CITY OF ONTARIO Regular City Council/Housing Authority Meeting CITY HALL 303 EAST B STREET, ONTARIO CA 91764 • www.OntarioCA.gov 5

ATTACHMENT:

Info-Com - Amendment No. 1.pdf

7. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ADDENDUM TO THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (FILE NO. PGPA25-001) TO THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 (TECHNICAL AMENDMENT) which includes a previously approved contingency amount of $293,815; and B
.

Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute all documents required for the completion of the project which may include, but not limited to, agreements, assessments, easements, reduction of retention accounts, contract amendments within the authorization limits, and ﬁling a notice of completion at the conclusion of all construction-related activities.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge the City’s zoning, planning or any other decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to the public hearing. Aﬃdavits of posting compliance, for all items below, are on file with the Records Management Department.

That the City Council consider and approve:

A
.

An Addendum to The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), certiﬁed by the City Council on August 16, 2022; and
B
.

The General Plan Amendment (File No. PGPA25-001), a Technical Amendment to The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050.

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.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING 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 AMENDMENT 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).

CITY OF ONTARIO Regular City Council/Housing Authority Meeting CITY HALL 303 EAST B STREET, ONTARIO CA 91764 • www.OntarioCA.gov 6

ATTACHMENT:

File No. PGPA25-001 TOP Technical Amendment 01 Attachment A Outreach.pdf

ATTACHMENT:

File No PGPA25-001 TOP Technical Amendment_02_PC_Backup

ATTACHMENT:

File No. PGPA25-001 TOP Technical Amendment 03 Addendum Reso_RM

ATTACHMENT:

File No. PGPA25-001 TOP Technical Amendment_04_Addendum

ATTACHMENT:

File No. PGPA25-001 TOP Technical Amendment 05 GPA_Reso_RM

8. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES ADOPTING THE 2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING

STANDARDS CODE AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS

ATTACHMENT:

2025_Building___Fire_Ordinance_01

ATTACHMENT:

2025_Building_Ordinance_RM 02

9. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTING A

RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY OF THE CITY

OF ONTARIO PURSUANT TO THE ONTARIO CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 88-2 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #80062538) FOR THE ACQUISITION BY

EMINENT DOMAIN OF A FEE SIMPLE INTEREST IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT

THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST CONCOURS STREET AND MERCEDES LANE, IN THE CITY

OF ONTARIO, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 0210-204-04, FOR THE PUBLIC

PARKING FACILITIES FOR THE TOYOTA ARENA PROJECT, IN ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA That the City Council take the following actions:

A
.

Introduce and waive further reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 4 of Title 4 of the Ontario Municipal Code, adopting by reference with certain amendments, the 2025 California Fire Code and the 2024 International Fire Code; B
.

Introduce and waive further reading of an Ordinance amending Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 14 of title 8 of the Ontario Municipal Code, adopting by reference the 2025 Edition of the California Building Standards Code; C
.

Set a public hearing for January 20, 2026 regarding the proposed Ordinances.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF TITLE 4 OF THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL CODE; ADOPTING BY

REFERENCE WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, AND CHANGES THERETO, THE 2025 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE AND THE 2024 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTERS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, AND 14 OF TITLE 8 OF THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL CODE, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2025 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, INCORPORATING THE 2025 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, THE 2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, THE 2025 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, THE 1997 CALIFORNIA HOUSING CODE, THE 2025 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, THE 2025 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE, THE 2025 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, THE 2025 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, THE 2024 INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, THE 2025 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, THE 2025 HISTORIC BUILDING CODE, 2025 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE, AND THE 2025 CALIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS, TOGETHER WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS THERETO.

CITY OF ONTARIO Regular City Council/Housing Authority Meeting CITY HALL 303 EAST B STREET, ONTARIO CA 91764 • www.OntarioCA.gov 7

ATTACHMENT:

3519 Concours Merryland LLC Resolution of Necessity 01_RM

ATTACHMENT:

3519 Concours Merryland Reso Exhibit 1 02.pdf

ATTACHMENT:

3519 Concours Merryland LLC - Notice to Property Owner 05.pdf

10. A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH CLARK CONSTRUCTION GROUP - CALIFORNIA, LP

AND A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH WEST COAST ARBORISTS FOR THE PURCHASE, INSTALLATION, AND GPS LOCATION OF THE TREES FOR THE GRAND PARK PHASE 1

PROJECT
That the City Council conduct a public hearing and:

A
.

Consider adopting, pursuant to the Ontario Center Speciﬁc Plan Environmental Impact Report 88-2 (State Clearinghouse #80062538), a Resolution of Necessity for the City of Ontario’s public parking facilities for the Toyota Arena Project and provide each party with an interest in the aﬀected property, their attorneys or representatives an opportunity to be heard on the issues relevant to the Resolution of Necessity.

B
.

Make the following ﬁndings as hereinafter described in this report:

i. The public interest
and necessity require the proposed project.
ii. The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. iii. The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project. iv. The offers of just compensation have been made to the property owners.

C
.

Adopt a Resolution of Necessity declaring that the acquisition by eminent domain of a fee simple interest in certain real property located at the southeast corner of East Concours Street and Mercedes Lane, more particularly described as Assessor’s Parcel Number 0210-204-04 (the "Property”) is necessary for the public parking facilities for the Toyota Arena Project in Ontario, California (the “Project”).

A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, PURSUANT TO THE ONTARIO CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 88-2 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #80062538) FOR THE ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF A FEE

SIMPLE INTEREST IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST

CONCOURS STREET AND MERCEDES LANE, IN THE CITY OF ONTARIO, COUNTY OF SAN

BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 0210-204-04, FOR THE PUBLIC PARKING FACILITIES FOR THE TOYOTA ARENA PROJECT, IN ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA.

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/DISCUSSION/ACTION
That the City Council take the following actions:

A
.

Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Construction Contract D&C21- 005 Grand Park Phase 1 with Clark Construction Group – California, LP, of Costa Mesa, California, for the construction of the Grand Park Phase 1 project in the amount of $107,900,000 plus contingency of $16,000,000 for a total not-to-exceed contract amount CITY OF ONTARIO Regular City Council/Housing Authority Meeting CITY HALL 303 EAST B STREET, ONTARIO CA 91764 • www.OntarioCA.gov 8

ATTACHMENT:

Clark Construction Group - Construction Contract.pdf

ATTACHMENT:

West Coast Arborist - Construction Contract.pdf
of $123,900,000; and
B
.

Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Construction Contract D&C21- 005 Grand Park Phase 1 - Trees with West Coast Arborists, Inc., of Ontario, California, for the purchase, installation, and GPS inventory of over 4,500 trees for the Grand Park Phase 1 Project in the amount of $4,433,460 plus a 5% contingency of $221,673 for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $4,655,133; and
C
.

Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute all documents required for the completion of the project, which may include, but not limited to, agreements, assessments, easements, reduction of retention accounts, contract amendments within the authorization limits, and ﬁling a notice of completion at the conclusion of all construction-related activities.

STAFF MATTERS

City Manager Ochoa

COUNCIL MATTERS

Mayor Leon
Mayor pro Tem Wapner
Council Member Bowman
Council Member Porada
Council Member Macias

ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF ONTARIO Regular City Council/Housing Authority Meeting CITY HALL 303 EAST B STREET, ONTARIO CA 91764 • www.OntarioCA.gov 9

Page 1 of 2 ends

CITY OF ONTARIO

CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Council // Housing Authority // Other // (GC 54957.1) December 2, 2025

ROLL CALL: Wapner _, Bowman _, Porada _, Macias _, Mayor / Chairman Leon _.

STAFF: City Manager / Executive Director __, City Attorney __

In attendance: Wapner _, Bowman _, Porada _, Macias _, Mayor / Chairman Leon _.

 GC 54956.9 (d) (1), CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, EXISTING LITIGATION:

David Villalobos: D.V., a minor by and through is GAL Griselda Viera v. City of Ontario, United States District Court, Los Angeles, Case No. 5:25-cv-00384-CV-SHK

No Reportable Action Continue Approved

/ / / / / /

Disposition: _________________________________________________________________

In attendance: Wapner _, Bowman _, Porada _, Macias _, Mayor / Chairman Leon _.

 GC 54956.9 (d) (1), CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, EXISTING LITIGATION:

Princessa Kemp; Estate of Kirk Kemp, by and thru its successor-in-Interest, Princessa Kemp; Jonathan Kemp, et al v. City of Ontario, Ontario Police Department, County of San Bernardino and Does 1-25, Inclusive; location, Case No. 2PSCV02059

No Reportable Action Continue Approved

/ / / / / /

Disposition: _________________________________________________________________

10 2 of 2

CITY OF ONTARIO

CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Council // Housing Authority // Other // (GC 54957.1) December 2, 2025
(Continued)

ROLL CALL: Wapner _, Bowman _, Porada _, Macias _, Mayor / Chairman Leon _.

STAFF: City Manager / Executive Director __, City Attorney __

In attendance: Wapner _, Bowman _, Porada _, Macias _, Mayor / Chairman Leon _.

 GC 54956.9 (d) (1), CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, EXISTING LITIGATION:

Robles, et al. v. City of Ontario et al., Case No. CIVDS2007038

No Reportable Action Continue Approved

/ / / / / /

Disposition: _________________________________________________________________

Reported by:

___________________________________________
City Attorney / City Manager / Executive Director
11 Department: Investments & Revenue Resources
Prepared By: William B Quan
Staff Member Presenting: Armen Harkalyan,
Executive Director of Finance
Reviewed By: Doreen Nunes
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 2
SUBJECT:

RESOLUTIONS UPDATING AUTHORIZED DEPUTY CITY TREASURERS AND THE

UPDATED INVESTMENT POLICY

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
December
2, 2025
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt Resolutions r
escinding Resolution Nos. 2024-
202 and 2024-203;
and amending the list of Deputy City Treasurers authorized to invest City funds in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and other eligible investment securities and consider and approve the update to the City of Ontario's Investment Policy.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Operate in a Businesslike Manner
FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct ﬁscal impact associated with these updates to the authorized Deputy City Treasurers and Investment Policy.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:

Recent Staﬀ movements have necessitated the need to update resolutions identifying those individuals authorized to invest City funds and to transact with LAIF.

The authorized individuals will be as follows: City Treasurer, Executive Director of Finance, Departmental Administrator (Financial Services Agency), and the Chief Investment Officer.

Section 53646(a)(2) of the California Government Code states that the Treasurer or Chief Fiscal Oﬃcer of a local agency may annually render to the legislative body of the local agency, a Statement of Investment Policy, which the legislative body of the local agency shall consider at a public meeting. Any change in the policy shall also be considered by the legislative body of the local agency at a public meeting.

The City Council approved a professional services agreement with Chandler Asset Management, Inc., (CAM) to provide investment management advisory services for the City on August 20, 2024.

CAM reviewed the Investment Policy that was approved on December 3, 2024, and provided their recommendations for updating the Policy. City Staﬀ along with the City Treasurer reviewed the recommendations and supported the changes. The four main areas of changes are as follows:

Risk Management - Including maximum sector and issuer investment limits for Municipals, 12 Callable Agencies, Non-Agency Asset and Mortgage-Backed Securities ensures diversification.

Return Potential - Removing the "AA" rated limitation on Corporate Medium Term Notes, falling back on the minimum "A" rating limitation per CA Code expands the opportunity set of investments.

Prohibited Investments - Expanding the list of ineligible investments for greater transparency.

Governance - Including language regarding regular portfolio performance review requirements.

These recommendations to the Policy will be better aligned with California Code and industry best practices. Other City policies may impact the available cash for investments. The updated Investment Policy is attached as Exhibit A.
13 December 2, 2025

City of Ontario
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
909-395-2000
www.ontarioca.gov

I N V E S T M E N T P O L I C Y
14 Investment Policy Statement
page 1

City of Ontario
Investment Policy Statement

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Purpose …........................................................................................................................ 2 2 Scope .….......................................................................................................................... 2 3 Delegation of Authority …...........................................….................................................. 3 4 Prudence …............................................…...................................................................... 3 5 Investment Objectives …............................................…................................................. 3 6 Ethics and Conflicts of Interest …................................................................................... 4 7 Internal Controls ….............................................….......................................................... 4 8 Safekeeping of Securities …............................................…............................................. 5 9 Reporting ….............................................…..................................................................... 5 10 Qualified Dealers ….............................................…......................................................... 5 11 Competitive Bidding …..............................................….................................................... 6 12 Purchase and Sale of Securities …............................….................................................. 6 13 Policy Review …..............................................…............................................................. 6 14 Diversification ….............................................….............................................................. 6 15 Maximum Maturities …..............................................…................................................... 7 16 Table of Authorized Investments …....................................….......................................... 8 17 Description of Authorized Investments …...............................…...................................... 9 18 Investment Pools/Mutual Funds …........................................…....................................... 13 19 Collateralization ….............................................…........................................................... 13 20 Prohibited Investments .............................................…................................................... 14 21 Review of the Investment Portfolio ……………………………………………………….….. 14 22 Glossary of Investments Terms …............................................….................................... 15

APPENDIX A – List of Resolutions for Investment of Inactive Funds in LAIF…...................... 23 APPENDIX B – List of Resolutions for Investment of City Funds ........................................... 24

15 Investment Policy Statement
page 2

CITY OF ONTARIO

INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT

1. PURPOSE

This Statement of Investment Policy (“Policy”) is intended to: (a) describe the policies and procedures utilized in the City of Ontario (“City”) investment management system; (b) put in place guidelines for the prudent investment of the City’s funds ; and (c) list and describe suitable investments.

The goals of the City’s investment policy and investment management function are enhancement of the economic status of the City and protection of the City’s funds.

The investment policies and practices of the City are based upon Federal and state law , as well as prudent money management principles. The primary goals of these policies are:

A. To ensure compliance with all laws governing the investments under the control of the City Treasurer.

B. To protect the principal monies entrusted to this office.

C. To generate the maximum amount of investment income consistent with the parameters established in this Policy.

This policy is written to incorporate industry best practices and recommendations from sources such as the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), California Municipal Treasurers Association (CMTA), California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC) and the Association of Public Treasurers (APT).

2. SCOPE

This Policy applies to all monies be longing to the City and proceeds from bonds or notes issued by the City, and any authorized special districts with the following exceptions:

 Bond proceeds and any funds associated with bond issues and other monies arising from bond indebtedness are further restricted by the pertinent bond indenture.

 CalPERS, OPEB trusts, and the investment of employees’ deferr ed compensation funds invested pursuant to Government Code Section 53609 .

Funds described above are accounted for in the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. The City will comply with all applicable sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Arbitrage Rebate Regulations , and bond covenants with regard s to the investment of bond proceeds. All monies entrusted to the City Treasurer will be pooled in an actively managed portfolio and will be referred to as the “fund” or the “portfolio” throughout the remainder of this document.
16 Investment Policy Statement
page 3

3. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

In accordance with state law (California Government Code Section 53607) and under the authority granted by the City Council (refer to appendix A and B for list of resolutions), the City Treasurer and Deputy City Treasurer(s) are authorized to invest the unexpended cash in the City treasury. The responsibility for the day-to-day investment of the City’s funds is delegated to the Chief Investment Officer. In the absence of the Chief Investment Officer, the Deputy City Treasurer will be responsible for the investment function. The City may engage the services of one or more external investment advisers (who are registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ) to assist in the management of the City’s investment portfolio in a manner consistent with the City’s objectives. External investment advisers may be granted discretion to purchase and sell investment securities in accordance with this Policy.

4. PRUDENCE

Investments shall be made with judgment and care under circumstances then prevailing (which persons of prudence, discretion, and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs; not for speculation, but for investment ), considering the probabl e safety of the City’s capital as well as the probable income to be derived. The standard of prudence to be used by investment officials shall be the “prudent investor” standard (California Government Code Section 53600.3) and shall be applied in the conte xt of managing an overall portfolio.

Investment officers (acting in accordance with written procedures and the investment policy and exercising due diligence ) shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security’s credit risk or market p rice changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments.

5. INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES

A. Safety of Principal

Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment policies and practices of the City. Investment decisions shall seek to minimize net capital losses on a portfolio basis.

This Policy recognizes that market conditions may warrant the sale of individual securities incurring losses in order to protect against further and more substantial capital losses. The intent of this Policy is to ensure that capital losses are minimized on a portfolio level rather than on each transaction. The City shall seek to preserve principal by mitigating credit risk and market risk.

1) Credit Risk – Defined as the risk of loss due to failure or insolvency of an issuer, credit risk shall be mitigated by diversifying the fund so that the failure of any one issuer would not unduly harm the City’s cash flow. No more than five percent (5%) of the total market value of the portfolio may be invested (at time of purchase) in the securities of any one single issuer unless otherwise specified in this policy.

2) Market Risk – Defined as the risk of market value fluctuations due to changes in the general level of interest rates. Because longer maturity fixed -income securities have 17 Investment Policy Statement
page 4

greater market risk than shorter maturity securities, market risk will be mitigated by limiting the weighted average maturity of the fund to two and a half ( 2 ½) years. The maximum stated final maturity of individual securities in the portfolio will be five (5) years, except where otherwise stated. It is explicitly recognized that in an active portfolio, occasional losses are inevitable and must be considered within the context of the overall investment return.

B. Liquidity

The City’s fund will be structured to ensure that the projected expenditure requirements of the City for the next six (6) months can be met with a combination of anticipated revenues, maturing securities, principal and interest payments, and liquid instruments as required by California Government Code Section 53646.

C. Performance Measurement

The performance of the City’s investment portfolio will be measured on a total return basis.

The portfolio’s performance will be measured against a n appropriate market -based benchmark. Benchmarks may change over time based on changes in market conditions or cash flow requirements. The benchmark’s returns are reported monthly on the City’s current portfolio report.

6. ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

All participants in the investment process shall act as custodians of the public trust. Investment officials shall recognize that the investment portfolio is subject to public review and evaluation.

Thus, employees and officials involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could create a confli ct of interest or the appearance of a conflict with proper execution of the investment program, or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions.

Employees and investment officials shall disclose to the Investment Officer any m aterial interests in financial institutions with which they conduct business, and they shall further disclose any large personal financial/investment positions that could be related to the performance of the investment portfolio. Employees and officers shall refrain from undertaking any personal investment transactions with the same individual with whom business is conducted on behalf of the City.

7. INTERNAL CONTROLS

The City Treasurer is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that the assets of the entity are protected from loss, theft , or misuse. The internal control structure shall be designed to provide reasonable assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognize s that (1) the cost of a control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived; and (2) the valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management. 18 Investment Policy Statement
page 5

Periodically (as deemed appropriate by the City ) an independent analysis by an external auditor shall be conducted to review internal controls, account activity , and compliance with policies and procedures.

8. SAFEKEEPING OF SECURITIES

All securities owned by the City (including collateral for repurchase agreements) shall be held in safekeeping by the City’s custodial bank or a third -party bank trust department acting as agent for the City under terms of a custody or trustee agreement executed by the bank and the City (with the exception of insured Certi ficates of Deposit (“CD”), the Local Agency Investment Fund of the State of California, and Joint Powers Authority Pool). All securities will be received and delivered using standard delivery versus payment (“DVP”) procedures and in accordance with State Code.

9. REPORTING

The City Treasurer is required to submit an investment report on a quarterly basis to the City Manager, the Internal Auditor, and the City Council in accordance with California Government Code Section 53646. The report is required to be submitted within forty-five (45) days of the end of the quarter. The City Treasurer has elected to provide this report monthly. This report will include the following information:

 Type of investment instrument (i.e., Treasury Bill CD)  Issuer name (i.e., U.S. Treasury Note)
 Purchase date (trade and settlement date)
 Maturity date
 Par value
 Purchase price
 Current market value and source of valuation
 Overall portfolio yield based on cost
 Statement of compliance of the portfolio to the investment policy or a n explanation of the manner in which the portfolio is not in compliance
 Description of any of the City’s funds that are under the management of contracted parties
 Statement denoting the ability of the City to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six (6) months, or an explanation as to why sufficient money may not be available

10. QUALIFIED DEALERS

The Chief Investment Officer or designee shall maintain a list of financial institutions qualified to do business with the City. Banks and broker/dealers will be selected on the basis of creditworthiness, experience, and capitalization. Prior to approval, they must read and sign the City’s Brok er/Dealer Questionnaire and Certification. In accordance with California Government Code Section 53601, a bank or broker/dealer must be qualified as a dealer 19 Investment Policy Statement
page 6

regularly reporting to the New York Federal Reserve Bank (“ Primary Dealer”) to conduct repurchase agreements with the City.

Selection of financial institutions and broker/dealers authorized to engage in transactions will be at the sole discretion of the City, except where the City utilizes an external investment adviser in which case the City may rely on the adviser for selection.

Selection of broker/dealers used by an external investment adviser retained by the City will be at the sole discretion of the adviser. Where possible, transactions with broker/dealers shall be selected on a competitive basis and their bid or offering prices shall be recorded. If there is no other readily available competitive offering, best efforts will be made to document quotations for comparable or alt ernative securities. When purchasing original issue instrumentality securities, no competitive offerings will be required as all dealers in the selling group offer those securities at the same original issue price.

11. COMPETITIVE BIDDING

It will be the policy of the City to transact all securities purchases and sales through a formal and competitive process requiring the solicitation and evaluation of at least three (3) bids/offers whenever possible. The City will accept the offer, which provides (a) the highest rate of return; and (b) optimizes the investment objectives of the overall portfolio. On transactions where three bids/offers are not available, the Chief Investment Officer or designee shall make a n evaluation regarding the relative attractiveness of various offer using factors such as maturity date, credit ratings, structure , and other factors which influence pricing . It will be the responsibility of the City’s staff involved to produce and retain written records (including the name of the financial institutions solicited, price/rate quoted, description of the security, bid/offer selected, and any special considerations that had an impact on their decision).

12. PURCHASE AND SALE OF SECURITIES

Unless the services of an external investment adviser are used, purchases and sales of securities will be executed only by the Chief Investment Officer and in their absence the Deputy City Treasurer. All transactions will be reviewed and approved by the Ci ty Treasurer or their designee.

13. POLICY REVIEW

The City Treasurer shall annually render to the City Council a n investment policy statement, which shall be considered at a public meeting. Any changes in the policy shall also be considered by the City Council at a public meeting.

14.DIVERSIFICATION

The City will diversify use of investment instructions to avoid unreasonable risks inherent in over-investing in specific instruments, individual financial institutions, or maturities. Market 20 Investment Policy Statement
page 7

price volatility shall be controlled through maturity diversification as well as ensuring adequate liquidity is available to meet cash flow requirements, thereby precluding the need to sell instruments at a market loss.

15.MAXIMUM MATURITIES

In accordance with California Government Code Section 53601, the City will not invest in any securities maturing more than five (5) years from the settlement date of purchase. If there is a desire to make investments longer than five (5) years, express authority to make tho se investments (either specifically or as part of an investment program) must be approved by the City Council no less than three (3) months prior to the investment.

21 Investment Policy Statement
page 8

16.TABLE OF AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS

INVESTMENT TYPE MAXIMUM

MATURITY
MAXIMUM SPECIFIED % OF

PORTFOLIO MARKET VALUE

MINIMUM QUALITY

REQUIREMENTS

CA GOVERNMENT

CODE SECTIONS
U.S. Treasury Obligations 5 years None None 53601(b)
U.S. Agency Obligations 5 years None, but no more than 20% in any one issuer None 53601(f)
Municipal Securities of the City, State
of California or any local agency within
the State of California
5 years 30% and no more than 5% in any
one issuer
“A” or equivalent by at least one
NRSRO
53601 (c)
53601 (e)
Municipal Securities of any of the
other 49 states in addition to California 5 years 30% and no more than 5% in any one issuer
“A” or equivalent by at least one
NRSRO 53601 (d)
Bankers' Acceptances 180 days 40% and no more than 5% in any one single bank
Short-term debt rating "A-1" by at
least one NRSRO, Long-term debt
rating "A" by at least one NRSRO
53601(g)
Commercial Paper-Non Pooled Funds 270 days 15% and no more than 10% in any one issuer
Short-term debt rating "A-1" by at
least one NRSRO, Long-term debt
rating "A" by at least one NRSRO
53601(h)(2)(c)
Commercial Paper-Pooled Funds 270 days 15% and no more than 10% in any one issuer*
Short-term debt rating "A-1" by at
least one NRSRO, Long-term debt
rating "A" by at least one NRSRO
53635(a)(1)
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 5 years 30% and no more than 5% in any one issuer
Short-term debt rating "A-1" by at
least one NRSRO, Long-term debt
rating "A" by at least one NRSRO
53601(i)
Repurchase Agreements 1 year 20%
Collateral rate shall be valued at
102% or greater of the value of the
repurchase agreement
53601(j)(1)(2)
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
N/A None None 16429.1
Joint Powers Authority Pool N/A None Multiple (listed in #8) 53601(p) Time Deposits (Non-Negotiable
Certificate of Deposit) 5 years 25% None 53630 et seq.

Medium-Term Notes 5 years 30% and no more than 5% in any one issuer
“A” or equivalent by at least one
NRSRO 53601(k)
Asset-Backed, Mortgage-Backed and
Mortgage Pass-Through Securities 5 years 20% and no more than 5% in any one issuer
“AA” or equivalent by at least one
NRSRO 53601(o)
Supranational Obligations 5 years 10% “AA” or equivalent by at least one NRSRO 53601(q)
Mutual Funds N/A
20% and no more than 10% of
total portfolio in any one mutual
fund
Attain highest ranking by at least
two NRSROs or have retained a
registered investment advisor
53601(l) and
53601.6(b)
Money Market Mutual Funds N/A
20% and no more than 20% of
total portfolio in any one money
market mutual fund
Attain highest ranking by at least
two NRSROs or have retained a
registered investment advisor
53601(l) and
53601.6(b)
* An additional fifteen percent (15%) or a total of thirty percent (30%) of the City’s total portfolio market value may be invested in Commercial Paper under a provision sunsetting on January 1, 2026.
22 Investment Policy Statement
page 9

17.DESCRIPTION OF AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS

A. The City’s Investment Portfolio is governed by California Government Code Section 53600 et seq . In the event a discrepancy is found between this policy and Code, the more restrictive parameters will take precedence. Percentage holding limits and minimum credit requirements listed in this section apply at the time the security is purchased. Within the context of these limitations, the following investments are authorized, as further limited herein:

1) United States Treasury Bills, Notes, and Bonds or those securities for which the full faith and credit of the United States are pledged for payment of principal and interest. There is no limitation as to the percentage of the portfolio which can be invested in this category. The maximum maturity may not exceed five (5) years.

2) Obligations (including U.S. Government Agency Mortgage pass-through securities) issued by various agencies of the Federal Government including but not limited to the Federal Farm Credit Bank System (“FFCB”), Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”), Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”), Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“FHLMC”), and such agencies or enterprises which may be created. There is no percentage limitation on the dollar amount which can be invested in Agency issues in total, but no more than twenty percent ( 20%) of the total market value of the portfolio may be invested in the securities of any one issuer.

The maximum maturity may not exceed five (5) years. In addition, no more than twenty percent (20%) of the total market value of the portfolio may be invested in callable Agency securities.

3) Municipal Securities including obligations of the City, the State of California and any local agency within the State of California having a rating of “A” or equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO. Purchases may not exceed more than thirty percent (30%) of the total market value of the portfolio and individual issuers may not exceed five percent (5%) of the total market value of the portfolio. The maximum maturity is five (5) years.

4) Municipal Securities (registered Treasury notes or bonds) of any of the other 49 states in addition to California, including bonds payable solely out of the revenues from a revenue-producing property owned, controlled, or operated by a sta te or by a department, board, agency, or authority of any of the other 49 states, in addition to California, having a rating of “A” or equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO.

Purchases may not exceed more than thirty percent (30%) of the total market value of the portfolio and individual issuers may not exceed five percent (5%) of the total market value of the portfolio. The maximum maturity is five (5) years.

5) Bills of Exchange or Time Drafts drawn on and accepted by a commercial bank, commonly known as Banker’s Acceptances. Bankers’ acceptances may not exceed one hundred eighty ( 180) days to maturity. To be eligible for purchase, banker’s acceptances must have short-term debt obligations rated “A-1” or its equivalent or 23 Investment Policy Statement
page 10

better by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization (“NRSRO”); or long-term debt obligations which are rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO. No more than forty percent (40%) of the total market value of the portfolio may be invested in bankers’ acceptances, and no more than five percent (5%) of the total market value of the portfolio may be invested in banker’s acceptances of any single bank.

6) Commercial Paper rated “A-1” or its equivalent by at least two (2) NRSROs and issued by a domestic corporation having assets in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) and having at least an “A” or its equivalent rating on its long- term debentures as provided by a NRSRO. Purchases of eligible commercial paper may not exceed two hundred seventy (270) days maturity nor represent more than ten percent (10%) of the outstanding paper on an issuing corporation. Purchases of commercial paper may not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the total market value of the portfolio, which may be invested pursuant to this section. An additional fifteen percent (15%) or a total of thirty percent ( 30%) of the City’s total portfolio market value may be invested in Commercia l Paper under a provision sunsetting on January 1, 2026. The additional fifteen percent (15%) may be so invested only if the dollar weighted average maturity of the entire amount does not exceed thirty-one (31) days.

7) Negotiable Certificates of Deposit (NCDs) issued by a nationally or State chartered bank or a State or Federal savings institution, or a State licensed branch of a foreign bank (“Yankee”). Purchases of negotiable certificates of deposit may not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total market value of the portfolio. The amount of the NCD insured up to the FDIC limit does not require any credit ratings. Any amount above the FDIC limit must be issued by institutions which have short-term debt obligations rated “A-1” or better or its equivalent by at least two (2) NRSROs. No more than five percent (5%) of the total market value of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. The maximum maturity may not exceed five (5) years.

8) Repurchase Agreements – The City may invest in repurchase agreements with primary dealers of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York with which the City has entered into a Public Securities Association master repurchase agreement (“ Master Repurchase Agreement”) . The maturity of Repurchase Agreements shall not exceed one (1) year. The market value of securities used as collateral for Repurchase Agreements shall be valued at no less than one hundred two percent (102%) of the value of the Repurchase Agreement. Collateral pricing will be monitored no less than monthly by the investment staff and not be allowed to fall below one hundred two percent (102%) of the value of the Repurchase Agreement.

In order to conform to provisions of the Federal Bankruptcy Code which provide for the liquidation of securities held as collateral for Repurchase Agreements, the only securities acceptable to the City as collateral shall be securities that are direct obligations of (or that are fully guaranteed as to principal and interest) by the United States or any agency thereof. Investments in repurchase agreements may not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total market value of the portfolio. 24 Investment Policy Statement
page 11

9) Local Agency Investment Fund - The City may invest in the Local Agency Investment Fund (“LAIF”) established by the State Treasurer for the benefit of local agencies up to the maximum permitted under California Government Code Section 16429.1.

10) Joint Powers Authority Pool - The City may invest in shares of beneficial interest issued by a joint powers authority organized pursuant to California Government Code Section 6509.7 that invests in the securities and obligations authorized under California Government Code Section 53601 . Each share shall represent an equal proportional interest in the underlying pool of securities owned by the joint powers authority. To be eligible, the joint powers authority issuing the shares must have retained an investment advisor that is registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission, have not less than five (5) years of experience in investing in the securities and obligations authorized under California Government Code Section 53601, and have assets under managem ent in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000).

11) Time Deposits (Non-Negotiable Certificates of Deposit) – The City may invest in non-negotiable time deposits collateralized in accordance with the California Government Code, which meet the requirements for investment in negotiable certificates of deposit. The City may invest in insured certificates of deposit with individual depository institutions up to the insured limit. No more than twenty-five percent ( 25%) of the total market value of the portfolio may be invested in this category. The maximum maturity may not exceed five (5) years.

12) Medium-Term Notes of a maximum of five (5) years maturity issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States or by depository institutions licensed by the United States or any State and operating within the United States.

The issuing corporation must have a minimum rating of “ A” or its equivalent by at least one NRSRO. Purchases of medium-term notes may not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total market value of the portfolio. No more than five percent (5%) of the total market value of the portfolio may be invested in any one corporate issuer.

13) Asset-Backed, Mortgage -Backed, Mortgage Pass -Through Securities, and Collateralized Mortgage Obligations from issuers not defined in Section 2 of the Authorized Investments section of this policy are eligible for investment provided that the securities are rated in a category of “AA” or its equivalent or better by a NRSRO and have a maximum remaining maturity of five ( 5) years or less.

Purchases of securities authorized by this subdivision may not exc eed twenty percent (20%) of the total market value of the portfolio. No more than five percent (5%) of the total market value of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer.

14) Supranational Obligations - United States dollar denominated senior unsecured unsubordinated obligations issued or unconditionally guaranteed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Finance Corporation, or Inter -American Development Bank with a maximum remaining 25 Investment Policy Statement
page 12

maturity of five (5) years or less; and eligible for purchase and sale within the United States. Investments under this subdivision shall be rated "AA" or better by an NRSRO and shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the City's total portfolio market value.

15) Mutual Funds and Money Market Mutual Funds that are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940, provided that:

a) Mutual Funds that invest in the securities and obligations as authorized under California Government Code Section 53601 (a) to (k) and (m) to (q) inclusive and that meet either of the following criteria:

i. Attained the highest ranking or the highest letter and numerical rating provided by not less than two (2) NRSROs; or

ii. Have retained an investment adviser registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than five (5) years’ experience investing in the securities and obligations authorized by California Government Code Section 53601 and with assets under management in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000).

iii. No more than ten percent (10%) of the total portfolio market value may be invested in shares of any one mutual fund.

b) Money Market Mutual Funds registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and issued by diversified management companies and meet either of the following criteria:

i. Have attained the highest ranking or the highest letter and numerical rating provided by not less than two (2) NRSROs; or

ii. Have retained an investment adviser registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than five (5) years’ experience managing money market mutual funds with assets under management in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000).

iii. No more than twenty percent (20%) of the total portfolio market value may be invested in the shares of any one Money Market Mutual Fund.

c) No more than twenty percent (20%) of the total portfolio market value may be invested in these securities.

26 Investment Policy Statement
page 13

B. In the event of a rating downgrade of security in the City’s portfolio by any of the applicable rating agencies to a rating category below the minimum required for purchase, the Chief Investment Officer or designee will document such downgrade in writing. The Chief Investment Officer or designee will also communicate to the City Treasurer a recommended course of action for said security.

18.INVESTMENT POOLS/MUTUAL FUNDS

The City shall conduct a thorough investigation of any pool or mutual fund prior to making an investment, and on a continual basis thereafter. The Treasurer or their designee shall develop a questionnaire which will answer the following general questions:

 A description of eligible investment securities, and a written statement of investment policy and objectives.
 A description of interest calculations and how it is distributed, and how gains and losses are treated.
 A description of how the securities is safeguarded (including the settlement processes), and how often the securities are priced and the program audited.  A description of who may invest in the program, how often, what size deposit and withdrawal are allowed.
 A schedule for receiving statements and portfolio listings.  A description of how the pool/fund utilizes reserves, retained earnings, etc.  A fee schedule, including when and how it is assessed.  The eligibility of the pool/fund to invest in bond proceeds and special district funds, and a description of its practices.

19.COLLATERALIZATION

Certificates of Deposit ( “CD”). The City shall require any commercial bank or savings and loan association to deposit eligible securities with an agency of a depository approved by the State Banking Department to secure any uninsured portion of a Non -Negotiable CD.

The value of eligible securities as defined pursuant to California Government Code Section 53651, pledged against a CD shall be equal to one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the face value of the CD if the securities are classified as mortgages and one hundred ten percent (110%) of the face value of the CD for all other classes of security.

Collateralization of Bank Deposits. This is the process by which a bank or financial institution pledges securities, or other deposits for the purpose of securing repayment of deposited funds. The City shall require any bank or financial institution to comply with the collateralization criteria defined in California Government Code Section 53651.

Repurchase Agreements. The City requires that Repurchase Agreements be collateralized only by securities authorized in accordance with California Government Code:

27 Investment Policy Statement
page 14

1. The securities which collateralize the repurchase agreement shall be priced at Market Value, including any Accrued Interest plus a margin. The Market Value of the securities that underlie a repurchas e agreement shall be valued at one hundred two percent (102%) or greater of the funds borrowed against those securities.

2. Financial institutions shall mark the value of the collateral to market at least monthly and increase or decrease the collateral to satisfy the ratio requirement described above.

3. The City shall receive monthly statements of collateral.

20. PROHIBITED INVESTMENTS

 Investments not described herein are prohibited for purchase in the City’s portfolio.  In accordance with Government Code, Section 53601.6, investment in inverse floaters, range notes, or mortgage derived interest-only strips is prohibited.  Investment in any security that could result in a zero interest accrual if held to maturity is prohibited. Under a provision sunset ting on January 1, 2026, securities backed by the U.S. Government that could result in a zero - or negative-interest accrual if held to maturity are permitted.
 Trading securities for the sole purpose of speculating on the future direction of interest rates is prohibited.
 Purchasing or selling securities on margin is prohibited.  The use of reverse repurchase agreements, securities lending or any other form of borrowing or leverage is prohibited.
 The purchase of foreign currency denominated securities is prohibited.  The purchase of a security with a forward settlement date exceeding 45 days from the time of the investment is prohibited.

21. REVIEW OF THE INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO

The City Treasurer shall periodically, but no less than quarterly, review the portfol io to identify investments that do not comply with this investment policy and establish protocols for reporting major and critical incidences of noncompliance to the City Manager, the Internal Auditor, and the City Council.

28 Investment Policy Statement
page 15

22. GLOSSARY OF INVESTMENT TERMS

Agencies. Shorthand market terminology for any obligation issued by a government - sponsored entity ( “GSE”), or a federally related institution. Most obligations of GSEs are not guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US government. Examples are:

The Federal Farm Credit Bank System (“FFCB”) provides credit and liquidity in the agricultural industry. FFCB issues discount notes and bonds.

The Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) provides credit and liquidity in the housing market.

FHLB issues discount notes and bonds.

The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“FHLMC”) provides credit and liquidity in the housing market. FHLMC (also known as “FreddieMac”) issues discount notes, bonds, and mortgage pass-through securities.

The Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”) was established to provide credit and liquidity in the housing market. FNMA (also known as “FannieMae”) issues discount notes, bonds, and mortgage pass-through securities.

The Government National Mortgage Association (“GNMA”) (also known as “GinnieMae”) issues mortgage pass -through securities, which are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.

Asset Backed Securities. Securities supported by pools of installment loans or leases or by pools of revolving lines of credit.

Banker’s Acceptance. A money market instrument created to facilitate international trade transactions. It is highly liquid and safe because the risk of the trade transaction is transferred to the bank which “accepts” the obligation to pay the investor.

Basis Point. One one-hundredth of a percent (i.e., 0.01%).

Benchmark. A comparison security or portfolio. A performance benchmark is a partial market index, which reflects the mix of securities allowed under a specific investment policy.

Bond Equivalent Yield. The basis on which yields on notes and bonds are quoted.

Book Value (Cost Value). The purchase price of the security as recorded on the City’s books.

Broker. A broker brings buyers and sellers together for a transaction for which the broker receives a commission. A broker does not sell securities from their own position.

California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission ( “CDIAC”). CDIAC provides information, education , and technical assistance on debt issuance and public fund 29 Investment Policy Statement
page 16

investments to local public agencies and other public finance professionals. CDIAC was created in 1981 with the passage of Chapter 1088, Statutes of 1981 (Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1192). This legislation established the California Debt Advisory Commission as the State's clearinghouse for public debt issuance information and required it to assist state and local agencies with the monitoring, issuance, and management of public debt.

Callable. A callable security gives the issuer the option to call /redeem it from the investor prior to its maturity. The main cause of a call is a decline in interest rates. If interest rates decline, the issuer will likely call its current securities and reissu e them at a lower rate of interest.

Certificate of Deposit ( “CD”). A time deposit with a specific maturity evidenced by a certificate.

Collateral. Securities or cash pledged by a borrower to secure repayment of a loan or repurchase agreement. Also, securities pledged by a financial institution to secure deposits of public monies.

Collateralized Bank Deposit. A bank deposit that is collateralized at least one hundred percent ( 100%) (principal plus interest to maturity). The deposit is collateralized using assets set aside by the issuer such as Treasury securities or other qualified collateral to secure the deposit in excess of the limit covered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Collateralized Mortgage Obligations ( “CMO”). Classes of bonds that redistribute the cash flows of mortgage securities (and whole loans) to create securities that have different levels of prepayment risk, as compared to the underlying mortgage securities.

Collateralized Time Deposit. Time deposits that are collateralized at least one hundred percent (100%) (principal plus interest to maturity). These instruments are collateralized using assets set aside by the issuer such as Treasury securities or other qualified collateral to secure the deposit in excess of the limit covered by the Federal Deposit Insuranc e Corporation.

Commercial Paper. The short-term unsecured debt of corporations.

Corporate Medium Term Note. A security issued by a corporation doing business in the U.S. with a maturity not to exceed five (5) years.

Cost Value (Book Value). The purchase price of the security as recorded on the City’s books.

Coupon. The rate of return at which interest is paid on a bond.

Credit Risk. The risk that principal and/or interest on an investment will not be paid in a timely manner due to changes in the condition of the issuer.
30 Investment Policy Statement
page 17

Dealer. A dealer acts as a principal in security transactions, selling securities from and buying securities for his own position.

Debenture. A bond secured only by the general credit of the issuer.

Delivery vs. Payment ( “DVP”). A securities industry procedure whereby payment for a security must be made at the time the security is delivered to the purchaser’s agent.

Derivative. Any security that has principal and/or interest payments which are subject to uncertainty (but not for reasons of default or credit risk) as to timing and/or amount, or any security which represents a component of another security which has been separated from other components (“Stripped” coupons and principal). A derivative is also defin ed as a financial instrument the value of which is totally or partially derived from the value of another instrument, interest rate, or index.

Discount. The difference between the par value of a bond and the cost of the bond, when the cost is below par. Some short -term securities, such as T reasury bills and banker’s acceptances, are known as discount securities. They sell at a discount from par and return the par value to the investor at maturity without additional interest. Other securities, which have fixed coupons, trade at a discount when the coupon rate is lower than the current market rate for securities of that maturity and/or quality.

Diversification. Dividing investment funds among a variety of investments to avoid excessive exposure to any one source of risk.

Duration. The weighted average time to maturity of a bond where the weights are the present values of the future cash flows. Duration measures the price sensitivity of a security to changes interest rates.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ( “FDIC”). The FDIC is an independent Federal agency insuring deposits in U.S. banks and thrifts in the event of bank failures. The FDIC was created in 1933 to maintain public confidence and encourage stability in the financial system through the promotion of sound banking practices.

Federal Open Market Committee ( “FOMC”). Consists of seven members of the Federal Reserve Board and five (5) of the twelve (12) Federal Reserve Bank Presidents. The President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank is a permanent member, while the other presidents serve on a rotating basis. The Committee periodically meets to set Federal Reserve guidelines regarding purchases and sales of Government Securities in the open market as a means of influencing the volume of the bank credit and money.

31 Investment Policy Statement
page 18

Federally Insured Time Deposit. A time deposit is an interest-bearing bank deposit account that has a specified date of maturity, such as a certificate of deposit (“CD”). These deposits are limited to funds insured in accordance with FDIC insurance deposit limits.

Fiscal Agent. A financial institution which performs payment of principal and interest to bondholders, and certain administrative duties on the bond issuer’s behalf.

Liquidity. The speed and ease with which an asset can be converted to cash.

Local Agency Investment Fund (“LAIF”). A voluntary investment fund open to government entities and certain non -profit organizations in California that is managed by the State Treasurer’s Office.

Local Agency Investment Guidelines (“LAIG”). Published by CDIAC, these guidelines are intended to aid local officials in their efforts to implement existing laws pertaining to the investment of public funds. Each year, CDIAC staff convenes a working group of public- and private-sector professionals to support its efforts to revise and update these guidelines.

Local Government Investment Pool. Investment pools that range from the State Treasurer’s Office Local Agency Investment Fund (“LAIF”) to county pools, to Joint Powers Authorities (“JPAs”). These funds are not subject to the same Security Exchange Commission (“SEC”) rules applicable to money market mutual funds.

Make Whole Call. A type of call provision on a bond that allows the issuer to pay off the remaining debt early. Unlike a call option, with a make whole call provision, the issuer makes a lump sum payment that equals the net present value ( “NPV”) of future coupon payments that will not be paid because of the call . With this type of call, an investor is compensated or "made whole".

Margin. The difference between the market value of a security and the loan a broker makes using that security as collateral.

Market Risk. The risk that the value of securities will fluctuate with changes in overall market conditions or interest rates.

Market Value. The price at which a security can be traded.

Master Repurchase Agreement. A written contract covering all future transactions between the parties to repurchase -reverse repurchases agreements that establishes each party’s rights in the transactions. A master agreement will often specify, among other things, the right of the buyer-lender to liquidate the underlying securities in the event of default by the seller borrower.

32 Investment Policy Statement
page 19

Maturity. The final date upon which the principal of a security becomes due and payable. An investment’s term or remaining maturity is measured from the settl ement date to final maturity.

Medium Term Notes (“MTN”). Unsecured, investment-grade senior debt securities of major corporations which are sold in relatively small amounts on either a continuous or an intermittent basis. MTNs are highly flexible debt instruments that can be structured to respond to market opportunities or to investor preferences.

Modified Duration. The percent change in price for a one hundred (100) basis point change in yields. Modified duration is the best single measure of a portfolio’s or security’s exposure to market risk.

Money Market. The market in which short -term debt instruments (T reasury bills, discount notes, commercial paper, and banker’s acceptances) are issued and traded.

Money Market Mutual Fund. A mutual fund that invests exclusively in short-term securities.

Examples of i nvestments in money market funds are certificates of deposit and U.S.

Treasury securities. Money market funds attempt to keep their net asset values at one dollar ($1) per share.

Mortgage Pass-Through Securities. A securitized participation in the interest and principal cash flows from a specified pool of mortgages. Principal and interest payments made on the mortgages are passed through to the holder of the security.

Municipal Securities. Securities issued by state and local agencies to finance capital and operating expenses.

Mutual Fund. An entity which pools the funds of investors and invests those funds in a set of securities which is specifically defined in the fund’s prospectus. Mutual funds can be invested in various types of domestic and/or international stocks, bonds, and money market instruments, as set forth in the individual fund’s prospectus. For most large, institutional investors, the costs associated with investing in mutual funds are higher than the investor can obtain through an individually managed portfolio.

Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (“NRSRO”). A credit rating agency that the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States uses for regulatory purposes. Credit rating agencies provide assessments of an investment's risk. The issuers of investments, especially debt securities, pay credit rating agencies to provide them with ratings. The three most prominent NRSROs are Fitch, Standard and Poor, and Moody's.

Negotiable Certificate of Deposit ( “CD”). A short-term debt instrument that pays interest and is issued by a bank, savings or federal association, state or federal credit union, or state-licensed branch of a foreign bank. Negotiable CDs are traded in a secondary market and are payable upon order to the bearer or initial depositor (investor).

33 Investment Policy Statement
page 20

Paper Gain Or Loss. Term used for unrealized gain or loss on securities being held in a portfolio based on comparison of current market quotes and their original cost. This situation exists as long as the security is held while there is a difference between cost value (book value) and the market value.

Portfolio. Collection of securities held by an investor.

Primary Dealer. A financial institution (1) that is a trading counterparty with the Federal Reserve in its execution of market operations to carry out U.S. monetary policy, and (2) that participates for statistical reporting purposes in compiling data on activity in the U.S.

Government securities market.

Prudent Person (Prudent Investor) Rule. A standard of responsibility which applies to fiduciaries. In California, the rule is stated as “Investments shall be managed with the care, skill, prudence , and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person (acting in a like capaci ty and familiar with such matters ) would use in the conduct of an enterprise of like character and with like aims to accomplish similar purposes.

Rate of Return. The yield obtainable on a security based on its purchase price or its current market price. This may be the amortized yield to maturity on a bond, the current income return.

Repurchase Agreement (“Repo”). Short-term purchases of securities with a simultaneous agreement to sell the securities back at a higher price. From the seller’s point of view, the same transaction is a reverse repurchase agreement.

Reverse Repurchase Agreement (“Reverse Repo”). A Reverse Repo agreement involves an investor borrowing cash from a financial institution in exchange for securities. This investor agrees to repurchase the securities at a specific date for the same cash value plus an agreed upon interest rate. Although the transaction is similar to Repo, the purpose of entering into a Reverse Repo is quite different. While a Repo is straightforward investment of public funds, the Reverse Repo is a borrowing.

Safekeeping. A service to bank customers whereby securities are held by the bank in the customer’s name.

Securities and Exchange Commission ( “SEC”). The SEC is an independent Federal government agency responsible for protecting investors, maintaining fair and orderl y functioning of securities markets and facilitating capital formation. It was created by Congress in 1934 as the first Federal regulator of securities markets. The SEC promotes full public disclosure, protects investors against fraudulent and manipulative practices in the market, and monitors corporate takeover actions in the United States.

SEC Rule 15c3-1. An SEC rule setting capital requirements for brokers and dealers. Under SEC Rule 15c3-1, a broker or dealer must have sufficient liquidity in order to cover the 34 Investment Policy Statement
page 21

most pressing obligations. This is defined as having a certain amount of liquidity as a percentage of the broker/dealer's total obligations. If the percentage falls below a certain point, the broker or dealer may not be allowed to take on new clients and may have restrictions placed on dealings with current client.

Spread. The yield or price difference between the bid and offer on an issue , or the yield or price difference between different issues.

Structured Note. A complex, fixed income instrument, which pays interest, based on a formula tied to other interest rates, commodities or indices. Examples include inverse floating rate notes which have coupons that increase when other interest rates are falling and which fall when other interest rates are rising ; and "dual index floaters" which pay interest based on the relationship between two other interest rates (for example, the yield on the ten (10) year Treasury note minus the Libor rate. Issuers of such notes lock i n a reduced cost of borrowing by purchasing interest rate swap agreements.

Supranational. A Supranational is a multi -national organization whereby member states transcend national boundaries or interests to share in the decision making to promote economic development in the member countries. There are three supranational institutions that issue obligations that are eligible investments for California local agencies: the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development ( “IBRD”), International F inance Corporation (“IFC”), and Inter-American Development Bank (“IADB”).

Swap. The sale of one issue and the simultaneous purchase of another for some perceived advantage.

Total Rate of Return. A measure of a portfolio’s performance over time. It is the internal rate of return, which equates the beginning value of the portfolio with the ending value; it includes interest earnings, realized and unrealized gains, and losses in the portfolio.

Treasury Bills. All securities issued with initial maturities o f one year or less are issued as discounted instruments and are called Treasury bills. The Treasury currently issues three (3) and six (5) month T reasury bills at regular weekly auctions. It also issues “cash management” bills as needed to smooth out cash flows.

Treasury Bonds. All securities issued with initial maturities greater than ten years are called Treasury bonds. Like Treasury notes, they pay interest semi-annually.

Treasury Notes. All securities issued with initial maturities of two (2) to ten (10) years are called Treasury notes and pay interest semi-annually.

Trustee. A financial institution with trust powers that acts in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of the bondholders in enforcing the terms of the bond contract.

35 Investment Policy Statement
page 22

U.S. Treasury Obligations. Securities issued by the U.S. Treasury and backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Treasuries are considered to have no credit risk and are the benchmark for interest rates on all other securities in the U .S. and overseas. The Treasury issues both discounted securities and fixed coupon notes and bonds.

Yield Curve. Yield calculations of various maturities at a given time to observe spread difference.

Yield to Maturity. The annualized internal rate of return on an investment which equates the expected cash flows from the investment to its cost.

36 Investment Policy Statement
page 23

APPENDIX A – LIST OF RESOLUTIONS FOR INVESTMENT OF INACTIVE FUNDS IN LAIF

Resolution Number City Council Approval Date
2024-202 December 3, 2024
2023-158 December 5, 2023
2022-157 December 6, 2022
2021-164 November 2, 2021
2020-171 October 20, 2020
2020-128 July 21, 2020
2019-090 July 2, 2019
2019-008 February 19, 2019
2018-154 November 20, 2018
37 Investment Policy Statement
page 24

APPENDIX B – LIST OF RESOLUTIONS FOR INVESTMENT OF CITY FUNDS

Resolution Number City Council Approval Date
2024-203 December 3, 2024
2023-159 December 5, 2023
2022-158 December 6, 2022
2021-165 November 2, 2021
2020-172 October 20, 2020
2020-129 July 21, 2020
2019-091 July 2, 2019
2019-009 February 19, 2019
2018-155 November 20, 2018
38 RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE INVESTMENT OF INACTIVE

FUNDS IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND OF THE

CALIFORNIA STATE TREASURY AND HEREBY RESCINDING
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-202.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario as follows:

SECTION 1. The California State Legislature has, pursuant to Chapter 730 of the Statutes of 1976, Sections 16429.1 et seq., added to the Government Code and created the Local Agency Investment Fund as a special fund in the California State Treasury. The pooling of funds by many California local agencies will create a fund allowing for high rates of return due to the use of large denomination instruments.

SECTION 2. The City of Ontario has money in its treasury not required for immediate needs and it is in the best interest of the city to place said money in approved investments yielding maximum returns.

SECTION 3. The City of Ontario, 303 East "B" Street, Civic C enter, Ontario, California 91764 -4196, will participate in the Local Agency Investment Fund of the California State Treasury.

SECTION 4. The City of Ontario agrees to deposit or withdraw money in the Local Agency Investment Fund in the California State T reasury in accordance with the provisions of Section 16429.1 of the Government Code for the purpose of investment as stated therein.

SECTION 5. The following persons are authorized to order the deposit or withdrawal of money in the Local Agency Investment Fund or their successors.

James R. Milhiser, City Treasurer
Armen Harkalyan, Deputy City Treasurer
William Quan, Deputy City Treasurer
Claudia Hernandez, Deputy City Treasurer

SECTION 6. Resolution No. 2024-202 is hereby rescinded.

The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

39 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

40 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. 20 25- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held December 2, 2025.

_____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK

(SEAL)

41 RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE INVESTMENT OF CITY FUNDS AND HEREBY RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2024-203.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND FIND AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. That the City Treasurer and/or any duly -appointed Deputy City Treasurers whose names appear in this resolution are hereby authorized to open investment accounts for the City of Ontario with any bank, savings and loan association, broker dealer or other financial institution, hereinafter referred to as "broker", to purchase, sell and or deal in such notes, bonds, bills, certificates of indebtedness, warrants or registered warrants and/or other investments as are authorized for general law cities in the State of California by Chapter 4 of Part 1 Division 2 of Title 5 of the Go vernment Code (commencing with section 53600) (hereinafter "authorized investments"), and as limited by the current investment policy of the City Council of the City of Ontario, a copy of which is attached to and made a part of this resolution, and/or such other investment policy which may be adopted by said City Council, and that all orders and instructions, written or oral, which may be given by either the City Treasurer or a duly-appointed Deputy City Treasurer; and each of whom is hereby authorized and directed to purchase, sell and/or deal in authorized investment instruments through said broker on behalf of the City of Ontario, which they may deem necessary or advisable for the City of Ontario for cash and also to make payments and to sign checks or drafts drawn upon the funds of the City of Ontario and also, to withdraw from said broker from time to time, to deliver or accept delivery of, and/or to endorse, and/or to direct the transfer of record title of, all authorized investments, and/or assets or funds that may be carried by said broker for the account of the City of Ontario, and

SECTION 2. That each of the aforesaid officers of the Cit y of Ontario be and hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver on behalf of the City of Ontario any customer's agreement required by broker and to enter into, execute, and deliver, any and all other agreements, documents, releases, and writings that may be required by said broker for the opening and/or continuing of said account in connection with any transaction relating to said account or to any securities or moneys of the City of Ontario whether or not in said account, provided, however, that no customer's agreement shall authorize investment in other than authorized investments, and

SECTION 3. That until broker shall receive duly written notices of change or rescission of these resolutions, said broker may rely upon the authority contained in this resolution as continuing fully effective, and the said broker may rely upon any certified copy of resolutions, specimen signatures or other writings, signed on behalf of the City of Ontario by any officer thereof; the acceptance of any other form of notice shall not constitute a waiver, of this provision, nor shall the fact that any person hereby empowered ceases to be an officer or becomes an officer under some other title, in any way affect the powers hereby conferred, until broker shall receive due written notice of change or rescission, as aforesaid, and
42 SECTION 4. That in the event of any change in the office or powers of persons hereby empowered, the City Council shall certify those changes to broker in writing, in the manner herein above specified, which notification, when received, shall be adequate both to terminate the powers of the person theretofore authorized, and to empower the persons thereby substituted, and

SECTION 5. That any and all orders and instructions heretofore given to said broker on behalf of the City of Ontario by any officer of the City of Ontario, are hereby in all respects ratified, confirmed and approved, and

SECTION 6. That the foregoing resolutions and the certificates actually furnished to broker by any officer of the City of Ontario, be and they hereby are made irrevocable, and shall be fully effective as to any transaction for the account of the City of Ontario notwithstanding that the account may have been temporarily closed or inactive, until written notice of the revocation thereof shall have been received by broker.

SECTION 7. That all claims approved shall be paid electronically or by checks.

Checks are signed manually or digitally by the Mayor and countersigned by the City Treasurer and Executive Director of Finance . When deemed necessary, Deputy City Treasurers may sign.

SECTION 8. That Resolution No. 2024-203 is hereby rescinded.

SECTION 9. I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that the following are the signatures and titles of the persons authorized and empowered to act on behalf of the City of Ontario, pursuant to the foregoing resolutions, and this resolution is in accordance with and does not conflict with the existing ordinances and/or resolutions.

________________________________ _________________________________ James R. Milhiser, City Treasurer Armen Harkalyan, Deputy City Treasurer

________________________________ _________________________________ William Quan, Deputy City Treasurer Claudia Hernandez, Deputy City Treasurer

SECTION 10. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

43 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

44 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK

(SEAL)

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

_____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK

(SEAL)

45 Department: Economic Development
Prepared By: Thailin Martin
Department:

Prepared By: Thailin Martin
Staff Member Presenting: Jennifer McLain
Hiramoto, Economic Development Director
Reviewed By: Charity Hernandez
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 3
SUBJECT:

A RESOLUTION DECLARING CITY OWNED PROPERTY SURPLUS LAND PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 54221, APPROVING THE NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY, AND

FINDING THAT SUCH DECLARATION IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
December
2, 2025
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR

RECOMMENDATION:

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy Pursue City's Goals and Objectives by Working with Other Governmental Agencies FISCAL IMPACT:

There is not a direct fiscal impact associated with this action.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:

The City currently owns real properties located at a portion of 4000 E.

Ontario Center (Lot E) and 3737 E. Concours Street (Lot H) identiﬁed with Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 210-205-20 and 210-204-36, described and depicted in Exhibit "A" of the attached Resolution, which Lot E constitutes approximately 5.95 acres and Lot H 14.06 acres (“Property”). The Property is not needed for agency purposes and, as a result, the City desires to dispose of the Property. Eﬀective January 1, 2020, AB 1486 amended the Surplus Land Act, Government Code Section 54220 et seq. (“SLA”), which prescribes the process for disposal of surplus land. Before taking any action to dispose of the Property, the City must ﬁrst comply with the SLA. The SLA requires all local agencies to prioritize aﬀordable housing, as well as parks and open space, when disposing of surplus land. New legislation which took eﬀect on January 1, 2020, requires that before a local agency takes any action to dispose of land, the land must be declared either “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land,” as supported by written findings. “Surplus land” means the land owned by 46 a local agency for which the local agency’s governing body takes formal action in a regular public meeting declaring that the land is surplus and is not necessary for the agency’s use. City Staﬀ has determined the Property is “surplus land” that is subject to the SLA process, and that no exceptions apply. Accordingly, before taking steps to dispose of the Property, the City needs to comply with the SLA by taking formal action to declare the property surplus. Adoption of the attached Resolution would declare the Property as surplus land. The SLA process for “surplus land” involves several steps. After designating real property as non-exempt surplus land, the City must send Notices of Availability to aﬀordable housing developers, public agencies, and other entities required to receive notice under the SLA. Any party receiving a Notice of Availability and interested in acquiring the surplus property must notify the City in writing within 60 days after the Notice of Availability is transmitted. If such notice is received, the City must enter into good faith negotiations to determine a mutually satisfactory sale or dispose of price and terms. Nothing in the SLA prevents the City from obtaining fair market value for the disposition of surplus land. Accordingly, the City has the power to sell or dispose of surplus land at fair market value or at less than fair market value (Gov't Code § 54226). If the price or terms cannot be agreed upon after a good faith negotiation period of not less than ninety (90) days, the land may be disposed of without further regard to SLA procedures, other than submitting a report to the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") and recording an aﬀordability covenant on the Property. After the City has sent Notices of Availability and concluded attempts to negotiate in good faith with any interested party, the City must provide a report to HCD. HCD then has thirty (30) days to notify the City whether it has violated the SLA. The City would then have sixty (60) days to correct the violation or to submit ﬁndings as to why the law was not violated. If the City is not notiﬁed of a violation by HCD within thirty (30) days after submitting the required materials, the City receives “safe harbor” and is not subject to the SLA’s penalty provisions. The City will also have to record an aﬀordability covenant on the Property that will apply if ten (10) or more residential units are developed on the Property.

Adopting the attached Resolution will declare that the property is “surplus land” under the SLA and direct Staﬀ to comply with the SLA. City Staﬀ has determined pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) that the designation of the Property as non-exempt surplus, approval of the form of Notice of Availability, and authorization for the City Manager to comply with the Act will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and as such is exempt from further review under CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3). In the alternative, Staﬀ has determined that the actions contemplated involve the sale of surplus government property and has determined that none of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 to the use of this exemption have application.
47 RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS AND DECLARING, PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54221, THAT CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY LOCATED AT A PORTION OF 4000 E. ONTARIO CENTER (LOT E) AND 3737 E. CONCOURS STREET (LOT H), IDENTIFIED WITH ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 210 -205-20 AND 210-204-36, IS

SURPLUS LAND, APPROVING THE NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY

THEREFORE, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO COMPLY WITH

THE SURPLUS LAND ACT AND TAKING RELATED ACTIONS, FINDING

THAT SUCH DECLARATION IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL

REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 15060(C)(3) OF THE STATE CEQA

GUIDELINES AND D IRECTING STAFF TO ISSUE A NOTICE OF
EXEMPTION.

WHEREAS, the City of Ontario ("City") is the owner in fee simple of that certain real property, located at a portion of 4000 E. Ontario Center (Lot E) and 3737 E. Concours Street and (Lot H) identified with Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 210 -205-20 and 210-204- 36, which in total is approximately 20 acres, as identified and depicted in “Exhibit A” attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (the “Property”); and

WHEREAS, the City no longer has any use for the Property; and

WHEREAS, the Surplus Land Act, Government Code sections 54220 et seq. (as amended, the “Act”), applies when a local agency disposes of “surplus land,” as that term is defined in Government Code section 54221; and

WHEREAS, the Property is “surplus land” under the Act, because it is land owned in fee simple by the City for which the City will take formal action (in the form of adoption of this resolution) in a regular public meeting declaring that the land is surplus and is not necessary for the City’s use; and

WHEREAS, the Act requires that prior to the disposal of any surplus land, unless when an exemption applies, a local agency must issue a Notice of Availability to, among others, affordable housing developers, and thereafter, if any entity submits a qualified Notice of Interest within sixty (60) days of issuance of the Notice of Availability, the local agency must negotiate in good faith for at least ninety (90) days with any such submitting entities; and

WHEREAS, the Property is not exempt from the Act; and

WHEREAS, a form of the Notice of Availability is attached hereto as “Exhibit B”

48 WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) City staff has determined that the designation of the Property as non -exempt surplus, approval of the form of Notice of Availability, and authorization for the City Manager to comply with the Act will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and as such is exempt from further review under CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3); and,

WHEREAS, if and when any of the Property is sold to a purchaser, and that purchaser proposes a use for the Property that requires a discretionary approval, any potential future use will be subject to CEQA as this Resolution does not propose a binding commitment to any particular use of the Property.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , FOUND, DETERMINED AND ORDERED by the City Council of the City as follows:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are a substantive part of this Resolution and findings of the City Council of the City.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds and declares that the Property is “surplus land” as used in the Act, because the Property is owned in fee simple by the City, and the Property is surplus and not necessary for the City’s use.

SECTION 3. The City hereby approves the form of Notice of Availability substantially in the form attached hereto as “Exhibit B.”

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager or designee to take all necessary actions to fully comply with the Act without further need to obtain further City Council approval.

SECTION 5. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) the designation of the Property as non- exempt surplus, approval of the form of Notice of Availability, and authorization for the CITY MANAGER to comply with t he Act will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and as such is exempt from further review under CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guide lines Section 15060(c)(3) . If and when any of the Property is sold to a purchaser, and that purchaser proposes a use for the Property that requires a discretionary approval, any potential future use will be subject to CEQA as this Resolution does not constitute a binding commitment to any particular use of the Property. Staff is directed to issue a Notice of Exemption regarding this determination.

SECTION 6. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution.

49 SECTION 7. The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

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

50 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )

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)
51 EXHIBIT A

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

Property located at a portion of 4000 E. Ontario Center (Lot E) and 3737 E. Concours Street and (Lot H) identified with Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 210 -205-20 and 210-204- 36 Lot E: A portion (approximately 5.95 acres) of 4000 E. Ontario Center

Lot H: 3737 E. Concours Street (approximately 14.06 acres)

52 EXHIBIT B

FORM OF NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
[to be filled in prior to issuance]
[DATE]

To All Interested Parties:

RE: Notice of Availability/Offer to Sell Surplus Property

As required by Government Code Section 54220 of the State of California, the City of Ontario (“City”) is providing notification that the City intends to sell the surplus property listed in the accompanying table.

In accordance with Government Code Section 54222, you have sixty (60) days from the date this offer was sent via certified mail or electronic mail to notify the City of your interest in acquiring the property. However, this offer shall not obligate the City to sell the property to you. Instead, the City would enter into at least ninety (90) days of negotiations with you pursuant to Government Code Section 54223. If no agreement is reached on price and terms, the City may market the property to the general public.

As required by Government Code Section 54227, if the City receives more than one letter of interest during this 60-day period, it will give first priority to entities proposing to develop housing where at least 25 percent of the units will be affordable to lower income households. If more than one such proposal is received, priority will be given to the proposal with the greatest number of affordable units. If more than one proposal specifies the same number of affordable units, priority will be given to the proposal that has the lowest average affordability level.

In the event your agency or company is interested in buying the property, you must notify the City in writing within sixty (60) days of the date this notice was sent via certified mail or electronic mail. Notice of your interest in acquiring the property shall be delivered to:

[INSERT STAFF CONTACT AND TITLE]
[INSERT MAILING ADDRESS]

You may also direct your questions to [INSERT EMAIL] or by calling [INSERT PHONE NUMBER].

Entities proposing to submit a letter of interest are advised to review the requirements set forth in the Surplus Land Act (Government Code Section 54220-54234).

Attachment: Property Description Form

53 Property Description Form
[to be filled in prior to issuance]

Jurisdiction Name
Jurisdiction Type
Site Address/Intersection
City
Five Digit ZIP Code
County
Assessor Parcel Number
Consolidated Sites
General Plan Designation (Current)
Zoning Designation (Current)
Minimum Density Allowed (units/acre)
Maximum Density Allowed (units/acre)
Parcel Size (Gross Acres)
Existing Use/Vacancy
Minimum Sales Price
Last Appraised Value
Last Appraised Date
Optional Information 1
Optional Information 2

54 Department: Economic Development
Prepared By: Thailin Martin
Department:

Prepared By: Thailin Martin
Staff Member Presenting: Jennifer McLain
Hiramoto, Economic Development Director
Reviewed By: Charity Hernandez
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 4
SUBJECT:

A RESOLUTION DECLARING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54221

THAT REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY IS EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND, AND

FINDING THAT SUCH DECLARATION IS NOT A PROJECT SUBJECT TO

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
December
2, 2025
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR

RECOMMENDATION:

That City Council adopt a Resolution declaring the property located at 315- 325 West D Street identiﬁed with Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 1048-576-01 through 1048-576-02, approve the property as exempt surplus land, and ﬁnding that such declaration is not a project subject environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy Pursue City's Goals and Objectives by Working with Other Governmental Agencies FISCAL IMPACT:

There is not a direct fiscal impact associated with this action.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:

The City currently owns real property located at 315-325 West D Street identiﬁed with Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 1048-576-01 through 1048-576-02, described and depicted in Exhibit "A" of the attached Resolution, which is approximately 0.45 acres (“Property”).

The Property is less than one-half acre in area, or 21,780 square feet, and it is not contiguous to land owned by state or local agency that is used for open-space or low-and-moderate income housing purposes. The Property is not needed for agency purposes and, as a result, the City desires to dispose of the Property.

Eﬀective January 1, 2020, AB 1486 amended the Surplus Land Act, Government Code Section 54220 et seq. (“SLA”), which prescribes the process for disposal of surplus land. Before taking any action to dispose of the Property, the City must ﬁrst comply with the SLA. The SLA requires all local agencies to prioritize aﬀordable housing, as well as parks and open space, when disposing of surplus land.

New legislation which took eﬀect on January 1, 2020, requires that before a local agency takes any 55 action to dispose of land, the land must be declared either “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land,” as supported by written ﬁndings. “Surplus land” means the land owned by a local agency for which the local agency’s governing body takes formal action in a regular public meeting declaring that the land is surplus and is not necessary for the agency’s use. “Exempt surplus land” means the land is less than one-half acre in area and it is not contiguous to state or local agency property used for open-space or low- or moderate-income housing (Government Code section 54221(f)(1)(B)). City Staﬀ has determined the Property is “exempt surplus land” that is subject to the SLA process, and that no exceptions apply. Accordingly, before taking steps to dispose of the Property, the City needs to comply with the SLA by taking formal action to declare the property exempt surplus. Adoption of the attached Resolution would declare the Property as “exempt surplus land”. The SLA process for “exempt surplus land” involves sending a copy of this Resolution to the California Department of Housing and Community Development in accordance with the requirements of Section 400(e) of the SLA Guidelines.

City Staﬀ has determined that the mere designation of the Property as "exempt surplus land" and authorization for the City Manager to comply with the Act do not qualify as a “project” as deﬁned in State CEQA Guidelines section 15378. The action to designate the Property as exempt surplus land constitutes an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in a physical change in the environment, and it therefore is not subject to CEQA. This Resolution does not constitute a binding commitment to any particular use of the Property.

56 RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF ONTARIO,

CALIFORNIA DECLARING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54221 THAT REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY
COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS 315-325 WEST D STREET (APNs 1048- 576-01 THROUGH 1048-576-02) IS EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND, AND

FINDING THAT SUCH DECLARATION IS NOT A PROJECT SUBJECT TO

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

WHEREAS, the City of Ontario (the “City”) is the owner in fee simple of that certain real property described in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein, known as APN 1048-576-01 through 1048-576-02, which is approximately 0.45 acres in size and is commonly referred to as 315-325 West D Street within City of Ontario (“Property”); and

WHEREAS, the Property is less than one half acre in area, or 21,780 square feet, and it is not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency that is used for open- space or low- and moderate-income housing purposes; and

WHEREAS, the City no longer has any use for the Property; and

WHEREAS, the Property is “surplus land” under the Act, because it is land owned in fee simple by the City for which the City Council will take formal action (in the form of adoption of this resolution) in a regular public meeting declaring that the land is surplus and is not necessary for the City’s use; and

WHEREAS, the Property may be declared exempt surpl us land if it is less than one-half acre in area and it is not contiguous to state or local agency property used for open-space or low - or moderate -income housing (Government Code section 54221(f)(1)(B)); and

WHEREAS, none of the characteristics listed un der Government Code section 54221(f)(2) apply to the Property.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario as follows:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are a substantive part of this Resolution and findings of the City Council.

57 SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that (i) the Property is no longer necessary for the City’s use, (ii) the Property is smaller than one -half acre in area because it is approximately 0.45 acres in area, and (iii) the Property is not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency that is used for open -space or low - and moderate-income housing purposes . Furthermore, none of the characteristics listed under Government Code section 54221(f)(2) apply to the Property.

SECTION 3. The City Council therefore declares that the Property is exempt surplus land pursuant to section 54221(f)(1)(B) of the Act.

SECTION 4. This Resolution has been reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”). City staff has determined that the mere designation of the Property as exempt surplus and authorization for the City Manager to comply with the Act do not qualify as a “project” as defined in State CEQA Guidelines section 15378.

First, Section 15378 defines a project as an activity that “has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the env ironment.” (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(a).) Here, the action is to declare the Property as exempt surplus, which will not result in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Accordingly, the action is not a “project” subject to CEQA. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15060(c).) Second, Section 15378 explicitly excludes from its definition of “project” the following: “organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.” (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(b)(5).) The action to designate the Property as exempt surplus land constitutes an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in a physical change in the environment, and it therefore is not subject to CEQA. This Resolution does not constitute a binding commitment to any particular use of the Property.

SECTION 5. The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized and directed to send a copy of this Resolution to the California Department of Housing and Community Development in accordance with the requirements of Section 400(e) of the SLA Guidelines and take any other required actions to implement this Resolution or to make any conforming or clarifying changes acceptable to the City Manager and City Attorney.

SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

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

_____________________________________
58 PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY

59 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )

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)

60 Exhibit A
Property Description
The Property is comprises APNs 1048-576-01 through 1048-576-02 and is identified below:

61 Department: Human Resources
Prepared By: Amanda Elias
Department:

Prepared By: Amanda Elias
Staff Member Presenting: Angela C. Lopez,
Executive Director Human Resources
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 5
SUBJECT:

AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KIDMAN

GAGEN LAW, LLP, FOR CONSULTING AND LEGAL SERVICES

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
December
2, 2025
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Kidman Gagen Law, LLP, of Irvine, California, for consulting and legal services in the amount of $150,000 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $300,000.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Operate in a Businesslike Manner
FISCAL IMPACT:

The proposed Amendment No. 1 increases the Agreement amount by $150,000, to a revised total not-to-exceed amount of $300,000 for the three-year term. If approved, the additional appropriations will be included in the General Liability fund at a future quarterly budget update to the City Council for approval as needed.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:

On July 8, 2024, the City of Ontario entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Kidman Gagen Law for consulting and legal services related to risk management operations and compliance with public contract standards. The Agreement, eﬀective July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2027, was established with a not-to-exceed amount of $150,000.

Kidman Gagen Law was retained under a sole-source provision due to an urgent need for specialized expertise that could signiﬁcantly impact the City, making a competitive selection process impractical.

Kidman Gagen Law has expertise in multiple legal disciplines, with a high level of proﬁciency in water, environmental, and government law.

The scope of services under the Agreement includes:

Legal and consulting services for compliance with risk management requirements.

Review and consultation on the City’s insurance policy limits.

Recommendations on indemnification provisions for Agreements and Projects.

Evaluation of insurance policy limits for City solicitations for goods and services. 62 Amendment No. 1 proposes an increase in compensation to support ongoing legal consultations with updated billing rates. A review of our legal support structure has identiﬁed the need for continued partnership, as the City’s legal demands for compliance with risk management standards increase.

City Staﬀ recommends that the City Council approve Amendment No. 1 to address operational needs, ensure compliance, and reduce potential risks.

Kidman Gagen Law's established record in providing
specialized legal services enables the City to operate in a businesslike manner and address complex risk management and compliance issues effectively.
63 46700.00100\33287662.1

Page 1 of 3 ends

BB&K 2020

AM
ENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO AND

KIDMAN GAGEN LAW, LLP

1. P
arties and Date.

Th
is Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement (as defined herein) is made and entered as of ____________, by and between the City of Ontario (“City”) and Kidman Gagen Law, a Limited Liability Partnership (Consultant). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”

2. R
ecitals.

2.1 Agreement. T he City and Consultant have entered into an agreement entitled “consulting and legal services” dated July 8, 2024 (“Agreement”).

2.2 Amendment Purpose. T he City and Consultant desire to amend the A greement to increase compensation and to delete and replace Exhibit“A” and Exhibit “C.”

2.3 Amendment Authority. This Amendment No. 1 is authorized pursuant to Section

3.7.14 of the Agreement.

3. T
erms.

3.1 Amendment . Section 3.2.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

PAUL S. LEON
MAYOR
ALAN D. WAPNER

MAYOR PRO TEM
J
IM W. BOWMAN

DEBRA PORADA

DAISY MACIAS

COUNCIL MEMBERS

SHEILA MAUTZ

CITY CLERK
J
AMES R. MILHISER

CITY TREASURER
S

COTT OCHOA

CITY MANAGER
64 46700.00100\33287662.1

Page 2 of 3 ends

BB&K 2020

3.2.1 “Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Attachment "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The total compensation shall be not exceed three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) without the written approval of the City Council or City Manager, as applicable. Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement.” Exhibit “C” Scope o f Services is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with Exhibit “C” Scope of Services attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

3.2 Continuing Effect of Agreement . Except as amended by this Amendment No. 1, all other provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment No. 1. From and after the date of this Amendment No. 1, whenever the term “Agreement” appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment No. 1.

3.3 Adequate Consideration. The Parties hereto irrevocably stipulate and agree that they have each received adequate and independent consideration for the performance of the obligations they have undertaken pursuant to this Amendment No. 1.

3.4 Severability. If any portion of this Amendment No. 1 is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

3.5 Integration. This Amendment represents the entirety of the Parties’ understanding relating to the subject of this Amendment, including written or verbal communications between the Parties, which shall have no relevance unless expressly incorporated herein. This is an integrated amendment.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
65 46700.00100\33287662.1

Page 3 of 3 ends

BB&K 2020

SIGNATURE PAGE FOR AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE

CITY OF ONTARIO AND KIDMAN GAGEN, LLP
I
N WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Amendment No. 1 as of the day and year first above written.

CITY OF ONTARIO KIDMAN GAGEN LAW, LLP
By:

Its:

Printed Name:

By:

Its:

Printed Name:
[
If Corporation, TWO SIGNATURES,
President OR Vice President AND Secretary
OR Treasurer REQUIRED]
Approved By:

Scott Ochoa
City Manager
Approved as to Form:
_____________________________________
Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney
A
ttested By:

City Clerk
66 46700.00100\40935195.1
BB&K (2024) Exhibit “C”-1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

Attachment "C"

COMPENSATION
The Consultant may incur various fees, costs, and expenses in performing the Services. The City agrees to pay for those fees, costs, and expenses in addition to the Consultant’s hourly fees.

Costs and expenses commonly include fees fixed by law or assessed by public agencies, messenger and other delivery fees (e.g., Federal Express), postage, parking, and other local travel expenses, copy service for large copy jobs and other reproduction costs, research costs including paper or electronic treatises and computer-assisted research fees, overnight travel costs outside Orange County, California (including lodging, meals, and incidentals) if deemed necessary and other similar items. Costs and expenses also include litigation costs such as attorney service to serve a document (summons, complaint, subpoena, motion, etc.), court reporter services, expert witness fees, deposition reporter fees, transcript fees, and court filing fees.

Consultant Billing Rates
• Paralegal: $135 per hour
• Associates: $300 per hour
• Senior Associates: $350 per hour
• Junior Partners: $400 per hour
• Partners: $450 per hour
Time will be billed in increments of 0.10 hours.
67 Department: Public Works
Prepared By: Daniel P Beers
Staff Member Presenting: Tito Haes, Executive
Director Public Works
Reviewed By: Bonnie Tam, Andrea Ampig
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 6
SUBJECT:

AN AMENDMENT TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH INFO-COM

BUSINESS PRODUCTS FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF VARIOUS

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND FIELD EQUIPMENT FOR THE PROFESSIONAL

BASEBALL STADIUM PROJECT

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
December
2, 2025
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council take the following actions:

A
.

Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Goods and Services Agreement with Margaret C. Pett, Inc. DBA Info-Com Business Products (Info-Com), of Altadena, California, for the purchase and installation of various Information Technology (IT) and ﬁeld equipment for the Professional Baseball Stadium project in the amount of $10,567,226 for a total contract amount of $13,505,373 plus a 5% contingency of $528,361 for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $14,327,549, which includes a previously approved contingency amount of $293,815; and
B
.

Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute all documents required for the completion of the project which may include, but not limited to, agreements, assessments, easements, reduction of retention accounts, contract amendments within the authorization limits, and filing a notice of completion at the conclusion of all construction-related activities.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the City's Infrastructure (Water, Streets, Sewers, Parks, Storm Drains and Public Facilities)
Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy Ensure the Development of a Well Planned, Balanced, and Self-Sustaining Community in Ontario Ranch
FISCAL IMPACT:

The proposed Amendment No. 1 to the Design Services Agreement with Info-Com is in the amount of $10,567,226 for a total contract amount of $13,505,373 plus a 5% contingency of $528,361 for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $14,327,549, which includes a previously approved contingency amount of $293,815. The Fiscal Year 2025-26 Adopted Budget includes appropriations in the Capital Projects-Measure Q Fund for the purchase and installation of various 68 IT and field equipment for the Professional Baseball Stadium project.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:

On August 6, 2024, the City Council approved the Environmental Impact Report for the Ontario Regional Sports Empire. The Ontario Regional Sports Empire includes a new Professional Baseball Stadium located at the northwest corner of Riverside Drive and Hellman Avenue. On September 17, 2024, the City Council awarded the structural steel and grading contracts for the Professional Baseball Stadium at the Ontario Regional Sports Empire. On October 15, 2024, the City Council awarded 24 construction contracts for the Professional Baseball Stadium.

On September 16, 2025, the City Council approved the Design Services Agreement to Info-Com to supply and install the furniture at the Professional Baseball Stadium including oﬃce furniture, dining chairs and tables, bar stools, and picnic tables.

The proposed Amendment No. 1 is for additional scope which includes the purchase and installation of IT infrastructure and various ﬁeld equipment which meets the City of Ontario’s standardization. These items include security screening equipment, central telephone system, ﬁeld tarps, bases, and pitching mounds. The construction is underway, and the Professional Baseball Stadium will be open in March 2026.

The amendment is exempt from competitive bidding under section 3400 of the Public Contract Code, as the amendment is necessary in order to match other products in use on a particular public improvement either completed or in the course of completion. 69 46700.00100\33287662.1

Page 1 of 3 ends

BB&K 2020

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO AND
MARGARET C. PETT., DBA INFO-COM BUSINESS PRODUCTS

1. P
arties and Date.

Th
is Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement (as defined herein) is made and entered as of ____________, by and between the City of Ontario (“City”) and Margaret C. Pett, Inc., dba Info - Com Business Products , a Corporation, (“Vendor”). City and Vendor are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”

2. R
ecitals.

2.1 Agreement. T he City and Vendor have entered into an agreement entitled “Goods and Services Agreement dated September 16, 2025 (“Agreement”).

2.2 Amendment Purpose. T he City and Vendor desire to amend the A greement to include additional items to purchase and install of IT equipment and various field equipment for the Professional B aseball Stadium . The additional items are specified per the specifications attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment A.

2.3 Amendment Authority. This Amendment No. 1 is authorized pursuant to Section

12.17 of the Agreement.

3. T
erm

3.1 Amendment. Section 1.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“1.1 G
eneral Scope of Services . Vendor promises and agrees to furnish to the City all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately supply the Professional Baseball Stadium (“Services”) which are more particularly described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits PAUL S. LEON
MAYOR
AL
AN D. WAPNER

MAYOR PRO TEM
JI
M W. BOWMAN

DEBRA PORADA

DAISY MACIAS

COUNCIL MEMBERS

SHEILA MAUTZ

CITY CLERK
J
AMES R. MILHISER

CITY TREASURER
S

COTT OCHOA

CITY MANAGER
70 46700.00100\33287662.1

Page 2 of 3 ends

BB&K 2020

attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations.”

“3.1 Compensation. Vendor shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Goods provided and Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The total compensation shall not exceed Thirteen Million Five Hundred Five Thousand Three Hundred Seventy- Three Dollars ($13,505,373) without written approval of City’s Manager.

Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement.”

Exhibit A is hereby amended in its entirety to add Attachment A which is hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All other pre viously added or deleted scope of services are retained in their entirety.

[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

71 46700.00100\33287662.1

Page 3 of 3 ends

BB&K 2020

SIGNATURE PAGE FOR AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES

AGREMEEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO
AND MARGARET C. PETT, INC., DBA INFO-COM BUSINESS PRODUCTS

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Amendment No. 1 as of the day and year first above written.

CITY OF ONTARIO MARGARET C. PETT, INC., DBA INFO-

COM BUSINESS PRODUCTS
By:

Its:

Printed Name:

By:

Its:

Printed Name:

[If Corporation, TWO SIGNATURES,
President OR Vice President AND Secretary
OR Treasurer REQUIRED]

Approved By:

Scott Ochoa
City Manager
Approved as to Form:

_____________________________________
Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney

Attested By:

City Clerk

Page 1 ends

Proposal 25-11-06-OSF
Ontario Baseball Stadium FF+E
11-6-25
Prepared by: Info-Com Business Products
Contact: Margaret Pett 626-818-2312 FF+E Proposal
[email protected]

AREA USED QTY TYPE DESCRIPTION COST EXTENDED COST

FOOD & BEVERAGE
1 Bars $274,950.00 $274,950.00
1 Suites/Catering $239,829.00 $239,829.00
1 Concessions $179,631.00 $179,631.00
1 Kitchen $314,405.00 $314,405.00
1 Office & Admin $20,540.00 $20,540.00
1 POS Equipment $206,480.00 $206,480.00
1 Warehouse & Heavy Equip. $227,231.00 $227,231.00
1 Warehouse/Janitorial $23,975.00 $23,975.00
1 Mothers Room, Building B - TCC $23,900.00 $23,900.00

FIELD EQUIPMENT
1 Toro Field Maintenance Equipment $714,002.00 $714,002.00 1 Terraplace Field Protection System $670,000.00 $670,000.00 1 Field Equipment - Turtle $12,834.05 $12,834.05
4 Valle Shield $1,550.00 $6,200.00
4 Overhead protector $279.00 $1,116.00
4 The Wing $349.00 $1,396.00
1 Pitching Screen- 8’x8’ with 4’x4’ notch in upper corner, full padded (1 needed) $879.00 $879.00 2 1st Base Screen- 8’x8’ (2 needed) $1,257.33 $2,514.66 1 2nd Base/Double Play Screen- 8’x14’ with hinged wings (1 needed) $1,838.50 $1,838.50 1 Helmet & Bat Rack $1,575.00 $1,575.00
16 Bases (2 to 4 sets) $250.00 $4,000.00
16 Base Dual Ground Anchor $70.00 $1,120.00
1 Pitching Rubber $295.00 $295.00
Attachment A
73

Page 2 ends

Proposal 25-11-06-OSF Ontario Baseball Stadium FF+E11-6-25Prepared by: Info-Com Business ProductsContact: Margaret Pett 626-818-2312FF+E [email protected]

AREA USEDQTY TYPE DESCRIPTION COST EXTENDED COST
1 Field Tarp increase in size if rain might be an issue to 170’ x 170’$11,915.00 $11,915.00 1 Speak with city/civil about tarp tube 36” diameter, 20ft long Standard 36” ADS non-perforated pipe$769.00 $769.00 1 Turf protector- 25’ x 20’wa x 70’wb (minimum, most teams make bigger due to wear and tear)$1,275.00 $1,275.00 1 Sideline Protector- 18’x14’ $955.99 $955.99
2 Home plate hitting mat- 6’ x 12’ (need 2, one for batters box and one to protect catcher’s area)$325.49 $650.98 1 On deck circle protectors (unbranded) $1,280.00 $1,280.00 1 Batting Practice Pitching Deck- BP Pitcher’s Platform with wheel kit, navy blue color$3,199.00 $3,199.00 3 Ball Caddies (3 needed) $678.00 $2,034.00
2 Indoor Pitching Mounds (Need 2 Portable Ones) $1,417.50 $2,835.00 2 Home Plate Mats for Infield Cages (1 for each cage $499.99 $999.98

SECURITY
1 Radios and supporting equipment $185,250.00 $185,250.00 1 Security Screening Equipment $157,872.00 $157,872.00
1 Garage Units, Safety & Emergency Management Systems$71,750.00 $71,750.00 1 Perimeter & Hardware Enhancements $23,900.00 $23,900.00 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT)1 Suites Readers (Alfred) $44,500.00 $44,500.00 1 Admin Office Hardware & Integration (FIT) $100,000.00 $100,000.00 1 Ring Central Telephone System $6,000.00 $6,000.00
1 DAS $3,000,000.00$3,000,000.00
1 IT- FIT Stadium & Garage Scope $230,000.00 $230,000.00 1 IT- FIT Forum $966,047.00 $966,047.00
1 IT- FIT Forum Change Order $37,268.00 $37,268.00
74

Page 3 ends

Proposal 25-11-06-OSF Ontario Baseball Stadium FF+E11-6-25Prepared by: Info-Com Business ProductsContact: Margaret Pett 626-818-2312FF+E [email protected]

AREA USEDQTY TYPE DESCRIPTION COST EXTENDED COST
1 IT- FIT Forum Change Addition to Scope $1,329.62 $1,329.62 1 IT- FIT Forum Parking $373,353.92 $373,353.92
OPERATIONS 1 General Cleaning Supplies $37,000.00 $37,000.00 1 Restroom & Locker Room Supplies $30,000.00 $30,000.00 1 Trash & Waste Management $48,000.00 $48,000.001 Specialized Cleaning Equipment $165,000.00 $165,000.001 Maintenance / Utility Supplies $25,000.00 $25,000.001 Game Day / Quick-Response Kits $15,000.00 $15,000.001 Storage & Distribution $25,000.00 $25,000.001 Safety Supplies $16,000.00 $16,000.001 Maintenance / Shop Equipment $500,000.00 $500,000.00 FURNITURE TOTAL$9,012,895.70INSTALLATION$200,000.00SUBTOTAL $9,212,895.708.75% SALES TAX$806,128.37ESTIMATED FREIGHT$45,000.00PROJECT MANAGEMENT$503,201.20PROJECT TOTAL$10,567,225.28 -QUOTE VALID FOR 30 DAYS. ANY PRODUCTS WITH IMMINENT PRICE INCREASES WERE BUDGETED USING FORTHCOMING PRICELIST WHERE AVAILABLE -TERMS: 50% DEPOSIT, 25% BEFORE DELIVERY, BALANCE 15 DAYS -INSTALLATION: ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. AREA TO BE FREE AND CLEAR TO RECEIVE PRODUCT. -IT IS THE RESPONSIBIILITY OF THE CUSTOMER TO BUDGET FOR PRICE INCREASES OVER THE COURSE OF THE PROJECT IF NOT ORDERED IN 30 DAYS -WORK TO BE PERFORMED IN PHASES OVER MULTIPLE DAYS
-WAREHOUSING NOT INCLUDED. PRODUCT RECEIVED AT WAREHOUSE TO BE STORED UP TO 4 WEEKS WITHOUT STORAGE FEES. 75

Page 4 ends

Proposal 25-11-06-OSF Ontario Baseball Stadium FF+E11-6-25Prepared by: Info-Com Business ProductsContact: Margaret Pett 626-818-2312FF+E [email protected]

AREA USEDQTY TYPE DESCRIPTION COST EXTENDED COST
AFTER A PERIOD OF FOUR WEEKS, ANY PRODUCT BEING STORED SUBJECT TO STORAGE FEES TO BE QUOTED BASED ON VOLUME OR PALETTE SIZE AT TIME OF STORAGE. -ESTIMATED LEAD TIME: 4-20 WEEKS. VARIES BY MANUFACTURER AND DEPENDENT ON MATERIAL AVAILABILITY AT TIME OF ORDER -ALL ORDERS ARE FINAL ONCE ENTERED - NO CANCELLATIONS; NO RETURNS SHIP TO:Ontario Sports Complex Baseball Stadium Ontario, California 91761Site Contact: Dan Beers818-388-0212 PURCHASE ORDER TO:Info-Com Business Products2063 Pepper DriveAltadena, CA [email protected] 76 Department: Planning
Prepared By: Robert Morales
Staff Member Presenting: Rudy Zeledon,
Executive Director Community Development
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 7
SUBJECT:

A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ADDENDUM TO THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (FILE NO. PGPA25-001) TO THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 (TECHNICAL

AMENDMENT)

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
December
2, 2025
SECTION:

PUBLIC HEARINGS

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council consider and approve:

A
.

An Addendum to The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022; and B
.

The General Plan Amendment (File No. PGPA25-001), a Technical Amendment to The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Operate in a Businesslike Manner
Pursue City's Goals and Objectives by Working with Other Governmental Agencies FISCAL IMPACT:

There is not a direct fiscal impact associated with this action.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:

On January 27, 2010, the Ontario City Council certiﬁed The Ontario Plan (TOP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (File No. PGPA06-001; Resolution No. 2010-006). On August 16, 2022, the City Council certiﬁed the TOP 2050 Update Supplemental EIR (File No. PGPA20- 002; Resolution No. 2022-129). Together, these documents establish the citywide policy and environmental framework that guides long-range planning and development.

The Technical Amendment reﬁnes this adopted framework to maintain consistency with recent State legislation and to ensure that Ontario’s long-range goals remain achievable under evolving conditions. Rather than introducing new growth areas or intensities, the Amendment updates data, policies, and maps, ensuring that TOP continues to serve as a living document that reﬂects current law, best practices, and community priorities.

TOP is organized into 6 integrated components: (1) Vision, (2) Governance Manual, (3) Policy Plan, (4) City Council Priorities, (5) Implementation, and (6) Tracking and Feedback. The Policy Plan component includes 9 General Plan elements: Land Use, Housing, Parks and Recreation, 77 Environmental Resources, Community Economics, Safety, Mobility, Community Design, and Social Resources. Each element expresses a part of Ontario’s commitment to building a safe, connected, and resilient community.

On October 28, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for General Plan Amendment (File No. PGPA25-001) and voted 4-0 to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendment.

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (File No. PGPA25-001):

The Technical Amendment updates 4
elements: Mobility, Safety, Environmental Resources, and Parks and Recreation. The purpose is to integrate new data and State mandates while preserving the City’s long-range vision.

Mobility Element (AB 98 and AB 747)
: The Technical Amendment updates the Mobility Element to comply with AB 98 (Truck Route Planning) and AB 747 (Evacuation Assessment). Because Ontario is located within a designated warehouse concentration region, the City is required under AB 98 to identify truck routes that minimize exposure to sensitive receptors such as homes, schools, and parks before January 1, 2026. The amendment reﬁnes Figure M-04 by removing two street segments: Philadelphia Street between Grove Avenue and Euclid Avenue, and Euclid Avenue between Mission Boulevard and I-10 freeway. These revisions redirect heavy-duty truck routes away from sensitive receptors while maintaining regional goods movement eﬃciency. The changes were informed by extensive community input and reﬂect consistent public feedback on truck traﬃc, safety, and neighborhood livability. Two new policies, M-1.7 and M-1.8, improve evacuation coordination and support transit-dependent populations, ensuring compliance with AB 747 and strengthening the City’s overall emergency preparedness.

Open Space and Environmental Resources (SB 1425)
: A consistency review confirmed that existing TOP
policies already meet the objectives of SB 1425 (Equitable Access and Climate Resilience). Cross- references among the Parks and Recreation, Safety, Environmental Resources, and Community Design Elements clarify how Ontario’s open-space network supports accessible access to parks, climate resilience, and rewilding opportunities.

Safety Element (AB 747 and AB 2684)
: The Safety Element will be amended to include Ontario’s 2023 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and the 2024 Evacuation Assessment. It introduces Section S-10, which focuses on Extreme Heat, and adds policies S-8.10 and S-8.11 to enhance regional coordination and maintain evacuation routes. These updates comply with the requirements of AB 747 and AB 2684, and they also incorporate FEMA’s 2024 ﬂoodplain data along with CalFire’s 2025 Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps.

Environmental Resources Element (SB 1000)
: The Technical Amendment includes a focused revision to the Environmental Resources Element to ensure ongoing compliance with SB 1000, which requires cities that amend 2 or more General Plan elements to also review their Environmental Justice policies. Based on updated CalEnviroScreen and American Community Survey (ACS) data, Census Tract 19.06 no longer qualiﬁes as a disadvantaged community and is proposed for removal from the Environmental Justice map Figure ER-01. The tract’s median household income now ranks within the top 10 percent of all tracts citywide, and the area has beneﬁted from recent public investments, including a 131-acre portion of Grand Park, which will expand community access to open space and recreational amenities. This update ensures that State and local resources continue 78 to focus on neighborhoods with the greatest demonstrated need.

Parks and Recreation Element
: Figure PR-01 is revised to illustrate the Ontario Sports Empire, demonstrating ongoing investment in recreation and ensuring equitable park access throughout the City.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH:

As part of the City's eﬀorts to encourage public participation, an outreach campaign was initiated from June to September 2025. This campaign included summer pop-ups, community service fairs, National Night Out events, a multilingual project website, social media campaigns, an online survey, and a community open house. These eﬀorts resulted in more than 900 unique visits to our online platform and over 120 completed surveys. The feedback collected highlighted community priorities such as completing the planned parks, addressing extreme heat and ﬂooding, improving enforcement of truck routes, and expanding infrastructure for shade and active transportation. These insights guided the reﬁnements made to the updated elements.

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN COMPLIANCE:

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

On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the ONT ALUCP, establishing the Airport Inﬂuence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Inﬂuence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overﬂight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decision-making body for PGPA25-001, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overﬂight Notiﬁcation Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2- 5). As a result, the City Council ﬁnds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP.

On August 2, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted a Development Code Amendment to establish the Chino Airport ("CNO") Overlay Zoning District ("OZD") and Reference I, Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("CNO ALUCP"). The CNO OZD and CNO ALUCP established the Airport Inﬂuence Area for Chino Airport, solely within the City of Ontario, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport 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 decision-making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and 79 supporting documentation against the CNO ALUCP compatibility factors, including Safety, Airspace Protection, Overﬂight. As a result, the City Council, therefore, ﬁnds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the Chino ALUCP.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The environmental impacts of the Project were reviewed in conjunction with The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2021070364; certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022).

The Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) (CEQA) and an Addendum has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts. Although the proposed Project could have a signiﬁcant eﬀect on the environment, because all potentially signiﬁcant eﬀects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Certiﬁed EIR and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Certiﬁed EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed Project, nothing further is required. The Project will introduce no new signiﬁcant environmental impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the Certiﬁed EIR, and all mitigation measures previously adopted by the EIR, are a condition of project approval and are incorporated in the Addendum. 80 THE

ONTARIO PLAN
2050

TECHNICAL

AMENDMENTS
Community Engagement Summary
Prepared August 26, 2025
Table of Contents
Engagement Overview ...................................................................................................................... 1 Pop-Ups ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Summer Concerts .............................................................................................................................. 2 National Night Out ............................................................................................................................ 2 Social Media ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Website ................................................................................................................................... 4 Community Survey ............................................................................................................................. 5 Community Open House ................................................................................................................... 7 APPENDIX A: Community Survey Results
APPENDIX B: Community Open House Comments
81 Community Engagement Summary
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050

Outreach Summary (prepared 8/26/25) page 1 of 8
The Ontario Plan 2050
Technical Amendments
Engagement Overview
The City of Ontario conducted a variety of engagement
efforts to provide community members with opportunities to learn about, share thoughts, and provide feedback
that informs proposed recommendations and changes
within the scope of The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 technical amendments.

Outreach efforts included:
• A dedicated project website promoted through in -
person events and on City social media accounts
and accessible in English, Spanish, and Simplified
Chinese.
• Four Pop -Up events, 2 in Northern Ontario at the
Ontario Town Square summer concerts, and 2 in
Southern Ontario at Celebration Park summer
concerts.
• Participation in Ontario’s National Night Out
• One project community survey and project overview
promoted at summer pop -up events and on City
Social Media accounts.
• Social media posts sharing information about the
project, in -person engagement efforts, and the
community survey.
• One Community Open House sharing findings from
the prior engagement efforts, evaluation of
compliance with various state laws, and draft
recommended changes to TOP 2050.
• The Community will also have the opportunity to
speak at upcoming hearings this fall prior to Planning
Commission and City Council action.

82 Community Engagement Summary
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050
Outreach Summary (prepared 8/26/25) page 2 of 8
Pop-Ups
Summer Concerts
July 2025
Ontario Town Square and Celebration Park North
The City conducted four pop -ups at the summer concert series hosted by the City of Ontario throughout July, with two pop-ups in Northern Ontario, and two pop-ups in Southern Ontario as follows:
• Pop-up #1: July 9, 2025, Ontario Town Square
• Pop-up #2: July 16, 2025, Ontario Town Square
• Pop-up #3: July 24, 2025, Celebration Park North
• Pop-up #4: July 31, 2025, Celebration Park North
At each booth, City staff built community awareness, answered questions, and directed attendees to the online overview and community survey.

Information boards were posted at the Pop-Up events
Summer Community Service Fair
June 14, 2025
Veterans Memorial Park & Community Center, 1259 East D Street, Ontario CA 91764 September 27, 2025
Bon View Park & Community Center, 1010 S Bon View Ave, Ontario, CA 91761 National Night Out
August 5, 2025
The City also had a participated in the City of Ontario’s National Night Out on Tuesday, August 5, 2025 from 5 pm to 8 pm. The format of this booth was the same as the Summer Concert Pop-Ups.

Business Cards with links to
the webpage were shared
at pop-ups.
83 Community Engagement Summary
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050
Outreach Summary (prepared 8/26/25) page 3 of 8
Social Media
July 9, 2025 – December 2025
Instagram, Facebook, X
The City utilized its social media platforms, including Instagram, Facebook, and X, to conduct a social media educational campaign to provide information to the City’s audience to inform them about the required technical updates to The Ontario Plan. This method for online engagement is productive given that the City has 81,800 total followers across the three platforms. In this process, the City provides the purpose, overview, and ways for the public to get involved and learn more. These posts were strategically shared on these platforms prior to and leading up to the in-person events, like the pop-ups and open house.

The public engaged with social media posts through liking and commenting on the posts. Most of the social media engagement came from Instagram and Facebook with the average number of likes /reactions being 63 on Instagram, 18 on Facebook, and 2 on X . Comments varied by post, but most comments and questions centered on:
• Housing costs
• Lowering property taxes
• City council related
• Warehouses
• Specific improvements to local shopping centers
• Shaded trails
• R
egional transportation
• Parking enforcement
• Truck routes , specifically related to Euclid and
Boulder, Archibald,
• Truck Safety, like walkability, noise buffering
• Alleged criminal activity
• Gratitude for public engagement opportunities
• Great Park
• Bike infrastructure
• Recent federal enforcement
• Farmland changes
• Improving city staff quality
• Local air quality and related health issues
• S
urvey issues: not receiving survey information, not
b
eing able to change answers on the survey ,
su
ggestions to post the survey link,
• Downtown improvements
• Lack of open spaces
Instagram
Facebook
X
84 Community Engagement Summary
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050
Outreach Summary (prepared 8/26/25) page 4 of 8
Project Website
July 9, 2025 – December 2025
Myinput.com/OntarioTechGPA
The project website provides an overview of technical
amendments to The Ontario Plan, including a brief overview of the updates being considered by element, project timeline, project materials, and ways to get involved/previous outreach efforts.

The project website has was viewed over 1,600 times between July 9, 2025 and August 25, 2025. Within the same timeframe over 1,200 visits and 936 unique visitors (based on IP addresses), as seen in the image below. The online overview and survey was hosted on the project website with over 125 contributors sharing their thoughts and perspectives regarding the technical amendments.

The project website was available to in multiple languages, including Spanish, Simplified Chinese, and Vietnamese. Website viewers predominantly viewed the website in English (97%), followed by Chinese (2%), Spanish (1%) and Vietnamese (0.001%), as shown below. 85 Community Engagement Summary
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050
Outreach Summary (prepared 8/26/25) page 5 of 8
Community Survey
July 9, 2025 – August 8, 2025
Myinput.com/OntarioTechGPA
Survey overview
The City provided an online survey to capture the public’s input for the updates to portions of its Policy Plan, a component of The Ontario Plan, to address new state laws and reflect minor changes in mapping related to flooding and fire hazards, open space resources, disadvantaged communities, and truck
routes. This survey was structured to combine the overview of why these updates are necessary with open -ended spaces to receive the public’s thoughts and ideas on the topics of extreme heat, flood, and wildl ife hazards, open space, truck routes, and disadvantaged communities.

This survey was open from July 9, 2025 to August 8, 2025. During this period, 125 community members informed themselves
about The Ontario Plan technical amendments and
contributed their thoughts and ideas.

Survey snapshots
86 Community Engagement Summary
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050
Outreach Summary (prepared 8/26/25) page 6 of 8
Summary of survey responses
In general, survey responses reported the following items:

PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
• Strong support for completing planned parks, especially the Grand Park project in Ontario Ranch

SAFETY ELEMENT
• Support for evacuation planning and emergency preparedness • Concerns about flooding in specific neighborhoods (Nuvo Parkside area) • Interest in green infrastructure for stormwater management • Need for extreme heat protection, especially shade trees and cooling infrastructure • Emphasis on clear emergency communication systems

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ELEMENT
• Emphasis on ensuring resources reach communities most in need • Support for maintaining environmental protections regardless of income changes • Recognition that pollution affects all residents
• Interest in green infrastructure and tree planting programs

MOBILITY ELEMENT
• Heavy truck traffic passing by on residential area streets, especially along Ontario Ranch Road and Archibald Avenue
• Noise, vibration, and air quality impacts on homes and schools • Safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists
• Road damage from heavy vehicles
• Need for better enforcement of truck route restrictions Map Question
The survey also in vited respondents to
place markers on a map in areas where
they were aware of issues related to the
proximity of heavy- duty trucks and
sensitive receptors like hom es, s chools,
and parks. Most markers, shown as blue
dots to the left, were placed in Southern
Ontario, with concentrations along
Archibald Ave, Ontario Ra nch Road
(Edison Ave), and Haven Ave.

A comp lete recor d of all survey
responses and a larger map with related
comments is included as Appendix A.
87 Community Engagement Summary
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050
Outreach Summary (prepared 8/26/25) page 7 of 8
Community Open House
Thursday, August 21, 2025
Ontario Senior Center, East B Street, Ontario, CA
Open house overview
The City of Ontario hosted a Community Open House for the Ontario Plan’s Technical Amendments on August 21, 2025 at the Ontario Senior Center from 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm. The
Open House had five stations: 1) Project Summar y, Project Overview Presentation, and individual stations for the Parks and Recreation, Safety, Environmental Resources, and
Mobility Elements.

Sixteen attendees signed in, and approximately 4 attendees visited the event without signing in. The open house featured interactive boards to communicate proposed changes and
provide areas for attendees to share their thoughts on the draft changes under consideration . Attendees were also invited to discuss each topic with the City and Consultant Staff.

This document includes a summary of the comments shared at the meeting, as well as a transcription of all comments provided.

The City and Consultant team will consider the input herein while refining draft changes prior to public hearings.
88 Community Engagement Summary
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050
Outreach Summary (prepared 8/26/25) page 8 of 8
Summary of open house comments

PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
Community members shared a desire for m ore nearby pocket parks, safer bike lanes, improvements to Bon View Park, and it was noted that the city should consider habitat opportunities for species such as the burrowing owl.

SAFETY ELEMENT
Community members shared that there was a need for more shade- providing trees, trails, flowering plants, and walkable connections throughout Ontario for air quality. While these comments were posted under the Safety Element they relate more directly to the Parks and Recreation and Environmental Resources Elements.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ELEMENT
Attendees wanted to understand how the City plans to improve and address poor air quality and expressed concern over the development of new warehousing facilities that exacerbate air quality issues. An example of a new project on Bon View between Francis and Philadelphia and Mission and Holt was shared to illustrate the concern.

MOBILITY ELEMENT
Community members expressed concerns over tr uck traffic in specific areas of the city, expressing a need to reduce truck traffic at the intersection of Shaefer and Grove, and suggesting that North Bon View be removed as a truck route.

Attendees also requested that schools be shown on truck route maps and noted that the City should address trucks parking in residential areas , which creates traffic safety issues such as intersection blind spots.

OTHER COMMENTS
In addition to those related to the project, some attendees commented on land use items that are outside the scope of the technical amendment, including questions and concerns around “Prop 70 land,” farmland in Southern Ontario that was acquired by the County in 1988 using funds approved through a bond measure, Proposition 70, for the purposes of conservation, and desire for more public notic ing to those impacted by new development before zoning changes are considered . One commento r also noted ongoing issues with drug dealing near the intersection of Vineyard and 4
th.

A complete list of all comments received is included as Appendix B. 89 APPENDIX A: Community Survey Results
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050
Community Survey Results

APPENDIX A
July 9, 2025 – August 8, 2025
Community Survey Results
90 MyInput.com/OntarioTechGPA
Community Survey
Summary
Jul 09, 2025 - Aug 08, 2025
Project: Technical Amendment to The Ontario Plan
Form: Technical Amendment to The Ontario Plan
Exported: Aug 11, 2025, 12:49 PM
91 Open
Technical Amendment to The Ontario Plan
Technical Amendment to The Ontario Plan
125
Contributors
132
Contributions
Contribution Summary

1. Please share your thoughts or ideas, if any, about the amendments to the Safety Element under consideration
Long Text | Skipped: 114 | Answered: 18 (13.6%)
Sentiment
No sentiment data
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
Find another alternative away from the homes
Contribution 18 of 18 | August 2, 2025
Way too many road problems and pot holes due to commercial trucks Contribution 17 of 18 | August 1, 2025
I hope you consider some type of alert or sirens regarding fires and floods to the residents.

Contribution 16 of 18 | July 23, 2025
Please support community efforts to preserve open space land specifically parcels obtained by Proposition 70. These are required to be sustained "in perpetuity". I would like to see the 200 acres remain in Ontario.

Contribution 15 of 18 | July 21, 2025
As a resident of Nuvo Parkside (Archibald & Eucalyptus, 91762), our neighborhood experiences frequent street flooding after heavy rain, indicating a need for localized stormwater solutions. I urge the City to incorporate green infrastructure—such as bioswales and rain gardens—within parkways and cul-de-sacs to help infiltrate runoff and reduce peak flows. It’s also important to assess whether the storm drains and culverts serving Archibald and Eucalyptus were evaluated in the last hydrologic assessment, and if they are being upgraded to handle more intense rainfall events. Consistent maintenance schedules should be implemented to ensure debris is cleared from drains, culverts, and stormwater channels before each storm season. Additionally, I request the City prioritize equitable investment in flood mitigation infrastructure and green systems in Nuvo Parkside, ensuring it receives attention comparable to other neighborhoods. Finally, please clarify which streets or intersections in our area flood most often and whether homes or roadways along Archibald and Eucalyptus have experienced repeated standing water incidents. These efforts would significantly improve local flood resilience and inform updates to flood hazard mapping and stormwater policy.

Contribution 14 of 18 | July 16, 2025
Currently doesn’t seem like Ontario Ranch is considered to be in a major floor nor fire risk, so that’s a good thing and we should keep it that way
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 2 of 3392 Contribution 13 of 18 | July 16, 2025
Purple= flood zone? I wasn’t aware I resided in a flood zone. Your map should indicate: purple = flood zone.

Contribution 12 of 18 | July 15, 2025
Updates are good if all provisions are in placed, procedures tested and there are alternate plans in case it fails. And the time of response when assistance or help are needed should be included in this information.

Contribution 11 of 18 | July 10, 2025
I live approx. 0.10 miles south of the train tracks currently shown in a flood zone. I'm concerned the mapping may expand this area and impact nearby homes (me). I encourage the City to improve stormwater drainage on San Antonio Ave between State Ave and Mission Blvd, maintain clear culverts and rain gutters, and consider green infrastructure like rain gardens or bioswales. Adding permeable surfaces in public spaces and open space buffers could also help absorb runoff. I'd also suggest that the city please ensure clear communication of any flood zone changes.

Contribution 10 of 18 | July 10, 2025
I believe having homeless people in drain/sewer areas is a hazard in case of any flooding Contribution 9 of 18 | July 10, 2025
Agree this is necessary
Contribution 8 of 18 | July 10, 2025
Please remove trucks form driving on Ontario Ranch Road & Haven Ave. a lot of families crossing streets and often trucks go too fast, or cars swerve around them to pass.

Contribution 7 of 18 | July 10, 2025
ontario ranch road should be restricted from semi trucks and big rigged Contribution 6 of 18 | July 9, 2025
Santa Ana winds are a seasonal threat here, creating dangerous fire conditions, damaging property, and posing safety hazards for residents. We need to plan for wind-resistant infrastructure, tree maintenance, and emergency response readiness when these conditions arise. With more housing being developed near wildland areas, wildfire risk is increasing. We must invest in defensible space guidelines, firebreaks, and evacuation planning to protect Ontario Ranch as fire seasons become more extreme. Flooding remains a concern during heavy storms due to overburdened or outdated drainage systems. New development must be paired with modern stormwater management, including retention basins, green infrastructure, and upgraded sewer lines. Ontario Ranch is growing rapidly, and with growth comes increased exposure to natural disaster risks. Between the threat of wildfires, strong winds, and seasonal flooding, we need proactive planning. This means enforcing resilient building codes, emergency evacuation plans, investing in green infrastructure, and community education. Preparing now will reduce future damage, save lives, and protect our city’s long-term investment.

Contribution 5 of 18 | July 9, 2025
How were these flood maps created and what was used to determine the areas of flooding? Contribution 4 of 18 | July 9, 2025
Can you please stay out of the new development areas by Ontario Ranch. I have a hard time driving through chino to get home due to MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 3 of 3393 one lane of these big trucks.

Contribution 3 of 18 | July 9, 2025
Lots of traffic. But should be good
Contribution 2 of 18 | July 9, 2025
No changes. Looks good
Contribution 1 of 18 | July 9, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 4 of 3394

2. -
Multi Choice | Skipped: 43 | Answered: 89 (67.4%)
Answer choices Percent Count
I do not wish to comment at this time 100.00% 89
Total 100.00% 89
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 5 of 3395

3. Please share your thoughts or ideas, if any, about the amendments to the Parks & Recreation Element under consideration
Long Text | Skipped: 87 | Answered: 45 (34.1%)
Sentiment
No sentiment data
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
Having a running track / trail would be good. Ensuring park is safe vis a vis security also important. Kids play areas and picnic space helpful to bring families out. Good stand and clean bathrooms are a must.

Contribution 45 of 45 | August 3, 2025
More smaller scale parks are needed for the ontario ranch area. While the Great Park is a great addition and one reason why we bought a house here, it will take years to build and complete. We are tired of going to Eastvale just to enjoy outdoor unobstructed space. Also, a communtiy center is much needed. Majority are in North Ontario and it takes a lot of travel just going there. Westwind is also outdated and small for the new population
Contribution 44 of 45 | August 2, 2025
If u want parks for children, dont you think having trucks driving at such high speeds is dangerous? Contribution 43 of 45 | August 2, 2025
Super exciting. The Great Park proposed space looks amazing. As large as Central Park, can’t wait to see it come to life! Ontario needs to keep planting trees and hire the best arborists. It will help offset all these trucks. We need a canopy which will help air quality and provide relief during scorching heat.

Contribution 42 of 45 | August 2, 2025
We need our great park built asap
Contribution 41 of 45 | August 1, 2025
Please continue to build the proposed parks in the Ontario Ranch area.

Contribution 40 of 45 | August 1, 2025
Parks and recreation centers are great! No more warehouses as they cause more truck traffic, pollution and potential crimes.

Contribution 39 of 45 | August 1, 2025
Grand park should extend further to mill creek and all the way to Euclid. It would be better if it were wider on the western side. As wide as it is in phase 1. More city parks needed in Ontario ranch. Parks with dense amounts of trees to cool temperatures, offer shade for picnics, and water features like streams and lakes.

Contribution 38 of 45 | August 1, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 6 of 3396 More parks, less warehouses, more unique shopping/retail centers.

Contribution 37 of 45 | July 31, 2025
I strongly believe that Mountain View School Park needs to be updated. As a resident of the neighboring community, I do not find it enjoyable to take my children to this park due to the outdated metal equipment hat becomes scorching hot in the heat, is covered in graffiti, and sand. An updated park would allow for the surrounding children of the elementary and middle school to take advantage and get good use out of new and improved amenities, my children included.

Contribution 36 of 45 | July 27, 2025
How will traffic be during events.

Contribution 35 of 45 | July 26, 2025
Less houses, more grocery stores and places to eat.

Contribution 34 of 45 | July 25, 2025
More open spaces are needed in Ontario ranch area given the huge increase in housing beigg by built Contribution 33 of 45 | July 24, 2025
I noticed that the Grand Park is built slower rate versus Ontario Sports Complex and warehouses. Even though we pay our property taxes and yet we get no benefits to enjoy our community.

Contribution 32 of 45 | July 23, 2025
The park above eucalyptus needs to be focused on. The dust and dirt are covering the houses nearby Contribution 31 of 45 | July 23, 2025
Need more green space
Contribution 30 of 45 | July 23, 2025
For the new parks, like the one stretching from Haven to Campus, please plan for walking and jogging routes while crossing roadways.

Ideally, i would like to avoid crossing vehicle traff altogether Contribution 29 of 45 | July 23, 2025
The older section of the city doesn't have enough parks. I hope the city doesn't repeat this with the Ontario Ranch area of the city Contribution 28 of 45 | July 22, 2025
We need more safe, family friendly, open air spaces to play, relax, meet with others, etc. through the city. Community gardens spaces would be beneficial as well
Contribution 27 of 45 | July 21, 2025
Why not acknowledge the Proposition 70 parcels as Open Space also? Contribution 26 of 45 | July 21, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 7 of 3397 There should definitely be more recreation and parks available and less warehouses Contribution 25 of 45 | July 16, 2025
John Gavin Park and Jay Littleton Ballpark, Grove Memorial Park and the dog park are to remain and be improved, correct? No zoning change!
Contribution 24 of 45 | July 15, 2025
Yes please our community, families, kids need access to free admission Parks and Recreation Element. Security must also be considered.

More trees or greenery for clean air.

Contribution 23 of 45 | July 10, 2025
I’d like to know when the “Grand Park” will be started. Located between Archibald and Haven (behind Stater Bros). I’d also love to see more Pickleball courts, ideally with tall fences and wind blockers like Tennis courts have. Bike tracks would be great too, going around the park in a safe and isolated place away from cars.

Contribution 22 of 45 | July 10, 2025
Possibly add a park under the electrical lines on haven ave.

Contribution 21 of 45 | July 10, 2025
Looking forward to the completion of the Ontario Sport Empire facilities/park.

Contribution 20 of 45 | July 10, 2025
I live near Mission Blvd & Cypress Ave, where there are no nearby parks within safe walking distance, especially for dog owners.

Reaching Cypress Park or James R Bryant Park requires crossing major streets, some without crosswalks, like Cypress & Mission. I suggest adding safe pedestrian crossings, shaded walking paths, and a small dog-friendly green space or pocket park in this area to improve access to recreation for both residents and pets.

Contribution 19 of 45 | July 10, 2025
Parks are definitely a good way of getting the community involved Contribution 18 of 45 | July 10, 2025
Need walking / biking paths
Contribution 17 of 45 | July 10, 2025
More lanes should be added to Riverside Drive with the building of the new baseball stadium. It is very congested as is and will only get worse.

Contribution 16 of 45 | July 10, 2025
We need to get the Great Park moving. We were told within a year or two of moving here is would be open and now it’s been 3 years.

This will help the community by looking better, as well as great for all the families. Oh please, add shade sails to parks. It’s too hot in direct sun for kids
Contribution 15 of 45 | July 10, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 8 of 3398 Building more public hiking and multi use trails in Ontario Contribution 14 of 45 | July 9, 2025
Make more progress on grand park. It’s going so slow. I’ll be dead by the time it opens. Seriously. Speed up.

Contribution 13 of 45 | July 9, 2025
We love having large recreational areas planned and can’t wait for the great park to come to fruition.

Contribution 12 of 45 | July 9, 2025
There should be more pickle ball courts added.

Contribution 11 of 45 | July 9, 2025
Looking forward to all the new parks, especially trees and other vegetation! Ontario has sadly become overwhelmed with concrete warehouses, reducing its attractiveness as a place to live Contribution 10 of 45 | July 9, 2025
Where is the great park?
Contribution 9 of 45 | July 9, 2025
Still need more parks and recreation due to many new houses built in recent years Contribution 8 of 45 | July 9, 2025
The area under the electrical power lines off of Twinkle and Cheerful needs to be cleaned up to connect the Ontario trail.

Contribution 7 of 45 | July 9, 2025
Keep grand park! We need the green space!
Contribution 6 of 45 | July 9, 2025
Would prefer more parks and rec instead of housing in the Ontario ranch area.

Contribution 5 of 45 | July 9, 2025
Ontario Ranch great park construction is taking a very long time, in contrast to the sports complex which is happening extremely quickly.

Contribution 4 of 45 | July 9, 2025
More updates on the Grand Park. There’s not a lot of green space besides celebration parks for us Ontario Ranch residents so we’re banking on this park for leisure and activities
Contribution 3 of 45 | July 9, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 9 of 3399 Please keep homeless out of parks. Other than that, no amendments.

Contribution 2 of 45 | July 9, 2025
There are not enough parks planned to offset the huge amount of warehouses and semis.

Contribution 1 of 45 | July 9, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 10 of 33100

4. -
Multi Choice | Skipped: 67 | Answered: 65 (49.2%)
Answer choices Percent Count
I do not wish to comment at this time 100.00% 65
Total 100.00% 65
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 11 of 33101

5. Where have you noticed issues between sensitive receptors like homes, parks, and schools and heavy-duty truck traffic?
Map | Skipped: 29 | Answered: 103 (78%)
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 12 of 33 NOTE: a larger map is included at the end of the survey summary, along with a list of all comments placed on the map. Comments include a map ID reference number that can be keyed to a location on the larger map.
102

6. Please share your thoughts or ideas, if any, about the factors above Long Text | Skipped: 50 | Answered: 82 (62.1%)
Sentiment
No sentiment data
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
I wish someone from the city would come and spend a day in our home to see how disruptive the noise is at all hours of the day.

Contribution 82 of 82 | August 7, 2025
Get them out of ontario ranch road and residential areas Contribution 81 of 82 | August 2, 2025
Go around to where the dairy farms were
Contribution 80 of 82 | August 2, 2025
Truck routes should not be allowed in all residential neighborhoods. This includes Park Place, New Haven, and Esperanza. There needs to be some constant enforcement. Posted signs do not deter truck drivers if there is a lack of enforcement.

Contribution 79 of 82 | August 2, 2025
If we have larger roads, 4-6 lanes, I think we should look at the possibility of designating truck lanes along truck routes.

Contribution 78 of 82 | August 2, 2025

1. Truck routes should avoid residential areas and parks—these are sensitive spaces that deserve protection, especially as the city continues investing in public green spaces. 2. Freeway access should be prioritized to keep trucks on roads designed for heavy-duty traffic, reducing noise, pollution, and wear on smaller local streets. 3. Stronger enforcement is needed to keep trucks on designated routes—many currently divert through neighborhoods, undermining safety and air quality.

Contribution 77 of 82 | August 2, 2025
Utilize the 60 fwy for routes through o ratio ranch rd to get to areas in chino or beyond.

Contribution 76 of 82 | August 1, 2025
Consider nearby neighborhoods.

Contribution 75 of 82 | August 1, 2025
Please use soundwalls or vegetation in the Ontario ranch area as there is many trucks passing through.

Contribution 74 of 82 | August 1, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 13 of 33103 No trees or shrubs are enough to drown out all the noise these trucks create. Many neighbors that live on Archibald still complain about the noise and how much their walls and windows tremble from these heavy trucks.

Contribution 73 of 82 | August 1, 2025
The trucks need to be removed off of highly populated areas that contain schools or community centers. They also need to be removed from residential neighborhoods.

Contribution 72 of 82 | August 1, 2025
Truck routes that are near residential areas should be evaluated for other potential routes. Specifically Archibald through Ontario Ranch Rd to Merrill Ave. There many homes, and nearby parks, people/kids going for walks/runs. Too much pollution and noise.

Contribution 71 of 82 | August 1, 2025
Sound walls should be build along all the new homes that have been built and are being built in Ontario ranch. The 6 foot or so high wall is not enough. The walls should be 8 feet or higher. In the city of La Habra on imperial highway the city added 10+ foot sound walls where the homes were to reduce traffic noise. Although vegetation in Ontario ranch is denser than any other part of the city, I believe more trees need to be planted to create a natural wall between the homes and the road.

Contribution 70 of 82 | August 1, 2025
Please prevent trucks from driving in single bidirectional lanes and ensure truck routes are prioritized away from schools and home communities.

Contribution 69 of 82 | August 1, 2025
Many of the routes right now are only 1-2 lanes. They are not larger roads.

Contribution 68 of 82 | August 1, 2025
No trucks on Schaeffer or Haven
Contribution 67 of 82 | August 1, 2025
Consider what can be enforced because trucks go any route if not enforced for tickets.

Contribution 66 of 82 | August 1, 2025
I believe there needs to be more oversight on prohibiting truck routs entering residential areas specifically with smaller roads and single vehicles lanes such as rounds abouts that are located in residential areas, besides residential play gyms and such.

Contribution 65 of 82 | August 1, 2025
Directly truck traffic that do not impact residential communities. Invest in upgrading major route along industrial/business zone to accommodate heavy truck traffic influx, eg Euclid.

Contribution 64 of 82 | August 1, 2025
Restrict trucks to the freeways until the very closest exit to their destination, simple. There shouldn't be so many trucks driving through Ontario Ranch Rd, they then go on to damage the roads along the farm areas. With parks and school so close, trucks need to be kept AWAY.

Contribution 63 of 82 | July 31, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 14 of 33104 Trucks should not be in residential areas. They need to get off riverside and Archibald Contribution 62 of 82 | July 26, 2025
Archibald is a major road but also has major new builds happening. It should be reconsidered as it’s causing unhealthy pollution for newborns and young families moving in as well as safety for kids walking to nearby schools.

Contribution 61 of 82 | July 26, 2025
Prioritize police enforcement of commercial trucks and routes to ensure regulatory compliance and maintenance of these large vehicles.

A lot of this increased commercial activity is the result of the city opening the flood gates to large enterprises, such as Amazon, that are renown for their lax management and practices concerning commercial operators, all in the name of expediency. The city should take an equal approach with commercial enforcement.

Contribution 60 of 82 | July 25, 2025
Trucks should not be taking residential streets.

Contribution 59 of 82 | July 25, 2025
All trucks should be electric operating in the Ontario Ranch community. We have too many children breathing in truck fumes Contribution 58 of 82 | July 25, 2025
Truck routes should be avoided near residential areas with insufficient sound walls, vegetation and larger roads, but Ontario still has truck routes in these areas.

Contribution 57 of 82 | July 25, 2025
This for the most part makes sense. Volumes of trucks have heavily increased the last 3 years or so especially on Archibald and Merril and surrounding areas
Contribution 56 of 82 | July 25, 2025
Larger roads and more vegetation
Contribution 55 of 82 | July 24, 2025
Need to complete construction on roads. Seems like all roads in city take forever for construction to be completed, and trucks do not have alternate routes.

Contribution 54 of 82 | July 23, 2025
Stay away from residential areas and schools.ma
Contribution 53 of 82 | July 23, 2025
Too many trucks on residential streets
Contribution 52 of 82 | July 23, 2025
Yes! Signage to indicate what is and what's not a truck route and then the enforcement by the police. Very needed. Makes our MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 15 of 33105 residential neighborhoods walkable, peaceful, quiet and safe.

Contribution 51 of 82 | July 23, 2025
Doesn’t matter how you evaluate Truck routes. There is very little enforcement for trucks that violate. Trucks will go the easiest way for them, regardless of signs or designated routes. The City needs to first enforce the current routes and violations, not create more areas they will not enforce. SIGNS on streets are a joke!
Contribution 50 of 82 | July 23, 2025
please avoid residential areas in the schools. I have seen 16 wheelers trying to drive through residential areas when Archibald or Edison have street work. I realize they shouldn't, so let's just avoid the problem all together and don't put them anywhere. near school or homes
Contribution 49 of 82 | July 23, 2025
I believe creating a “semi only/truck only” lane would be beneficial to Ontario Ranch Rd and Archibald Ave- would ease flow of traffic.

Contribution 48 of 82 | July 22, 2025
Minimizing semi truck in the city would be a benefit to our air quality and quality of life in general. Being a city of warehouses is not a flex or an appealing place to call home. Many of us do not have the luxury to live elsewhere so we need to improve our home City.

Contribution 47 of 82 | July 21, 2025
You have made South Ontario into Warehouse Central despite no freeway access. You need to designate Euclid to the 60 freeway or create Merrill Ave to the I-15.

Contribution 46 of 82 | July 21, 2025
Francis between Euclid & Campus should not be a truck route it is a very narrow street with a school and single family homes Contribution 45 of 82 | July 21, 2025
Please have them away from the homes or with one lane each.

Contribution 44 of 82 | July 17, 2025
Use Hamner Ave. to access 60 fwy in a North and South direction as it’s near completion of widening of the roads in that commercial use area. Limonite Ave to go East and West to reduce the amount of Heavy duty semi truck on Ontario Ranch Rd. With still having access to the 15 fwy. Archibald Ave will also be a better access road off of the 60 fwy. Instead of having large semi trucks exit off the 15 fwy and driving west thru neighborhoods.

Contribution 43 of 82 | July 16, 2025
As a resident, we do not care about convenience for trucks to access their routes. We do not want to see them or breathe in their fumes.

Keep the truck routes strictly to major streets near freeways and away from residential areas as much as possible. I have not seen any presence of sound walls or vegetation to improve these situations; would be nice to see but I have little faith the city will properly address this because of the lack of space (due to overcrowding/poor city planning) and propensity to favor more warehouses and constant housing developments over the betterment of the city and community Contribution 42 of 82 | July 16, 2025
Grove has large trucks all day long. Students are required to cross this street 2 and from school. There was a student fatality on G and Grove. Wiltsey, Mariposa, Del Norte south of the 10 and Vineyard, north of the 10.

MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 16 of 33106 Contribution 41 of 82 | July 15, 2025
Rerouting the truck area would be ideal. We have major traffic with large trucks lots of pedestrians that walk in our area and the roads since I’ve been living here have been damaged so badly it is not safe. It’s actually very dangerous considering that we live in a community with lots of children that ride their bikes And multiple restaurants and grocery stores so close to the main road of large truck traffic.

Contribution 40 of 82 | July 13, 2025
If the city can’t accommodate a different route, I believe they should fix Archibald and remove the overlays and put holes from the street to try and prevent more damages to homes and apartment complexes. To try to eliminate more noise adding more trees on the street walk. Anything helps at this point, it’s way too noisy. Adding extra street lights to prevent them from going down the street at 60mph would help as well.

Contribution 39 of 82 | July 13, 2025
I’d like to offer a transportation-related suggestion for your consideration as development continues in the Ontario Ranch area. Based on current and planned land use, I believe Euclid Avenue, Ontario Ranch Road, and Merrill Avenue (eastbound) are better suited as major east-west and north-south thoroughfares. These roads provide direct access to key regional freeways including the 60, 71/91, and 15, making them ideal for high-volume traffic flow. Additionally, they run through primarily non-residential zones—such as warehouse districts, the airport, and the correctional facility—so the impact on residential communities would be minimal. In contrast, Archibald Avenue is expected to see more residential development, including housing, a park, and a school. Prioritizing heavy traffic along Archibald may negatively impact quality of life for future residents and school traffic safety. For these reasons, I recommend focusing future infrastructure upgrades and traffic planning on Euclid, Ontario Ranch Rd, and Merrill as preferred corridors for higher capacity movement, especially for vehicles accessing the freeway network.

Contribution 38 of 82 | July 12, 2025
Ideally large trucks never have to drive through heavy residential areas or heavily trafficked areas. I think having warehouses and such should be close to highways away from most public areas if possible. Safer for everyone.

Contribution 37 of 82 | July 10, 2025
Although grove give access to the freeway, the priority should be the residents. Our street is congested as it is, I have made many complaints about the back up, especially considering that the truck routes are not being respected. The residential homes are close to the street there is not enough trees, walls or other structures to block the noise. The truck traffic now causes our homes to rattle and shake already.

Contribution 36 of 82 | July 10, 2025
Trucks should be rerouted to bigger commercial area streets such as Miliken/ Hammer or Euclid Contribution 35 of 82 | July 10, 2025
Lots of good factors to consider.

Contribution 34 of 82 | July 10, 2025
I support prioritizing freeway access and connections to regional truck networks while minimizing the use of smaller local roads.

Contribution 33 of 82 | July 10, 2025
Definitely more signs of truck routes
Contribution 32 of 82 | July 10, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 17 of 33107 With the building of (now and those coming in the near future) many new neighborhoods and schools, those streets should not allow heavy truck traffic and previously allowed. Pedestrians, biciclists, children, etc. should be taken into consideration.

Contribution 31 of 82 | July 10, 2025
Please remove trucks form driving on Ontario Ranch Road & Haven Ave. a lot of families crossing streets and often trucks go too fast, or cars swerve around them to pass.

Contribution 30 of 82 | July 10, 2025
Yes. The trucks are messing up roads and there is already only one lane in and out of area Contribution 29 of 82 | July 10, 2025
Truck routes should not run right next to residential areas. Why can’t they all be in the industrial area? Archibald is all residential and more homes are being built. Semi trucks trying to pull around each other or just being generally slow make the drive to school ridiculous slow. The 3 mile drive can take 25 minutes.

Contribution 28 of 82 | July 10, 2025
Redirect trucks from using Archibald, between 60 fwy and Limonite Contribution 27 of 82 | July 10, 2025
No truck routes near residential areas. Archibald, between 60fwy and Limonite Contribution 26 of 82 | July 10, 2025
Ontario Ranch is a growing residential area, and the constant truck traffic is creating serious noise issues. I live just off Ontario Ranch Rd., and the noise from passing trucks is often loud enough to rattle the windows. This kind of heavy traffic doesn’t belong on a road that runs through a developing neighborhood. Trucks should be rerouted to alternate roads better suited for heavy loads — not only to reduce the noise, but also to prevent further damage to the roadway.

Contribution 25 of 82 | July 10, 2025
Avoid areas that travel along residential communities.

Contribution 24 of 82 | July 10, 2025
It’s really hard to say with some many warehouses and a few Amazon warehouse in my area.

Contribution 23 of 82 | July 9, 2025
Trucks should not be using local/residential roadways. More education and enforcement is needed.

Contribution 22 of 82 | July 9, 2025
I am writing to express my concern about Ontario Ranch Rd being designated as part of the current truck routes. I live along this road, and the heavy truck traffic has become a serious issue for my family. The high volume of large trucks, combined with their speed, loud braking, and frequent horn use, creates constant noise disturbances. The loud squealing brakes, trucks hitting bumps, and vibrations even cause our house to shake. This not only disrupts our daily lives but also frequently wakes up our two young babies, day and night. I kindly ask the city to reconsider Ontario Ranch Rd as a designated truck route. Redirecting truck traffic to more appropriate roads would greatly improve the quality of life for residents in this area, especially families with young children. Thank you for taking the time to MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 18 of 33108 consider this concern. I would appreciate any updates on possible actions or future plans regarding this route.

Contribution 21 of 82 | July 9, 2025
These are great evaluations. Please note Ontario Ranch Rd. All of these are now issues for the community residing on this street.

Contribution 20 of 82 | July 9, 2025
Truck routes should be avoided through streets that are lined with homes. If unavoidable, sound barriers should be installed to limit noise. Limiting speed and hours of use in residential areas should also be implemented.

Contribution 19 of 82 | July 9, 2025
No trucks on archibald through residential. Specifically between limonite and riverside drive Contribution 18 of 82 | July 9, 2025

1. Designated Truck Routes • Work with the city to designate specific arterial roads or highways (like the 60, 15, or 10 Freeways nearby) for truck use. • Post clear “No Through Trucks” signage on residential streets. 2. Time-Based Restrictions • Implement truck curfews (e.g., no heavy trucks from 10 PM–6 AM). • Limit truck traffic during school drop-off and nighttime hours to reduce disturbance. 3. Bypass Routes • Propose a truck bypass route that guides trucks around the residential zone (e.g., via major commercial corridors or industrial zones). • Utilize existing commercial corridors like Milliken Ave or Haven Ave (if applicable) that are already designed to support heavy traffic. 4. Weight Limit Signs • Add weight-restriction signage to discourage large semi-trucks unless making local deliveries. 5. Speed Bumps & Raised Crosswalks • Install traffic-calming measures to discourage speeding and make the route less appealing to trucks. 6.

Enforcement & Monitoring • Request increased patrols or camera enforcement to catch unauthorized or non-local trucks. 7. Industrial Traffic Containment • Encourage zoning that keeps industrial or logistics traffic within industrial parks or warehouse districts. • Require new developments to include truck access plans that avoid neighborhood disruption. 8. Community Feedback Loop • Propose a resident- city feedback portal for people to report excessive truck noise, traffic, or violations in real time.

Contribution 17 of 82 | July 9, 2025
One of the most alarming issues is the routine disregard for red lights and traffic laws by some semi-truck drivers. This is not just anecdotal, it’s something residents witness on a regular basis. The sheer size and weight of these vehicles turn what would be a minor infraction by a car into a potentially fatal disaster. Intersections near neighborhoods and schools should never be high-risk zones, yet they have become exactly that due to reckless truck behavior. In addition to safety, there is the constant and excessive noise created by these vehicles, particularly from engine braking (“jake brakes”) and the vibrations from heavy loads. This disrupts sleep, increases stress levels, and degrades overall quality of life for nearby residents. Noise levels often exceed acceptable thresholds, especially at night when truck traffic remains high.

Contribution 16 of 82 | July 9, 2025
Have you considered Euclid, Merrill, and Ontario Ranch in-lieu of Archibald? Archibald has so much homes and future schools coming in that there isn’t enough infrastructure built around the new homes to prevent vibration and loud noise. This will give the trucks access to the 15, 60, 71, and 91.

Contribution 15 of 82 | July 9, 2025
No more huge warehouses!!! And no more townhomes!!!
Contribution 14 of 82 | July 9, 2025
Direct them to business and park uses only
Contribution 13 of 82 | July 9, 2025
Ontario Ranch has an over abundance of trucks traveling throughout residential communities.

Contribution 12 of 82 | July 9, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 19 of 33109 Trucks use riverside daily all day long, 1 lane roads only. And drive fast Contribution 11 of 82 | July 9, 2025
I want the trucks to have other options that allows us to get in and out of the city easier.

Contribution 10 of 82 | July 9, 2025
There should be more sound walls for the New Haven community or to reroute trucks so they are not taking E Ontario Ranch road.

Contribution 9 of 82 | July 9, 2025
Truck routes have no place in such a heavily residential area. The Ontario Ranch area is a heavily residential area that continues to grow daily. With that growth naturally comes more traffic. Archibald becomes increasingly busy every month as more and more homes are built. Traveling on Archibald in the mornings and afternoons becomes challenging with Archibald having such heavy truck traffic on top of the residential traffic. The noise, traffic, health risks, road damage and pollution these trucks cause have no place in a residential area. No amount of trees planted can help with the noise pollution or fumes those diesel trucks throw near our homes. All they do is add to the traffic on Archibald.

Contribution 8 of 82 | July 9, 2025
We need to make archibald truck free. I feel that with all the new housing developments it is affecting our air pollution and overall our quality of living. They also are doing great damage to our road. Creating horrible pot holes every rain season.

Contribution 7 of 82 | July 9, 2025
We need larger roads in Ontario Ranch. With such a high density population south of the 60 freeway, one lane roads are unacceptable.

Contribution 6 of 82 | July 9, 2025
Yes and please rebuild Ontario Ranch Rd W/B of Archibald please. With the closures of nearby parallel streets, we depend on that road now and it is too narrow for the traffic.

Contribution 5 of 82 | July 9, 2025
I would love for eucalyptus near Archibald to not be used as a truck route due to all the noise, pollution and vibrations when they drive by. Sometimes the trucks will idle right by my house late at night.

Contribution 4 of 82 | July 9, 2025
Provide better surface or make different routes.

Contribution 3 of 82 | July 9, 2025
Create specifically marked truck route lanes or signs. The traffic on Archibald and Milliken and Ontario Ranch Rd has become a nightmare. There are too many trucks surrounding these neighborhoods.

Contribution 2 of 82 | July 9, 2025
I believe trucks should drive in Archibald to the 60 freeway and maybe Limonite to get to the 15 freeway. Avoid Ontario Ranch Rd and Merrill.

Contribution 1 of 82 | July 9, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 20 of 33110

7. Please share any other factors that should be considered when evaluating the City’s truck route system Long Text | Skipped: 66 | Answered: 66 (50%)
Sentiment
No sentiment data
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
Truck routes should be routed through industrial areas not directly through residential/suburban areas especially not where there is a school and people like to walk and ride their bikes.

Contribution 66 of 66 | August 7, 2025
Families and children
Contribution 65 of 66 | August 2, 2025
Ontario PD needs to enforce the trucks routes. There seems to be very little enforcement. There may be an "event" to collaborate with CHP and other city police dept, but those not enough as it seems to happen once a year.

Contribution 64 of 66 | August 2, 2025

1. As the city grows, truck routes should be reevaluated regularly to ensure they reflect new housing developments, schools, and parks—so truck traffic doesn’t end up cutting through spaces meant for families. 2. Consider investing in signage, GPS enforcement tools, or clear visual cues that help keep trucks on route and alert drivers when they’re entering restricted or sensitive areas. 3. Explore creating buffer zones with soundwalls or vegetation along necessary truck corridors near neighborhoods to help reduce the impact on air quality and noise. Ontario needs more and more trees. For every warehouse we should get dozen tree. Bring us a canopy to purify the air!
Contribution 63 of 66 | August 2, 2025
Homes that line the street especially in these new developments. We are paying for melrose so the city can deal with these things as we pay the extra tax for it.

Contribution 62 of 66 | August 1, 2025
Stop building condensed homes we already have enough problems with the big rigs and population Contribution 61 of 66 | August 1, 2025
Please be considerate of areas where schools are located Contribution 60 of 66 | August 1, 2025
The city needs to use the backroads for such heavy truck traffic. Or alternate routes that don’t impact the residential areas. The amount of warehouses built so closely to residential areas should of never happened. This is why we have this problem now.

Contribution 59 of 66 | August 1, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 21 of 33111 The trucks need to be removed off of highly populated areas that contain schools or community centers. They also need to be removed from residential neighborhoods.

Contribution 58 of 66 | August 1, 2025
Noise, pollution and crime
Contribution 57 of 66 | August 1, 2025
Probably not possible, but it would have been nice if there was a specific street that was a truck route that was used mostly by trucks than regular vehicles. Like if eucalyptus was a truck route and they used it as an express way to get through the city. To alleviate traffic on regular main roads like Ontario ranch road. Although eucalyptus doesn’t connect to a freeway, maybe it would merge into the main road near the end to connect to the freeway.

Contribution 56 of 66 | August 1, 2025
Have crosswalk lights on the ground that flash when pedestrians are crossing. Trucks and cars drive too fast on city streets making it unsafe for pedestrian crosswalks.

Contribution 55 of 66 | August 1, 2025
There should be more frequent evaluation of roads in these areas. The amount of potholes that are constantly being created due to the congestion is extremely hazardous. The city is lacking in how promptly it responds to these conditions.

Contribution 54 of 66 | August 1, 2025
Stop allowing warehouses to be built so close to homes. The long term health impacts will certainly expose the city to lawsuits in the future.

Contribution 53 of 66 | July 31, 2025
Route them around the city and by industrial areas only Contribution 52 of 66 | July 26, 2025
Archibald is a major road but also has major new builds happening. It should be reconsidered as it’s causing unhealthy pollution for newborns and young families moving in as well as safety for kids walking to nearby schools.

Contribution 51 of 66 | July 26, 2025
Should have direct routes to freeway, perhaps truck only entrance to prevent them from re routing near residential areas.

Contribution 50 of 66 | July 25, 2025
There are large semi trucks constantly pulling onto Dolomite St. off of Archibald and turning around in the round about. This is a residential family neighborhood with a lot of kids running around and riding their bikes. The turn about is right across the park. I wish there were a sign that said not to turn in here. I saw a tree knocked over the other day. I suspect it was from a semi truck. There appears to be confusion since there is a large warehouse entry right next to Dolomite St.

Contribution 49 of 66 | July 25, 2025
The truck route on Merrill should be eliminated due to the excessive noise caused by the large trucks disturbing the daily life of the homes along the street. The street is not wide enough nor equipped with enough sound walls or vegetation to deter the noise and vibrations to the home which poses dangers of constant movement to the foundation. The trucks drive at fast speeds along the road MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 22 of 33112 and causes the entire house to shake multiple times a day. There is no rest from the noise since the trucks are large and produce more noise in addition to all the cars passing by.

Contribution 48 of 66 | July 25, 2025
Current truck routes especially down Archibald effect a huge number of homes especially homes right against Archibald. When trucks are driving to fast, speeding, overweight and braking hard it’s very notable and loud. Many people in Shadetree neighborhood have complained about it as well. Our house is right up against Archibald. Trucks should NOT be allowed in lanes closest to houses either as this crates more vibrations and is more noticeable for home owners.

Contribution 47 of 66 | July 25, 2025
Stop building so many warehouses near homes, then we wouldn’t have the issue.

Contribution 46 of 66 | July 23, 2025
Slower speed limits on truck many of them drive really fast on streets.

Contribution 45 of 66 | July 23, 2025
They should be charged extra for the damage to the streets. I don't know if that's been factored in to all of the warehousing. But warehouses should be paying more to the city for the extra wear on the streets. Have you looked into overpasses or underpasses on Euclid? So much of the 60 to the 71 they are just passing trough. But meanwhile residents are trying to get to the grocery store, daycare, swimming pools. And we have to dodge all of these big semi trucks just to get to daily life. What if they had a fast way to get from the 60 to the 71? Better yet, how about these trucks get back onto railroads! The railroads are meant for freight. They hog the 60, too! Which hurts commuters, hurts the local economy. I won't go on the 60 if I don't have to.

Contribution 44 of 66 | July 23, 2025
your criteria above same logical to me
Contribution 43 of 66 | July 23, 2025
I believe allocating a specific amount of hours in the day where trucks can use a specific route system like Ontario Ranch Rd and Archibald would ease flow of traffic and disturbance to residents surrounding these two major roads. It would also improve health and air quality for residents and children in nearby schools.

Contribution 42 of 66 | July 22, 2025
Trucks can still have access through Grove Ave to industrial area Contribution 41 of 66 | July 21, 2025
CHP conducting commercial truck inspection on Ontario Ranch road traveling East just after Haven Ave intersection which turns into two lanes from three. In a neighborhood is unsafe for all pedestrians and motorists.

Contribution 40 of 66 | July 16, 2025
Keep trucks away from residential communities, especially schools and parks. Think about residential routes and keep trucks away from those roads residents would be taking
Contribution 39 of 66 | July 16, 2025
I’m not too sure what the alternate route would be, but we are right off of the freeway so I’m not sure why we have so many trucks coming from Chino all the way up to sunrise Avenue and Hefner MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 23 of 33113 Contribution 38 of 66 | July 13, 2025
Consider all the new builds that have been or are being built. I understand the semi’s need access to the highway, please consider the high volume of holes that are now on Archibald.

Contribution 37 of 66 | July 13, 2025
Strict implementation is needed so those violators will think again violating them.

Contribution 36 of 66 | July 10, 2025
There are two schools less than a mile from each other, children use the cross walk on grove to cross with their bicycles. The air quality is bad enough, more pollution will make it impossible to enjoy the outdoors.

Contribution 35 of 66 | July 10, 2025
Haven Ave should be excluded from the truck route as it’s a heavy residential area and the street is already 2 narrow even for regular vehicles.

Contribution 34 of 66 | July 10, 2025
How close the homes are to the major roads and how much the trucks impact those housing developments and impact on the environment.

Contribution 33 of 66 | July 10, 2025
I urge the City to expand its evaluation by considering impacts on vulnerable communities, which include children, cyclists, and the growing aging population in Ontario. Many residents walk, bike/e-bike, or use their vehicles, especially near residential streets like Cypress Ave, which are not designed for truck traffic. These areas should be excluded from truck routes. The presence of green buffers, trees, and soundwalls should be required to mitigate noise and pollution near homes, parks, and schools. I also recommend using pedestrian and cyclist safety data, air quality, and traffic injury reports to guide future routing decisions. A health and equity-based approach will ensure Ontario grows in a way that’s safe, efficient, and livable for all.

Contribution 32 of 66 | July 10, 2025
Not near parks
Contribution 31 of 66 | July 10, 2025
Agree
Contribution 30 of 66 | July 10, 2025
Many of the truck routes were two lanes, and this was not a significant issue when this area was primarily dairy farms. Now, with many more people and homes, this needs to be changed.

Contribution 29 of 66 | July 10, 2025
Please remove trucks form driving on Ontario Ranch Road & Haven Ave. a lot of families crossing streets and often trucks go too fast, or cars swerve around them to pass.

Contribution 28 of 66 | July 10, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 24 of 33114 Road conditions
Contribution 27 of 66 | July 10, 2025
Please look at the residential areas!
Contribution 26 of 66 | July 10, 2025
Safety for diver's in personal vehicles as well as residents on foot (pedestrians). So accidents and loss of like no matter how big, or small can be avoided. Like our pets & wild life can be preserved as well. Thank you Contribution 25 of 66 | July 10, 2025
Homes in the vicinity and the fact Ontario Ranch is supposed to be an up and coming part of south Ontario yet we have tons of trucks driving up and down the road. Also the fact it’s dangerous to go on walks when we have grocery stores across the street and have to cross over Ontario ranch rd if we are walking from home.

Contribution 24 of 66 | July 10, 2025
Unfortunately city planners built industrial behind brand new communities. Total money grab for the city I get it but absolutely ruined quality of life. Where I live, I listen to trucks 24/7 honk horns, beeping and ramping into truck ramps. Also they are do maintenance at all hours of the night in their trucks. Directly behind shade tree. City neeeds an ordinance to not allow these to operate over certain hours.

Contribution 23 of 66 | July 10, 2025
Avoid residential area and school
Contribution 22 of 66 | July 10, 2025
Proximity to schools.

Contribution 21 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Try to avoid going thru residential areas, we have turnabouts in my neighborhood and plenty of trucks get stuck trying to go around them.

Contribution 20 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Recently, an Amazon rig mistakenly drove into a residential neighborhood just off Ontario Ranch Rd and got stuck on a roundabout.

This blocked traffic for homeowners for several hours and highlighted how easily large trucks can end up on streets that simply aren’t built to handle them.

Contribution 19 of 66 | July 9, 2025
should be restricted from ontario ranch road. causing too much traffic. and many kids bike and walk around this neighborhood with new haven
Contribution 18 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Too many trucks thru Ontario Ranch.

Contribution 17 of 66 | July 9, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 25 of 33115 The air quality that impacts the homes along the truck route.

Contribution 16 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Away from homes and schools
Contribution 15 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Heavy truck traffic on Archibald Ave happening nearly every hour, day and night. The noise is constant, our entire house shakes, and it’s become impossible to sleep. My young puppy is also terrified by the rumbling. This is a residential area — we shouldn’t be living with this level of disruption. Please consider immediate solutions, including: • Rerouting trucks away from residential streets • Enforcing truck curfews or restricted hours • Installing “No Through Truck” signage • Adding noise and vibration mitigation measures Our neighborhood deserves peace and safety.

Contribution 14 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Time-of-Day Restrictions • Consider limiting truck travel during peak residential hours or late at night when noise impacts are most disruptive. • Nighttime curfews for non-essential truck traffic can dramatically improve residents’ quality of life without severely impacting freight delivery. Truck Size and Weight Limits by Zone • Some routes may be appropriate for smaller delivery trucks but not for full-length semi-trucks. Evaluating road wear, turning radius needs, and line of sight is critical. • Weight restrictions can reduce road damage and improve safety, especially on aging infrastructure not built for frequent heavy-load traffic.

Contribution 13 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Keep truck routes hidden and in areas that are medium to dense residential. Euclid is the perfect area where the prison and a majority of warehouse and commercial are.

Contribution 12 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Chino ave and Archibald
Contribution 11 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Truck parks in middle of neighborhoods isn't helpful when no routes take trucks there.

Contribution 10 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Along Edison ave, there are lots of truck stops (Truck rest places where truckers can park and sleep overnight)Which created additional trafffic by truckers.

Contribution 9 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Have them avoid the one streets near Ontario ranch.

Contribution 8 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Also, semi-trucks keep turning off of E Ontario Ranch road and right on S Sunrise and that street is incredibly narrow. I’ve seen at least 6 Amazon semi-trucks do this.

Contribution 7 of 66 | July 9, 2025
The growing population in Ontario Ranch needs to be considered given the amount of commuters that use Archibald on a daily basis to reach the freeways. The amount of traffic the trucks cause for residents is ridiculous. Trucks often take up 3-4 lanes on Archibald making it difficult for traffic to flow properly.

MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 26 of 33116 Contribution 6 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Please make ut so that they stay on the larger industrial streets like haven Contribution 5 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Avoiding neighborhoods
Contribution 4 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Consider pedestrian bridges to help minimize pedestrian and truck traffic interaction.

Contribution 3 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Potential schools, no trucks should come across those streets.

Contribution 2 of 66 | July 9, 2025
Wider streets, trees, and walls will help with the noise.

Contribution 1 of 66 | July 9, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 27 of 33117

8. -
Multi Choice | Skipped: 104 | Answered: 28 (21.2%)
Answer choices Percent Count
I do not wish to comment at this time 100.00% 28
Total 100.00% 28
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 28 of 33118

9. Please share your thoughts or ideas, if any, about how the city should evaluate the designation of disadvantaged communities
Long Text | Skipped: 99 | Answered: 33 (25%)
Sentiment
No sentiment data
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
While I understand the city’s intent to refine the Environmental Justice map using updated income data, I encourage caution in removing higher-income areas too quickly. “Higher income” on paper doesn’t always reflect lived experience—many residents are still struggling with housing costs, inflation, and health impacts from pollution. Everyone’s feeling the strain, and removing neighborhoods could unintentionally leave real needs unaddressed. Please ensure decisions are made with context, not just census numbers.

Contribution 33 of 33 | August 2, 2025
Ontario Ranch is becoming overpopulated stop building condos and build more residential homes also instead of adding fast food restaurants have nice restaurants Like Victoria Gardens Contribution 32 of 33 | August 1, 2025
The pollution in Ontario is insane. All areas should still be including for any advances to help eliminate pollution. Income shouldn’t matter.

Contribution 31 of 33 | August 1, 2025
All communities lining the 60 freeway are environmentally disadvantaged as the 60 in Ontario was ranked the most polluting freeway in the country. Ontario ranch would be environmentally disadvantaged because of the dairies. Fecal matter in the air.

Contribution 30 of 33 | August 1, 2025
All new housing build communities need to removed from disadvantaged communities.

Contribution 29 of 33 | August 1, 2025
I strongly believe that the area in Ontario Ranch, W of Milliken and S of Ontario Ranch Road, needs to reconsider the stores going in.

The area is of elegance and the stores going in are of low end business. We should strive to have a Trader Joe’s, Mendocino Farms, Urbane Cafe, California Fish Grill, Lululemon, Wood Ranch, etc… Get rid of Ross and 5 Below, please and thank you.

Contribution 28 of 33 | July 27, 2025
Remove it. This keeps people who are up to no good an idea to be around the areas that are “considered” more affluent.

Contribution 27 of 33 | July 26, 2025
I don’t know I just want the grand park to be built.

Contribution 26 of 33 | July 23, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 29 of 33119 Makes sense. i see some shades areas have new homes, probably not disadvantaged any more Contribution 25 of 33 | July 23, 2025
I understand it's state law. However I feel this data can be used against the city by developers. Like redlining was used by the banking system. Developers might not want to invest unless there is more city money to sweeten the pot.

Contribution 24 of 33 | July 22, 2025
Disadvantaged communities need safe open air spaces, garden spaces, access to affordable healthy shopping options and ready access to public transportation to allow them to move easily in and out of their neighborhoods. Resources such as community mobile health care and libraries set up in easily accessible locations would allow all residents to enjoy an enhanced quality of life Contribution 23 of 33 | July 21, 2025
How do you consider the Eden Glen area to be a disadvantaged area? Contribution 22 of 33 | July 21, 2025
City should reevaluate the flight patterns out of local airport. The homes south of Francis are experiencing more planes at all hours now especially larger jets from UPS, FedEx and Amazon flying after midnight Contribution 21 of 33 | July 21, 2025
I commend the City of Ontario for its commitment to environmental justice and for utilizing CalEnviroScreen to identify disadvantaged communities. However, I believe that solely relying on this tool may overlook certain communities that are disproportionately affected by environmental and health burdens. Research indicates that CalEnviroScreen may underrepresent immigrant populations and communities facing specific health challenges not captured by the tool's current indicators, such as chronic respiratory conditions prevalent among non-English-speaking residents. To ensure a more inclusive and accurate designation of disadvantaged communities, I recommend that the City consider integrating additional local data sources, such as health surveys, community feedback, and socioeconomic indicators not currently reflected in CalEnviroScreen. This approach aligns with the guidance from the California Office of Planning and Research, which emphasizes the importance of using multiple models and local data to assess environmental justice .

Furthermore, I suggest that the City engage with local community organizations and residents to gather qualitative insights that may not be captured through quantitative data alone. This participatory approach can help identify areas where residents experience environmental and health burdens, ensuring that resources and policies are directed to those who need them most.

Contribution 20 of 33 | July 16, 2025
The areas below Ontario Ranch Road should also be considered Environmental Justice Communities because of the excessive construction and warehouses which causes excessive dust and hazardous air quality.

Contribution 19 of 33 | July 16, 2025
The general air quality, freeway pollution, and noise greatly affects my quality of life. The impact on residents general health and ability to enjoy outside activities, as well as damage to the health of young children is obvious.

Contribution 18 of 33 | July 15, 2025
Resources, accessibility to schools, grocery stores, and access to public transportation should be evaluated on the designation of disadvantaged communities
Contribution 17 of 33 | July 11, 2025
Include Grove and walnut; grove and riverside.

Contribution 16 of 33 | July 10, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 30 of 33120 Please do not remove the areas that are within the environmental justice areas, just based on income levels. Even though we might have a high income, does not mean that we are not disadvantaged environmentally based on where our homes are located. If our homes are located in an environmental justice community, the city needs to prioritize it regardless of income level. Housing is expensive in California.

Contribution 15 of 33 | July 10, 2025
I support the use of CalEnviroScreen as a starting point, but I encourage the City to go further by layering in local data and lived experience when evaluating disadvantaged community designations. For example, my neighborhood near Mission Blvd & Cypress Ave faces overlapping challenges: proximity to industrial truck traffic, lack of pedestrian infrastructure, limited access to parks, and rising heat impacts. These local conditions may not be fully captured by state tools alone. I urge the City to consider additional indicators such as park access within a 10-minute walk, sidewalk and crossing safety, localized truck volumes, air quality, and the needs of seniors and low-income families. Community feedback and qualitative data should also inform updates. Disadvantaged area designations should reflect both environmental burdens and infrastructure gaps to ensure equity-driven investments reach the residents most in need.

Contribution 14 of 33 | July 10, 2025
House shakes from all the trucks that pass by on Merrill and archibald Contribution 13 of 33 | July 10, 2025
While I can appreciate the care for disadvantage communities. Ontario as a whole has been around so long that environmental implications affect us all. Not taking care of issues in the city as a unit would not be cost effective as well as the disadvantaged areas with trash and pollution are so intertwined
Contribution 12 of 33 | July 10, 2025
Yes I agree Ontario ranch residents make more then the average resident of Ontario and should be removed from this program.

Contribution 11 of 33 | July 10, 2025
The city should consider other factors directly related to pollution than just census income data to determine designation of environmentally disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Contribution 10 of 33 | July 9, 2025
Consider warehouse and truck route compared to schools and homes. Too close. Too dirty Contribution 9 of 33 | July 9, 2025
• The designation process should not lead to policies or projects that unintentionally disrupt community safety, increase transient populations, or attract crime. • There needs to be a clear distinction between providing long-term resources for underserved residents and opening the door to temporary encampments or programs that lack oversight and contribute to instability.

Contribution 8 of 33 | July 9, 2025
Please consider the amount and data of future residences who will be living in the homes being built on Archibald, Edison, and Eucalyptus. The data you have seems outdated and not reliable.

Contribution 7 of 33 | July 9, 2025
Do not reroute truck routes to the disadvantaged areas.

Contribution 6 of 33 | July 9, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 31 of 33121 Agree that Ontario Ranch should be removed from the designation of disadvantaged communities.

Contribution 5 of 33 | July 9, 2025
I’m not sure and I’m unclear on how they’ve helped improve my health. I think they should continue to focus on all highlighted areas and not only on disadvantaged communities.

Contribution 4 of 33 | July 9, 2025
Avoid archibald
Contribution 3 of 33 | July 9, 2025
The Ontario Ranch community is impacted because of the warehouses, the existing dairies seem to produce poor air quality and trash and debris makes its illegal dumping a problem.

Contribution 2 of 33 | July 9, 2025
Disadvantaged communities should solely evolve around Euclid and Mission areas as well as Holt areas.

Contribution 1 of 33 | July 9, 2025
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 32 of 33122

10. -
Multi Choice | Skipped: 62 | Answered: 70 (53%)
Answer choices Percent Count
I do not wish to comment at this time 100.00% 70
Total 100.00% 70
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
MyInput - Form Results Summary (09 Jul 2025 to 07 Aug 2025) Page 33 of 33123 83•
Q)
>
';f: 3:
,,
C
0 co
•
1S-•A·,
QJ 'V//�-, >
"'o'etva� 1l'""''Sit====:
l i� i_ � � �c
.92 � ! j�'--W:Philadelphia:St l=====�===�-=Philadelphia:St-, 113s 9. 123 Q) • Q)
�
]
-�--==··:::=:1 .. = �===:;;=:===��====ill �
49 :
1 :�16 =====:::::::::- i�
I � 106 175
�
• 104
1 •
10, •
lf
4 I II m 178 1,4 19 15 65 81 " 1!'/l 174
7 ,Riverside:0r::1:'-,,i,,1====�Riverside:0r-= •=========•= •:•=-•-===•-•• <'e-i'=Jg-•,=====l:C:== I 122 176 � "
J �:JJ�:, ,::,Jr:5
_
§
_
J
�hino:Ave
�
•
•ii
107 103, 10s, 1 7 � o 41 5� 170 146, 155, 7 12 'if.

J� T
163
13, 17, 22, 33, 1:2] 25, 52, is
;s
�
• is� !
J
'!.

Schaefer-·Ave----
1 �}/�
,
4�\!�· 16
d)
9 �
76, 161
• 55 54 � • 180 �
171. 186. 195. ti 8. 93 7 43 � � 165 5 140 (f)
I
• • ' • •• e il • •• 126 • 172 100 , • ,,- 90 I 32 30 125 31 89 ;; • � • .�, � 53 ======Edison=Ave--e QJ---•-•1======.e,=--- ••-••-- ·,re=-•'= • 11 105 109> 179 , 50 ' ' 153 � 36 • 991191 124, 145, 156, •
� � 60, 79 9, 110, 181, 182, 197
0 3, 35, 4o, 44 �" 98, 130 4, 10, 143 141, 6 66, 74, 87 e,r,e 26, 111, 148, 150 • 144, 164, 190 I I 119 168 151, 187 191 � .,,,,,,. ••
58 •; 152 e __ ..,,,. ••
159 � 48 •• ,61 113 59 42 ··i 149 129 ,,,,,. •• , -Merrill•Ave•• ··-··-·· ·-•; • • • • i
28 •• .,••
•78 l36 116 114 .,,,,,,. •• ,· � I 34 •• ,·· �
! ....... ,2, 20, 27, 47 <fl
L 37, 57J:IY" I 691 97• 117 r=-1overdale·Rd====E--12i--:Ji�l5B 20-;-ns,--15· "' • • • • ro-- .,,,,,,. •• ,·· 189, 194
Ill !
Where have you
noticed issues
between sensitive
receptors like homes,
parks, and schools and
heavy-duty truck
traffic?
• I have noticed an issue in this location
(see attac
hed table to read associated
comments)
[=] CityBoundary
L .. r----, ..J County Boundary
J
2-0-s-o...--■

THE ONTARIO PLAN
A �FT
.. 0 1,500 3,000 6,000
Source: PlaceWorks, 2025 Date: 8/20/25
124
APPENDIX A: Community Survey Results
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
Where have you noticed issues between sensitive receptors like homes, parks, and schools and heavy-duty truck traffic? Map ID Address Comment
1 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880
The constant rattling of our home due to the high volume of trucks going down Archibald at all hours is extremely disruptive to our lives. When we bought this home this was not open as a truck route and had we of known the traffic was going to be this si
2 15066 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
Have almost been hit by a truck several times while riding my bike with my children because trucks fail to stop behind the crosswalk or fail to look before making the turn from Archibald to Merrill
3 9391 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 heavy traffic route for trucks even though they are not supposed to be there
4 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91762
Ontario Ranch road needs to be light vehicles only! 10 wheeler trucks drive like maniacs in this residential area! Ontario Ranch was envisioned to be the IE?s crown jewel.
5 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91762
Truck routes on Ontario Ranch Rd should stop at Mill Creek Avenue. There are too many polluting trucks passing through to get to city of Chino and vice versa. With a future high school being located there and the New Haven community, semi trailers should
6 11111 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
Semi trucks are constantly taking Eucalyptus Ave as a "shortcut" to warehouses. They come through from the hours of 11pm to 3am. This includes Amazon and Fedex trucks. Also, I have actual security footage of this happening. This is a residential neighbor
7 4010 New Haven Drive, Ontario, California 91761 Trucks have been stuck here multiple time even though it?s not a truck route. It?s always by this roundabout which shares sidewalk to park 8 3121 La Avenida Drive, Ontario, California 91761
Trucks have been seen coming through and even stuck on roundabout.

Worrisome as school
Is being built.
9 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91762 So incredible loud and pollute air in neighborhoods near all 6 parks near by
10 4154 Cloverdale Way, Ontario, California 91761
The whole Ontario ranch road shakes the foundation of our town home, as these big diesel trucks seem to run through this street all day long and night.
11 3990 South Sunrise Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 There has been multiple trucks turning on Sunrise Avenue off of Ontario Ranch. They have been getting stuck on this narrow street that runs in immediately into a neighborhood. There should be a sign saying there is no truck route for the safety of childr
12 South Jacobson Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
The Ontario ranch road needs to be re evaluated for truck route as there is too many trucks passing through especially after Sunrise Avenue. This area has become more residential and there is a lot of pedestrians walking to the supermarket.
13 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880
The amount of trucks that impact all of Archibald is of concern. With increased truck activity comes more pollution and increased traffic. The amount of homes being built already is adding to the traffic in this residential area and trucks are just aggra
14 8825 East Riverside Drive, Ontario, California 91761 Riverside & Vineyard 15 2685 East Riverside Drive, Ontario, California 91761 Riverside & Archibald 16 2410 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Archibald & 60 freeeay onramp 17 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880 Archibald & Ontario Ranch 18 9711 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Archibald & Eucalyptus 19 9675 East Riverside Drive, Ontario, California 91761 Riverside & Westwind Community Center Survey respondents placed the below comments on a map of existing truck routes Community Survey Results (8/26/25)
(Map Comments 1 of 10)125
APPENDIX A: Community Survey Results
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
Where have you noticed issues between sensitive receptors like homes, parks, and schools and heavy-duty truck traffic? Map ID Address Comment
Survey respondents placed the below comments on a map of existing truck routes 20 2680 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Intersection of Merrill Ave and Archibald through Summer trucks are seen commuting.
21 9711 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Trucks are seen using Eucalyptus Ave before and after Archibald. 22 9602 Edison Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
Archibald from Ontario Ranch Rd through Merrill Ave should be not be a truck route as there is a large residential community there and trucks go on Eucalyptus Ave and Merrill Ave after Archibald. They should use Walker or Grove or another route where the
23 9450 Chino Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
There are way too many trucks traveling on Chino Ave. Our house backs up to Chino and every time a track passes it rattles the whole house and is very loud. It feels like an earthquake. Please reroute them! 24 13146 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Too many trucks on Archibald. Causes a lot of traffic delays. 25 13898 South Archibald Avenue, Ontari o, California 91761 Trucks drive fa st and shake surrounding houses. 26 South Turner Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
I live off of Ontario ranch road and New Haven drive. My condo lines against Ontario ranch road. The noise from the big rigs engine, brakes, and shaking of the trailer are loud and intrusive. The weight of the trailers driving by also shake the home and
27 2680 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 A not of big rig traffic creating a lot of noise pollution. 28 4980 Celebration Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Big rigs go down Merril even though it is not a truck route. 29 13950 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
The city of created a road specific for trucks that was separate from traditional traffic so regular community members could get around town more easily and safely. Or make Ontario ranch road like a parkway with limited amount of intersections and no bus
30 8381 Edison Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Slow trucks and one lane road 31 9060 Edison Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Slow trucks and One lane road 32 7469 Edison Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Slow trucks and One lane road 33 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880 Heavy semi truck traffic between Archibald/Edison and Archibald/Limonite with constant pot holes as a result. 34 5984 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880 Heavy semi truck traffic between Archibald/Edison and Archibald/Merril + Archibald/ Limonite with constant pot holes as a result. 35 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91710 Heavy truck traffic on Eucalyptus. Most outlets that lead West going towards streets such as Edison, Eucalyptus, Merrill are congested. 36 Edison Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Heavy truck traffic on Edison. Most outlets that lead West going towards streets such as Edison, Eucalyptus, Merrill are congested. 37 2580 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Heavy truck traffic on Merrill. Most outlets that lead West going towards streets such as Edison, Eucalyptus, Merrill are congested. 38 13628 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
The morning and afternoon/evening traffic is horrendous! Kids are walking to/from school coming from all of these areas and should have safer paths. Occasionally large trucks go this way and if it?s not a truck it?s cars speeding by day and night like it
39 13191 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
People cutting off each other and causing so many bear accidents trying to cut/jump the line of cars at the stop light. The morning and afternoon/evening traffic is horrendous! Kids are walking to/from school coming from all of these areas and should hav
40 9139 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91710 Trucks go through this route. Enforcement is needed to prevent trucks using disallowed routes.

Community Survey Results (8/26/25)
(Map Comments 2 of 10)126
APPENDIX A: Community Survey Results
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
Where have you noticed issues between sensitive receptors like homes, parks, and schools and heavy-duty truck traffic? Map ID Address Comment
Survey respondents placed the below comments on a map of existing truck routes 41 2686 Dolomite Street, Ontario, California 91761
I live in Shale and Dolomite and our neighborhood experiences constant issues where 18 wheelers make their way into our round about attempting to make a U turn back onto Archibald Ave. They go as far as the round about located 15 yards away from the comm
42 2599 East Scarlett Lane, Ontario, California 91762
Heavy truck traffic from Merrill to Archibald negatively impacting residential communities and should limit truck limits i.e. size and route large trucks to Euclid.
43 3330 Yountville Drive, Ontario, California 91761
The truck traffic around all our homes needs to stop. Trucks need to be restricted to the freeways until they reach the nearest exit to their destination. There are new schools coming up and parks where everyone is outdoors. The health impact is going to
44 9391 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
There are no truck signs along Eucalyptus Ave but the signs are poorly placed, too small, and hardly enforced.

Trucks often slam on their brakes and speed through the streetlights passing Ivy Ave.

Our homes and windows shake and neighbors have complain 45 2573 Crane Court, Ontario, California 91761
A lot of truck noise and block offs for school drop off on archibald.

Also the pollution is super unsafe and unhealthy for these growing neighborhoods that are moving here to start new families or with very young families.
46 961 Merrill Avenue, Chino, California 91762
Tractor Trailer trucks operating from this area and when traveling east or west on Merrill, to get to either Archibald or Euclid, constantly occupy the inside lane on these 2 way 2 lane roadways. In doing so, they impact the flow of traffic and visibilit
47 2680 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Tractor trailers traveling North on Archibald also regularly utilize the inside #1 and #2 lanes out of the 3 or 4 available lanes.
48 Parkview Street, Ontario, California 91762 Commercial vehicles, including tractors, some with a reefer trailer, and some without, have parked in this area to idle during overnight hours. 49 2390 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 The westbound 60 on ramp from Archibald is poorly timed. One vehicle at a time per lane and metered to allow 1 vehicle every 5 seconds during rush hour is unreasonable. Fix this as large trucks negatively affect this more.
50 10573 Edison Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Trucks and high traffic here. Due to construction the road has been closed but when it's open trucks non stop all night long. Small road too. 51 13898 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Significant noise and traffic. Trucks will occasionally reroute through the neighborhood and cause damage to landscaping.
52 2682 Dolomite Street, Ontario, California 91761
There are large semi trucks constantly pulling onto Dolomite St. off of Archibald and turning around in the round about. This is a residential family neighborhood with a lot of kids running around and riding their bikes. The turn about is right across th
53 3480 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761 Too many trucks 54 13749 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 The road is too small for the trycjs 55 Turner Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 This a residential road and trucks should not be there. 56 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91762 There are too many trucks traveling too fast . They should be electric Community Survey Results (8/26/25)
(Map Comments 3 of 10)127
APPENDIX A: Community Survey Results
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
Where have you noticed issues between sensitive receptors like homes, parks, and schools and heavy-duty truck traffic? Map ID Address Comment
Survey respondents placed the below comments on a map of existing truck routes 57 2580 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Trucks are too loud behind residential area and cause vibrations impacting daily life
58 14692 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Too congested with trucks 59 2510 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Too congested with trucks 60 9811 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761 Too congested with trucks 61 9131 Merrill Avenue, Chino, California 91762 Too congested with trucks 62 Parkview Street, Ontario, California 91762 Loud especially in early morning and evening. Create loud braking noise, vibrations and traffic around Shadetree neighborhood.
63 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880 Truck should continue down Edison in order to get to where houses near Merrill or Eucalytps
64 Mission Boulevard, Ontario, California 91761 Very congested 65 2963 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Lots of trucks 66 2440 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Lots of trucks using Eucalyptus Ave every day. Need more traffic enforcement.
67 9602 Edison Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Trucks drive too fast along road and drive unsafely death have occurred due to these trucks
68 14692 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Unsafe trucks 69 15066 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Trucks drive fast along Archibald 70 9655 Chino Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Trucks using Chino even though it?s not a truck route 71 2460 South Euclid Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
Daycare facility. I have had so many close calls trying to drop off and pick up my kids. With the heavy truck traffic. The trucks also run the red lights that I had to stop walking my kids across euclid it is not safe. 72 East Walnut Street, Ontario, California 91761 I think walnut should be designated as a non truck route. This street is used for people to get to the junior high and otherwise residential. 73 666 East Oak Hill Street, Ontario, California 91761
I realize the parts of campus north of Philadelphia may be needed for truck routes, but at that point all trucks should be limited since this is residential. We like to walk here and better if we have low speed limits and calm and peaceful walks, with fr
74 Millenium Paseo, Ontario, California 91762
All streets below Ontario Ranch Rd and Archibald is in too close proximity to homes, schools and parks. In addition, streets designated as ?no trucks? allowed are constantly used by semi trucks in this area, including Eucalyptus and Merrill west of Archi
75 13146 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Use Hamner instead of Archibald. There's a school near here, and apartment complexes with school bus pickups. With residential on both sides south of Riverside, I'd suggest no more trucks on Archibald. 76 2727 La Avenida Drive, Ontario, California 91761 I see a new school on this street. Route trucks around this area. 77 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880 This truck route cuts through the large green space. Give the open space for people priority,
78 8191 Merrill Avenue, Chino, California 91710 instead of Archibal d how about Grove? currently all farmland in irrigation. 79 9876 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91762 Too close in proximity to residents and schools 80 13950 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Too close to residents/housing and schools. Creates mass traffic jams 81 3151 East Riverside Drive, Ontario, California 91761 All along this stretch of Riverside Dr Semi trucks with trailers are consistently coming from Archibald down to Milliken and coming off the 60 fwy down Haven to Ontario Ranch I have asked OPD why isn?t there more motorcycles OPD and the answer I got was
82 10545 East Riverside Drive, Ontario, California 91761 Trucks still use this residential street between Hamner and Haven or Archibald. Need better signage at Hamner.

Community Survey Results (8/26/25)
(Map Comments 4 of 10)128
APPENDIX A: Community Survey Results
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
Where have you noticed issues between sensitive receptors like homes, parks, and schools and heavy-duty truck traffic? Map ID Address Comment
Survey respondents placed the below comments on a map of existing truck routes 83 426 East Francis Street, Ontario, California 91761 Why is Francis between Euclid and Campus a truck route considering that is a residential area and also a school zone
84 3450 Creekside Drive, Ontario, California 91761
Semis are always on Haven causing major traffic in the morning. They?re not suppose to be on that road bit they are. It?s dangerous as the street is so narrow already.
85 13191 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Dangerous 86 13950 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 New area of residential homes, great parks, and multiple new schools. All heavy duty semi trucks should be rerouted off of Ontario Ranch Rd. 87 4526 Forsyth Paseo, Ontario, California 91762
As a resident of Nuvo Parkside, I appreciate the City's efforts to manage truck traffic through designated routes to protect neighborhoods.

However, I've noticed that heavy-duty trucks often pass through residential areas, especially near major roads lik
88 2910 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
This is our go to park and there are always big rig trucks driving through here even when they?re not supposed to be. I?ve only seen police citing them a handful of times
89 9490 Edison Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Edison/Ontario Ranch Road narrows to one lane going through these farms and is always congested with trucks
90 4114 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761
Always so many trucks congesting this area. It?s unsightly and uninviting to come to Ontario Ranch after exiting the 15 freeway to be greeted by so many trucks and warehouses
91 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880 So many trucks in all lanes of Archibald northbound 92 2121 South Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Truck Route to close to residential neighborhoods and school 93 3950 South Silver Oak Way, Ontario, California 91761 Have seen trucks pass through this residential area. 94 13751 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Have seen trucks go through this single and sometimes double lane road.

It?s residential on both sides.
95 14040 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 It?s getting harder to live with the constant semi-truck traffic on Archibald.

The noise is nonstop, even at night, and it?s nearly impossible to sleep. My house shakes like there?s an earthquake every time a truck passes, and it?s caused damage inside m
96 14040 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Big trucks are constantly making lots of noise and shaking the houses on this street. We have cracks on our ceiling and it feels like constant earthquakes.
97 15066 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 too much trucks 98 9811 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91762 New homes are being built in this area. Adding or adjusting a truck route here would not be ideal as it would cause more traffic for the community 99 Griffith Court, Ontario, California 91762
New business are being built here. Would not recommend to have a truck route here as there as also new homes being built across from the lot. It would cause even more traffic.
100 3130 La Avenida Drive, Ontario, California 91761
An elementary school is being built here. Children will be walking home or families would be walking towards the nearest plaza center on Archibald Ave for food, etc. Would not recommend to have a truck route or adjust a truck route to this general area.
101 13751 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
There are many children and adults who go for walks around the neighborhood and it can be very dangerous having semi trucks and trailers traveling nearby. Also the roads are not going to be able to hold up against the weight considering how much vibratio
102 2802 Deer Creek Loop, Ontario, California 91761
Pls dont give access or implement restrictions of truck entries using ?short cut? access within community housing like Canvas Park going to Neu Houses.

Community Survey Results (8/26/25)
(Map Comments 5 of 10)129
APPENDIX A: Community Survey Results
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
Where have you noticed issues between sensitive receptors like homes, parks, and schools and heavy-duty truck traffic? Map ID Address Comment
Survey respondents placed the below comments on a map of existing truck routes 103 13950 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 This is a residential area and a heavy traffic intersection. Trucks add pollution, noise and potential for deadly accidents near homes. 104 1202 Saint Andrews Court, Ontario, California 91761 I live in the levy Dickey neighborhood. Grove is not a truck route south of the 60, however the truck routes are not respected. Do not add a truck route Grove south of the 60 or north of riverside Dr. Our street is damaged enough and continued use has m
105 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761 Trailer trucks will turn into neighborhood causing a hazard. 106 2598 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Near a school, it can get really congested mornings and afternoon 107 13146 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Mostly residential area now 108 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91762
Lots of trucks rumble down the road here. Very close to lots of housing developments. Road shakes, houses shake, too loud. too much diesel pollution. The truck route on ontario ranch road needs to be redirected. 109 3990 South Sunrise Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 housing developments. Trucks too close to the houses. 110 4050 New Haven Drive, Ontario, California 91761 new housing communities. Redirect truck routes. 111 10924 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91762 new housing communities. Redirect truck routes. 112 428 South Cypress Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 I live near Cypress Ave & Mission Blvd, and I've noticed a significant increase in heavy-duty truck traffic along Cypress (a residential street not designated as a truck route). This poses safety risks to pedestrians, especially children and dog walkers,
113 9467 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
Trucks are too heavy and loud, the houses shake and causes structural damage to the houses and residents can hear the trucks all hours, disturbing sleep. Pollution and traffic congestion concerns also! 114 2510 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
Trucks are too heavy and loud, the houses shake and causes structural damage to the houses and residents can hear the trucks all hours, disturbing sleep. Pollution and traffic congestion concerns also! 115 2580 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
Trucks are too heavy and loud, the houses shake and causes structural damage to the houses and residents can hear the trucks all hours, disturbing sleep. Pollution and traffic congestion concerns also! 116 2672 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
Trucks are too heavy and loud, the houses shake and causes structural damage to the houses and residents can hear the trucks all hours, disturbing sleep. Pollution and traffic congestion concerns also! Other routes are becoming available , this isn?t ne
117 2680 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
Trucks are too heavy and loud, the houses shake and causes structural damage to the houses and residents can hear the trucks all hours, disturbing sleep. Pollution and traffic congestion concerns also! 118 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880
Trucks are too heavy and loud, the houses shake and causes structural damage to the houses and residents can hear the trucks all hours, disturbing sleep. Pollution and traffic congestion concerns also! 119 14692 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
Trucks are too heavy and loud, the houses shake and causes structural damage to the houses and residents can hear the trucks all hours, disturbing sleep. Pollution and traffic congestion concerns also! 120 2680 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
Trucks are too heavy and loud, the houses shake and causes structural damage to the houses and residents can hear the trucks all hours, disturbing sleep. Pollution and traffic congestion concerns also! Community Survey Results (8/26/25)
(Map Comments 6 of 10)130
APPENDIX A: Community Survey Results
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
Where have you noticed issues between sensitive receptors like homes, parks, and schools and heavy-duty truck traffic? Map ID Address Comment
Survey respondents placed the below comments on a map of existing truck routes 121 2650 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
Trucks are too heavy and loud, the houses shake and causes structural damage to the houses and residents can hear the trucks all hours, disturbing sleep. Pollution and traffic congestion concerns also! 122 8821 East Riverside Drive, Ontario, California 91761 Riverside Dr. is too narrow and too congested; 123 3500 East Philadelphia Street, Ontario, California 91761 Haven should not have heavy duty truck traffice; too many neighborhoods and schools.
124 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761 There are way too many trucks, especially during the day for all these neighborhoods in Ontario Ranch area
125 8533 Edison Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
This two lane road should not have heavy duty truck traffic or lanes should be added. This road is a main artery for people going and coming from work in Ontario Ranch area.
126 4114 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761
Please remove trucks form driving on Ontario Ranch Road & Haven Ave. a lot of families crossing streets and often trucks go too fast, or cars swerve around them to pass.
127 13950 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
Please remove trucks form driving on Ontario Ranch Road & Haven Ave. a lot of families crossing streets and often trucks go too fast, or cars swerve around them to pass.
128 13191 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
Please remove trucks form driving on Ontario Ranch Road & Haven Ave. a lot of families crossing streets and often trucks go too fast, or cars swerve around them to pass.
129 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
Please remove trucks form driving on Ontario Ranch Road & Haven Ave. a lot of families crossing streets and often trucks go too fast, or cars swerve around them to pass.
130 9811 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761 All of Ontario ranch road extremely impacted into chino. Roads are a mess. Please update truck route
131 2635 East Scarlett Lane, Ontario, California 91762 Trucks are always shaking my house, waking my family up and making it impossible to have open windows
132 2580 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 The trucks blow the red light regularly. This neighborhood is full of families and small children. It?s only a matter of time before some is hurt 133 14692 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Truck traffic is heavy. Many kids walking to school have to cross where semi trucks don?t always stop
134 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880
This is supposed to be a park. Semi trucks are going to make this less enjoyable. Who wants to walk to the park amongst all the trucks. Or be at the park with all the exhaust?
135 2680 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
Redirect trucks from using Archibald, between 60 fwy and Limonite Safety for diver's in personal vehicles as well as residents on foot (pedestrians). So accidents and loss of like no matter how big, or small can be avoided. Like our pets & wild life can
136 9131 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
Redirect trucks from using Archibald, between 60 fwy and Limonite Safety for diver's in personal vehicles as well as residents on foot (pedestrians). So accidents and loss of like no matter how big, or small can be avoided. Like our pets & wild life can
137 14040 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Redirect trucks from using Archibald, between 60 fwy and Limonite Safety for diver's in personal vehicles as well as residents on foot (pedestrians). So accidents and loss of like no matter how big, or small can be avoided. Like our pets & wild life can
Community Survey Results (8/26/25)
(Map Comments 7 of 10)131
APPENDIX A: Community Survey Results
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
Where have you noticed issues between sensitive receptors like homes, parks, and schools and heavy-duty truck traffic? Map ID Address Comment
Survey respondents placed the below comments on a map of existing truck routes 138 2251 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Redirect trucks from using Archibald, between 60 fwy and Limonite Safety for diver's in personal vehicles as well as residents on foot (pedestrians). So accidents and loss of like no matter how big, or small can be avoided. Like our pets & wild life can
139 3030 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Redirect trucks from using Archibald, between 60 fwy and Limonite Safety for diver's in personal vehicles as well as residents on foot (pedestrians). So accidents and loss of like no matter how big, or small can be avoided. Like our pets & wild life can
140 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91762 Ontario Ranch main coordidor 141 2727 Amberly Privado, Ontario, California 91762 Ontario Ranch Rd 142 13610 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Currently there are trucks that run up and down Archibald all day and night. This area is also 55mph. It makes living here extremely annoying due to the amount of noise. Our house is always shaking from the trucks speeding by. It feels unsafe
143 3420 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761 I believe Ontario Ranch Road needs to be reevaluated as a heavy duty truck street. As I do believe it should not be used as a trucking route. 144 9139 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91710 Large amount of trucks still use this roadway although not a truck route. 145 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91762
Trucks frequently turn down these narrow residential road off Ontario ranch road which blocks traffic as they attempt to reverse their actions.

This often takes 30-60min. Please add clear road signs in these residential areas that these are not truck rou
146 13950 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Large trucks on Ontario ranch road create disturbance for residential houses next to the road.
147 3410 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761
Ontario ranch road is heavily populated with lots of young children crossing. With the new school coming off Turner there will be even more kids crossing Ontario Ranch street. Less trucks will make it a safer street for all.
148 3420 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761 The trucks on this route slow traffic down a lot. 149 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Between Merrill and Archibald. Already designated as no trucks, yet constantly used by them.
150 3410 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761
I am writing to express my concern about Ontario Ranch Rd being designated as part of the current truck routes. I live along this road, and the heavy truck traffic has become a serious issue for my family.

The high volume of large trucks, combined with
151 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761
Ontario Ranch Rd. From Archibald to the Hamner Ave. This is a residential street big rig trucks should not be allowed to drive on this street. They are loud, they brakes wake up our children at all hours of the day and night.

Especially those of us that
152 14692 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
This section of Archibald is lined with homes that are only a few yards from the street. There are a significant volume of big rig trucks that travel on Archibald in the area at nearly 60 mph, causing the homes to shake. My backyard faces Archibald and t
153 5200 Hamner Avenue, Ontario, California 91752 Stop trucks using Archibald ave through residential. Send them further west then north / south.

Community Survey Results (8/26/25)
(Map Comments 8 of 10)132
APPENDIX A: Community Survey Results
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
Where have you noticed issues between sensitive receptors like homes, parks, and schools and heavy-duty truck traffic? Map ID Address Comment
Survey respondents placed the below comments on a map of existing truck routes 154 15066 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
There are trucks passing by almost every hour, including during late-night and early-morning hours, and it has made it incredibly difficult for me to sleep. The noise is loud and persistent, and what?s worse, my entire house shakes and rumbles whenever t
155 3490 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761 Trucks constantly running red lights, noise is excessive 156 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91762 Excessive noise 157 13950 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Excessive noise and trucks running red lights 158 2650 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Road is too close to residential. Causes homes to vibrate and extremely loud noise
159 14692 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Truck route is too close to homes and park where children walk across.

Causes homes to vibrate when trucks move through
160 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880 THIS IS WHERE A FREAKEN PARK IS. WHAT ARE YOU GUYS THINKING?!? 161 13892 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Isn?t this where a soon to be planned school will be? 162 13150 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Homes are here?.. 163 13573 Euclid Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Why isn?t the truck route on Euclid where there is a majority of commercial and warehouses???
164 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91710 Constantly see large trucks taking this route. Signs aren?t working. 165 3955 South Sunrise Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 There is several trucks driving through our community on Sunrise off Ontario Ranch. They run over the islands and get very close to the cars that are parked. They should be using Mill Creek street but they don?t.

Especially the Amazon trucks, they drive
166 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91710 Trucks should avoid using this route since there?s residential homes here.

Also, it?s next to the great park that?s being built near here. 167 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880 Disruptive to neighborhood 168 South Turner Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Disruptive to neighborhood 169 13742 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Disruptive to neighborhood 170 13610 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 There is some sort of tuck depot here but new homes being built right behind and around it. So many trucks on Archibald. They try to make u- turns to try and get to the depot and barely have room to do so. 171 9602 Edison Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
Edison/Ontario Ranch Rd. Are only 2 lanes in many areas and there are always large trucks. They are also along all of the side streets off of Edison.
172 2767 Kendall Lane, Ontario, California 91761 We have a lot of truck noise. We live on the corner of Ontario Ranch Rd and Archibald.
173 10401 East Riverside Drive, Ontario, California 91761 Always on this road all hours of the day 174 3850 East Riverside Drive, Ontario, California 91761 Always on this road by school even during school hours 175 South Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Often on this road during peak hours 176 1919 East Riverside Drive, Ontario, California 91761 Always on this road 177 1201 East Riverside Drive, Ontario, California 91761 This is a main truck road, multiple always on road 178 12953 Baker Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Actually thought this was a truck route 179 9060 Edison Avenue, Ontario, California 91762 Very high traffic because of the trucks and narrow turns makes it dangerous for cars when trucks take turn.
180 3632 East Moonlight Street, Ontario, California 91761 Amazon semi trucks get lost on this street several times a week. They get stuck and have to back out. It?s also very loud for residents. 181 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91762 It is loud to have trucks speeding down this road. 182 3987 South Sunrise Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Semi trucks accidentally enter here and get stuck. 183 3865 South Twinkle Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Semi trucks drive down this street to drop off building materials.

Community Survey Results (8/26/25)
(Map Comments 9 of 10)133
APPENDIX A: Community Survey Results
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
Where have you noticed issues between sensitive receptors like homes, parks, and schools and heavy-duty truck traffic? Map ID Address Comment
Survey respondents placed the below comments on a map of existing truck routes 184 3490 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761 Several houses now line Ontario Ranch Road and street traffic will only increase once the school is done.
185 14692 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
The traffic on Archibald and Merrill is out of control. It?s a residential area and the amount of trucks that use this route cause a lot of traffic and pollution to the area. Mornings are particularly horrible. Combining the heavy flow of trucks along w
186 14040 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 The big rigs drive through our neighborhood at all hours of the night. When they hit the smallest bumps in the road it creates a lot of noise. But even more so when they hit the larger bumps on the corner of our intersection it shakes our entire condo ca
187 4041 New Haven Drive, Ontario, California 91761
Trucks are constantly running the red light at this intersection. There have been several accidents and is becoming a danger to pedestrians in the neighborhood.
188 13191 Haven Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Narrow roads used by trailers and construction trucks. Only one lane traffic for all citizens south of Riverside.
189 2680 Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
The Shadetree community is impacted by large trucks. On Merrill Ave, the recently opened W/B lanes are taken at high speed by drivers, and would be safer if it was a right-turn only to slow traffic at the intersection of Merrill and Charlotte.
190 9391 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
A lot of noise and vibrations (feels like an earthquake when big rigs are going over the bridge on eucalyptus. Starting to notice cracks in house walls and foundation.
191 East Parkview Street, Ontario, California 91762 The Shadetree community is surrounded by truck traffic in route to anywhere including schools, parks, or shopping.
192 Eucalyptus Avenue, Ontario, California 91710 No trucks are to be passing on Eucalyptus (between Carpenter and Archibald) but trucks continue to use Eucalyptus with no consequences. 193 13898 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91761 Too many trucks. We hear them at night. There is a part that sounds loud when truck passes. Makes homes shake a bit.
194 15066 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 91762
There are several trucks that continue to enter Merrill east of Archibald to take a shortcut. There are signs posted but it doesn?t deter truckers from entering and congesting neighborhood route. We need better signs, speed bumps, or more education.
195 Archibald Avenue, Ontario, California 92880
This portion of Archibald should restrict traffic especially considering the Grand Park that is being built. The truck route should be changed where they have to go north on another side street near the warehouses. 196 3440 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761 Heavy truck traffic on Ontario Ranch Rd. It's loud throughout the day and night.
197 Ontario Ranch Road, Ontario, California 91761
Semi traffic has heavily increased and often slows down traffic because they are in every lane. They also run red lights passing through all the homes on Ontario ranch road.

Community Survey Results (8/26/25)
(Map Comments 10 of 10)134
APPENDIX B: Community Open House Comments
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050

Comments Received at 8/21/25 Open House page 1 of 6

APPENDIX B
August 21, 2025
Community Open House Comments
Project Overview
Comments Board
Prop 70? Overview Boards
Makes better use of Prop 70 land Overview Boards
What are the community sentiments for preserving prop 70 land - farmland? Overview Boards
Why are zoning being changed to allow developers to build in our neighborhoods with no notice for the people who live in the neighborhoods
Overview Boards

Overview Boards
135
APPENDIX B: Community Open House Comments
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050

Comments Received at 8/21/25 Open House page 2 of 6
Community Open House Comments (cont’d)

Parks and Recreation Element
Comments Board
lack of new pocket parks to serve more community members near their homes. No safe access on foot/wheels.
2- Parks & Recreation Element
Comment
Bike Routes 1,2,3. More Bike Routes 1 in ATP. 2- Parks & Recreation Element Comment
Habitat opportunities - what about species like burrowing owls. 2- Parks & Recreation Element Comment
The mayor whined about bikes on the sidewalk. What is the plan for safer bike lanes and trails?
2- Parks & Recreation Element
Comment
Bon View Park, next to Bon View Elementary, needs:
• lights in the back area of the track
• add dog poop add dog poop receptacles because people take dogs there and don't pick up
• more shade not ornament trees
2- Parks & Recreation Element
Comment

1-Evaluating Rewilding Opportunities / Current and
Updated Parks Map
2- Parks & Recreation Element
Comments

136
APPENDIX B: Community Open House Comments
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050

Comments Received at 8/21/25 Open House page 3 of 6
Community Open House Comments (cont’d)

Safety Element
Comments Board
Need more trees, trails, and flowering plants 2 - Current and Updated Flood Map / Safety Element Comments
We need walking trails throughout Ontario with trees that provide shade (not palm trees) that contribute to cleaning our air 2 - Current and Updated Flood
Map / Safety Element Comment

1-Proposed Policy Changes / Current and Updated
Fire Map
2-Current and Updated Flood Map / Safety Element
Comments

137
APPENDIX B: Community Open House Comments
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050

Comments Received at 8/21/25 Open House page 4 of 6
Community Open House Comments (cont’d)

Environmental Resources Element
Comments Board
Ontario has some of the worst air quality in the U.S. What is the plan to improve air quality in Ontario?
1-Current and proposed
Environmental Justice Areas
Why build industrial warehouses, buildings within the community that contribute to pollution hazards. An example is new construction on Bon View between Francis and Philadelphia and Mission and Holt. 1-Current and proposed
Environmental Justice Areas

1-Current and Proposed Environmental Justice Areas
2-Evaluating Environmental Justice Areas

138
APPENDIX B: Community Open House Comments
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050

Comments Received at 8/21/25 Open House page 5 of 6
Community Open House Comments (cont’d)

Mobility Element
Comments Board
Shaefer and Grove have too many trucks. Need to stop. 1- Current & Proposed Truck Routes Corner of Bon View and Philadelphia. Remove North Bon View 1- Current & Proposed Truck Routes Can schools be on the map? 2-Evaluating Truck Routes
Address trucks parking in residential areas, causing blind spots at intersections 2-Evaluating Truck Routes

1-Current & Proposed Truck Routes
2-Evaluating Truck Routes

139
APPENDIX B: Community Open House Comments
TOP 2050: Technical Amendments
City of Ontario TOP 2050

Comments Received at 8/21/25 Open House page 6 of 6
Community Open House Comments (cont’d)

General Comment Cards
# Comments
1 Intersection of Bon View and Philadelphia is unsafe for the community and students who attend Bon View Elementary School. Drivers don’t stop, which creates a safety concern for students who are risking getting hit by cars. There have been incidents of pedestrians getting hit. Students walking home after 3:00 pm are in danger of getting hit because cars don’t stop to allow students to cross. 2 We have a serious problem with drug dealing on the corner of Vineyard and 4 th Avenue in Ontario. We
call the police several times a week and we want more police patrols in the area.

140

Case Planner: Robert Morales

Hearing Body Date Decision Action
Planning Director
Approval:

DAB
PC 10/28/25 Recommend
Submittal Date: 5/27/25 CC 12/2/25 Final

FILE NO: PGPA25-001

SUBJECT: A public hearing to consider amendments to The Ontario Plan 2050 Policy Plan (General Plan) involving Mobility , Safety, Environmental Resources, and Parks & Recreation Elements. The amendments would: [1] Revise the Mobility Element to revise truck route designations and add evacuation-related policies (AB 98, AB 747); [2] Confirm that existing Policy Plan policies satisfy SB 1425 requirements for equitable access to open space, climate resilience, and rewilding opportunities; [3] Revise the Safety Element t o incorporate the 2023 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and 2024 Evacuation Assessment, add evacuation and extreme heat policies (AB 747, AB 2684), and revise hazard mapping; and [4] Revise the Environmental Resources Element to refine identification of Environmental Justice Areas (SB 1000) and revise the Parks & Recreation Element to reflect the Ontario Sports Empire. City Initiated. City Council action Is required.

PROPERTY OWNER: City of Ontario

RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Planning Commission consider and adopt the following:

1. A Resolution recommending the City Council approve the Addendum to The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364, certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022) ; and

2. A Resolution recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment (File No. PGPA25-001), a Technical Amendment to The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050.

BACKGROUND: On January 27, 2010, the Ontario City Council certified TOP Environmental Impact Report in conjunction with File No. PGPA06-001 (City Council Resolution No. 2010- 006). On August 16, 2022, the City Council certified the TOP 2050 Update SEIR in conjunction with File No. PGPA20 -002 (City Council Resolution No. 2022 -129). Together, TOP and its associated environmental documents provide the citywide policy framework and environmental analysis that guide subsequent planning and development activities.

Rather than establishing site -specific development parameters, the Tec hnical Amendment refines and updates existing policy direction within this adopted framework to ensure continued consistency with State law and the City’s long-range planning goals. 303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Email: [email protected]

PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT

October 28, 2025
141
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025

Page 2 of 22 ends

The City regulates development through TOP, which serves as the City’s long -range planning framework. TOP is organized into 6 integrated components: (1) Vision, (2) Governance Manual, (3) Policy Plan (General Plan), (4) City Council Priorities, (5) Implementation, and (6) Tracking and Feedback. TOP defines the community’s long-term direction and provides a unified system for guiding growth and policy decisions well into the future.

The TOP Policy Plan includes the following elements:

• Land Use Element: 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.

• Housing Element: 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.

• Parks and Recreation Element : 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.

• Environmental Resources Element : The Environmental Resources Element addresses how resources are managed comprehensively using systems that are environmentally and economically sustainable and meet growth demands in Ontario.

• Community Economics Element : The Community Economics Element articulates the City’s approach to developing and maintaining the local economy, retaining and attracting investment, and connecting economic development with the City’s long-term fiscal health.

• Safety Element: The Safety Element describes how the City protects life, property, and commerce from impacts associated with human-made and natural hazards, disasters, and other threats to public safety. It also identifies strategies to adapt to increased hazard risks and strengthen community resilience.

• Mobility Element : The Mobility Element coordinates the circulation system with future land use patterns and buildout to meet local and subregional mobility needs, ensuring access and connectivity among neighborhoods, centers, corridors, and districts.

• Community Design Element : The Community Design Element establishes design guidance and requirements to protect existing investments, promote sustainable 142
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025

Page 3 of 22 ends

environments, add community value, and create safe and inviting places where people want to live, work, and recreate.

• Social Resources Element : The Social Resources Element improves equitable access to quality healthcare, education, community services, and cultural activities—critical components of a prosperous, inclusive, and complete community, and key to addressing environmental justice issues in disadvantaged areas of Ontario.

PROJECT 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 San Bernardino County to the east; and the cities of Eastvale and Jurupa Valley to the south (see Figure 1, Project Location). 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; Inters tate 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 serves as the location of Ontario International Airport (ONT) and is in close proximity to Chino Airport.

PROJECT ANALYSIS:

(1) General Plan Amendment (File No. PGPA25 -001): The proposed Technical Amendment amends 4 elements of TOP to maintain consistency with recent State legislation and supporting technical studies. The amendment incorporates new data, policies, and maps related to mobility, safety, environmental resources, and parks and recreation, while preserving the City’s long -range framework for growth and resilience.

Specifically, the amendment brings the Mobility Element into compliance with Assembly Bill 98 ( AB 98 ) (Truck Route Planning), the Safety Element with AB 747 (Evacuation Assessment) and AB 2684 (Extreme Heat), and the Open Space and Environmental Resources El ements with Senate Bill 1425 ( SB 1425 ) (Equitable Access and Climate Resilience). It also refines the Figure ER-01Environmental Justice Areas map to remove one census tract that no longer qualifies as a disadvantaged community. The new and revised policies described above are included in the Technical Amendment Appendix 143
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025

Page 4 of 22 ends

for reference and will be incorporated into the final version of TOP Policy Plan upon City Council Approval.

Below are the amendments proposed for each affected Element of TOP.

(a) Mobility Element (AB 98, AB 747) : The Technical Amendment amends the Mobility Element to comply with AB 98, which requires cities within warehouse concentration regions to identify truck routes that minimize exposure to sensitive receptors such as homes, schools, and parks before January 1, 2026. The amendment refines Ontario’s truck route network to improve safety and neighborhood livability while maintaining regional goods movement efficiency. The City is proposing a technical amendment to Figure M -04, the Truck Routes Map, to remove two street segments:

Philadelphia Street between Grove Avenue and Euclid Avenue, and Euclid Avenue between Mission Boulevard and I-10 (see Exhibit A.2: Mobility Element Figure M-04 Truck Routes Revised). These adjustments redirect heavy -duty truck traffic toward Grove and Mountain Avenues, where right-of-way conditions and land use patterns are better suited for goods movement. This work support s compliance with AB 98’s January 1, 2026 , deadline and helps mitigate potential conflicts between goods movement and nearby residential neighborhoods.

The Technical Amendment also incorporates new policies consistent with AB 747, which requires general plans to identify likely emergency evacuation routes and assess their capacity, safety, and viability. Two new policies : M-1.7 (Evacuation Infrastructure) and M-1.8 (Evacuation Support for Transit-Dependent Populations) strengthen Ontario’s ability to coordinate emergency evacuation through traffic -signal adjustments, intelligent transportation systems, and partnerships with regional transit providers. Thes e additions ensure the Mobility Element supports a safe, functional, and ac evacuation network during emergency events.

(b) Open Space and Environmental Resources Compliance ( SB 1245) : The Technical Amendment confirms that TOP 2050 remains consistent with SB 1425, which requires cities to amend their open space plans to promote equitable access, climate- resilient landscapes, and rewilding opportunities. A review of existing goals and policies determined that TOP’s Policy Plan already satisfies these requirements by promoting park accessibility, natural resource protection, and climate adaptation. The amendment documents this con sistency and refines cross -references among the Parks and Recreation, Safety, Environmental Resources, and Community Design Elements to demonstrate how the City’s open space network supports public health, hazard mitigation, and ecosystem benefits. These refinements reaffirm compliance with SB 1425 while maintaining flexibility for future park and open-space planning.

(c) Safety Element (AB 747, AB 2684): The Technical Amendment proposed to update the Safety Element to incorporate recent State mandates addressing evacuation planning, extreme heat, and climate adaptation. The amendment references Ontario’s 2023 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and 2024 Evacuation Assessment 144
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA25-001
October 28, 2025

Page 5 of 22 ends

Ontario City CouncilDecember 2, 2025

Ontario City Council
December 2, 2025