Ontario City Council
March 17, 2026

seventy (70) percent residential with a maximum density of 35 dwelling units per acre, within the Mixed-Use areas (Planning Areas 4, 5, 10, and 11). The overall proposed FARs and residential density for the CenterPark Specific Plan are consistent with the TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use designations for Medium-Density Residential and Mixed-Use – CenterPark (see Exhibit C: CenterPark Specific Plan Land Use Summary, attached). (b) Community Design/Layout — The CenterPark Specific Plan organizes residential, office, and retail development areas around a simple and understandable grid pattern of streets with the focal point of the Specific Plan being the City’s “Grand Park”, a planned 450-acre park extending approximately four miles across the southern portion of Ontario Ranch.
(c) Design Guidelines — The design theme and concept for the CenterPark Specific Plan was created to ensure a high, quality, attractive and cohesive design structure for the Specific Plan. The design guidelines provide the following objectives for all future development within the Specific Plan area:
• Creating a functional and sustainable place that ensures the CenterPark Specific Plan is competitive regionally and appropriate in the Ontario Ranch community.
• Illustrates the distinctive characteristics of the three land use districts:

Residential, Mixed Use, Parkland and Open Space – Nonrecreational. • Establishes criteria for building design and materials, landscape design, and site design that provide guidance to developers, buildings, architects, landscape architects, and other professionals preparing plans for construction.
• Provides guidance to City staff and the Planning Commission in the review and evaluation of future development projects in the CenterPark Specific Plan area.
• Incorporates construction and landscape design standards that promote energy and water conservation strategies.
• Residential neighborhoods that are designed for the enhancement of an outdoor lifestyle within easy walking and biking distance to the Grand Park. • A network of sidewalks is provided throughout the community connecting neighborhoods and parks.
• A network of trails, including multi-use trails along Ontario Ranch Road, Campus and Grove Avenue and Class 1 bike paths within the Grand Park and bicycle accessibility throughout the community.
• Diversity in architectural design is provided for Grand Park including varied styles, articulated with elements true to the architectural characteristics of each style.
• Streets are designed in a simple grid system with short blocks promoting a sense of connectivity with surrounding neighborhoods.

The Design Guidelines have been established to promote high-quality architecture as required by the Ontario Development Code and TOP 2050. The proposed architectural 478
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

theme of the Specific Plan incorporates various architectural styles, and the planning areas will be designed to be compatible with and complement one another. The CenterPark Specific Plan provides examples of the type of residential and mixed-use concepts that are envisioned to be constructed within the Specific Plan (see Exhibits F and G: Proposed Architectural Design/Guidelines, attached). (d) Residential Design — The CenterPark Specific Plan Design Guidelines guide the physical character of all future residential developments and all community features, including landscape treatment within the Project. The community character will establish a unified aesthetic treatment responding to the community’s main feature, Grand Park.

The residential design guidelines for the Specific Plan places attention on the humanscale, which will enhance the pedestrian friendly character of the community. These details include the use of front porches, railings, enhanced entries, a mix of materials and textures, and utilization of authentic detailing on elements such as windows, doors, columns, balconies, and lighting. Garage placements have been designed to deemphasize the visual impact of garage doors on the street scenic views.

The community vision for CenterPark is based upon the architectural influences found in Ontario. The architectural styles selected are reflective to the historic and emerging architectural styles of Southern California. Architectural influences appropriate within CenterPark include the following:
• Traditional Architecture Influences – including architectural styles as Colonial, East Coast, and American Farmhouse styles.
• Spanish Architecture Influences – including architectural styles such as Spanish Colonial, Mission, Monterey, and Santa Barbara styles.
• Southern California Influences – including architectural styles such as Ranch, Craftsman, and Bungalow vernaculars styles.
• Art Deco/Modern Influences – including architectural styles such as Mid-Century Contemporary and Bauhaus styles.
• Adaptive Traditional Influences – including architectural styles such as Colonial, Victorian, American Tradition, and Farmhouse styles.
• Transitional Southern European Influences – including architectural styles establishing transitional interpretation of Spanish, Tuscan, and Italianate architecture styles.
• Transitional Southern California Influences – including architectural styles such as Craftsman and Ranch style homes.
• Transitional Influences – including modern interpretations of the architectural styles outlined above and contemporary styles based on climatic or other contextual influences.

The Specific Plan requires all buildings to be designed to highlight the primary entryways by incorporating special materials, visual relief, massing and shading. Additionally, the facades that front onto a public street must incorporate vertical and horizontal articulation and material changes that will assist in enhancing these elevations and 479
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

providing visual interest from the public view (see Exhibits F and G: Proposed Architectural Design/Guidelines, attached).
(e) Residential Development — The TOP Policy Plan establishes land use designations for the Project site with a development capacity of 4,293 dwelling units. The development capacity reflects an assumed build-out density of 22 dwelling units per acre (before required dedications) for MDR (Medium Density Residential) and 35 dwelling units per acre for MU (Mixed-Use) residential.

The TOP Policy Plan allows for developments that encompass multiple properties and contain more than one land use designation to blend residential densities within the Specific Plan, not to exceed the permitted units within the Planning Area.

The planned residential units will be contained within 13 distinctive Planning Areas.

Planning Areas 1-3 and 6-9 are comprised of Medium Density Residential (11.1-25 du/ac).

Planning Areas 4, 5, 10, and 11 are comprised of Mixed Use residential, office, and retail uses (see Exhibit C: CenterPark Land Use Summary, attached). (f) Circulation Concept — The circulation plan for the Specific Plan reinforces the objective of moving vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit safely and efficiently through and around the Project. The Specific Plan establishes the hierarchy and general location of roadways in and around the project boundary. The circulation plan reinforces the objective of implementing a traditional neighborhood design. The Project provides efficient circulation for vehicle traffic and a safe environment for pedestrian movement and bicycle traffic, that reduces the reliance on the auto use for travel. Transit stops and bus turnouts will be provided as required by the City’s and Omnitrans.

The primary entrances into the Project will occur along Walker Avenue from the east, Campus Avenue from the west, and Grove and Bon View Avenues from the north and south. The Project is bisected by Ontario Ranch Road in an east-west direction connecting to Walker Avenue and Campus Avenue and providing internal access and connectivity between the residential and Mixed-Use areas (see Exhibit D: Circulation Plan, attached).

Traffic signals are planned at the following intersections:
• Ontario Ranch Road and (future) Parco Avenue
• Ontario Ranch Road and (future) Walker Avenue
• (Future) Grand Park Avenue and (future) Walker Avenue • Ontario Ranch Road and Grove Avenue
• (Future) Grand Park Avenue and (future) Grove Avenue
• Ontario Ranch Road and (future) Cucamonga Avenue
• Ontario Ranch Road and (future) Bon View Avenue
• Ontario Ranch Road and (future) Campus Avenue; and
• (Future) Grand Park Avenue and (future) Campus Avenue 480
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

Public local streets within residential areas are designed to distribute vehicular traffic from the Master Plan streets adjacent to the Project site into and through residential neighborhoods. All neighborhoods within CenterPark will feature streets with sidewalks that will be separated by landscaped parkways ranging from 5 to 7 feet wide, to provide visual interest. The sidewalks within CenterPark will help promote pedestrian mobility and serve to enhance pedestrian orientation for neighborhoods. Street traffic calming will be provided by incorporating roundabouts (traffic circles) at local street intersections and narrowing the pavement intersections with chokers.

Right-of-way improvements along the streets are provided in the Specific Plan and are consistent with the City’s Master Plan of Streets. The right-of-way of Ontario Ranch Road will be 160 feet wide and will feature four lanes in each direction with raised medians that are 26 feet wide. Grove Avenue will be 124 feet wide with two lanes in each direction with raised medians that are 28 feet wide, Walker Avenue will be 88 feet wide with one lane in each direction, and Campus Avenue will be 108 feet wide with two lanes in each direction. Bon View Avenue and Cucamonga Avenue will be designed at 66 feet wide and categorized as two-lane Collector Streets.

Each street will include a parkway, sidewalk, and landscape buffer. Ontario Ranch Road, Grove Avenue, and Campus Avenue will be designed with multi-purpose trails within the neighborhood edge, however the trail on Walker Avenue is planned on the east side of the street and the development and design will be addressed in a different specific plan. (g) Landscaping — The landscape design for CenterPark Specific Plan encourages durable landscape materials and designs that enhance the aesthetics of the structures, create and define public and private spaces, and provide shade and environmental benefits. Plant Matrix Tables 7-1A though 7-1C in the Center Park Specific Plan, establishes a base palette for the Specific Plan and includes a variety of groundcovers, shrubs, ornamental grasses, and evergreen and deciduous trees. The selections complement the design theme of the Specific Plan area and features waterefficient, drought-tolerant species native to the region. Similar plant materials may be substituted for the species listed in the tables– Plant Matrix if the alternative plants are climate appropriate and enhance the thematic setting.

Ontario Ranch Road will be required to provide a 35-foot-wide neighborhood edge. The overall landscape design for CenterPark was organized to help define the basic landscape principles for the Specific Plan, with specific treatments along the streets establishing the general framework for the planned community. Tree planting within landscape buffers and neighborhood edges, combined with the master planned street trees and landscape treatment along public and private streets and private drives, will create a spatial hierarchy and visual character throughout the community.

To implement these principles, the following design criteria have been established within the Specific Plan:
481
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

• Community Entries – Monumentation occurs throughout the CenterPark community, and the theme is designed to create a hierarchy for the community.

At key entries, a landscape and monumentation program will be utilized to help identify the community as well as convey a welcoming feeling for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

Primary entries into the CenterPark community will occur along Ontario Ranch Road, Campus Avenue, Grove Avenue, Parco Avenue, and Walker Avenue.

These primary entries will feature an informal setting of evergreen and deciduous trees, specimen trees, and decorative monumentation to provide a recognizable gateway and emphasize the pedestrian-friendly character of CenterPark.
• Arterial and Collector Streetscapes – Streetscape design guidelines establish a hierarchy for the landscape development along the surrounding roadways, as well as it establishes a framework for consistency of design. Two master plan principal arterials (Ontario Ranch Road and Grove Avenue) provide access into the CenterPark community. The arterials are designed to traverse and intersect CenterPark at the mixed-use planning areas and will provide a gateway to the City of Ontario’s Grand Park. The streetscapes for these streets include formal landscape parkway designs, neighborhood edges, and landscape medians.

Special theme trees and plant materials will be utilized within the parkways and neighborhood edges to establish a special theme/character for the community.

The neighborhood edges will vary from 45-50 feet on Ontario Ranch Road, 40 feet on Grove Avenue, 35 feet on Campus Avenue and 30 feet on Walker Avenue.
• Residential Interior Streetscape – Streetscape design within the interior of CenterPark will be designed to be consistent in character with the perimeter streetscapes, to help promote pedestrian circulation throughout the community and Grand Park. The streetscape design for interior streets establishes opportunities for neighborhood interaction through provisions of informal parks, gathering areas, and a network of paseos and sidewalks. Walkable streets encourage pedestrian activity by creating an atmosphere that is geared toward pedestrians. Residential streets within the CenterPark create a hometown appeal of a traditional community that would include 12-foot-wide parkways with curbseparated sidewalks, minimum 24-inch box size trees within the parkways, and larger size planted trees in focal areas, such as street corners and tapered intersections.
• Parks and Trails – Grand Park extends east from Campus Avenue to Haven Avenue. CenterPark will be located immediately to the north of the Grand Park, between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue. The design of Grand Park is still evolving but may include community buildings, an amphitheater, water features, urban forest areas, and special community gardens. The overall design of the Grand Park will be consistent with the Grand Park Master Plan. 482
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

Pocket parks will be developed within each residential Planning Area. Typical recreational improvements for pocket parks include tot lots, picnic and barbecue facilities, multipurpose trails, and informal play areas.

Bike paths will be provided along the right-of-way of Eucalyptus Avenue and Walker Avenue, on both sides of the street. The bike trail system is planned as part of the Grand Park master plan and will connect to some communities within CenterPark.
(h) Infrastructure and Services — The backbone infrastructure to serve all areas of the Specific Plan will be installed by the developers in accordance with the Ontario Ranch Master Plan for streets, water (including recycled water), sewer, storm drain, and fiber optic facilities. Natural gas will be provided by Southern California Gas Company and electricity by Southern California Edison (“SCE”). Development of the Project requires the installation by the developer of all infrastructure necessary to serve the Project as a standalone development. The phasing and required improvements will be outlined and approved via the Development Agreement (File No. PDA25-001). (i) Specific Plan Phasing — The phasing of development within the CenterPark Specific Plan will be determined by the various developers, development agreements, and based upon the market conditions. The Specific Plan proposes four (4) phases for the Project (see Exhibit E: Conceptual Phasing Plan, attached). (j) Signage — All future signage will be subject to review and approval of a comprehensive sign program for the Specific Plan area. A sign program will facilitate the integration of the signs within the overall site and building design to create a unified visual statement and provide for flexible application of sign regulations in the design and display of multiple signs. Key provisions will include entry monument, center and tenant identification signage, traffic and wayfinding signs, building signs, secondary monumentation, and visitor and directional signage. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the installation of any new sign, the Applicant is required to submit Sign Plans for Planning Department review and approval.

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

CORRESPONDENCE: As of the preparation of this Agenda Report, Planning Department staff received a written correspondence in objection to the Project’s proposed land use designations. Other than the one written correspondence, staff has not received any other written or verbal communications from the owners or occupants of properties surrounding the Project site or from the public in general, regarding the subject application.
483
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

AGENCY/DEPARTMENT REVIEWS: Each City agency/department has been provided the opportunity to review and comment on the subject application and recommend conditions of approval to be imposed upon the application. At the time of the Resolution preparation, recommended conditions of approval were provided and are appended to the attached Resolutions as "Attachment A."
AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (ALUCP) COMPLIANCE: The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the ONT ALUCP, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles 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 recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the Planning Commission, 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 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 recommending body for File No.

PSP24-002, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the CNO ALUCP compatibility factors, including Safety, Airspace Protection, Overflight. As a result, the Planning Commission, 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.
484
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

COMPLIANCE WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050: The proposed Project is consistent with the principles, goals and policies contained within the Vision, Governance, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP).

More specifically, the goals and policies of TOP that are furthered by the proposed project are as follows:
(1) City Council Goals
• Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy • Operate in a Businesslike Manner
• Focus Resources on Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods • Invest in the City's Infrastructure (Water, Streets, Sewers, Parks, Storm Drains and Public Facilities)
• Ensure the Development of a Well Planned, Balanced, and Self-Sustaining Community in Ontario Ranch
(2) Vision
Distinctive Development that integrates our varied and diverse focal points, districts, centers, corridors, and neighborhoods to provide a feeling of coherence without sacrificing uniqueness.

Commercial and Residential Development
• Development quality that is broadly recognized as distinctive and not exclusively tied to the general suburban character typical of much of Southern California.
• A system of vibrant retail, town, and neighborhood centers responsive to market demands and woven into the fabric of the community. • Distinctive and well-maintained neighborhoods that offer exceptional variety in lifestyles, with convenient access to schools, recreation and cultural facilities, places of worship, places of employment and shopping.

Development Quality
• Unique and authentic districts, centers, and corridors of varied scales that establish Ontario as one of the most vital and diverse locales in Southern California.
• Superior quality and design of the built environment and open spaces through careful attention to detail at every scale, including public and private spaces and structures.
(3) Governance
485
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

Decision Making
Goal G1: Sustained decision-making that consistently moves Ontario towards its Vision by using The Ontario Plan as a framework for assessing choices. • G1-1 Consistency with Policies. We require that staff recommendations to the City Council be consistent with adopted City Council Priorities (Goals and Objectives) and The Policy Pan.
• G1-2 Long-term Benefit. We require decisions to demonstrate and document how they add value to the community and support the Ontario Vision.
(4) Policy Plan (General Plan)
Land Use Element
Goal LU-1 Balance: A community that has a spectrum of housing types and price ranges that match the jobs in the City and that make it possible for people to live and work in Ontario and maintain a quality of life.
• LU-1.1 Strategic Growth. We concentrate growth in strategic locations that help create place and identity, maximize available and planned infrastructure, foster the development of transit, and support the expansion of the active and multimodal transportation networks throughout the City. • LU-1.6 Complete Community. We incorporate a variety of land uses and building types in our land use planning efforts that result in a complete community where residents at all stages of life, employers, workers, and visitors have a wide spectrum of choices of where they can live, work, shop and recreate within Ontario.

Goal LU-2 Compatibility: Compatibility between a wide range of uses and a resultant urban patterns and forms.
• LU-2.1 Land Use Decisions. We minimize adverse impacts on adjacent properties when considering land use and zoning requests. • LU-2.2 Buffers. We require new uses to provide mitigation or buffers between existing uses where potential adverse impacts could occur. Additional mitigation is required when new uses could negatively impact environmental justice areas.
• LU-2.5 Regulation of Uses. We regulate the location, concentration, and operation of uses that have impacts on surrounding land uses. 486
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

• LU-2.6 Infrastructure Compatibility: We require infrastructure to be aesthetically pleasing and in context with the community character. • LU-2.11 Context-Aware Transitions and Connections. We require new development projects and land-planning efforts to provide context-aware and appropriate transitions and connections between existing and planned neighborhoods, blocks, sites, and buildings.

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

Goal LU-5 Airport Planning: Integrated airport systems and facilities that minimize negative impacts to the community and maximize economic benefits. • LU-5.7 ALUCP Consistency with Land Use Regulations. We comply with state law that requires general plans, specific plans, and all new development to be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for any public-use airport.

Housing Element
Goal H-1 Neighborhoods & Housing: Stable neighborhoods of quality housing, ample community services, and public facilities, well-maintained infrastructure, and public safety that foster a positive sense of identity.
• H-1.2 Neighborhood Conditions. We direct efforts to improve the long-term sustainability of neighborhoods through comprehensive planning, provision of neighborhood amenities, rehabilitation and maintenance of housing, and community building efforts.
• H-1.5 Neighborhood Identity. We strengthen neighborhood identity through creating parks and recreational outlets, sponsoring neighborhood events, and encouraging resident participation in the planning and improvement of their neighborhoods.
487
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

Goal H-2 Housing Supply & Diversity: Diversity of types of quality housing that are affordable to a range of household income levels, accommodate changing demographics, and support and reinforce the economic sustainability of Ontario. • H-2.1 Corridor Housing. We revitalize transportation corridors by encouraging the production of higher density residential and mixed-uses that are architecturally, functionally, and aesthetically suited to corridors. • H-2.4 Ontario Ranch. We support a premier lifestyle community in the Ontario Ranch, distinguished by diverse housing, highest design quality, and cohesive and highly amenitized neighborhoods.
• H-2.5 Housing Design. We require architectural excellence through adherence to City design guidelines, thoughtful site planning, environmentally sustainable practices, and other best practices.

Community Economics Element
Goal CE-1 Complete Community: A complete community that provides for all incomes and stages of life.
• CE-1.1 Jobs-Housing Balance. We pursue improvement to the Inland Empire’s balance between jobs and housing by promoting jobs growth that reduces the regional economy’s reliance on out-commuting. • CE-1.5 Business Attraction. We proactively attract new and expanding businesses to Ontario in order to increase the City’s share of growing sectors of the regional and global economy.
• CE-1.6 Diversity of Housing. We collaborate with residents, housing providers, and the development community to provide housing opportunities for every stage of life; we plan for a variety of housing types and price points to encourage the development of housing supportive of our efforts to attract business in growing sectors of the community while being respectful of existing viable uses.

Goal CE-2 Placemaking: A City of distinctive neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and centers where people choose to be.
• CE-2.1 Development Projects. We require new development and redevelopment to create unique, high-quality places that add value to the community.
• CE-2.2 Development Review. We require those proposing new development and redevelopment to demonstrate how their projects will create 488
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

appropriately unique, functional, and sustainable places that will compete well with their competition within the region.
• CE-2.4 Protection of Investment. We require that new development and redevelopment protect existing investment by providing architecture and urban design of equal or greater quality.
• CE-2.5 Private Maintenance. We require adequate maintenance, upkeep, and investment in private property because proper maintenance on private property protects property values.

Mobility Element
Goal M-1 Roadway System: A system of roadways that meets the mobility needs of a dynamic and prosperous Ontario.
• M-1.4 Complete Streets. We work to provide a complete, balanced, context-aware, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public transportation. We prioritize implementation of complete streets improvements in environmental justice areas to facilitate opportunities for residents to use active transportation systems.

Goal M-2 Active Transportation: A system of trails and corridors that facilitate and encourage active modes of transportation.
• M-2.3 Pedestrian Walkways. We require streets to include sidewalks and visible crosswalks at major intersections where necessary to promote safe and comfortable mobility between residential areas, businesses, schools, parks, recreation areas, and other key destination points.

Community Design Element
Goal CD-1 Image & Identity: A dynamic, progressive city containing distinct and complete places that foster a positive sense of identity and belonging among residents, visitors, and businesses.
• CD-1.1 City Identity. We take actions that are consistent with the City being a leading urban center in Southern California while recognizing, enhancing, and preserving the character of our existing viable neighborhoods. • CD-1.2 Place Types. We establish Place Types in urban, mixed use, and transit-oriented areas to foster the City's identity as a premier community and require new development within each Place Type to incorporate prescribed urban patterns, forms, and placemaking priorities. 489
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

• CD-1.3 Existing Neighborhoods. We require the existing character of viable residential and non-residential neighborhoods be preserved, protected, and enhanced.
• CD-1.4 Transportation Corridors. We will enhance our major transportation corridors within the City through landscape, hardscape, signage and lighting. The extent of enhancement should be appropriate to the use, type, and context of each corridor.

Goal CD-2 Design Quality: A high level of design quality resulting in neighborhoods, public spaces, parks, and streetscapes that are attractive, safe, functional, human-scale, and distinct.
• CD-2.1 Quality Building Design and Architecture. We encourage all development projects to convey visual interest and character through:

1. Building volume, massing, and height to provide contextappropriate scale and proportion.

2. A true architectural style which is carried out in plan, section, and elevation through all aspects of the building and site design and appropriate for its setting; and

3. Exterior building materials that are articulated, high quality, durable, and appropriate for the architectural style.
• CD-2.2 Neighborhood Design. We create distinct residential neighborhoods that promote a sense of community and identity by emphasizing access, connectivity, livability, and social interaction through such elements as:

1. A pattern of smaller, walkable blocks that promote activity, safety, and access to nearby amenities and services;

2. Varied parcel sizes and lot configurations to accommodate a diversity of housing types;

3. Traffic calming measures to slow traffic and promote walkability while maintaining acceptable traffic flows and emergency evacuation access;

4. Floor plans that encourage views onto the street and de-emphasize the visual and physical dominance of garages (introducing the front porch as the “outdoor living room”), as appropriate; and

5. Landscaped parkways, with sidewalks separated from the curb and designed to maximize safety, comfort, and aesthetics for all users. 490
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

• CD-2.3 Commercial Areas. We desire commercial areas and centers to be distinctive, pedestrian friendly, functional, and vibrant with a range of businesses, places to gather, and connectivity to the neighborhoods they serve.
• CD-2.5 Streetscapes. We design new and, when necessary, retrofit existing streets to improve walkability, bicycling and transit integration, strengthen connectivity, and enhance community identity through improvements to the public right-of-way such as sidewalks, street trees, parkways, curbs, street lighting and street furniture.
• CD-2.6 Connectivity. We promote development of local street patterns, multimodal networks, and connected public spaces that create and unify neighborhoods, rather than divide them, and create cohesive and continuous corridors, rather than independent “islands” through the following means:

1. Local street networks that provide access both between subdivisions and within neighborhoods and discourage through traffic;

2. A local street system that is logical and understandable for the user.

A grid system is preferred to avoid circuitous and confusing travel paths between internal neighborhood areas and adjacent arterials and to provide adequate emergency and evacuation access; and

3. Pedestrian and bicycle networks that provide convenient access to neighborhoods and nearby destinations, such as schools, parks, other public spaces, commercial areas, and transit stops. • CD-2.10 Parking Areas. We require all development, including single-family residential, to minimize the visual impact of surface, structured, and garage parking areas visible from the public realm in an aesthetically pleasing, safe and environmentally sensitive manner. Examples include:

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

2. Garage parking: providing access to single-family residential garages through alley access, recessing garages from the frontage to emphasize front doors or active living spaces.
• CD-2.8 Safe Design. We incorporate defensible space design into new and existing developments to ensure the maximum safe travel and visibility on pathways, corridors, and open space and at building entrances and 491
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

parking areas by avoiding physically and visually isolated spaces, maintaining visibility and accessibility, and using lighting. • CD-2.9 Landscape Design. We encourage durable, sustainable, and drought-tolerant landscaping materials and designs that enhance the aesthetics of structures, create and define public and private spaces, and provide shade and environmental benefits.
• CD-2.11 Entry Statements. We encourage the inclusion of amenities, signage, and landscaping at the entry to neighborhoods, commercial centers, mixed use areas, industrial developments, and public places that reinforce them as uniquely identifiable places.
• CD-2.12 Site and Building Signage. We encourage the use of sign programs that utilize complementary materials, colors, and themes. Project signage should be designed to effectively communicate and direct users to various aspects of the development and complement the character of the structures
• CD-2.13 Entitlement Process. We work collaboratively with all stakeholders to ensure a high degree of certainty in the efficient review and timely processing of all development plans and permits.

Goal CD-3 Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-Oriented Place Types: Vibrant urban environments that are organized around intense buildings, pedestrian and transit areas, public plazas, and linkages between and within developments that are conveniently located, visually appealing and safe during all hours.
• CD-3.1 Unique Identity. We promote development that heightens the unique character and identity of each Place Type by requiring compatible land uses and land planning, site design, and building design that promotes an active public realm.
• CD-3.2 Comfortable, Human-Scale Public Realm. We require that public spaces, including streets, parks, and plazas on both public and private property be designed to maximize safety, comfort and aesthetics and connect to the citywide pedestrian, vehicular, and bicycle networks. • CD-3.3 Complete and Connected Network. We require that pedestrian, vehicular, and bicycle circulation on both public and private property be coordinated to provide connections internally and externally to adjacent neighborhoods and properties (existing and planned) through a system of local roads and trails that promote walking and biking to nearby destinations (including existing and planned parks, commercial areas, and transit stops) and are designed to maximize safety, comfort, and aesthetics. 492
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

• CD-3.4 Context-Aware and Appropriate Design. We require appropriate building and site design that complements existing development, respects the intent and identity of the Place Type, and provides appropriate transitions and connections between adjacent uses to ensure compatibility of scale, maintain an appropriate level of privacy for each use, and minimize potential conflicts.
• CD-3.5 Active Frontages. We create lively pedestrian streetscapes by requiring primary building, business, and residential entrances, outdoor dining, and storefronts be located on ground floors adjacent to sidewalks or public spaces and designed to maximize safety, comfort, aesthetics, and the intended functionality (as defined by the Place Type). • CD-3.6 Managed Infrastructure. We collaborate with developers and property owners to facilitate development that realizes the envisioned character and functionality of the Place Type through the use of green and shared infrastructure within each Place Type.

Goal CD-5 Protection of Investment: A sustained level of maintenance and improvement of properties, buildings, and infrastructure that protects property values and encourages additional public and private investments.
• CD-5.1 Maintenance of Buildings and Property. We require all public and privately-owned buildings and property (including trails and easements) to be properly and consistently maintained.
• CD-5.2 Maintenance of Infrastructure. We require the continual maintenance of the infrastructure.

HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE: The Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (general plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the Project site includes properties listed in the Housing Element Sites contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 (Housing Element Sites Inventory) of the Housing Element Technical Report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Specific Plan is located in what was formerly the City of Ontario Sphere of Influence (“SOI”) area, which consists of roughly 8,200 acres at the south end of the City. On January 7,1998, the City of Ontario adopted the New Model Colony (“NMC”) General Plan Amendment, setting forth a comprehensive strategy for the future development of the SOI. The NMC is bound by Riverside Drive to the north, Milliken Avenue to the east, Euclid Avenue to the west, and Merrill Avenue/Bellegrave to the south.

Since the adoption of the NMC General Plan Amendment, the City has updated the General Plan on different occasions. On January 27, 2010, the City adopted The Ontario Plan and certified the accompanying Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2008101140).

On August 16, 2022, the City adopted The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050), which was an 493
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

update to The Ontario Plan adopted in 2010, and included the certification of an accompanying Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2021070364). The Policy Plan component of TOP 2050 serves as the General Plan for the entire City, including the NMC (now referred to as “Ontario Ranch”). TOP 2050 identified many areas that might have potentially significant impacts on the environment. These areas included 1) Aesthetics; 2) Biological Resources; 3) Geology and Soils; 4) Hazards and Hazardous Materials; 5) Hydrology and Water Quality; 6) Land Use and Planning; 7) Mineral Resources; 8) Population and Housing; 9) Public Services; 10) Recreation; and 11) Utilities and Service systems. Through the EIR process, these potential impacts were analyzed, revisions were incorporated into the plan, and/or mitigation measures were identified that reduced the potential environmental impacts to a level that was less than significant.

TOP 2050 also identified several potential impacts that, even with revisions and/or mitigation measures, could not be reduced to a level of less than significant. These areas included Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise, and Transportation. While these impacts will be significant and unavoidable, the City determined that the benefits of the Ontario Ranch development outweigh the potential unavoidable, adverse impacts of the plan.

As a result, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts that could not be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant.

The TOP 2050 EIR analyses focused on the program, or “big picture” impacts associated with development. With the submittal of the CenterPark Specific Plan, staff is charged with evaluating the potential impacts of development at the project level, looking specifically at the project proposal and any potential environmental impacts associated with it. Staff completed an Initial Study and determined that a Focused EIR needed to be prepared for the Project. The Project’s Focused EIR only focuses on the potential environmental impacts associated with Historic and Biological Resources.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the City also prepared a 15183 Consistency Analysis (which is an appendix to the Focused EIR), to document that the proposed Project is consistent with the City’s The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 and its associated Supplemental EIR, and with the exception of potential impacts to historic and biological resources, the Project is adequately addressed in the prior EIR and does not represent a new or more severe significant impact that is “peculiar” to the Project, nor does it represent a new or more severe impact related to off-site infrastructure or cumulative impacts.

The following topics were addressed in the 15183 Consistency Analysis:
• Aesthetics
• Agricultural and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
494
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
The CenterPark Specific Plan Draft Focused EIR evaluates each of these various areas and identifies mitigation measures and/or revisions to the plan to lessen the level of significance. The Draft Focused EIR analyzed the CenterPark Specific Plan land uses, development intensities, conceptual designs, infrastructure requirements, and onsite surveys and studies. However, access on certain properties within the Project site could not be obtained and, therefore, the level of impact cannot be known for categories such as Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, and Hazards and Hazardous Materials since onsite surveys could not be conducted. It is conceivable that, when development is proposed for these certain properties and onsite access is obtained, the potentially significant impacts on Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, and Hazards and Hazardous Materials can be mitigated to be less than significant. Nevertheless, since the level of impact cannot be known for these areas at this time, the CenterPark Draft Focused EIR conservatively concludes that there are significant and unavoidable impacts.

A total of 12 cultural resources with historic structures in the Project were identified as a result of the Cultural Resources Analysis. Three (3) of the identified resources are recommended eligible for listing in the CRHR and/or for designation as a City of Ontario Historic Landmark and are considered historical resources under CEQA. Conditions related to reducing impacts to significance historic built environment resources are recommended, though with the understanding that such actions may not reduce impacts to these resources to less than significant. This analysis also concludes that the Project area has a high sensitivity for historic archaeological resources associated with the dairy farming industry, though maintains a relatively low sensitivity for buried prehistoric archaeological resources as a result of prior disturbance. However, both due to the high sensitivity of historic archaeological resources and due to the fact that the Project area was underlain by Holocene-age soils that would have maintained a moderate-to-high potential for prehistoric archaeological resources prior to disturbance, therefore, it is recommended that conditions related to archaeological monitoring during Project implementation and the process for inadvertent discoveries be included as a part of the proposed Project. With these conditions in place, impacts on unique archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant. 495
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

While mitigation of all potential impacts to a level of less than significant is desirable, the fact that some areas within the Project site will remain significant and unavoidable is not unexpected. The identification of these areas as significant and unavoidable also validates the work previously completed for TOP 2050. Staff continues to believe that the benefits of the proposed development outweigh the potential impacts associated with it. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend certification of the Focused EIR to the City Council and that a Statement of Overriding Considerations be adopted for the Project.
496
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

TECHNICAL APPENDIX:

Table 1: Surrounding Zoning and Land Use
Existing
Land Use
Policy Plan
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Specific Plan
Land Use
Site
Nurseries and Field
Crops, Dairy
Operations, Rural
Residential, SCE
Easements
AG (Agricultural
Overlay); CNO (Chino
Airport) Overlay; AH
(Affordable Housing)
Overlay; MDR (Medium
Density Residential);
and OS (Open Space
Parkland)
SP (Specific Plan) CenterPark (Proposed)
North
Nurseries and Field
Crops, Dairy
Operations, and Rural
Residential
AG (Agricultural
Overlay); CNO (Chino
Airport) Overlay; AH
(Affordable Housing)
Overlay; LMDR (Low
Medium Density
Residential); and MDR
(Medium Density
Residential).

SP (Specific Plan) N/A
South Dairy Operations and
Rural Residential
AG (Agricultural
Overlay); CNO (Chino
Airport) Overlay; AH
(Affordable Housing)
Overlay; MU (Mixed Use
Eucalyptus); and OS-P
(Open SpaceParkland)
SP (Specific Plan) N/A
East Field Crops and Rural
Residential
AG (Agricultural
Overlay); CNO (Chino
Airport) Overlay; AH
(Affordable Housing)
Overlay; OS-P (Open
Space-Parkland); MDR
(Medium Density
Residential); and MU
(Mixed Use Great Park)
SP (Specific Plan) N/A
West Field Crops and Rural
Residential
AG (Agricultural
Overlay); CNO (Chino
Airport) Overlay; AH
(Affordable Housing)
Overlay; MU (Mixed Use
Great Park)
SP (Specific Plan) N/A
497
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

Exhibit A: PROJECT LOCATION MAP
498
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

Exhibit B: CENTERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP
499
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

Exhibit C: CENTERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY
500
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

Exhibit D: SPECIFIC PLAN CIRCULATION PLAN
501
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

Exhibit E: SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSED PHASING PLAN
Proposed
Phases
502
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

Exhibit F: SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSED ARCHITECTURE DESIGN/GUIDELINES

RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURAL INFLUENCES
503
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

Exhibit G: SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSED ARCHITECTURE DESIGN/GUIDELINES CONT’

OFFICE/RETAIL ARCHITECTURAL INFLUENCES
504
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

Exhibit H: THE ONTARIO PLAN LAND USE PLAN
505
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

Exhibit I: SITE PHOTOS
506
RESOLUTION NO. PC26-015

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL

CERTIFY THE PROJECT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2025060731) AND ADOPT

FINDINGS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE CENTERPARK
SPECIFIC PLAN (FILE NO. PSP24-002) THAT WILL ESTABLISH THE

LAND USE DISTRICTS, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, DESIGN

GUIDELINES, AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 4,293 RESIDENTIAL
DWELLING UNITS, 115,809 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL USES, 135,110 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE USES, AND 68 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE
(PARKLAND/NON-RECREATIONAL USES) ON APPROXIMATELY 258

ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY BOUNDED BY THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCE) EASEMENT ROUGHLY 500 FEET NORTH

OF ONTARIO RANCH ROAD, WALKER AVENUE TO THE EAST,

CAMPUS AVENUE TO THE WEST, AND SOUTHERN BOUNDARY
ROUGHLY 1,300 FEET NORTH OF EUCALYPTUS AVENUE, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APNS: 1053-301-01, -02; 1053-311-01, -02, 1053-321-01, -02, -03; 1053-331-01, -02, -03, -04; 1053- 341-01, -02; 1053-351-01, -02; 1053-361-01, -02, -03; 1053-371-01, -02; 0216-311-01,-02, -09; 0216-321-03, -08; 0216-322-03, -04, -10 WHEREAS, RCCD, INC. (“Applicant”) has filed an Application for the approval of a Specific Plan, File No. PSP24-002 (CenterPark Specific Plan), for which a Focused Environmental Impact Report has been prepared, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as “Application”); and WHEREAS, the Application applies to 258 acres of land with 29 parcels and is generally bounded to the north by a Southern California Edison (SCE) easement, to the west by Campus Avenue, to the east by Walker Avenue, to the south by Eucalyptus Avenue, and bisected by Ontario Ranch Road, within the SP (Specific Plan) AG (Agricultural Overlay) zoning district, and is presently improved with agricultural, dairy, recreational vehicle storage, residential and vacant land uses; and WHEREAS, the City prepared The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“TOP 2050 EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2025060731) in association with the 2050 General Plan Update (“GPU”) and certified the TOP 2050 EIR on August 16, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the CenterPark Specific Plan for which the public review period extended from June 13, 2025, through 507
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSP24-002 - CenterPark Specific Plan FEIR
February 24, 2026

July 14, 2025. The NOP was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area. The City received comments from multiple agencies on the NOP; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) §21083.9 and State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15082(c) and 15083, a public scoping meeting was held on Wednesday, July 2, 2025, where comments were received; and
WHEREAS, the Project’s Focused Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) for File No. PSP24-002 (State Clearinghouse No. 2025060731) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Guidelines for implementation of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (“Draft FEIR”) was prepared, incorporating comments received in response to the NOP, and determined that mitigation measures were required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for biological resources, and cultural resources, and further concluded that despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed Project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to biological and cultural resources; and
WHEREAS, after completing the Draft FEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2025060731), the City released the document for public review for 45-days, beginning December 29, 2025, and concluding February 12, 2026. A Notice of Availability (“NOA”) was circulated along with the Draft FEIR and was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and posted in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County. The City also provided a Notice of Availability to all organizations and individuals who previously requested such notice; and
WHEREAS, copies of the Draft FEIR were distributed to City departments, and federal, state, local, and agencies and individuals that requested them; and WHEREAS, during the 45-day comment period on the Draft FEIR, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15086; and WHEREAS, one written public comment was received prior to the Planning Commission hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared the Final FEIR, which consists of the Draft FEIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft Focused EIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft FEIR, written responses to all written comment letters received on the Draft FEIR; and
508
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSP24-002 - CenterPark Specific Plan FEIR
February 24, 2026

WHEREAS, the “FEIR” consists of the Final FEIR and its attachments and appendices, as well as the Draft FEIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final FEIR); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to PRC §21092.5, the City provided copies of the Final FEIR to all commenting public agencies and individuals that requested to provide comments; and
WHEREAS, the City provided a Notice of Public Hearing and/or Intent to Certify a Focused Environmental Impact Report to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested such notice, and published the Notice of Public Hearing, in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area; and WHEREAS, all potential significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the Final FEIR; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario is the lead agency on the Project, and the Planning Commission is the recommending body for the Project; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Local Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in the FEIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the FEIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes both the feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the Project’s potential environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing these effects in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Local Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the Planning Commission pursuant to this Resolution are based upon all oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and are not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the FEIR at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the FEIR was fully studied; and
WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City, or any additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new 509
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSP24-002 - CenterPark Specific Plan FEIR
February 24, 2026

information requiring recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines §15088.5; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Focused Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and supporting documentation. Based upon the facts and information contained in the FEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2025060731) and supporting documentation, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council make the following findings:
(1) The FEIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; and
(2) The FEIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and (3) The FEIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission.

SECTION 2: Planning Commission Action. The Planning Commission does hereby find that based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced hearing and upon the specific findings set forth in Section 1 above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The Project’s FEIR analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of four (4) phases of the CenterPark Specific Plan, and finds that, if the Specific Plan is adopted and development occurs as proposed by this plan, and with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts will still be significant and unavoidable:
(a) Biological Resources – Impacts related to development of Phase 1 could not be analyzed in that biological surveys could not be conducted in this area, and therefore there is potential for significant and unavoidable impacts; and (d) Cultural (Historic) Resources – Impacts related to demolition of milk barns within the Project site is considered a significant and unavoidable impact; and (c) Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Project specific impacts and cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable; and 510
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSP24-002 - CenterPark Specific Plan FEIR
February 24, 2026

(d) Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Impacts related to development of Phase 2 could not be analyzed in that hazard and hazardous materials surveys could not be conducted in this area, and therefore there is potential for significant and unavoidable impacts.

SECTION 3: Recommendation. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Section 1 and 2 above, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certifies the FEIR, adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and approves the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

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

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

SECTION 6: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
511
512
513
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSP24-002 - CenterPark Specific Plan FEIR
February 24, 2026

ATTACHMENT A:

CenterPark Specific Plan
Focused Environmental Impact Report
(State Clearinghouse No. 2025060731)
(Document to follow this page)
514
Draft
Focused Environmental Impact Report

CENTERPARK

SPECIFIC PLAN
for the City of Ontario
SCH No. 2025060731
Specific Plan PSP24-002

LEAD AGENCY
City of Ontario
Rafael Torres, Assistant Planner
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, California 91761
(909) 395-2036

CONSULTANT
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Kevin Thomas, CEP
3801 University Street, Suite 300
Riverside, California 92501
DECEMBER 2025
1/
KimleyHorn

CITY OF A

ONTARIO

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
515
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 i Table of Contents
Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Environmental Procedures .......................................................................................... 1-3

1.3 Project Overview......................................................................................................... 1-4

1.4 Unavoidable Significant Impacts.................................................................................. 1-7

1.5 Summary of Project Alternatives................................................................................. 1-7

1.6 Areas of Controversy ................................................................................................. 1-13

1.7 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................. 1-13

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Purpose of the Focused Environmental Impact Report ................................................ 2-1

2.2 Notice of Preparation/Early Consultation .................................................................... 2-2

2.3 Scope of this Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report........................................... 2-3

2.4 Incorporation by Reference ......................................................................................... 2-4

2.5 Environmental Impact Report Process......................................................................... 2-6

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Project Setting............................................................................................................. 3-4

3.2 Surrounding Land Uses................................................................................................ 3-4

3.3 Proposed Project......................................................................................................... 3-5

3.4 Project Objectives ..................................................................................................... 3-19

3.5 Construction and Phasing .......................................................................................... 3-21

3.6 Discretionary Actions and Approvals ......................................................................... 3-22

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 4-1

4.0.1 Approach to Environmental Analysis............................................................... 4-2

4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.1.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 4.1-1

4.1.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................. 4.1-1

4.1.3 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.1-11 516
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 ii Table of Contents

4.1.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.1-17

4.1.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies..................................................................... 4.1-18

4.1.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.............................................................. 4.1-18

4.1.7 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.1-32

4.1.8 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts.......................................................... 4.1-36

4.1.9 References................................................................................................. 4.1-36

4.2 HISTORIC RESOURCES............................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.2.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 4.2-1

4.2.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................. 4.2-1

4.2.3 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.2-6

4.2.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.2-20

4.2.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies..................................................................... 4.2-32

4.2.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.............................................................. 4.2-32

4.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.2-36

4.2.8 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts.......................................................... 4.2-39

4.2.9 References................................................................................................. 4.2-39

5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 CEQA Requirements.................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes..................................................... 5-1

5.3 Growth Inducing Impacts............................................................................................. 5-3

5.4 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................. 5-6

6.0 ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 6-1

6.2 Alternatives to the Project........................................................................................... 6-4

6.3 Alternatives Rejected as Infeasible .............................................................................. 6-4

6.4 Analysis of Alternatives to the Proposed Project.......................................................... 6-5

6.5 Comparison of Alternatives......................................................................................... 6-5

6.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative ........................................................................ 6-14

7.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ................................................................................ 7-1 517
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 iii Table of Contents

7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 7-1

8.0 EIR CONSULTATION AND PREPARATION................................................................................... 8-1

8.1 EIR Consultation .......................................................................................................... 8-1

8.2 List of Preparers .......................................................................................................... 8-2

9.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 9-1 List of Tables
Table 1-1: Maximum Project Buildout................................................................................................... 1-6 Table 1-2: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures.................................. 1-14 Table 2-1: NOP Written Comments Summary ....................................................................................... 2-2 Table 3-1: Project Buildout by Ownership Area..................................................................................... 3-7 Table 3-2: Maximum Project Buildout................................................................................................. 3-11 Table 3-3: Anticipated Permits and Approvals Required...................................................................... 3-23 Table 4.1-1: Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity ............................. 4.1-4 Table 4.1-2: Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity ......................... 4.1-6 Table 4.1-3: Ownership Area 1 Vegetation Community Impacts....................................................... 4.1-26 Table 4.2-1: Historic Resources within the Project Site..................................................................... 4.2-22 Table 4.2-2: Summary of Resource Evaluations................................................................................ 4.2-24 Table 5-1: Phase I Project Generated Employment ............................................................................... 5-5 Table 7-1: Impacts Addressed in the 15183 Consistency Analysis.......................................................... 7-1 List of Figures
Figure 3-1: Regional Location Map...................................................................................................... 3-26 Figure 3-2: Local Vicinity Map............................................................................................................. 3-27 Figure 3-3: Project Boundary .............................................................................................................. 3-28 Figure 3-4: Project Assessor Parcel Numbers...................................................................................... 3-29 Figure 3-5: Surrounding Land Uses ..................................................................................................... 3-30 Figure 3-6: Existing Land Use and Zoning ............................................................................................ 3-31 Figure 3-7: Project Area Ownership .................................................................................................... 3-32 518
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 iv Table of Contents
Figure 3-8: Land Use Plan ................................................................................................................... 3-33 Figure 3-9: City of Ontario Road Classification System ........................................................................ 3-34 Figure 3-10: Conceptual Circulation Plan ............................................................................................ 3-35 Figure 3-11: Conceptual Pedestrian and Regional Trail Circulation Plan .............................................. 3-36 Figure 3-12: Internal Pedestrian Circulation Plan ................................................................................ 3-37 Figure 3-13: Conceptual Landscape Plan............................................................................................. 3-38 Figure 3-14: Conceptual Potable Water Master Plan........................................................................... 3-39 Figure 3-15: Conceptual Potable Water System .................................................................................. 3-40 Figure 3-16: Conceptual Recycled Water Master Plan......................................................................... 3-41 Figure 3-17: Conceptual Recycled Water System ................................................................................ 3-42 Figure 3-18: Conceptual Sewer Master Plan........................................................................................ 3-43 Figure 3-19: Conceptual Sewer System............................................................................................... 3-44 Figure 3-20: Conceptual Drainage Master Plan ................................................................................... 3-45 Figure 3-21: Conceptual Storm Drain Improvements .......................................................................... 3-46 Figure 3-22: Fiber Optic Master Plan................................................................................................... 3-47 Figure 3-23: Conceptual Grading Plan................................................................................................. 3-48 Figure 4.2-1: Ontario Ranch Road Widening Historic Resources Map ............................................... 4.2-27 Figure 6-1: Reduced Development Area Alternative ........................................................................... 6-13 Appendices (Provided under separate cover)
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Scoping Meeting Materials Appendix B: Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix C1: Biological Resources Technical Report
Appendix C2: Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment Appendix D: Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix E: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix F: CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis 519
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 1-1 1.0 | Executive Summary

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requires the preparation of an objective, full-disclosure document in order to (1) inform agency decision-makers and the general public of the direct and indirect potentially significant environmental effects of a proposed action; (2) identify feasible or potentially feasible mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potentially significant adverse impacts; and (3) identify and evaluate reasonable alternatives to a project.

CEQA requires that projects subject to approval by a State of California (State) public agency, and that are not otherwise exempt or excluded, undergo an environmental review process to identify and evaluate potential impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15050 states that environmental review shall be conducted by the Lead Agency, defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15367 as the public agency with principal responsibility for approving a project. The Project is subject to approval actions by the City of Ontario (City), which will, therefore, act as the Lead Agency.

In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]), this Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report EIR (“Draft Focused EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2025060731) has been prepared as a “Program EIR”, as this EIR addresses the proposed CenterPark Specific Plan [the “Project”]) and is intended to cover anticipated future discretionary approvals. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15123, this section of the Draft Focused EIR provides a brief description of the Project; identifies significant effects and proposed mitigation measures or alternatives that would reduce or avoid those effects; and describes areas of controversy and issues to be resolved.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project Applicant for Ownership Area 1 prepared a CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis, provided as Appendix F to this Draft Focused EIR, to document that the proposed Project is consistent with the City’s The Ontario Plan 2050 (“TOP 2050”) and its associated Supplemental EIR (“TOP EIR”), and with the exception of potential impacts to biological resources and historic resources, the Project is adequately addressed in the prior EIR and does not represent a new or more severe significant impact that is “peculiar” to the Project, nor does it represent a new or more severe impact related to off-site infrastructure or cumulative impacts. The City serves as the applicant for Ownership Area 2. Therefore, this EIR is “focused” solely on the Project’s potential to impact biological resources and historic resources.

The Draft Focused EIR considers the “peculiar” Environmental impacts of the Project, as well as the additive effects of growth throughout the City and the region. These latter impacts are referred to as cumulative impacts. The Draft Focused EIR also evaluates a range of potential feasible alternatives anticipated to reduce significant impacts of the Project, including a No Project/No Build Alternative.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) advising public agencies, special districts, and members of the public who had requested such notice that an EIR for the Project was being prepared. The NOP was distributed on June 11, 2025, to solicit comments related 520
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 1-2 1.0 | Executive Summary
to the proposed construction of the Project. The NOP was circulated with a 30-day public review period ending on July 14, 2025. This process and the comments submitted in response to the NOP are discussed in Section 2.0: Introduction, and Section 1.7: Areas of Controversy, below.

After receiving public comments on the NOP, the Project was analyzed for its potential to result in environmental impacts. Impacts were evaluated in accordance with the significance criteria presented in Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the CEQA Guidelines. The criteria in the Environmental Checklist Form (checklist), was used to determine if the Project would result in, “no impact,” “less than significant impact,” “less than significant impact with mitigation measures,” or “potentially significant impact” to a particular environmental resource. In some instances, a project may use the checklist to provide an initial discussion of a project and to screen out certain topics from a full discussion in the Draft EIR Draft Focused EIR. This Draft Focused EIR discusses the two following environmental resources in CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, biological resources and historic resources. A table listing the significant Project impacts and any associated mitigation measures is included at the end of this summary in Table 1-2: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures.

This Draft EIR describes the existing environmental resources on the Project site and in the vicinity of the site, analyzes potential impacts on those resources that would or could occur upon initiation of the Project, and identifies mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce the magnitude of those impacts determined to be significant. The environmental impacts evaluated in this Draft Focused EIR concern the following subject areas: biological resources and historic resources.

As noted in the preceding paragraph, public comment was received during the NOP process and included written letters provided to the City. A copy of the letters with the NOP are provided in Appendix A to this Draft EIR. The comments were used, as intended, to help inform the discussion of this Draft Focused EIR and help determine the scope and framework of certain topical discussions.

The Draft Focused EIR is subject to further review and comment by the public, as well as responsible agencies and other interested jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations for a period of 45 days after completion.

Following the public review period, written responses to all comments received on the Draft Focused EIR will be prepared. Those written responses, and any other necessary changes to the Draft Focused EIR, will constitute the Final EIR and will be submitted to the City Council for their consideration. If the City finds that the Final EIR is “adequate and complete” in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City may certify the EIR. The City Council would also consider the adoption of Findings of Fact pertaining to the EIR, specific mitigation measures, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP). Upon review and consideration of the Final EIR, the hearing body would take action concerning the Project.

Regarding the MMRP, CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 requires public agencies to set up monitoring and reporting programs to ensure compliance with mitigation measures, which are adopted or made as a condition of project approval and designed to mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects identified in environmental impact reports. A MMRP incorporating the mitigation measures set forth in 521
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 1-3 1.0 | Executive Summary
this EIR will be considered and acted upon by the City decision-makers concurrent with adoption of the findings of this EIR and prior to approval of the Project.

1.2 Environmental Procedures
This Draft Focused EIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA to assess the environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed Project, as well as anticipated future discretionary actions and approvals. CEQA established six main objectives for an EIR:

1. Disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed activities.

2. Identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage.

3. Prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures.

4. Disclose to the public reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental effects.

5. Foster interagency coordination in the review of projects.

6. Enhance public participation in the planning process.

An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation in CEQA; it is intended to provide an objective, factually supported analysis and full disclosure of the environmental consequences of a proposed project and its potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts.

An EIR is one of various decision-making tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Before approving a proposed project, the lead agency must consider the information in the EIR; determine whether the EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; determine that it reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; adopt findings concerning the project’s significant environmental impacts and alternatives; and adopt a statement of overriding considerations if significant impacts cannot be avoided.

EIR Format
Section 1.0. Executive Summary. Summarizes the background and description of the proposed Project, the format of this EIR, Project alternatives, any critical issues remaining to be resolved, and the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified for the Project.

Section 2.0. Introduction. Describes the purpose of this EIR, background on the Project, the notice of preparation, the use of incorporation by reference, and Final EIR certification.

Section 3.0. Project Description. A detailed description of the Project, including its objectives, its area and location, approvals anticipated to be required as part of the Project, necessary environmental clearances, and the intended uses of this EIR.
522
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 1-4 1.0 | Executive Summary
Section 4.0. Environmental Analysis. Each environmental topic is then analyzed in a separate subsection that discusses: the thresholds used to determine if a significant impact would occur; the methodology to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of the Project; the existing environmental setting; the potential adverse and beneficial effects of the Project; the level of impact significance before mitigation; the mitigation measures for the Project; the level of significance after mitigation is incorporated; and the potential cumulative impacts of the Project and other existing, approved, and proposed development in the area.

Section 5.0. Other CEQA Considerations. Describes the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed Project as well as the potentially significant irreversible environmental changes associated with the Project. This section also describes the ways in which the proposed Project would cause increases in employment or population that could result in new physical or environmental impacts.

Section 6.0. Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Describes the alternatives and compares their impacts to the impacts of the Project, and includes a discussion of the Environmentally Superior Alternative.

Section 7.0. Effects Found Not to Be Significant. Describes the potential impacts of the Project that were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in this EIR.

Section 8.0. EIR Consultation and Preparation. Lists the people and organizations that were contacted during the preparation of this EIR
Section 9.0. References. A list of all references used to support the environmental analysis.

Appendices. The appendices for this document (in PDF format) comprise these supporting documents:
• Appendix A: Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Scoping Meeting Materials • Appendix B: Cultural Resources Assessment
• Appendix C1: Biological Resources Technical Report
• Appendix C2: Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment • Appendix D: Geotechnical Investigation
• Appendix E: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
• Appendix F: CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis

1.3 Project Overview
Project Location
The CenterPark Specific Plan Project (Project) is made up of 29 existing parcels totaling 257.34 acres in the City of Ontario (City). The City is located approximately 40 miles east of downtown Los Angeles, 20 miles west of downtown San Bernardino, and 30 miles north from the Orange County line.

Regional access to the Project site is provided by Euclid Avenue approximately 0.8 miles west, which connects State Route 60 (SR-60) and Interstate 10 (I-10) to the north. Interstate 15 (I-15) is approximately 523
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 1-5 1.0 | Executive Summary

4.0 miles to the east and State Route 71 (SR-71) is approximately 3.5 miles to the southwest. SR-71 connects the Project to State Route 91 (SR-91) in unincorporated Riverside County.

The Project site is in the southwestern portion of the City, immediately east of the City of Chino in San Bernardino County. The Project site is bound to the north by a Southern California Edison (SCE) Easement located approximately 330 feet north of Edison Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue to the south, Campus Avenue to the west, Walker Avenue to the east, and bisected by Edison Avenue. The Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) for the Project are 0216-322-03, -04, -10; 0216-311-01, -02, -09; 0216-321-03, -08; 1053-321-01, -02, -03; 1053-331-01, -02, -03, -04; 1053-341-01, -02; 1053-311-01, -02; 1053-361-01, -02, -03; 1053-351-01, -02; 1053-371-01, -02; and 1053-301-01, -02.

Project Description
The Project consists of a Specific Plan to allow for a residential and mixed-use retail/office development on 29 parcels covering approximately 257.34 acres in the City. The development would include up to 250,919 square feet of commercial retail/office uses, up to 4,293 residential units across, and mixed-use residential uses, 67.26 acres of open space parkland/non-recreation uses, and associated on-site and offsite infrastructure improvements, as described further below. The Project site is comprised of two “Ownership Areas” (representing different ownership conditions) with 22 planning areas. “Ownership Area 1” is owned by the applicant of the CenterPark Specific Plan. “Ownership Area 2” are parcels owned by others and are included as part of the Specific Plan, with the City serving as the applicant for this ownership area. Ownership Area 1 of the Project includes Planning Areas 5 and 7 through 18, which would allow for the development of up to 3,095 residential dwelling units, 210,544 square feet of mixed-use commercial/retail uses, and 55.98 acres of open-space parkland and non-recreational uses.

Ownership Area 2 of the Project includes Planning Areas 1 through 4, 6, and 19 through 22, which would allow for the development of up to 1,198 residential dwelling units and 11.28 acres of open-space parkland and non-recreational uses.

This Focused EIR conservatively evaluates the maximum development potential for Ownership Areas 1 and 2, as permitted in the proposed CenterPark Specific Plan. Ownership Area 1 is expected to start construction in 2026, with an anticipated opening year in 2029. This Focused EIR evaluates Ownership Area 2 at a “programmatic” level, representing the potential future developments in Planning Areas 1 through 4 and 6. Planning Areas within Ownership Area 2 do not propose any development at this time; Therefore, these Planning Areas would be developed at a future date. Ownership Areas 1 and 2 of the Project would allow for up to 250,919 square feet of Mixed-Use retail and office, 4,293 residential units, and 67.26 acres of open-space parkland and non-recreational uses as shown in Table 1-1: Maximum Project Buildout.
524
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 1-6 1.0 | Executive Summary
Table 1-1: Maximum Project Buildout
Planning
Area
Land Use TOP 2050
Acreage
Maximum
Density Per

TOP EIR
Maximum
Units
Maximum
Retail
Maximum
Office
Ownership Area 1
5 MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL 5.19 AC 35.0 DU/AC 182 DU
5 MIXED-USE RETAIL 1.48 AC 19,367 SF
5 MIXED-USE OFFICE 0.74 AC 22,595 SF
7 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 23.67 AC 22.0 DU/AC 521 DU
8 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 24.20 AC 22.0 DU/AC 532 DU
9 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 12.18 AC 22.0 DU/AC 268 DU
10 MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL 9.87 AC 35.0 DU/AC 345 DU
10 MIXED-USE RETAIL 2.82 AC 36,852 SF
10 MIXED-USE OFFICE 1.41 AC 42,994 SF
11 MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL 10.97 AC 35.0 DU/AC 384 DU
11 MIXED-USE RETAIL 3.13 AC 40,955 SF
11 MIXED-USE OFFICE 1.57 AC 47,781 SF
12 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 15.46 AC 22.0 DU/AC 340 DU
13 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 23.75 AC 22.0 DU/AC 523 DU
14 OS-R (PARKLAND) 13.33 AC
15 OS-R (PARKLAND) 13.11 AC
16 OS-R (PARKLAND) 9.90 AC
17 OS-R (PARKLAND) 6.20 AC
18 OS-R (PARKLAND) 13.44 AC
Ownership Area 1 Total 192.42 AC 19.5 DU/AC 3,095 DU 97,174 SF 113,370 SF Ownership Area 2 Future Development Areas
1 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 15.91 AC 22.0 DU/AC 350 DU
2 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 15.57 AC 22.0 DU/AC 343 DU
3 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 7.70 AC 22.0 DU/AC 169 DU
4 MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL 4.99 AC 35.0 DU/AC 175 DU
4 MIXED-USE RETAIL 1.43 AC 18,635 SF
4 MIXED-USE OFFICE 0.71 AC 21,741 SF
6 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 7.33 AC 22.0 DU/AC 161 DU
19 OS-NR (NON-RECREATION) 2.26 AC
20 OS-NR (NON-RECREATION) 2.68 AC
21 OS-NR (NON-RECREATION) 2.96 AC
22 OS-NR (NON-RECREATION) 3.38 AC
Ownership Area 2 Total 64.92 AC 15.6 DU/AC 1,198 DU 18,635 SF 21,741 SF Project Total 257.34 AC 16.7 DU/AC 4,293 DU 115,809 SF 135,110 SF Notes:

1. The numbers were rounded to present a conservative estimate.

2. The EIR will evaluate the total maximum allowable development in the Project Specific Plan.

3. Ownership Area 2 uses are being evaluated at programmatic level only; no specific development applications have been submitted; no specific development dates are known.

4. RETAIL in Mixed-Use areas = 20% of Mixed-Use acreage x 0.30 FAR; OFFICE in Mixed-Use areas = 10% of Mixed-Use acreage x 0.70 FAR 525
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 1-7 1.0 | Executive Summary

1.4 Unavoidable Significant Impacts
The Project’s potentially significant impacts are defined in Section 4.1: Biological Resources and Section 4.2: Historic Resources of this Draft Focused EIR. There are unavoidable significant impacts associated with biological resources and historic resources even with the implementation of regulatory requirements and implementation of reasonable and feasible mitigation measures.

1.5 Summary of Project Alternatives
The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[a]) state that an EIR must address “a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the Project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” The alternatives were based, in part, on their potential ability to reduce or eliminate the impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable for the proposed Project. The following alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives which have the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project, but which may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. These alternatives are analyzed in detail in Section 6.0: Alternatives to the Project, of this Draft Focused EIR. • No Project/No Build Alternative
• Avoidance Alternative
• Reduced Development Area Alternative
An EIR must identify an “environmentally superior” alternative, and where the No Project Alternative is identified as environmentally superior, the EIR is then required to identify as environmentally superior an alternative from among the others evaluated. Each alternative's environmental impacts are compared to the proposed project and determined to be environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. However, only impacts found significant and unavoidable are used in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. Impacts involving biological resources and historic resources were found to be significant and unavoidable. Section 6.6:

Environmentally Superior Alternative identifies the environmentally superior alternative.

Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, requires an evaluation of the “No Project” alternative for decision-makers the ability to compare the impacts of approving the Project with impacts or not approving the Project, thus leaving the Project site in its current developed condition. The No Project analysis is required to discuss the existing conditions as they were at the time of publication of the Notice of Preparation (June 11, 2025) and analyze the potential impacts of the Project site if the land were to continue under applicable existing plans, policies, and designations. Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) assumes that the Project would not be developed, and no new development would occur; however, the existing conditions would remain in operation.

The Project site is occupied by existing agricultural uses, including the raising of livestock, field crop farming, dairy farming activities, and rural residences scattered throughout the area. Rural residential 526
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 1-8 1.0 | Executive Summary
housing, farm buildings and other ancillary facilities occupy those areas not in active agricultural production. The natural vegetation and soil conditions that once occurred throughout the Project site have been significantly altered through agricultural uses, leaving little or no native vegetation.

Biological Resources
The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing agriculture and residential uses on the Project site. No grading or development would occur under this alternative, and there would be no potential impacts to sensitive wildlife species and migratory and nesting birds that may be present on the Project site. Therefore, the No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid all on-site disturbances to biological resources. Ownership Area 1 of the Project would have a less than significant impact on biological resources after implementation of mitigation measures. However, because the extent of impacts within Ownership Area 2 cannot be known at this time, Project impacts relating to biological resources within Ownership Area 2 are considered potentially significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of recommended mitigation. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.

Historic Resources
The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing agriculture and residential uses on the Project site. There are several dairy farm related buildings and structures within the Project site that are considered potential historic resources by the City of Ontario. Dairy farm related buildings and structures over 45 years or older have been identified, documented, and evaluated for national, state and local historic significance as part of the environmental review for the Project.

Properties with buildings and/or structures that have been surveyed and determined to meet local and state designation criteria, will be considered for adaptive reuse, relocation or other mitigation measures as required by the City of Ontario Historic Preservation Commission.

Existing uses surrounding the Project site are similar to those on the site, consisting of ongoing crop farming, dairy operations, a nursery, and rural residences. Accordingly, the No Project/No Build Alternative provides a comparison between the environmental impacts of the Project as compared to the current environmental conditions, resulting from not approving or denying the Project.

The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing agriculture and residential uses on the Project site. No grading or development would occur under this alternative, and there would be no potential impacts to the five historic resources properties. Therefore, the alternative would avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable impact on historic resources and its less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated on archaeological resources. Impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.

Ability to Reduce Impacts
The No Project/No Build Alternative would reduce impacts related to biological and historic resources that would occur from implementation of the proposed Project. 527
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 1-9 1.0 | Executive Summary
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
Implementation of the No Project/No Build Alternative means that new development would not occur on the Project site, and none of the Project objectives would be achieved under this alternative. Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, the Project would not design the project specific plan as a living community, the Project would not create a Comprehensive Circulation System for Multiple Modes of Travel; the Project would not provide for City-Planned Public Community Facilities and Services; the Project would not integrate Parks and Trails into the Framework of the Project Specific Plan; and the Project would not compose “A Genius of Place” through Exceptional Planning and Distinct Architecture.

Therefore, this Alternative is not under further consideration.

Alternative 2: Avoidance Alternative
The Avoidance Alternative would avoid eligible historic structures identified in Section 4.2: Historic Resources.

Biological Resources
The Avoidance Alternative would cover the same impact area as the Project site. For Ownership Area 1, impacts to sensitive wildlife species and migratory and nesting birds would continue to occur, and similar mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts to such resources to a less than significant level for Ownership Area 1. For Ownership Area 2, impacts to sensitive wildlife species and migratory and nesting birds would have significant and unavoidable impacts, because the exrtent of impacts within Ownership Area 2 cannot be known at this time even with the implementation of recommended mitigation. Therefore, impacts would be the same as those of the proposed Project.

Historic Resources
The Avoidance Alternative could reduce impacts to historic resources on site by orienting the pattern to avoid historic structures, discussed in more detail in Section 4.2: Historic Resources.

For the specifics of each address, see below:
• 7587-7697 Edison Ave (Craftsman Bungalow style residence, Ranch-style residence and milk parlor)
• 8185 Edison Ave (Streamline Moderne Milk Parlor)
• 8335-8381 Edison Ave (Craftsman Bungalow style residence) Under the Avoidance Alternative, the above-mentioned historic buildings would be avoided. However, the integrity of the setting1around these historic resources (i.e., historic dairy farm/agriculture uses associated with the structures that lend itself to the historic significance of these resources) may be compromised, including loss of portions of the parcels associated with each historic structure (the parcels themselves are considered historically significant). Therefore, the Avoidance Alternative would avoid impacts to existing historic structures but would have similar impacts as the Project concerning the three 1 Under PRC Section 5024.1 and 14 CCR Section 4852(c), a cultural resource must retain integrity to be considered eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources. Refer to Section 4.2: Historic Resources for more information and definition of setting. 528
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 1-10 1.0 | Executive Summary
historic resources properties, which would not be fully avoided, with a potential to adversely affect any undiscovered historic resources on the Project site. As such, the alternative would not avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts on historic resources. Impacts would be similar compared to the proposed Project.

Ability to Reduce Impacts
The Avoidance Alternative would maintain eligible historic structures and disturb a similar amount of land as the Project; however, similar biological resource impacts would occur as similar level of disturbance would occur. Therefore, biological impacts would be similar to those of the proposed Project.

The Avoidance Alternative would avoid impacts to existing historic structures but would have lessened impacts as the Project to eligible historic resources properties with potential to adversely affect any undiscovered historic resources on the Project site. However, the Avoidance Alternative would not avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts on the three resources that are recommended eligible for listing under the California Register of Historic Resources and/or for designation as a City of Ontario Historic Landmark. Potentially significant impacts would occur to historic resources under the Avoidance Alternative. Therefore, impacts under the Avoidance Alternative would be lessened compared to the Project.

Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
Implementation of the Avoidance Alternative would achieve the Project objectives, but not to the extent as would be achieved by the proposed Project. In avoiding eligible historic structures, located within Planning Areas (PAs) 7, 11, and 13 of the Project’s Specific Plan, circulation into and out of these tracts would be disrupted. In addition, installation of utilities to serve the remaining Specific Plan area would be complicated. Furthermore, 8185 and 8335-8381 Edison Ave occupies the City’s TOP 2050 planned location of a retail center in the mixed-use zoning. The retail center is an important draw for the planned City TOP 2050 park, maintaining its character and placing its retail tenants in ideal locations for visibility and accessibility. As the historic structures block potential entry points, marketing visibility, and tenant locations, leaving them in place limits this Alternative’s attainment of certain Project objectives: Create a Comprehensive Circulation System for Multiple Modes of Travel and Compose “A Genius of Place” through Exceptional Planning and Distinct Architecture.

Alternative 3: Reduced Development Area Alternative
The Reduced Development Area Alternative proposes an approximately 21 percent reduction (approximately 55 acres) in building area of the proposed medium-density residential, mixed-use residential, and open space parkland/non-recreation uses within Planning Areas (PAs) 7, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 18. Compared to the proposed Project, the Reduced Development Area Alternative would completely avoid Assessor Parcel Numbers 1053-371-01, 0216-321-03, 0216-322-03, and 0216-322-04. Under this alternative, a total of 162,183 square feet (SF) of commercial retail/office uses; up to 3,137 residential units across medium-density and mixed-use residential uses; and 44.32 acres of open space parkland/nonrecreation uses would occur. 529
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 1-11 1.0 | Executive Summary
Biological Resources
The Reduced Development Area Alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources, compared to the proposed Project. The Reduced Development Area Alternative would disturb approximately 21 percent less land than the Project; however, similar biological resource impacts would occur as similar level of disturbance would occur. For Ownership Area 1, impacts to sensitive wildlife species and migratory and nesting birds would continue to occur, and similar mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts to such resources to a less than significant level. For Ownership Area 2, impacts to sensitive wildlife species and migratory and nesting birds would have significant and unavoidable impacts, because the extent of impacts within Ownership Area 2 cannot be known at this time even with the implementation of recommended mitigation. Therefore, impacts would be to the same as those of the proposed Project.

Historic Resources
The Reduced Development Area Alternative would result in reduced impacts to historic resources, compared to the proposed Project. The Reduced Development Area Alternative would completely avoid Assessor Parcel Numbers 1053-371-01, 0216-321-03, 0216-322-03, and 0216-322-04, as these parcels contain historic resources; refer to Section 4.2 for more information. Under this alternative, a total of 162,183 square feet (SF) of commercial retail/office uses; up to 3,137 residential units across mediumdensity and mixed-use residential uses; and 44.32 acres of open space parkland/non-recreation uses would occur. That is, compared to the proposed Project, the Reduced Development Area Alternative would develop approximately 521 fewer medium density residential dwelling units (DUs) within PA 7, 384 fewer mixed-use residential units within PA 11, and 251 fewer medium density residential DUs within PA 13 (1,156 total residential DUs). Additionally, the Reduced Development Area Alternative would develop 40,955 SF fewer mixed-use retail uses, and 47,781 fewer mixed-use office uses compared to the proposed Project. The development impact area would generally remain the same as the Project, except for those areas that are considered eligible historic resources and contain eligible structures: 7587-7697 Edison Avenue, 8185 Edison Avenue, and 8335-8381 Edison Avenue; refer to Figure 4.2-1. Access to the Project site would be similar to the proposed Project along Edison Avenue, Bon View Avenue, Cucamonga Avenue, Grove Avenue, Parco Avenue, and Walker Avenue. However, access via Campus Avenue would be eliminated under this alternative. Additionally, internal access through the Project site between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue would be eliminated. Given the infrastructure costs, including off-site improvements, a 21 percent reduction is considered aggressive and further reduction is likely not financially feasible.

The Reduced Development Area Alternative would result in lessened impacts to existing historic resources with a potential to adversely affect any undiscovered historic resources on the Project site. Under the Reduced Development Area Alternative, there would be no potential impacts to the significant historic resources. Therefore, the alternative would avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable impact on historic resources and its less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated on historic resources.

Impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed Project. 530
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 1-12 1.0 | Executive Summary
Ability to Reduce Impacts
The Reduced Development Area Alternative would result in similar impacts to sensitive wildlife species and migratory and nesting birds, and similar mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts to such resources to a less than significant level wherever feasible. Therefore, biological impacts would be similar to those of the proposed Project.

The Reduced Development Area Alternative would result in lessened impacts to existing historic resources with a potential to adversely affect any undiscovered historic resources on the Project site. Compared to the Project, potentially significant impacts would not occur to historic resources under the Reduced Development Area Alternative. Therefore, impacts on historical resources under the Reduced Development Area Alternative would be reduced compared to the Project.

Overall impacts under the Reduced Development Area Alternative would be reduced compared to the Project.

Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
Implementation of the Reduced Development Area Alternative would achieve the Project objectives, but not to the extent as would be achieved by the proposed Project. The 21 percent Project reduction would provide less residential and mixed-use retail/office uses. This alternative would not fully meet the objective of City-Planned Public Community Facilities and Services as with the 21 percent reduction, as this alternative would contribute approximately 23 fewer acres towards the conceptual neighborhood park, a large public regional park around which the Project’s open space concept and pedestrian circulation is oriented. Additionally, the Reduced Development Area Alternative would result in reduced internal circulation throughout the Project site, compared to the proposed Project. The exclusion of Pas 7, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 18 (Alternative Reduction Areas) would eliminate local connectivity throughout the entirety of the Project site. As a result, this alternative would not fully meet the objective of a Comprehensive Circulation System for Multiple Modes of Travel, as the local street system envisioned by the proposed Project would not be achievable under this alternative. Furthermore, the 21 percent Project reduction would attract fewer or smaller businesses and less employment opportunities to area residents.

In addition, the smaller development would provide less flexibility to meet the needs of an ever-changing business market.

Environmentally Superior Alternative
State CEQA Guidelines require that an Environmentally Superior Alternative be identified; that is, an alternative that would result in the fewest or least significant environmental impacts. The Reduced Development Area Alternative has been identified as the environmentally-superior alternative because it would result in lessened impacts related to historic resources such that the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to historical resources would be reduced to a less than significant level under this alternative. However, the Reduced Development Area Alternative would be less effective at accomplishing the Project objectives.

CEQA does not require the lead agency (the City of Ontario) to choose the environmentally superior alternative. Instead, CEQA requires the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives, weigh 531
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 1-13 1.0 | Executive Summary
those considerations against the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and make findings that the benefits of those considerations outweigh the harm. “Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[c]).

1.6 Areas of Controversy
The CEQA Guidelines Section 15123 (b)(2) and (3) require that a Draft EIR identify areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by other agencies and the public and issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether, or how to mitigate the significant effects.

The issues of concern have been identified during the review period of the distribution of the NOP (from June 11, 2025, to July 14, 2025) and public meetings (public scoping meeting was held during the 30-day public review period, on July 2, 2025, via Zoom). A summary of comments received on the NOP are provided in Table 2-1: NOP Written Comments Summary located in Section 2.0: Introduction of this Draft Focused EIR. The table provides references to the sections of the Draft Focused EIR in which these issues are evaluated. No other areas of controversy are known to the Lead Agency.

1.7 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following table is a summary of significant impacts and proposed mitigation measures associated with the Project as identified in this EIR. Refer to Section 4.1 and Section 4.2 for a detailed description of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures for the Project. Impacts are identified as significant or less than significant, and mitigation measures are identified for all significant impacts. The level of significance after implementation of the mitigation measures is also presented. Impacts not represented in this table are found in Section 7.0: Effects Found Not to be Significant in this Draft Focused EIR. 532
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 1-14 1.0 | Executive Summary
Table 1-2: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures Resource Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measure(s) Section 4.1: Biological Resources
Impact 4.1-1
Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
(Ownership Area 1) and
Significant and
Unavoidable (Ownership
Area 2 Only)
MM BIO-1: City of Ontario Biological Resources Habitat Mitigation Fee. The City of Ontario has established a habitat mitigation fee to cover potential environmental impacts to the burrowing owl, DSFLF, raptor foraging, loss of open space, and agricultural lands. Development impact fees for new development in Ontario Ranch were adopted on June 23rd, 2003, by the City Council. The Ontario Ranch development impact fees include a habitat mitigation fee of $4,320 per net acre for proposed residential, commercial, hotel and restaurant, office, and industrial development. Mitigation fees have been collected by the City of Ontario and have been deposited into a trust fund to be used for the acquisition, restoration, rehabilitation, and maintenance of lands deemed to have long-term conservation value.

MM BIO-2: Nesting Bird and Raptor Preconstruction Survey. Regulatory requirement for potential direct/indirect impacts to nesting common and sensitive bird and raptor species will require compliance with the CFGC Section 3503.

Construction outside the nesting season (between September 1st and January 31st) do not require pre-removal nesting bird surveys. If construction is proposed during nesting season (February 1st and August 31st), a qualified biologist will conduct a nesting bird survey(s) no more than three (3) days prior to initiation of grading to document the presence or absence of nesting birds within or directly adjacent (200 ft -500 ft for raptors) to the Project site.

The survey(s) will focus on identifying any raptors and/or bird nests that are directly or indirectly affected by construction activities. If active nests are documented, the qualified biologist will prepare and implement specific measures to prevent abandonment of the active nest. At a minimum, grading in the vicinity of a nest will be postponed until the young birds have fledged. The perimeter of the nest setback zone will be fenced or adequately demarcated with stakes and flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction personnel and activities will be restricted from the area.

The biologist shall establish a no-disturbance buffer around each active nest. The buffer area will be determined by the biologist based on the species present, surrounding habitat, and type of construction activities proposed in the area. The survey report will be submitted by the qualified biologist to the City of Ontario for review and approval prior to initiation of grading in the nest-setback zone.

Additionally, the qualified biologist will serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. A final monitoring report of the findings, I I
533
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 1-15 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measure(s) prepared by a qualified biologist, will be submitted to the City of Ontario documenting compliance with the CFGC. Any nest permanently vacated for the season would not warrant protection pursuant to the CFGC.

MM BIO-3: Pre-construction Focused Bat Survey. Prior to implementation of Project activities, a qualified biologist shall be retained to determine whether potential roosting sites for bats may be affected. For large ornamental trees suitable for bat roosting/nursery, exit counts and acoustic surveys shall be performed prior to initial ground disturbance, vegetation or structure removal to determine whether the Project site and a 300-foot buffer supports a nursery or roost, and by which species. This work will occur between late -spring and late summer and/or in the fall (generally mid-March through late October).

If the results of the bat survey find a total of a single roosting individual of a special status bat species or 25 or more individuals of a non-special status bat species with potential to be present in the Project site (i.e., western Mastiff bat, big free-tailed bat, or pallid bat), a Bat Management Plan shall be developed to ensure mortality to bats does not occur. For each location confirmed to be occupied by bats, the plan will provide details both in text and graphically where exclusion devises/and or staged tree removal will need to occur, the timing for exclusion work and the timeline and methodology needed to exclude the bats. The plan will need to be reviewed and approved by CDFW prior to disturbance of the roost(s).

MM BIO-4: Focused and Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Surveys. Focused surveys for burrowing owl will be conducted in accordance with the March 7, 2022, CDFW staff report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Specifically, a total of four (4) surveys will be conducted: 1) at least one site visit between February 15th and April 15th, and 2) a minimum of three (3) surveys, at least three weeks apart, between April 15th and July 15th, with at least one visit after June 15th. A report of the findings prepared by a qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City of Ontario prior to any permit or approval for ground disturbing activities.

A 14-day burrowing owl preconstruction survey will also be conducted immediately prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing construction to ensure protection for this species. The survey will be conducted in compliance with CDFW guidelines (CDFW 2012). A report of the findings prepared by a qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City of Ontario prior to any permit or approval for ground disturbing activities.

If burrowing owls are detected on-site during the focused surveys or 14-day preconstruction survey efforts, during the breeding season (February 1st to August 31st) then construction activities shall be limited to beyond 300 feet of the active 534
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 1-16 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measure(s) burrows until a qualified biologist has confirmed that nesting efforts are complete or not initiated. In addition to monitoring breeding activity, if construction is proposed to be initiated during the breeding season or active relocation is proposed, a burrowing owl relocation plan will be developed and approved by the City of Ontario, CDFW and USFWS.

MM BIO-5: Programmatic Assessment Area CEQA Analysis. The Programmatic Assessment Area located within Ownership Area 2, including APN’s 0216-311-09, 1053-301-01 and -02; 1053-311-01 and -02, and 1053-321-01, -02, and -03, was not evaluated for biological resources as part of this analysis. Authorization to access this region of the project was not provided and therefore was analyzed programmatically based on aerial photographs and assessments from the adjacent parcel boundaries. To ensure that potential adverse effects to sensitive species and resources are reduced to a less than significant level, a focused biological resources assessment and impact analysis shall be conducted in the un-surveyed portion of the Specific Plan Boundary prior to approval of development within this region. In addition to completing CEQA review, any focused surveys and required mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to project approval and initiation of construction.

Impact 4.1-2
Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
(Ownership Area 1) and
Significant and
Unavoidable (Ownership
Area 2 Only)
Refer to MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-5.

Impact 4.1-3
Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact (Ownership
Area 1) and Significant
and Unavoidable
(Ownership Area 2)
Refer to MM BIO-5.

Impact 4.1-4
Would the Project interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Refer to MM BIO-2 and MM BIO-5.
535
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 1-17 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measure(s) Impact 4.1-5
Would the Project conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
(Ownership Area 1) and
Significant and
Unavoidable (Ownership
Area 2 Only)
MM BIO-6: Tree Inventory. Prior to implementation of Project site clearing or grading, a certified arborist or qualified horticulturalist shall provide a tree inventory to ensure compliance with Ontario MC Section 6.05.020, Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures in order to determine the presence/absence of Heritage Trees. Healthy Heritage Trees that are approved for removal shall be replaced with new trees with a total trunk diameter equal to the tree(s) removed, or as deemed appropriate by the Approving Authority based on lot size and available planting space. Replacement trees are to be in addition to the quantity of trees required for landscaping. The Approving Authority is responsible for reviewing the landscape plan and approving appropriate species for tree replacement (The Ontario Plan 2050).

Impact 4.1-6
Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
No Impact No mitigation is necessary.

Section 4.2: Historic Resources
Impact 4.2-1
Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Significant and
Unavoidable
MM CUL-1: The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any demolition, relocation, or alteration of any significant historic resource.

MM CUL-2: Prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition of any significant historical resources and within 120 days of project approval, a Historic American Building Survey (HABS) or an American Engineering Record (HAER) documentation in accord with the City’s HABS/HAER Checklist Level 2, including but not limited to as built drawings with site plan, floor plan, exterior elevations, and details for any identified significant/character defining feature, historical narrative, and photographs of the three (3) historical resources subject properties, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review, approval, and subsequent release to the Ovitt Family Community Library, Model Colony History Room. Digital files and 2 printed copies are required (one archival and one non-archival).

MM CUL-3: Prior to issuance of a grading or demolition building permit for the property addressed to 8185 Edison Avenue, a relocation plan for the Streamline Moderne Milk Parlor, a local Tier II Historic Resource, shall be submitted to the City.

The plan shall identify the receiver site in the Grand Park Phase 1 development or alternate suitable location, as well as a relocation schedule and any protective measures to ensure minimal impact to the resource during relocation efforts. The Applicant shall be responsible for the relocation to the receiver site and securing the building to its foundation. Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the 536
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 1-18 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measure(s) Historic Preservation Subcommittee (or Historic Preservation Commission) shall be required for the relocation plan.

MM CUL-4: Prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition or grading, every effort shall be made to relocate the historic resources, except for the Streamline Moderne Milk Parlor, a local Tier II Historic Resource addressed to 8185 Edison Avenue. The structures shall be offered at no cost for those who can relocate the structures off-site. Advertisements notifying the public of the opportunity to relocate the structures shall be placed for a minimum of 30 days: on-site with temporary signage, in at least 3 local publications (newspapers, magazines, local organization newsletters), and on local bulletin boards (realtor’s offices, local business). A social media campaign, posted on the developer’s website or on a local non-profit heritage site, including a dedicated web page with the structures’ information (description, square footage, photographs) and contact information should be incorporated into the relocation advertisement.

MM CUL-5: A mitigation fee pursuant to Section 7.01.030 of the Ontario Development Code shall be paid to the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permit grading the site, or for demolition of any of the identified significant historical resources for which relocation was determined by the City to be infeasible.

Mitigation fee is equal to 30% of the price per square foot construction cost as established in the most current International Code Council Building Valuation Data.

The fee amount will be provided by the Planning Department at the time of payment. Funds will be deposited into the City’s Historic Preservation Trust Fund.

MM CUL-6: Prior to issuance of a building permit of any of the three (3) significant historical resources identified in the Focused EIR and within 120 days of project approval, a determination shall be made by the Planning Department whether items within or on the historic properties should be salvaged. The applicant shall be responsible for the removal, relocation, storage, and donation of such items selected for salvaging. An inventory of salvaged items shall be provided by the applicant and shall include a list of each item name, description, and dimension (as necessary), and the location of each item on a floor plan to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permit.

MM CUL-7: Should the Streamline Moderne Milk Parlor, a local Tier II Historic Resource, addressed to 8185 Edison Avenue be subject to demolition, and prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition of the resource issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness and approval of a Demolition application by the Historic Preservation Commission or Historic Preservation Subcommittee pursuant to the Ontario Development Code, Section 4.02.050, shall be required. A Certificate of 537
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 1-19 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measure(s) Appropriateness shall not be issued for the demolition of the resource, either in whole or in part, until such time that a demolition permit application and a replacement structure has been approved by the City, and appropriate permits have been issued for its construction.

MM CUL-8: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Final Occupancy for the first building constructed within the Project site, enhancements to the Ontario Dairy Industry microdocumentary that features the operations of a functioning dairy located within the Ontario Ranch area focusing on the dairy history, themes, site, buildings, and stories gathered from new and archived oral interviews, dairy context and recent diary surveys, shall be made. The Applicant will be responsible for producing additional field work to gather drone video footage of new development on former dairy lands, conduct a minimum of 2 oral interviews of city representatives, and make certain edits to incorporate the new material. Final deliverables include: 1) full length microdocumentary (approx. 30 minutes); 2) transcriptions of the 4 stakeholder interviews; and 3) separate videos of the 4 stakeholder interviews and will be submitted to the Planning Department for review and acceptance. 538
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 2-1 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

2.1 Purpose of the Focused Environmental Impact Report
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on those projects. This Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to satisfy CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the City prepared a CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis, to document that the proposed Project is consistent with the City’s The Ontario Plan 2050 and its associated Supplemental EIR (“TOP EIR”), and with the exception of potential impacts to biological resources and historic resources, the Project is adequately addressed in the prior EIR (TOP EIR) and does not represent a new or more severe significant impact that is “peculiar” to the Project, nor does it represent a new or more severe impact related to offsite infrastructure or cumulative impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15152(f) permits that a later EIR may be prepared when an initial study or other analysis finds that the Project may cause significant effects on the environment that were not adequately addressed in a prior EIR. In such case, a Focused EIR may be prepared that “tiers” off of the prior EIR. As discussed above, the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis, provided as Appendix F to this Draft Focused EIR, provides a basis for the exclusion of other environmental topics adequately addressed in the prior EIR, with the exception of biological resources and historic resources, from this Draft Focused EIR. Therefore, this EIR is “focused” solely on the Project’s potential to impact biological resources and historic resources.

The EIR is a public document designed to provide decision-makers and the public with an analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid environmental impacts and to identify alternatives to the project. The EIR must also disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided; growth-inducing impacts; effects not found to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.

CEQA requires each EIR to reflect the independent judgment of the “Lead Agency.” The Lead Agency is “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment” (PRC Section 21067). The City of Ontario (City) has the principal responsibility for approval of the CenterPark Specific Plan Project (“Project” or “proposed Project”). For this reason, the City is the CEQA Lead Agency for this Project.

The Lead Agency exercises its independent judgment on questions, including but not limited to the thresholds of significance used to analyze Project impacts, analyses, and conclusions regarding the level of significance of impacts both before and after mitigation, the identification and application of mitigation measures to avoid or reduce Project-related impacts, and the consideration of alternatives to the Project.

In preparing this Draft Focused EIR, the City has employed CEQA and environmental technical specialists, but, the City, as the Lead Agency, has reviewed and revised all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports as necessary to reflect its own independent judgment, including reliance on City technical 539
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 2-2 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
personnel from other departments and review of all technical subconsultant reports. Therefore, the analyses and conclusions set forth in this EIR reflect the independent judgment of the City as Lead Agency.

The intent of the Draft Focused EIR is to provide sufficient information on the potential environmental impacts of the Project to allow the City to make an informed decision regarding approval of the Project.

The Draft Focused EIR is also intended to inform responsible agencies, decision-makers, and the general public about the potential environmental effects of the development and operation of the Project. Specific discretionary actions to be reviewed by the City are described in Section 3.0: Project Description.

2.2 Notice of Preparation/Early Consultation
The City determined that an EIR would be required for this Project and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) (see Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting Materials). CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 provides that if a lead agency determines that an EIR will clearly be required for a project, an Initial Study is not required; therefore, an Initial Study was not prepared for this project. Comments received during the public review period, from June 11, 2025, to July 14, 2025, are provided in Appendix A. In addition, a public scoping meeting was held on July 2, 2025, via Zoom. Members of the public, the Project applicant and its consultants, and staff were able to participate in the meeting via Zoom. The meeting was recorded, and the meeting presentation is contained in Appendix A.

A total of seven letters were received in response to the NOP. The comment letters received during the NOP comment period are included in Appendix A.

Table 2-1: NOP Written Comments Summary compiles the comment letters received from commenting agencies/persons during the NOP process and identifies the section(s) of the Draft Focused EIR where the issues are addressed, if applicable. As discussed, this EIR is “focused” solely on the Project’s potential to impact biological resources and historic resources. Accordingly, this EIR does not address comments that pertain to issues other than biological resources and historic resources.

Table 2-1: NOP Written Comments Summary
Commenting Agency/Person Letter Dated Summary of Comments Issue Addressed in:

Southern California Gas
Company (SoCal Gas) SE Region
6/26/2025 • No issues No response required.

South Coast Air Quality
Management District 7/9/2025 • No issues No response required.

California Department of
Conservation
7/10/2025 • Potential impact from loss or
conversion of farmland
Not applicable to
Historic Resources*
Southern California Association
of Governments 7/10/2025 • No issues No response required.

City of Eastvale 7/14/2025 • Potential roadway and intersection traffic impacts
Not applicable to
Historic Resources *
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife 7/15/2025 • Potential impacts to burrowing owl habitat
Not applicable to
Historic Resources*
SoCal Gas No Conflict 7/28/2025 • No issues No response required. 540
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 2-3 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
*As discussed above, the City determined that, other than biological resources and historic resources, all other environmental issue areas were adequately addressed in the City’s TOP EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

The NOP process helps determine the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft Focused EIR. Based on this process for the Project, certain environmental categories were identified as having the potential to result in significant impacts. Issues considered Potentially Significant are addressed in this Draft Focused EIR in detail, but effects found not to be significant are briefly discussed in Section 7.0: Effects Found not to be Significant.

Native American Consultation
The City initiated Native American consultation concurrent with the NOP scoping process, pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 18.

2.3 Scope of this Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report The scope of the Draft Focused EIR was determined based on comments received in response to the NOP.

A scoping meeting was also conducted by the City. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15126.2 and 15126.4, the Draft Focused EIR should identify any potentially significant adverse impacts and recommend mitigation that would reduce or eliminate these impacts to levels of insignificance.

The information in Section 3.0: Project Description, establishes the basis for analyzing future, Projectrelated environmental impacts.

Impacts Considered Less Than Significant
During preparation of the Draft Focused EIR, the City determined that 19 environmental impact categories were not significantly affected by or did not affect the proposed Project. These categories are not discussed in detail in this Draft Focused EIR.
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Cultural Resources (archaeology)
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
541
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 2-4 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts
The City determined that the Project would have potentially significant impacts to biological resources and historic resources if the Project is implemented; refer to Appendix B: Cultural Resources Assessment.

Unavoidable Significant Impacts
This Draft Focused EIR identifies a significant and unavoidable impact, as defined by CEQA, that would result from implementation of the Project. Unavoidable significant impacts may be considered significant on a Project-specific basis, cumulatively significant, and/or potentially significant. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, for any project having unavoidable significant impacts, the City must prepare a “statement of overriding considerations” before it can approve the Project, attesting that the decisionmaking body has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable significant environmental effects and has determined that the benefits outweigh the adverse effects, and therefore the adverse effects are considered acceptable. As described in this Draft Focused EIR, despite compliance to regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measures, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Biological Resources and Historic Resources; refer to Section 4.1: Biological Resources and Section 4.2: Historic Resources.

2.4 Incorporation by Reference
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, the following documents are hereby incorporated by reference into this EIR and are made available for public review on their respective websites.

The Ontario Plan 2050: The City’s General Plan underwent a technical update and was adopted as The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 on August 16, 2022. TOP 2050 states long-term goals, principles, and policies for achieving Ontario’s Vision. It guides growth and development to achieve optimum results from the City’s physical, economic, environmental, and human resources. TOP 2050 is made up of nine elements: Land Use, Housing, Mobility, Safety (including Noise), Environmental Resources (including Conservation), Parks and Recreation (including Open Space), Community Economics, Community Design, and Social Resources.

Environmental Justice is woven throughout the Policy Plan. The Policy Plan is intended to be a long-term policy document. It includes abiding principles for each element, goals, and policies. TOP 2050 can be found here: https://www.ontarioca.gov/OntarioPlan.

The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental EIR: The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Supplemental EIR (SCH Number 2021070364) is an update to the approved TOP 2009; therefore, TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR relies on the findings of the 2009 Draft EIR, 2010 Recirculated Draft EIR, and 2010 Final EIR and, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, contains all of the information necessary to ensure that the certified TOP EIR fully evaluates the TOP 2050. These documents, though discussed separately here, are collectively referred to in the TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR as the 2010 Certified EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15148 and 15150, this TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR incorporates the 2010 Certified EIR (and its constituent parts) by reference. TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR, certified August 2022, addresses the short and long-term effects of buildout of the City, which includes development of the Project area. Mitigation measures were imposed for impacts determined to be significant or potentially significant. Significant and unavoidable 542
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 2-5 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
impacts were identified for agricultural resources, air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation. TOP policies that are related to the proposed Project are cited in various sections throughout this EIR.

The TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR can be found here: https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/communitydevelopment/planning/ontario-plan#environmental-impact-report.

Ontario Development Code: This Development Code is enacted to assist in the implementation of Federal and State planning, zoning, development, subdivision, and environmental laws, and TOP, and guide the orderly development of the City in a manner that promotes and protects the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and welfare of its inhabitants. The Development Code is referenced throughout this document as regulations governing development and land use activities within the City.

Regulatory information from the Development Code is cited in various sections of this EIR. The development code can be found here: https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/communitydevelopment/planning/governing-documents/development-code.

San Bernardino County Countywide Plan: The County of San Bernardino adopted the County Countywide Plan in 2020. The Countywide Plan is comprised of four sections: Policy Plan, Business Plan, Community Action Guides, and Environmental Documents. The County Policy Plan is an update and expansion of the County’s General Plan for the unincorporated areas. As an update of the County’s General Plan and Community Plans, the Policy Plan addresses physical, social, and economic issues facing the unincorporated portions of the County. It also addresses supportive services for adults and children, healthcare services, public safety, and other regional county services provided to both incorporated and unincorporated areas. As part of its Policy Plan, the County includes the following eight elements: 1) Land Use; 2) Infrastructure & Utilities; 3) Transportation & Mobility; 4) Natural Resources; 5) Hazards; 6) Personal & Property Protection; 7) Economic Development; and 8) Health & Wellness. The Policy Plan was used throughout this EIR since it contains information, policies, and regulations relevant to the proposed Project.

This document is available for review on the County’s website at:
https://countywideplan.sbcounty.gov/policy-plan/.

Southern California Association of Governments (Connect SoCal): The 2024-2050 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), also known as Connect SoCal, is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. Connect SoCal embodies a collective vision for the region’s future and addresses the cumulative impact of future development and associated infrastructure improvements for SCAG regions. It is developed with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non-profit organizations, businesses, and local stakeholders within SCAG regions such as San Bernardino County and the City.

Connect SoCal can be found here: https://scag.ca.gov/connect-socal.

Ontario Ranch Business Park Final Subsequent EIR. The Ontario Ranch Business Park Final Subsequent EIR addressed the environmental effects and comments from public agencies and interested parties 543
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 2-6 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
associated with the implementation of the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment project, located south of the proposed CenterPark Specific Plan Project area. The Ontario Ranch Business Park Final Subsequent EIR is specifically relevant as it addressed the impacts of constructing regional infrastructure necessary to serve the developing southwestern industrial sector of the City of Ontario.

This document is available for review on the City’s website at:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/community-development/planning/governingdocuments/specific-plans.

2.5 Environmental Impact Report Process
This Draft Focused EIR is being circulated for public review for 45 days. Interested agencies and members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the Draft Focused EIR to the City address shown on the title page of this document. Upon completion of the 45-day review period, the City will review all written comments received and prepare written responses for each. A Final Focused EIR will incorporate the received comments, responses to the comments, and any changes to the Draft Focused EIR that result from comments. The Final Focused EIR will be presented to the City for potential certification as the environmental document for the Project. All persons who comment on the Draft Focused EIR will be notified of the availability of the Final Focused EIR and the date of the public hearing where the City will consider whether to certify the Final Focused EIR.

The Draft Focused EIR is available to the general public for review at various locations:
• City of Ontario, Planning Department, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, CA 91764 • Ovitt Family Community Library, 215 East “C” Street, Ontario, California 91764 • City of Ontario, City Clerk, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764 • City’s website: https://www.ontarioca.gov/Planning/Reports/EnvironmentalImpact 544
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-1 3.0 | Project Description

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The CenterPark Specific Plan Project (Project) is made up of 29 existing parcels totaling 257.34 acres in the City of Ontario (City). The City is located approximately 40 miles east of downtown Los Angeles, 20 miles west of downtown San Bernardino, and 30 miles north from the Orange County line. See Figure 3-1: Regional Location Map.

Regional access to the Project site is provided by Euclid Avenue approximately 0.8 miles west, which connects State Route 60 (SR-60) and Interstate 10 (I-10) to the north. Interstate 15 (I-15) is approximately

4.0 miles to the east and State Route 71 (SR-71) is approximately 3.5 miles to the southwest. SR-71 connects the Project to State Route 91 (SR-91) in unincorporated Riverside County.

The Project site is in the southwestern portion of the City, immediately east of the City of Chino in San Bernardino County. The Project site is bound to the north by a Southern California Edison (SCE) Easement located approximately 330 feet north of Edison Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue to the south, Campus Avenue to the west, Walker Avenue to the east, and bisected by Edison Avenue. See Figure 3-2: Local Vicinity Map and Figure 3-3: Project Boundary. The Project Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) are depicted in Figure 3-4: Project Assessor Parcel Numbers.

The Project Specific Plan will create guidelines that will address the Project’s consistency with The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050; provide a development plan, which specifies land uses, circulation, infrastructure, streetscape, and landscape plans applicable to properties within the Project site; establish procedures for reviewing individual projects; implement design guidelines to create a visually attractive environment; and summarizes the development review process; and specifies provisions for administration and implementation of the Project.

3.1 Project Setting
The approximately 257.34-acre Project site currently comprises existing agricultural uses, including the raising of livestock, field crop farming, dairy farming activities, and rural residences scattered throughout the area. Rural residential housing, farm buildings and other ancillary facilities occupy those areas not in active agricultural production. The natural vegetation and soil conditions that once occurred throughout the Project site have been significantly altered through agricultural uses, leaving little or no native vegetation.

There are several dairy farm related buildings and structures within the Project site that are considered potential historic resources by the City of Ontario. Dairy farm related buildings and structures over 45 years or older have been identified, documented, and evaluated for national, state and local historic significance as part of the environmental review for the Project.

Properties with buildings and/or structures that have been surveyed and determined to meet local and state designation criteria, will be considered for adaptive reuse, relocation or other mitigation measures as required by the City of Ontario Historic Preservation Commission. 545
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-2 3.0 | Project Description
Existing uses surrounding the Project site are similar to those on the site, consisting of ongoing crop farming, dairy operations, a nursery, and rural residencies. See Figure 3-5: Surrounding Land Uses.

The existing land use designations for the Project site are consistent with TOP 2050’s existing land designations; see Figure 3-6: Existing Land Use and Zoning. The TOP 2050 designates the Project site for medium-density and mixed-use residential, mixed-use retail and office, parkland, and non-recreational open space development. Additionally, the City has zoned the Project site as SP/AG (Specific Plan/AG preserve).

Environmental Characteristics
Topography
The Project site is relatively flat and generally slopes to the south. The Project site falls at an average slope of approximately 0.8 to 2.0 percent. Drainage generally flows to the south towards Eucalyptus Avenue, and into the Lower Cucamonga Spreading Grounds. Project site elevations range from approximately 700 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the northeast portion of the site to approximately 680 feet above amsl in the southwest portion of the site.

Biology
As a part of the Biological Resources Technical Report prepared for the Project (Appendix C1), species and habitat information were gathered from relevant databases to determine which species and/or habitats would be expected to occur on-site. Based on the results of the field investigation, no sensitive or undisturbed native habitats were documented within the Project site. 1 The Project site is characterized
primarily as heavily disturbed active dairy and agricultural facilities. No suitable habitat for sensitive plant species, including those listed as federal or state threatened/endangered, was documented within the Project site.2The Biological Resources Technical Report identifies low to high likelihood of occurrence (based on documented foraging, breeding, and roosting habitat) for certain sensitive or locally monitored species to occur. The federally endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly is not expected to occur on-site based on the historic and ongoing impacts to the Project site respective of active dairy and agricultural use. Additionally, the Project site does not occur within or adjacent to a USFWS designated critical habitat for any federally listed threatened or endangered species. However, approximately 19-acres of the eastern region of the Project site is mapped as Delhi soils, as discussed in Section 7.0: Effects Found Not To Be Significant.
3 Therefore, potential impacts would be subject to mitigation adopted by the City as part of its approval of TOP 2050. Additionally, no impacts to jurisdictional waters would occur based on the limits of the improvements and therefore no regulatory permits are necessary. Refer to Section 7.0, for further discussion.
1 Cadre Environmental. 2024. Biological Resources Technical Report Center Park Specific Plan City of Ontario, California, page 25. (Appendix C1)
2 Ibid, page 27.
3 Ibid, page 36.
546
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-3 3.0 | Project Description
Hydrology
According to the Geotechnical Investigation conducted for the Project (Appendix D), groundwater was not encountered during the investigation.4 Based on the available data and the findings of the investigation, the historical high groundwater level and the current groundwater level is estimated to be deeper than 137 feet below ground surface.5 Groundwater is not expected to be encountered during construction of the Project. It should be noted that the groundwater level could vary depending upon the seasonal precipitation and possible groundwater pumping activity in each site vicinity. Perched water layers at depth may be present locally, particularly following high precipitation and irrigation events. Refer to Section 7.0, for further discussion.

Seismic Conditions
The Elsinore Fault Zone is located approximately four miles south of the Project site.6This fault is a north to northwest trending reverse fault that dips steeply towards the southwest. The Chino-Central Avenue Fault acts as a groundwater barrier along the western margin of the Chino Basin. The Project site is situated in a seismically active region. As is the case for most areas of Southern California, ground-shaking resulting from earthquakes associated with nearby and more distant faults may occur at the Project site.

During the life of the Project, seismic activity associated with active faults can be expected to generate moderate to strong ground shaking at the site. Review of recent seismological and geophysical publications indicates that the seismic hazard for the Project is high. However, the Project site is not located within a currently mapped State of California or San Bernardino County Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture, including an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. 7 The nearest Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone, the Elsinore Fault Zone, is approximately 3.8 miles southeast of the Project site.

See Section 7.0 for further discussion.

Flood Zone Information
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) (Map No. 06071C9335J and 06071C9375J, effective May 8, 2024), the majority of the Project site lies within Zone D, an area where there are possible but undetermined flood hazards.8The easternmost portion of the Project site lies within Zone X, an area with minimal flood hazard.

See Section 7.0 for further discussion.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conducted for the Project (Appendix E), the Project site is used for dairy farming and residential purposes. According to observations and interviews during Phase I ESA reconnaissance, which took place on January 22 and January 31, 2025, the 4 Converse Consultants. 2024. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Organic Soil/Manure Evaluation Report, page 7. (Appendix D). 5 Ibid, page 8.
6 Ibid, page 11.
7 Ibid, page 17.
8 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2022. FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer. https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd. (accessed August 2024). 547
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-4 3.0 | Project Description
Project site contains multiple active agricultural (6) and residential (1) water wells, as well as one idle water well. Refer to Section 7.0, for further discussion.

Airport Influence Areas
Ontario International Airport Influence Area
The Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP) was adopted by the Ontario City Council on April 19, 2011. The intent of a compatibility plan is to avoid conflicts between airport operations and surrounding land uses. The Project site is not within the safety, noise impact, or airspace protection zones of the ONT ALUCP; however, it is within the Airport Influence Area, as is the entire City.

Chino Airport Overlay Zone
The Project site is located 0.7 miles north of Chino Airport, within the Chino Airport Influence Area. On August 2, 2022, the City Council approved and adopted a Development Code Amendment to establish the Chino Airport Overlay Zoning District and Reference I, Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).

The Chino Airport Overlay Zoning District and Chino 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 Chino ALUCP is consistent with policies and criteria set forth within the Caltrans 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Chino Airport, Overflight Notification Zone, and Airspace Protection Zone.

Williamson Act Contracts
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments that are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value. The motivation for the Williamson Act is to promote voluntary land conservation, particularly farmland conservation. There are no active Williamson Act contracts located within the Project site.
9 3.2 Surrounding Land Uses
The existing uses in the vicinity of the Project site include:
• North of Edison Avenue: Nursery/Field Crops, Dairy Operations and Rural Residential • South toward Eucalyptus Avenue: Dairy Operations and Rural Residential • East of Campus Avenue: Field Crops, Dairy Operations and Rural Residential • West of Walker Avenue: Field Crops, Dairy Operations and Rural Residential 9 California Department of Conservation. 2023. California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/. (accessed August 2024). 548
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-5 3.0 | Project Description

3.3 Proposed Project
“Project” as defined by the State CEQA Guidelines, means:
“…the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that is any of the following: (1)…enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Section 65100-65700. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378[a]).”
Description of the Project
The Project consists of a Specific Plan to allow for a residential and mixed-use retail/office development on 29 parcels covering approximately 257.34 acres in the City. The development would include up to 250,919 square feet of commercial retail/office uses, up to 4,293 residential units across medium density and mixed-use residential uses, 67.26 acres of open space parkland/non-recreation uses, and associated on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements, as described further below. The Project site is comprised of two “Ownership Areas” (representing different ownership conditions) with 22 planning areas.

The “Ownership Area 1” (shown in Figure 3-7: Project Area Ownership) is owned by the applicant of the CenterPark Specific Plan. The “Ownership Area 2” are parcels owned by others and are included as part of the Specific Plan. Ownership Area 1 of the Project includes Planning Areas 5 and 7 through 18, which would allow for the development of up to 210,544 square feet of mixed-use retail and office, 3,095 residential dwelling units and 55.98 acres of parkland use. Ownership Area 2 of the Project includes potential future developments in Planning Areas 1 through 4, 6, and 19 through 22, and would allow for the development of up to 40,376 square feet of mixed-use retail and office, 1,198 residential units, and

11.28 acres of open-space parkland and non-recreational uses. Refer to Table 3-1: Project Buildout by Ownership Area.

This Focused EIR conservatively evaluates the maximum development potential for Ownership Areas 1 and 2, as permitted in the proposed CenterPark Specific Plan. Ownership Area 1 is expected to start construction in 2026, with an anticipated opening year in 2029.

This Focused EIR evaluates Ownership Area 2 at a “programmatic” level, representing the potential future developments in Planning Areas 1 through 4 and 6. Planning Areas within Ownership Area 2 do not propose any development at this time. Therefore, these Planning Areas would be developed at a future date.

Ownership Areas 1 and 2 of the Project would, in total, allow for up to 250,919 square feet of Mixed-Use retail and office, 4,293 residential units, and 67.26 acres of open-space parkland and non-recreational uses, as shown in Table 3-2: Maximum Project Buildout, below. 549
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-6 3.0 | Project Description
Land Use Plan
The Project (Ownership Areas 1 and 2) consists of 22 planning areas accommodating a variety of land use including residential, commercial/mixed-use, retail, office, parks and open space, and community facility components, and other similar uses that are compatible with the Project site’s location and surrounding existing and proposed land uses. The Project Specific Plan’s Land Use Plan implements the vision of TOP 2050 (The Ontario Plan 2050) by providing a designed natural open space framework, interacting with mixed retail and office centers which anchor traditional residential neighborhoods. The Land Use Plan identifies the location of the land use designations for the Project site. The Project zoning via the Specific Plan mirrors TOP 2050 Land Use designations and is identified along the 22 planning areas (see Figure 3-8:

Land Use Plan).
550
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-7 3.0 | Project Description
Table 3-1: Project Buildout by Ownership Area
Planning
Area
Land Use TOP 2050
Acreage
Maximum
Density Per

TOP EIR
Maximum
Units
Maximum
Retail
Maximum
Office
Ownership Area 1
5 MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL 5.19 AC 35.0 DU/AC 182 DU
5 MIXED-USE RETAIL 1.48 AC 19,367 SF
5 MIXED-USE OFFICE 0.74 AC 22,595 SF
7 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 23.67 AC 22.0 DU/AC 521 DU
8 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 24.20 AC 22.0 DU/AC 532 DU
9 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 12.18 AC 22.0 DU/AC 268 DU
10 MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL 9.87 AC 35.0 DU/AC 345 DU
10 MIXED-USE RETAIL 2.82 AC 36,852 SF
10 MIXED-USE OFFICE 1.41 AC 42,994 SF
11 MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL 10.97 AC 35.0 DU/AC 384 DU
11 MIXED-USE RETAIL 3.13 AC 40,955 SF
11 MIXED-USE OFFICE 1.57 AC 47,781 SF
12 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 15.46 AC 22.0 DU/AC 340 DU
13 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 23.75 AC 22.0 DU/AC 523 DU
14 OS-R (PARKLAND) 13.33 AC
15 OS-R (PARKLAND) 13.11 AC
16 OS-R (PARKLAND) 9.90 AC
17 OS-R (PARKLAND) 6.20 AC
18 OS-R (PARKLAND) 13.44 AC
Ownership Area 1 Total 192.42 AC 19.5 DU/AC 3,095 DU 97,174 SF 113,370 SF Ownership Area 2 Future Development Areas
1 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 15.91 AC 22.0 DU/AC 350 DU
2 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 15.57 AC 22.0 DU/AC 343 DU
3 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 7.70 AC 22.0 DU/AC 169 DU
4 MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL 4.99 AC 35.0 DU/AC 175 DU
4 MIXED-USE RETAIL 1.43 AC 18,635 SF
4 MIXED-USE OFFICE 0.71 AC 21,741 SF
6 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 7.33 AC 22.0 DU/AC 161 DU
19 OS-NR (NON-RECREATION) 2.26 AC
20 OS-NR (NON-RECREATION) 2.68 AC
21 OS-NR (NON-RECREATION) 2.96 AC
22 OS-NR (NON-RECREATION) 3.38 AC
Ownership Area 2 Total 64.92 AC 15.6 DU/AC 1,198 DU 18,635 SF 21,741 SF Project Total 257.34 AC 16.7 DU/AC 4,293 DU 115,809 SF 135,110 SF Notes:

1. The numbers were rounded to present a conservative estimate.

2. The EIR will evaluate the total maximum allowable development in the Project Specific Plan.

3. Ownership Area 2 uses are being evaluated at programmatic level only; no specific development applications have been submitted; no specific development dates are known.

4. RETAIL in Mixed-Use areas = 20% of Mixed-Use acreage x 0.30 FAR; OFFICE in Mixed-Use areas = 10% of Mixed-Use acreage x 0.70 FAR 551
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-8 3.0 | Project Description
Mixed-Use
The mixed-use development is comprised of 10 percent office with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of

0.70; 20 percent retail with a maximum FAR of 0.30; and 70 percent residential with a maximum density of 35 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). TOP 2050 allows up to 135,110 square feet of office development, 115,809 square feet of retail development, and a maximum of 1,086 mixed-use dwelling units.

Mixed-use development is allowed in Planning Areas 4, 5, 10 and 11. These mixed-use planning areas will allow for development of neighborhood retail uses at a maximum 0.30 FAR and office uses at a maximum

0.70 FAR, intended to meet the needs of the surrounding community. The maximum number of allowed units within the Mixed-Use portion of the Project Specific Plan is 1,086 units and 3,207 units within the residential planning areas for a total maximum of 4,293 units that includes a maximum height of up to five (5) stories.

The maximum allowable retail development is 115,809 square feet and the maximum office development is 135,110 square feet, and the maximum residential development is 1,086 units within the Project Specific Plan Mixed-Use planning areas. Mixed-use planning areas would allow for up to 70 percent of the area to be developed as higher density residential uses with a maximum density of 35 du/ac per TOP 2050.

Residential
The residential development encompasses a variety of residential housing types. Maximum allowable units allowed within the Project site are not to exceed 4,293 units and would include a maximum height of up to five stories. The blending of residential densities of each planning area are not exceeded in the mixed-use land use designation.

The residential uses will complement the office and retail development uses that create a variety of living choices within the western area of Ontario Ranch.

Medium- Density Residential developments are allowed in planning areas 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13.

Housing types may be blended throughout the Project and the Project allows for an overall density of up to 22 du/ac.

The following housing types are allowed within the Project site:
• Conventional Single-Family Dwelling (SFD) – Two Story. This housing type includes conventional single-family neighborhoods, traditional single-family and cluster SFD neighborhoods, including condominium developments, with one- and two-story buildings. • Small Lot/Cluster SFD – Two and-Three Story. This housing type includes conventional singlefamily neighborhoods, traditional single-family and cluster SFD neighborhoods, including condominium developments, with buildings up to three stories tall. • Attached Single-Family Attached (SFA) – Two Story. This housing type includes duplexes/paired homes, triplexes, townhomes/rowtowns and stacked flats, including condominium and apartment developments, with buildings up to two stories tall. 552
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-9 3.0 | Project Description
• Attached SFA – Three Story. This housing type includes duplexes/paired homes, triplexes, townhomes/rowtowns and stacked flats, including condominium and apartment developments, with buildings up to three stories tall.
• Attached SFA/Multi-Family – Three to Five Stories. This housing type includes attached homes, including condominium and apartment developments, with buildings three stories or greater, tall with a maximum of five story buildings.

Parks, Trails, and Open Space
The CenterPark Specific Plan open space concept is oriented around a large public regional park comprised of 55.98 acres and includes a system of private parks distributed throughout the residential neighborhoods. Each private park will have a minimum of 0.25 acres of open space that would include a variety of facilities and amenities for future residents.

Enhanced neighborhood edges would include pedestrian walkways that provide connectivity to and from the Project site and to the street, separated public sidewalks, private pedestrian walkways and pathways to be developed within the community that connect all residential neighborhoods to the Grand Park and several private parks.

Private parks within the Project site will be designed in accordance with TOP 2050. Actual required park acreage would be determined at the time of tentative tract map approval. An overall Conceptual Open Space Plan and Program will be developed and reviewed concurrently with each subdivision map of the planning areas. These plans would include the location and size of the proposed parks within its designated Planning Area with its amenity features within the area to be mapped as well as an amenity program listing the proposed facilities of private amenities within the remainder of the Project site.

The developer and the City of Ontario will work together to ensure that the public regional park will be constructed concurrently with the build-out of the Specific Plan in a phased manner.

Additionally, a portion of the Project site is located within the Mixed Use - Great Park (MU-Great Park) land use designation. The southern portion of the Project site is also within the Great Park Corridor. The Great Park area is intended to be highly walkable with pedestrian-oriented site design and road network and transit stops with amenities. Sites within the Great Park Corridor are currently zoned SP (Specific Plan) with an AG (Agriculture) Overlay zoning district and (AH) Affordable Housing overlay zoning district. The (AH) Affordable Housing Overlay zoning district is designed to increase housing opportunities in compliance with the City's Housing Element and State Housing Element law. This overlay applies to specific sites identified in the City's Housing Element, including areas south of Riverside Drive, along East Holt Boulevard between Cucamonga Creek Channel and Corona Avenue, and MU-6 designated areas at the northeast corner of West Holt Boulevard and Mountain Avenue. Affordable housing projects within this overlay are classified into two tiers: Tier 1, with at least 20 percent of units designated as affordable, and Tier 2, with at least 25 percent of units designated as affordable, both ensuring affordability for a minimum of 30 years. Development within the AH Overlay must meet a minimum density of 20 du/ac and adhere to the standards of the base zoning district, other overlay zones, and the Development Code. Tier 1 projects can develop under the SP zoning or MDR-25 requirements for Medium Density Residential, and 553
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-10 3.0 | Project Description
under the SP zoning or a comparable tool for Mixed Use, while Tier 2 projects follow the same but allow for a higher density of 25 to 30 du/ac for MDR.

The areas within the Project site will have TOP 2050 designations of Medium-Density Residential (MDR) and Mixed-Use (MU). Medium-Density Residential (MDR) will allow a range of 20-30 du/ac for projects with at least 25 percent of units affordable to lower incomes, and a range of 11.1-25 du/ac for all other projects. Two different MU areas are proposed in this opportunity area, Mixed-Use Eucalyptus/Chino Airport (MU-EU) allowing 20-45 du/ac and Mixed-Use Great Park allowing 20-65 du/ac. With TOP 2050 and the zoning demarked in the Specific Plan, all sites identified support densities necessary to facilitate lower- and moderate-income housing development.
10 TOP designates the surrounding area in Ontario Ranch for Mixed-Use, Recreational Open Space, Low, LowMedium, and Medium Density Residential development.

The existing zoning designation for the Project site and surrounding area is Specific Plan (SP) Zoning District with an Agricultural (AG) Overlay. The zoning districts and designations of the CenterPark Specific Plan require approval by the City for the development of the Project. The Specific Plan will be the zoning for the Project site, consistent with TOP 2050.

Recreational Open Space uses are planned within planning areas 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, along the southern Project boundary. There are 55.98 acres designated for Recreational Open Space (OS-R). This area has been designated to be part of the City of Ontario Grand Park. There are 11.28 acres designated for Open Space Non- Recreation (OS-NR). The OS-NR areas are designated for non-recreational uses. While no buildings are proposed within this district, it is suitable for uses such as landscape plant nurseries, and other uses allowed by the City zoning.

The land use types proposed by the Project are summarized below in Table 3-2. Table 3-2, which provides the maximum development intensity, addressing full buildout per the Project Specific Plan (allowable gross building area and maximum residential development for each planning area based on the allowable floor area ratio or residential density respectively). Development standards, such as setback requirements, parking, open space, minimum landscaping, infrastructure, and site design, may reduce the maximum gross square footage or density.

The Focused EIR will evaluate the total maximum allowable development in the Project Specific Plan, which is 250,919 square feet of mixed-use commercial office/retail, up to 4,293 residential units, 67.26 acres of open space uses, and associated on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements. Additional onsite improvements would include landscaping, utility infrastructure, and internal roadways. Off-site improvements may include various street improvements, storm drain infrastructure, sewer infrastructure, potable water infrastructure, recycled water infrastructure, and underground electric utility infrastructure.
10 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Housing Element, page H-282. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policy-plan/housing. (accessed August 2024).
554
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-11 3.0 | Project Description
Table 3-2: Maximum Project Buildout
Planning
Area
Land Use TOP 2050
Acreage
Maximum
Density Per

TOP EIR
Maximum
Units
Maximum
Retail
Maximum
Office
1 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 15.91 AC 22.0 DU/AC 350 DU
2 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 15.57 AC 22.0 DU/AC 343 DU
3 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 7.70 AC 22.0 DU/AC 169 DU
4 MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL 4.99 AC 35.0 DU/AC 175 DU
4 MIXED-USE RETAIL 1.43 AC 18,635 SF
4 MIXED-USE OFFICE 0.71 AC 21,741 SF
5 MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL 5.19 AC 35.0 DU/AC 182 DU
5 MIXED-USE RETAIL 1.48 AC 19,367 SF
5 MIXED-USE OFFICE 0.74 AC 22,595 SF
6 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 7.33 AC 22.0 DU/AC 161 DU
7 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 23.67 AC 22.0 DU/AC 521 DU
8 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 24.20 AC 22.0 DU/AC 532 DU
9 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 12.18 AC 22.0 DU/AC 268 DU
10 MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL 9.87 AC 35.0 DU/AC 345 DU
10 MIXED-USE RETAIL 2.82 AC 36,852 SF
10 MIXED-USE OFFICE 1.41 AC 42,994 SF
11 MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL 10.97 AC 35.0 DU/AC 384 DU
11 MIXED-USE RETAIL 3.13 AC 40,955 SF
11 MIXED-USE OFFICE 1.57 AC 47,781 SF
12 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 15.46 AC 22.0 DU/AC 340 DU
13 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 23.75 AC 22.0 DU/AC 523 DU
Residential Total 176.79 AC 24.3 DU/AC 4,293 DU
Retail Total 8.86 AC 115,809 SF
Office Total 4.43 AC 135,110 SF
14 OS-R (PARKLAND) 13.33 AC
15 OS-R (PARKLAND) 13.11 AC
16 OS-R (PARKLAND) 9.90 AC
17 OS-R (PARKLAND) 6.20 AC
18 OS-R (PARKLAND) 13.44 AC
19 OS-NR (NON-RECREATION) 2.26 AC
20 OS-NR (NON-RECREATION) 2.68 AC
21 OS-NR (NON-RECREATION) 2.96 AC
22 OS-NR (NON-RECREATION) 3.38 AC
Open Space Total 67.26
Project Total 257.34 AC 16.7 DU/AC 4,293 DU 115,809 SF 135,110 SF Notes:

1. The numbers were rounded to present a conservative estimate.

2. The Focused EIR will evaluate the total maximum allowable development in the Project Specific Plan.

3. Ownership Area 2 uses are being evaluated at programmatic level only; no specific development applications have been submitted; no specific development dates are known.

4. RETAIL in Mixed-Use areas = 20% of Mixed-Use acreage x 0.30 FAR; OFFICE in Mixed-Use areas = 10% of Mixed-Use acreage x 0.70 FAR 555
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-12 3.0 | Project Description
Circulation Plan
The Circulation Plan facilitates movement of vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists around and within the Project site, and provides access to the neighborhood commercial and residential planning areas, consistent with the City of Ontario Roadway Classification System (Figure 3-9: City of Ontario Road Classification System). For additional information on vehicle and truck circulation, trip distribution, and truck routing, see Section 7.0.

The Project site includes three City arterial roadways, which provide access to and from the Project site.

Ontario Ranch Road bisects the Project site in an east/west direction, Grove Avenue bisects the Project site in a north/south direction, and Campus Avenue borders the Project site on the west, running in a north/south direction. See Figure 3-10: Conceptual Circulation Plan. The Project site also includes two City collector roadways. Bon View Avenue traverses the site in a north/south direction and Walker Avenue borders the Project site on the east, running in a north/south direction. Phasing and construction of the improvements shall be implemented as required by the City Engineer and pursuant to the mitigation measures identified in TOP EIR and the conditions of approval adopted with the approval of tentative maps for the Project. Locations and construction of bus turnouts may be required within the Project site to the satisfaction of the City of Ontario and Omnitrans requirements.

Pedestrian Circulation
Off-street pedestrian circulation would be provided throughout the Project site through a paved sidewalk system that interconnects with the right-of-way and separated from vehicular travel lanes by landscaped parkways. The pedestrian system would provide connectivity between residential neighborhoods and to all private parks within the Project site. The Project would provide connectivity with off-site areas via City master planned multipurpose trails/bikeways located along the neighborhood edges of the Project site.

Additionally, the Specific Plan would allow for additional internal trails and paseos that provide pedestrian accessibility between neighborhoods, community parks and amenities, and to the regional park in the center of the Project site.

Trails and Bike Paths
A Class II Bicycle Lane is proposed by TOP 2050 on the west side of Walker Avenue. Class II bicycle lanes are defined as dedicated (striped) lanes along streets, with no parking allowed in the bicycle lane. This bicycle lane provides linkages to the City’s bicycle path system. See Figure 3-11: Conceptual Pedestrian and Regional Trail Circulation Plan.

Multipurpose trails would be provided along the south side of Ontario Ranch Road and along the eastern side of Grove Avenue and Campus Avenue for the Project site. See Figure 3-12: Internal Pedestrian Circulation Plan.

Parks
Parks would be provided throughout the Project site, see Figure 3-13: Conceptual Landscape Plan. The City has established a parkland standard of five (5) acres of parkland (public and private) per 1,000 residents, with a minimum of two (2) acres of developed private park space per 1,000 residents. The 556
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-13 3.0 | Project Description
Project would fulfill this requirement through the establishment of private parks within the proposed residential developments or by satisfying the in-lieu park development impact fee if approved by the City.

As mentioned above, parks provided on-site would be consistent with TOP 2050; refer to Section 7.0 for more information related to parks and recreation.

Transit
Transit options provide an alternative mode of transportation for motorists and a primary mode for the transit dependent. The City is coordinating with regional transit agencies to implement Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service to target destinations and along corridors. The Omnitrans BRT Corridor is planned to be implemented along Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road as a part of future development. The BRT Corridor is expected to provide convenient and accessible public transportation for future residents and visitors of the Project site; and hence the potential for residents and visitors to have a reduced need for private transportation requirements. In anticipation of the future implementation of the high-speed public transport route, developments which exceed the minimum density of 20 du/acre, located within 330 feet of the BRT corridor along Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road may be allowed to have reduced parking requirements.

Water Master Plan
Potable water would be provided by the City. The City’s Water Master Plan identifies new water facilities to serve the Ontario Ranch area, which would need to be constructed prior to or concurrent with on-site water improvements. Construction of the on-site and off-site Master Plan water service improvements shall be the responsibility of the developer and is required prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for any residential dwelling unit within the Project site.

The off-site improvements include the construction of the 30-inch Master Planned line in Grove Avenue from Eucalyptus Avenue to Chino Avenue, and the 30-inch main in Grove Avenue from Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road to Chino Avenue continuing along Campus Avenue from Chino Avenue to Francis Street, proceeding east in Francis Street to Bon View Avenue, continuing north in Bon View Avenue to the City owned Reservoir Site. To provide a looped water system for the Project site, the master planned 24-inch main shall be constructed in Eucalyptus Avenue from the existing 925 pressure zone (PZ) line in Carpenter Avenue to the Walker Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue intersection. As a part of the Backbone Infrastructure, the master planned 925 PZ reservoir shall be constructed on the City-owned reservoir site as directed by the City. Well supply and any drinking water treatment necessary for the 925 PZ shall be constructed to supply the 925 PZ reservoir. The off-site potable water line locations are shown on Figure 3-14: Conceptual Potable Water Master Plan.

Master planned potable water main lines serving the development, as identified in the approved Specific Plan, shall be constructed prior to issuance of building permits. All private agricultural wells located within the Project site would be decommissioned per the County of San Bernardino Health Department Standards prior to issuance of construction permit for any construction activity. A copy of the County Health Department Permit shall be provided to Engineering and the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company prior to issuance of grading permits.
557
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-14 3.0 | Project Description
The Project would construct new potable water lines to provide a looped system for the Project site. A 16-inch master planned water line will be installed in Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road, Campus Avenue, and Walker Avenue; and a 30-inch master planned water line in Grove Avenue. The proposed onsite water system sizing is subject to the hydraulic criteria in the City’s Water and Sewer Design Guidelines.

The conceptual potable water system is illustrated on Figure 3-15: Conceptual Potable Water System.

Master Planned Recycled Water System
Recycled water for this Project will be supplied by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency’s (IEUA) existing recycled water infrastructure as presented in the City’s Recycled Water Master Plan. The master planned 930 feet, Pressure Zone 30-inch recycled water system exists in Bon View Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue and Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road and shall service the Project.

The Project would provide all recycled water lines required to serve the Project. The off-site improvements include the construction of the 930 feet Pressure Zone master planned recycled water system consisting of an 8-inch main in Grove Avenue from Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road to Eucalyptus Avenue, an 8- inch main in Walker Avenue from Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road to Eucalyptus Avenue, a 12-inch main in Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road from Campus Avenue to Bon View Avenue, and a 12-inch main in Eucalyptus Avenue from Bon View Avenue to Walker Avenue. The off-site recycled water line locations are shown on Figure 3-16: Conceptual Recycled Water Master Plan.

Within the Project site, 8- to 12-inch recycled water mains are proposed to serve the site. The Project would comply with City Ordinance 2689 and make use of recycled water for all approved uses, including but not limited to the irrigation of parks, street parkway landscaping, recreational trails, private pocket parks and any other HOA maintained common areas. The developer shall prepare and secure approval of an Engineering Report from the City of Ontario and State Department of Drinking Water prior to the use of recycled water. Sizing of the on-site system is subject to the hydraulic criteria in the City’s Water and Sewer Design Guidelines. The conceptual recycled water system is illustrated on Figure 3-17: Conceptual Recycled Water System.

Sewer Master Plan
Sewer service for the Project would be provided by the City of Ontario. Off-site sewer improvements to serve the Specific Plan area would be implemented according to the most current version of the City’s Sewer Master Plan. The City’s Sewer Master Plan identifies sewer service to be provided by the Grove Trunk Sewer beginning at the intersection of Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road and Bon View Avenue, aligning south to connect to the Western Trunk Sewer line at the intersection of Bon View Avenue and Merrill Avenue, continuing west in Merrill Avenue, then south in Euclid Avenue to connect with the IEUA Kimball Interceptor. In addition to the main sewer service for the Project, a 16-inch sewer main is to be constructed in Campus Avenue between Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road and Eucalyptus Avenue, a 15-inch sewer main is to be constructed in Bon View Avenue between Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road and Eucalyptus Avenue, an 18-inch sewer main is to be constructed in Grove Avenue between Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road and Eucalyptus Avenue, and a 21-inch sewer main is to be constructed as part of half-width street improvements in Walker Avenue between Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road and Eucalyptus Avenue.
558
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-15 3.0 | Project Description
Within the Project site, a series of 8-inch sewer mains are proposed to serve the mixed-use and residential developments. Construction of the on-site and off-site Master Plan sewer improvements shall be the responsibility of the developer and is required prior to issuance of building permits for the Project. The proposed on-site public sewer system sizing is subject to the hydraulic criteria in the City’s Water and Sewer Design Guidelines. Master planned sewer main lines as identified in the adopted Sewer Master Plan, shall be constructed prior to issuance building permits. The conceptual sewer improvements are illustrated on Figure 3-18: Conceptual Sewer Master Plan, and on Figure 3-19: Conceptual Sewer System.

Drainage
For the eastern portion of the proposed development, the Project would construct the 108-inch master planned storm drain line in Grove Avenue from the intersection of Grove Avenue and Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road to Eucalyptus Avenue and a 108-inch storm drain in Walker Avenue from the intersection of Walker Avenue and Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road south to Eucalyptus Avenue.

For the western portion of the development, the Project would construct the 60-inch master planned storm drain line in Campus Avenue from the intersection of Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road and Campus Avenue to Eucalyptus Avenue. From the intersection of Eucalyptus Avenue and Walker Avenue, the Project would construct an 8-foot by 13-foot reinforced box culvert-type storm drain continuing east in Eucalyptus Avenue to Baker Avenue and a 96-inch storm drain in Bon View Avenue from the intersection of Bon View Avenue and Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road south to Eucalyptus Avenue.

The City’s Storm Drain Master Plan identifies storm drain improvements to serve the Project site.

Completion of these Master Plan improvements will provide permanent storm drain service to the Project.

That portion of the Master Plan storm drain system that lies within the Project site will be constructed as part of the development of the Project. The size and location would be based on the Approved Master Plan of Drainage. The City of Ontario Master Plan storm drain improvements are illustrated on Figure 3-20:

Conceptual Drainage Master Plan. On-site storm drains would be sized and constructed to convey the on-site flows to the proposed Master Plan system. The size and location of proposed on-site storm drains may change based on final design. Interim detention basins are not proposed and are not allowed by the City. The developer is required to construct the ultimate storm drain improvements as identified on the Master Plan of Drainage. The Master Plan of Drainage for the Project is illustrated in Figure 3-21:

Conceptual Storm Drain Improvements.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Compliance The grading and drainage of the Specific Plan area may be designed to retain and infiltrate the Design Capture Volumes (DCV). These DCV may be directed to underground storage/infiltration chambers beneath parklets and paseos for infiltration into the ground where site soils do not provide adequate infiltration or other means to control drainage.

Low Impact Development (LID) Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented in accordance with the selection criteria and other requirements outlined in the San Bernardino County NPDES Storm Water Program’s current Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) as well as the City of Ontario’s Water Quality Management Plan requirements. Appropriate pre-treatment BMPs, such as baffle 559
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-16 3.0 | Project Description
boxes, filters or surface forebays, etc. can be installed upstream of underground storage/infiltration chambers to collect sediments and minimize deposition of sediments in the infiltration zone.

The objective of the WQMP for the project is to minimize the detrimental effects of urbanization on the beneficial uses of receiving waters, which includes effects caused by increased pollutants and changes in hydrology. These effects shall be minimized through the implementation of on-site and off-site LID Site Design BMPs that provide appropriate treatment of the DCV.

In addition, Non-Structural and Structural Source Control BMPs, shall also be implemented and documented in the Project’s approved WQMP(s) to reduce pollutant generation and transport from the Project site. Prior to the issuance of grading or construction permits for any tract map or area that disturbs one acre or more of land, within the Project site, Erosion/Sediment Control Plans and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) shall be prepared. The SWPPP shall be prepared to comply with California State Water Resources Control Board’s (State Water Board) current “General Permit to Discharge Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity” and current “Area Wide Urban Storm Water Runoff” (Regional NPDES) Permits. The SWPPP shall identify and detail all appropriate BMPs to be implemented or installed during construction of the project. In addition to the preparation of a construction SWPPP, any tract map or project that disturbs one acre or more of land area shall be required to obtain coverage under the State Water Board’s General Permit to Discharge Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity and show evidence of permit coverage to the City of Ontario, prior to the issuance of any grading or construction permits. All Priority Land Use (PLU) areas within the Specific Plan Area shall comply with the statewide Trash Provisions adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and trash requirements in the most current San Bernardino County Area-Wide MS4 Permit.

Dry Utilities Plan
Fiber Optics
The proposed backbone street fiber optics (conduits, tracer wire, handholes and fiber) would be placed underground within a duct and structure system to be installed by the developer in a joint trench, as illustrated in Figure 3-22: Fiber Optic Master Plan. In-tract fiber and conduit shall be installed per the InTract Fiber Optic Design Guidelines. Maintenance of the installed system will be the responsibility of the City/Special District. Development of the project requires the installation of all fiber optic infrastructure and peripheral equipment necessary to service the Project as a stand-alone development.

Natural Gas
The Gas Company will provide natural gas to the Project site and install gas mains to the Project site as necessary.

Electricity
SCE currently provides electrical service in the area. All new lines and all existing lines within the Project site, which are less than 34.5 kilovolts, shall be placed underground by the developer according to City of Ontario requirements and in accordance with the City of Ontario undergrounding Ordinance. 560
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-17 3.0 | Project Description
Public Services
Fire
The City of Ontario would provide fire protection services to the Project site. The Ontario Fire Department (OFD) currently has 11 permanent stations, which are staffed with ten four-man paramedic engine companies and four four-man truck companies.11 The closest operational fire station, Station 9, is located at 2661 East Grand Park, approximately three miles east of the Project site. Additionally, OFD maintains a mutual-aid agreement with the Operation Area and State of California and receives first alarm automatic aid from other, neighboring fire departments, including the Chino Valley Fire Department District, the Ontario Airport Fire Department, and the San Bernardino County Fire Department, among others; refer to Section 7.0 for more information on fire protection services available to the Project site.

Police
The City of Ontario would provide police services to the Project site. The closest police station is located approximately three miles northeast of the Project site at 2500 South Archibald Avenue, just south of SR-60. This station is also the City of Ontario Police Department headquarters.

Schools
The Chino Valley Unified School District would serve the school-age needs of grades K through 12 for the Project. The nearest Chino Valley Unified School District elementary school location, within the vicinity of the Project site, is Dickey Elementary School, located at 2840 Parco Avenue. The nearest Chino Valley Unified School District middle school location is Woodcrest Junior High School, located at 2725 South Campus Drive. The nearest Chino Valley Unified School District high school location is Chino High School, located at 5472 Park Place, in the City of Chino. The Project would be subject to school impact fees, as required by the State; refer to Section 7.0 for more information.

Solid Waste
The Project would comply with the City of Ontario’s latest “Solid Waste Department Refuse and Recycling Planning Manual.” City crews, through the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company, would provide solid waste collection and disposal service for the Project. The Project would participate in City sponsored recycle programs and diversion of special wastes such as tires and construction materials. Provisions for solid waste and recycling for the Project are as follows:
• Residential – For curbside automated container service, developer shall comply with Municipal Code Section 6-3.308.9(a) and (d), Residential Receptacles, Placement. • Recycling Requirements – The developer shall comply with Municipal Code Article 6 Recycling Requirements for Special Business Activity, Section 6-3.601 Business Recycling Plan and Section 6-602 Construction and Demolition Recycling Plan. • Site Improvement Plans shall follow the City of Ontario refuse collection standards. 11 City of Ontario. ND. Fire Stations. https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/fire. (accessed August 2024). 561
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-18 3.0 | Project Description
• Community trash enclosures (“dumpsters”) may be utilized, dependent upon housing product types/orientation.

Grading Concept
The Project site generally slopes to the south at approximately 0.8 percent to 2.0 percent. The grading activities for the Project would generally consist of clearing and grubbing, demolition of existing structures and moving surface soils to construct building pads and streets. Where slope conditions are present, the Project lot line shall be located at the top of a slope. Dwelling units and structures adjacent to the sloped areas should be sited to:
• Use the natural ridge as a backdrop for structures;
• Use landscape plant materials as a backdrop; and
• Use structures to maximize concealment of cut slope. If retaining walls are required, the following criteria shall be used:
▪ Exposed walls and fences facing roadways shall be no greater than 3 ft. retaining in height (9 ft. total wall), except as necessary for acoustical purposes as identified by the TOP EIR or as required as a condition of approval.
▪ Where retaining walls or fences face roadways, they shall be built of decorative materials consistent with the wall theme of the neighborhood.

The Conceptual Grading Plan, as illustrated in Figure 3-23: Conceptual Grading Plan, provides a balance of cut/fills for the Project. Grading plans for each tract within the Project shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Ontario Building, Planning and Engineering Departments prior to the issuance of grading permits.

All grading plans and activities associated with the Project would conform to the City’s grading ordinance and dust and erosion control requirements. All landscape areas adjacent to streets, including medians, parkways and neighborhood edges, in the Project site, shall be finished graded, at a minimum of 1-inch to 2-inch below top-of-curb or sidewalk finish surface, for conservation of irrigation water and increased retention of rainwater runoff. To the maximum extent practicable, all landscaped areas within the Project would be graded as swales and designed to accept runoff water from impervious surfaces.

Development Standards and Design Guidelines
Upon adoption of the CenterPark Specific Plan, the development standards and procedures established in Section 6 of the Specific Plan would become the governing zoning standards for any new construction, additions, or remodel improvements within the Project site. The Specific Plan outlines the allowable uses and development standards of building heights, setbacks, parking, coverage, landscape, signage, and other development standards within the Project site. The Design Guidelines of the Project provide conceptual themes of site planning, architecture, and landscape design within the Project site as referenced in Section 7 of the Specific Plan.
562
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-19 3.0 | Project Description
Sustainable Design Strategies
The Specific Plan includes sustainable design strategies that integrate principles of environmental stewardship into the design and construction process. Additionally, the Project is designed to be consistent with TOP policies for sustainable communities. Appropriate strategies will be determined for each project within the Project site. Sustainable goals for the Project include, but are not limited to:

1. Encourage walking and other non-vehicular modes of travel.

2. Provide pedestrian connectivity throughout the Project.

3. Provide shaded outdoor areas using trees and/or structures.

4. Encourage the use of architectural elements designed to reduce interior heat gain.

5. Encourage the use of recycled, recyclable, and environmentally friendly building materials.

6. Require the use of low energy glass, low water plumbing features, and energy efficient appliances.

7. Encourage the use of drought-tolerant landscaping and water efficient irrigation methods.

The applicant has also committed to incorporating historic structure(s), where reasonable and feasible, into the proposed park areas (see Section 4.2: Historic Resources, for detailed discussion). Neighborhood site planning, architecture and building design as well as landscape treatment and maintenance within the Project should consider these sustainable goals and further the implementation of sustainable design within the Project site.

3.4 Project Objectives
Objectives for the Project are defined in the Specific Plan to aid decision makers in their review of the Project and its associated environmental impacts. The Project objectives have been refined throughout the planning and design process for the Project and are listed below. Additionally, the Project proposes design features to implement these objectives, listed below:
• Design the Project Specific Plan as a Living Community:
▪ Locally serving commercial neighborhood designed to be identifiable to the surrounding community and integrated into the overall planned development, visually and physically connected.
▪ A traditional village setting comprised of a series of neighborhoods designed with a pattern of smaller, walkable blocks that promote access, activity and safety. ▪ Neighborhood streets designed in a simple grid-like system creating short blocks to promote a neighborhood feeling.
▪ Streets incorporating traffic-calming techniques such as landscaped areas adjacent to roadways and City approved intersection chokers intended to encourage drivers to reduce their speed and create a pedestrian friendly environment. ▪ Landscaped parkways adjacent to sidewalks separated from the curb to create a pedestrian friendly environment.
563
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-20 3.0 | Project Description
▪ Diversity in architectural design and homes fronting the street with varying lot sizes to enhance the pedestrian experience and instill a sense of place and belonging for residents.
▪ A choice of housing types provided to address a diversity of lifestyles and varying economic segments of the marketplace.
▪ Residential floor plans that encourage views onto the street, de-emphasize the visual and physical dominance of garages and provide front porches and courtyards along the street to encourage interaction and activity along streets and sidewalks. ▪ A system of parks providing active and passive recreation facilities, passive open space areas and walkway connections for informal neighborhood interaction. ▪ Pedestrian and bicycle connectivity among all residential neighborhoods, areas and parks within the Project Specific Plan through a comprehensive network of pedestrian walkways and bicycle trails offering opportunities for walking and biking throughout the entire community and to destinations outside of the community. • Create a Comprehensive Circulation System for Multiple Modes of Travel:
▪ Neighborhood street patterns that provide access between neighborhoods and discourage through traffic.
▪ A local street system that is logical and understandable for the user avoiding circuitous and confusing travel paths between internal neighborhood areas and adjacent arterials. ▪ Streets designed to include landscaped parkways and pedestrian walkways separated from the street encourage walking and social interaction. ▪ Local streets designed to slow vehicular traffic to promote walkability through the use of traffic-calming devices, landscaped areas adjacent to streets and narrowed intersections to influence a driver’s peripheral vision and encourage drivers to proceed more slowly. ▪ A system of City-wide and local bike ways integrated into the design of the community to encourage bicycle travel as an alternative to the automobile. ▪ Neighborhoods and parks that are linked by pedestrian paths and greenways which also serve to establish connective and gathering features within and between neighborhoods in the Project Specific Plan area.
• Provide for City-Planned Public Community Facilities and Services:
▪ New water, sewer, storm drain and water quality facilities consistent with City’s Master Plans.
▪ Development of new bike paths as part of project development providing links of a public bike trail system consistent with the City’s Bikeway Master Plan. ▪ Provision of approximately 56 acres of regional open space – parkland to allow for a centrally located regional public open space facility.
564
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-21 3.0 | Project Description
▪ Development of new on-site parks at a ratio of 2 acres of developed park space per 1,000 residents including the development of private parks within the community and smaller pocket parks within each neighborhood.
• Integrate Parks and Trails into the Framework of the Project Specific Plan:
▪ Provision of a central regional park to include recreational amenities such as playgrounds, gathering areas, walking trails and other public amenities consistent with the City of Ontario programming for future public parks and subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
▪ Development of privately maintained neighborhood parks, community facilities, pocket parks and open space trails and walkways within each neighborhood. ▪ Proposed amenities will include open park spaces, passive and active park areas and greenbelts to provide a diversity of open spaces that meet the needs of the community. ▪ Improvement of landscaped open space within the neighborhood edges to include pedestrian trails adjacent to public arterial and collector streets. • Compose “A Genius of Place” through Exceptional Planning and Distinct Architecture:
▪ Architectural theme and place-making incorporated into buildings, streetscape furniture/ design elements, lighting and signage creating an overall community character. ▪ Individual interpretation of the overall intended community character within the commercial center and individual neighborhoods to encourage diversity of architecture within an overall planned aesthetic theme.
▪ Homes designed at a human scale with porches, stoops and walkways providing gathering places for neighbors and encouraging interaction among neighbors. ▪ A variety of home styles within the Specific Plan area, all of which are located within walking and biking distance to the parks.
▪ Homes oriented to the street and comprised of a variety of architectural styles adding interest to the street scene, creating a unique walking experience and encouraging neighborhood interaction along the street.
▪ Traditional building types with views of garage doors minimized through setback requirements, location, design elements and landscaping. ▪ Streets linked together in a manner which is pedestrian-friendly but also auto-accessible enabling residents to either walk or bike from neighborhoods to the parks.

3.5 Construction and Phasing
As discussed previously, the Project site is comprised of two “Ownership Areas” (Ownership Area 1 and Ownership Area 2, representing different ownership conditions) with 22 planning areas. The “Ownership Area 1” area is owned by the applicant of the CenterPark Specific Plan. The “Ownership Area 2” area are parcels owned by others and are included as part of the CenterPark Specific Plan. However, for construction modeling and phasing purposes, the Planning Areas of each phase would begin construction preparations at different stages. Construction Phase 1, comprising Planning Areas 6, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 565
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-22 3.0 | Project Description
22, would develop 256 single-family DUs, 768 multi-family DUs, 19.64 acres of recreational open space, and 3.38 acres of non-recreational open space. Additionally, Construction Phase 2, comprising Planning Areas 1 through 5, 7 through 11, 14 through 16, and 19 through 21, would develop 546 single-family DUs, 2,723 multi-family DUs, 250,920 SF of commercial space, 36.34 acres of recreational open space, and

7.9 acres of non-recreational open space.

Project backbone infrastructure would be installed by the Project developer, in accordance with the applicable City adopted infrastructure plan for the area, as well as the provisions of the Specific Plan. Fair share responsibilities for improvements would be addressed in a Development Agreement with the City of Ontario. Infill service mains shall be constructed in phases as development proceeds and as conditioned by the City Engineer to support individual phases of development, which may require installation of offsite infrastructure improvements beyond a given phase boundary.

Grading and installation of infrastructure to serve the Project is anticipated to be phased. Following completion of grading and infrastructure installation, the construction models for each product type within each neighborhood shall be permitted pursuant to the approval of a temporary use permit. Phase I may include installation of infrastructure adequate to serve all planning areas.

3.6 Discretionary Actions and Approvals
This Draft Focused EIR examines the environmental effects of the proposed Project’s Specific Plan.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the City prepared a 15183 Consistency Memo, to document that the proposed Project is consistent with TOP EIR, and with the exception of potential impacts to historic resources, the Project is adequately addressed in the prior EIR and does not represent a new or more severe significant impact that is “peculiar” to the Project, nor does it represent a new or more severe impact related to off-site infrastructure or cumulative impacts. Therefore, this Draft Focused EIR focuses on the Project’s potential to impact biological resources and historic resources.

Note that the Applicant intends to process a Development Plan and Tentative Parcel Map for the Ownership Area 1 Project concurrent with or following processing of the CenterPark Specific Plan. This Draft Focused EIR also addresses various actions by the City and others to adopt and implement the proposed Project.

It is the intent of this Draft Focused EIR to evaluate the environmental effects of the Project, thereby enabling the City, other responsible agencies, and interested parties to make informed decisions with respect to the requested entitlements. The following summarizes the required Project approvals associated with the Project.

CenterPark Specific Plan (PSP24-002)
The CenterPark provides regulations for development of the Project site by establishing permitted land uses, development standards, infrastructure requirements, and implementation requirements.

Implementation of the proposed Project Specific Plan would achieve the intent of TOP 2050 for the Project site.
566
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-23 3.0 | Project Description
Copies of the Specific Plan, and all other application materials, will be available at the City of Ontario Planning Department, located at 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764.

Anticipated Approvals
The anticipated approvals required for this Project are listed in Table 3-3: Anticipated Permits and Approvals Required, below:

Table 3-3: Anticipated Permits and Approvals Required
Lead Agency Action
City of Ontario City Council
• Certification of the Final Focused EIR
• Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
• Adoption of the CenterPark Specific Plan (PSP24-002)
City of Ontario • Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of an historic resource
Responsible Agencies Action
San Bernardino County • Well removal permit from County Health Department (if required)
California Department of Transportation • Encroachment permit (if required) California Department of Fish and Wildlife • Incidental Take Permit (if required) Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board
• Issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
Federal Aviation Administration • Obstruction evaluation South Coast Air Quality Management District • Issuance of Air Quality permits for construction Future Agreements, Permits and Approvals
Development proposed within the Project site, inclusive of both Ownership Areas 1 and 2, shall be subject to Development Plan review pursuant to Section 4.02.025 of the Ontario Development Code. The review is intended to ensure compliance with the provisions of the CenterPark Specific Plan, protect the integrity and character of the physical composition of the City, and encourage high-quality development. The following future agreements, permits and approvals are anticipated, concurrent with or following City approval of the Specific Plan.

Development Plan All development projects within the CenterPark Specific Plan shall be subject to the Development Plan Review process as established in the City’s Development Code. Pursuant to these provisions, Development Plan Review constitutes a design review of project architecture, site plans and landscape plans. Adoption of the CenterPark Specific Plan by the City includes adoption of the Design Guidelines, which provides direction for the design of development projects within the CenterPark Specific Plan. Where the development regulations and Design Guidelines are silent, the applicable development regulations and Design Guidelines contained within the City’s Development Code shall apply. The Design Guidelines are intended to be flexible in nature while establishing basic evaluation criteria for the review of development projects by the City. All development project applications shall include a landscape and irrigation plan describing plant materials and their growth habits, plant size and spacing, methods of irrigation and landscaping maintenance, as well as site plans, architectural elevations, floor plans, grading plans and other requirements specified by the City. 567
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-24 3.0 | Project Description
A Development Plan application is proposed for the Project site area which constitutes Planning Areas 5, and 7 through 18 (Ownership Area 1). Planning areas 1 through 4, and 6 (Ownership Area 2), identified as Future Development Areas, do not have specific development proposals at this time and therefore, these planning areas would be developed at an unknown, later date following Ownership Area 1. Ownership Area 1 is expected to start construction in 2026, with an anticipated opening year in 2029. For construction phasing purposes, Ownership Area 2 is conservatively anticipated to occur in a single phase with an anticipated opening year in 2034.

The following future agreements, permits and approvals are anticipated, concurrent with or following City approval of the Specific Plan.

Tentative Tract Maps (PMTT25-001 and PMTT25-002)
Concurrently with submitting the Development Plan for Ownership Area 1, the Applicant has submitted Tentative Tract Maps (TPM) PMTT25-001 and PMTT25-002, for the Project.

Development Agreement PDA25-001
Approval of the Project Specific Plan will be followed by an application for approval of a development agreement to encourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning as envisioned by the City, which seeks to maximize efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public. A statutory development agreement, authorized pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65869.5 et seq., shall be required as part of the approval of the Project Specific Plan. The development agreement shall include, but not be limited to, methods for financing acquisition and construction of infrastructure, acquisition and development of adequate levels of parkland and schools, as well as the provision of adequate housing opportunities for varioussegments of the community consistent with the City’s regional housing needs assessments. The development agreement must be fully approved prior to or concurrent with the approval of any Tentative Tract Map and Development Plan submitted within the CenterPark Specific Plan area.

Potential Future Discretionary Approvals
Subdivision Maps
A tentative tract map(s) shall be submitted for approval by the City indicating the approximate location of lot lines, streets, common areas, and proposed grading. Following approval a tentative tract map(s), a final map(s) will be prepared for acceptance by the City. The final map(s) becomes a legal document that is recorded and defines legal parcels and lots that can be sold for development. Subdivision maps and lot changes shall be reviewed and approved pursuant to the Ontario Development Code and other applicable City codes and regulations, California Government Code Section 66410 (Subdivision Map Act), as well as the provisions of the Project Specific Plan.

Conditional Use Permit
A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for uses specified as “conditionally permitted” in the CenterPark Specific Plan (Specific Plan Table 6-1, Allowable Land Uses). Within the Specific Plan, the conditionally permitted land uses, depending on the underlying land use designation, include: vocational 568
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 3-25 3.0 | Project Description
rehabilitation services, wireless telecommunication facilities, passenger car rental and leasing, full-service car wash, electric vehicle charging stations, hotels, senior center residential uses, etc. CUP applications shall be processed pursuant to Section 4.02.015 of the City Development Code.

Certificate of Appropriateness
A Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) is required for minor alterations, restoration, rehabilitation, and demolition of historic resources listed in the local register. Additionally, a Certificate of Appropriateness shall not be issued for the demolition of an historic resource, either in whole or in part, until such time that a demolition permit application and a replacement structure has been approved by the City, and appropriate permits have been issued for its construction. 569
Not to scale
Figure 3-1: Regional Location Map
CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario 1-2
N

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 1-1 REGIONAL LOCATION MAP

PROJECT
SITE
Source: CenterPark Specific Plan Exhibit 1-1 Regional Location Map, 2025.

UOH«JL!
2 IEe) 7 x
>.
'■
Y . .......... r ??. 1 2
/ £ O0Nid
O39NVdO
NVS boNiaavNdaa Y I (r I O
7 S r
R. ET h~ n Na a M
"Mee0? y I
) ia o-d
B (GMaESO

RAREEME
CEIGWILI ■ fL JE r
GO 3^ 7ldd3W JAV l
VdIW oW [ — vaiw
11 I
nidAiv: anv; i Pr STTIHONIH
—
0llt1flN0/3AV NCHlOl ad HDNVa D . !
5 J K S
I
REB “BC Ermm

9. IHO
11-11117,7-
ON a. dm P no £
7D Eh n eh d-e
LI. 0
T W ) r 05 0 Jim
dVNd38 NVS 2
■ t MJ
M 2
i l
go 1 i L In
m t ul IdOddlV
VNOWOd
- t —IEE-- 1 - -------
8 Aut
77/r~ 1
OIHVINO T 1 18 L
=1 i
HE OldvINOl ! flYy iE (lm-hd I(HHHI-NU/) in JEBHIlls SuALIHIE JDEFsEu=E *2 JeIuoy—GJFEIGr / OmaV/ m —eFTEcIi
1 £
ZE Vemiy
dl LE t
rorom ■
EI 7i// juouaie—UDE
in Ell. 11.. SallADErPUeI - C fin eAe 7 VoNoWvon OHDNva 657 C -- /La / v 1 2 dbDMREMENmles# and
TT Ee Temelli AFE
—
o
c’l Jn
aluL
G)
0 C
Euin
5 W
07 AU
2 is
C
t
C
s r

OSION J J
r[
cria
D
7 MN
m
2 I
s
9 o
II 2
H-.
•-al
"AWIEIE Hcuu
// A 85
m
|g
—it
r
l m
9 d
-
“Nelee
SRITALMe]
1 ■
2 evwo1
noe (E X
%
^ttroddiv
ONIHJ
). O,
Yo %
%
-tO3ONC
2 3
1 U s
-
570
Not to scale
Figure 3-2: Local Vicinity Map
CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario

ONTARIOCALIFORNIA
1-3
executive summary
EXHIBIT 1-2 VICINITY MAP

PROJECT
SITE
N

NOT TO SCALE
Source: CenterPark Specific Plan Exhibit 1-2 Vicinity Map, 2025.

I 1
”o T
— -2 I
IMHDHEE.
^OMiOiNAuFjRlEiEiWA^
— + —
80) HH u-j n~~r~|l liiliiillii Thuul J[ 15—1 E n h ] n. I III —1 IIALH } ,1 LII 2
I 1/ F p C l p F p p l 1/ F —
20 1 -
[ — E 11 ERSIDE DRIVE EAST RIVERSIDE DRIVE TH I
In I
1 L CHINO AVENUE t
5 5
UO LL 1
in EE
■
I \ RC I

EDISON AVE/ AVE/ EDISON
O N TA R1 0 RANG ROAD ONTARIO RANCH ROAD
1 EUC LYPTUS AVENUE
III

MERRILL AVENUE
26)

KIMBALL AVENUE
CHINO

AIRPORT
co
w
L
7 C
1 m
5 m
C
Q
i
।
i
S
L
5 m
la
C
m
m
C
Q
C
1 s
O
C,
0 L
s
m
a
C
m
= L
o
L i —
m—
a I
C
G
7 O
s
m.

L
-
m
a
C
m
x
m
33 L
s
m
a
C
Hl
C
E
I
=0*
(
2 Lci
1 I
2 4 _
( ’
J
Y
A T
I
1 5 f m T UE
d
। L—
2 "4,. ) Xs
— a
/l 2
SNA I
& I
EllE □ i
r
a D _
. (
ik Ey
III
11 I
ul
- I
N
Kimley»
I
]
TT-
\ ’
AV
571
.·
- '•
. - . ·""
•.
••'" I
.;· ... J
Not to scale
Figure 3-3: Project Boundary
CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario Source: ESRI, 2024.

Legend
Project Site
_ p
7 4
1 5
J

1. -
■
?
i
। J!
17 • al:
7 •
' I ItV
J
Schaefer 5
5 (N
L_i i —
t
141 IN 1 “7Uhde Li tr
--I /■< w 4
T le
I V t‘
2 5"
k
d
H 200]
u I 7,8
I
I
-e- 9 il ts 11 d
s I!
L
t
e
l
"I - ~ t b dei
To========ba!I J =========="al । . il |st ‘A ika ■
» C.lf 1.1
al
■ A ■ • >a
(
H( » iid fr AP2 4
■■■■■ SmmF IAS
■
w
Te
ly7 ; 1 ‘ te t.

I
a
t Fhni
I
i
® a ill
I
IL
I
f —h
,1-1
all rus v 12 (M(Hall f
5 FA 4
'—m—==i A0[ MBH mtns t $
I
PPm . airm 17
■ W V' s wsbltey; a *8 - inTET I
1 L
Wil
f i At
i 147
4 >1 21 i rv\
Bon
J m
E
I
|
I
i
-
Shu
ST tri .7
t
v
|
L
He llu
y TC > w —fts
42 da
dra
isd erti
3 4
", . ws
"" TO ca
*
' t r
r,
&
Nhr
lr
2 J
g
30 P
i
"I
W"
1%
id
Pr
A ( ■ .
■ _ ‘ -retr
t
€ De — 'Jr
It
e * ■ u
‘s
‘ ‘1 r. t., tig
-
i7.

SPeer
a •
G
119
1 TUa ■ J
s0‘u- V,,
LUL.

F—=-
■ VIOmoyenyg —th
Ar ‘Ml
F
{ar
eeg
Feflae
* il th
1 1lbe
soodmia
Th
4 2
t - a007 ' - ------nj ti.) h f T t tilly, 1 1 NLt »' 111111 {Tat - We 5 32 L
Car
View Ave
‘1 f 5 e - 1. o
Kimley>»Horn
572
Not to scale
Figure 3-4: Project Assessor Parcel Numbers
CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario
Source: CenterPark Specific Plan Exhibit 3-1 Assessor's Parcel Numbers, 2025.

EXHIBIT 3-1

GROVE AVE

CUCAMONGA AVE

PARCO AVE

WALKER AVE

BON VIEW AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EDISON AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE
0216-322-10
0216-322-04 0216-322-03
1053-331-04 1053-341-02
1053-311-01 1053-361-02 1053-351-02
1053-311-02 1053-361-01 1053-351-01
1053-371-01
1053-301-01
1053-301-02
1053-371-01
1053-321-03
1053-361-03
1053-321-02
1053-331-03
1053-331-01
1053-331-02
1053-341-01
0216-311-09
0216-311-01
0216-311-02
1053-321-01
0216-321-03
0216-321-08
1053-371-02
/

ONTARIO RANCH RD
i
L
1 J
——-
Kimley»Horn 573
Center Park Specific Plan, City of Ontario Not to scale Figure 3-5: Surrounding Land Uses
Center Park Specific Plan, City of Ontario
3-4
LEGEND
Source: CenterPark Specific Plan Exhibit 3-3 Existing and Surrounding Land Uses, 2025.

EXISTING TOP LAND USE

BOUNDARIES

EXISTING WELLS
DAIRY
SFR
Walker Ave
SFR
Parco Ave
DAIRYa
DAIRY Grove Ave

II DAIRY
Bon View Ave
Campus Ave
DAIRY
135
SFR
SFR
DAIRY
(GRAZING)

TRANSIT

WAREHOUSE
(TRUCK TERMINAL)
DAIRY
DAIRY (GRAZING Cucamonga Ave
Uo —. *
SFR
VACANT
1 VACANSFR MDR
SFR SB
VACANT • DAIRY
SFR
SFR
DAIRY
SFR
DAIRY
Bead LIVESTOCK a
1 OSSFR
(CANT
•SFR
DAIRY
(GRAZING)
r Tiiii
. —
M
SFR
II
■ • I

IMPROVEMENTS
ASS’D ASSOCIATED
APN
SFR
sakegyunnal

NURSERY I
I
/
/

MU PAIRY
SFR
MDR I
• DAIRY

SFR I SFR

DAIRY DAIRY I
. DAIRY

I (GRAZING)

DAIRY I
. JII

I SFR -C I
SFR
—VACANT SFR
SFR
DAIRY ।
I
DAIRY
(GRAZING) 1 II J
VACANT 70
— - 0 7 *
VACANT
E is • enee
SFR
DAIRY •
DAIRY
\
4 Walker Ave
—— ;
VACANT
VACANT
Grove Ave

LIVESTOCK
VACANT
Cucamonga Ave
DAIRY

75.0 Bon View Ave
f
$g
Campus Ave
DAIRY
ai

TRANSIT

WAREHOUSE
(TRUCKTERMINAL)
Parco Ave
DAIRY0
2 Kimley>»Horn
Ontario R;
IM
99 wolooe
I 1 1 ” :

Edison Av
Eucalyptus Ave 1 KV P |X.J
Edison Ave/
Ontario Ranch Rd
%
7 574
Not to scale
Figure 3-6: Existing Land Use and Zoning
CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario Source: CenterPark Specific Plan Exhibit 2-1, Chino Airport Influence Area, 2025.

MALCOLM ST

PINTO PL

VIRGINIA P
M
ER
I
O
N
S
T

MARIGOLD WY
D
O
RAL
CT

MERION CT
AMADO

CALDWELL AV

PHOENIX AVE ME
R
I
O
N
S
T
DO
R
AL
CT

MILDRED PL
PARCO
C
O
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D
S
T
C
O
T
T
O
N
WOO
D
ST

MERION CT

DORAL C
T

SANDPIPER

LASSEN A
WAL

COTTONWOOD ST

RNOUSTIE CT SPYGLASS CT
DORAL
CT

INVERNESS
CT

COSTACT

MERION DR

CASTLE HAR

MEADOW B ROOK

ADES TR PINEHURST CT

AUGUSTA AVE

DORAL ST

MERION ST

RIVERSIDE DR
SULTAN

DORAL ST

DUNES CT

MERION ST
BAKER
ERING

LAKES LN

DEL NORTE PL
C
C
OTT
O
N
WOO

OLON AI L AVE
D

CYPRESS POINT

WRA N GLER PL
WY

DORAL ST

PLUM LN

COTTONWOOD ST CHERRY
VIN
WN TR

CA COGHILL ST

DUNES ST PINE VALLEY
B
IG
RA

WRANGLER PL WRANGLER PL TUM CHAPA
EUCLID

RIVERSIDE DR RIVERSIDE DR

ARCHIBALD AVE

CHINO AVE CHINO AVE CHINO AVE CHINO AVE CHINO AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

MERRILL AVE MERRILL AVE BON VIEW AVE CUCAMONGA AVE

CHINO AVE CHINO AVE

CHINO AVE

BAKER AVE

CHINO AVE

GROVE AVE GROVE AVE GROVE AVE GROVE AVE

BON VIEW AVE

EDISON AVE

BON VIEW AVE BON VIEW AVE

CAMPUS AVE

BON VIEW AVE

EDISON AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

EUCLID AVE EUCLID AVE EUCLID AVE EUCLID AVE EUCLID AVE
CHERRY

DUNES ST

SEA ISLAND
CONCOR

MERION ST
PLUM

DORAL ST
MONTER

COTTONWOOD ST GOLDCREST PL DORAL CT
HOL
G

HOLMES PL

ARFIELD AVE

DUNES ST HOPE AVE

CUCAMON

GREENWOOD ST

TAYLOR AVE
A
R
A

B IAN PL

ARCADIA

GROVE AVE

WALKER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

CARPENTER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE

MERRILL AVE

CARPENTER AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD

EUCALYPTUS AVE

MERRILL AVE

EDISON AVE

WALKER AVE WALKER AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

EDISON AVE

VINEYARD AVE

WALKER AVE

ONTARIO AVE ONTARIO AVE

COTTONWOOD CT PARKSIDE AV

VIRGINIA PL

COTTONWOOD CT

SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE FL OR

ARBOR L KENSINGTON AVE ROSE PE

WICKFORD CROWN CT PRIMROSE PL DEVONS

VICTORIA ST

PLYMOUTH AVE NEWTON AVE

COLONIAL AVE

SALEM ST

NORWICH ST

DANBURY ST

COLCHESTER ST

BENNINGTON ST

LEWISTON ST

DARIEN ST

BOUNTIFUL TR

GRAPEVINE TR

THOMPSO

DERBY LN

WILLIAMSBURG LN BARNVELDER

WYANDOTTE

ORPINGTON
A

BORDEAUX SC OTT WY KEN T W Y MURP

HOWLET T DRYDEN AV

OTTAWA AV
CORNW
EDM
O
ALBES
KEND

BODEGA WY

CELLARS

HELLMAN AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

OLIVIA WY

BLAIRE WY

CHARLOTTE AV

STELLA AV

LOLA AV

ELLIE AV

CORA WY

SCARLETT LN SCARLETT LN

MABEL LN MABEL LN

CLARA LN CLARA LN

HARPER ST HARPER ST

PENELOPE LN PENELOPE LN

PARKVIEW ST

REESE WY

ANSLEY AV

AVERY AV

TATUM LN

HARLOW LN
MAE WY

EMBRY LN

IVY AV IVY AV

PIPER WY

HAZEL ST

VIOLET LN

PHEASANT
CRANE
KIWI

MEADOWLARK
WREN

TANAGER

BASANITE AV

SHALE AV

DOLOMITE ST BROCKRAM DR KINGLET AV
JOSEPH

PRIVADO
LENA

PRIVADO

SCHMIDT
8j
8i
5 4
8h
8gS GROVE

S EUCLID

E CHINO

E RIVERSIDE

E MERRILL

E EDISON

E SCHAEFER

E EUCALYPTUS E
E

E EDISON E E
D
8f
CHINO

AIRPORT

PROJECT SITE
N
www.ontarioplan.org
LEGEND
Mixed Use
Districts

1. Downtown

2. Airport Metro/Entertainment
Neighborhood Centers
8a. Mountain and 6th
8b. Mountain and 4th
Mixed Use
Residential
High Density (25.1 - 45 du / ac)
Medium Density (11.1 - 25 du / ac)
Low-Medium Density (5.1 - 11 du / ac)
Low Density (2.1 - 5 du / ac)
Rural (0 - 2 du/ac)

CHARDONNAY CT
(private drainage road)

ROCHESTER AVE

MILLIKEN AVE

JURUPA ST

ZINFANDEL CT

VANDERBILT ST

HUDSON AVE

FRANCIS ST FRANCIS ST

CHAMPAGNE AVE FRANCIS ST

CHABLIS AVE
C
L
A
R
K
S
T

JURUPA ST

VINTAGE AVE

VINTAGE AVE

SANTA ANA ST

MALAGA PL

SARAH PL SARAH PL

JURUPA ST

AUTO C ENTER DR
McNAMARA ST

WINEVILLE AVE

AUTO CENTER DR

ROCHESTER AVE

WANAM AKER

AVE WALL ST

WOODR U FF WAY

ROCKEFELLER AVE
S
T
NA ST
LL ST

AIRPORT DR

BRICKELL ST

BRICKELL PRIVADO WANAMAKER AVE

ONTARIO MILLS
PA
RK
WA
Y

GIBRALTAR ST

AIRPORT DR

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

VINTAGE AVE

FRANKLIN
AVE

ONTARIO
MILLS
DR
M
I
L
L
S
C
IRCLE

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY
MALL
DR

MILLS CIRCLE
GURNEE
AVE

FR A N KLIN AVE

ONTARIO M IL LS DR ROCHESTER AVE

WINEVILLE AVE

MILLIKEN AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)

MILLIKEN AVE MILLIKEN AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)

PHILADELPHIA ST

WINEVILLE AVE

BURGUNDY PL

PHILADELPHIA ST

ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE

FOURTH ST BARRINGTON AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)
SAN BERNARDINO FWY (I-10)

SHEA DR
FIC
ADO

GUASTI RD

MOTOR LN

KETTERING
DR

TOYOTA WY

CONCOURS ST

HAMNER AVE
2 E AIRPORT

S MILLIKEN S HAMNER

S ETIWANDA

E PHILADELPHIA

E INLAND EMPIRE

S VINTAGE

N MILLIKEN

N ETIWANDA

S WINEVILLE

E SANTA ANA
-01
LAN
Note: The City of Ontario in its entirety is
located within the Airport Influence Area
of Ontario International Airport.

An area in which current or future
airport-related noise, overflight, safety,
or airspace protection factors may
significantly affect land uses or necessitate
restriction on those uses.

Refer to the Ontario Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan for further
information.
www.ontarioplan.org
LEGEND
Other
Open Space - Non-Recreation
Employment
Industrial (0.55 FAR)
Business Park (0.6 FAR)
Retail/Service
Hospitality (1.0 FAR)
Office Commercial (0.75 FAR)
General Commercial (0.4 FAR)
Neighborhood Commercial (0.4 FAR)
Mixed Use
Districts

1. Downtown

2. Airport Metro/Entertainment

3. Guasti

4. South Euclid

5. South Employment
Corridors

6. East Holt Blvd

7. Inland Empire Blvd
Neighborhood Centers
8a. Mountain and 6th
8b. Mountain and 4th
8c. Mountain and Holt
8d. Euclid and Francis
8e.Euclid and Walnut
8f. Euclid and Riverside
8g. Grove and Chino
8h. Grove and Edison
8i. Vineyard and Edison
8j. Parkside
Mixed Use
Residential
High Density (25.1 - 45 du / ac)
Medium Density (11.1 - 25 du / ac)
Low-Medium Density (5.1 - 11 du / ac)
Low Density (2.1 - 5 du / ac)
Rural (0 - 2 du/ac)

CHARDONNAY CT
(private drainage road)

DRIFTWOOD PL

NORTHSHORES PL

ROCHESTER AVE

SEAGULL AVE

FAIRFIELD ST

CRYSTAL SPGS PL ROCK SPGS PLOAK SPRINGS
PL
FO
XG
L
E
N
L

P ACORNGLENN PL

GLENNPLBADGER

FO X GLEN LP

LYTLE CREEK LP

BEAR CK
LYT LE
C
R
E

EK LOOP
H
ONE
Y
G
L
E
N
N
WY

ALISO CREEK
CREEK

OA K HILL DR PONY DR

PINTO PL
CR
YSTAL
LK
C
T
PA
R

K GLENN WY
CT

COLD CK WY
F
IREC
REST

CTWOODLARK DR ARCADIAN SHORES RD WALNUT ST

HAZELTINE ST DRPEACHTREE PL PEACHTREE PL

BROOKSIDE CT
C
OTT
O
N
WOO
D
TR

COTTONWOOD CT

ST ANDREWS DR PEACHTREE PL DUNES ST

MERION ST PEACHTREE PLPLAINFIELD DR
NORTH

SHORES DR
NORTH
SHORES
SHORES
RD

ARCADIAN

TURNER AVE

PLAINFIELD DR

COLON AI L AVE

COG HILL CT COG HILL CT

DUNES ST

CYPRESS POINT PL CYPRESS POINT PL

PINE VALLEY AVE

ARCADIAN SHORES RD

SURREY WY

GREENBRIAR
DR
N

BRONCO DR
ORTH
SHORE
D

LONGHORN ST
R

PEACHTREE PL

NORTH SHORE DR

PLAINFIELDDR
B
L
A
CK
H
O
R
S
ED
R

TURNER AVE

PONY DR
STA
LLIO
N
W
Y

COLT WY

WRA N GLER PL
BLAC
K
HORSE
D
R
C
H
A
PA
RRAL
S
T

ROCKY PL

CLOVER WY

PEACHTREE
LN

OL D A RC HIBALD RANCH RD

G R EY F OX
L
N
HA

RBOUR TOWN TR

CANTERBURY

COLONIAL AVE CANTERBURY RICHMOND
S
T
BRO
OKSID
E
S
T
O AK
HI
L
LDR

PINE VALLEY

WALNUT ST W I L MINGTON DR

COLON AI L AVE

SEA SI LAND PL

DOVER PL

LEXINGTON PL
TAM O'

SHANTER

HAZELTINE ST

COGHILL ST

DUNES ST PINE VALLEY AVE

CEDAR RIDGE D
U
N
E
S
ST

DESERT FOREST AVE

CEDAR RIDGE
ST. ANDREWS ST

OAKMONT STT URNSTONE AVE

TAM O SHANTER WA
LNUT
ST

DUNLIN WY
B
IG
RANGE
RD

WRANGLER PL WRANGLER PL

PALOMINO PL MUSTANG DR BLACK HORSE DR

CENTURION WY

LAGO ST
W
O
OD

OAKLEAF CTRD

POPLAR DR

WOOD CT

MORNING
ST. TROPEZ DR
B
IS
O
N
WY
FAW
N CT

BLUE FOX DR
W

Y ANTEL OPE

REINDEER LN
PL
DE
CRYS
ER
C
R
E
E
K
L
O
O
P
TA
L
L
K
RD

PINECONE WY

REDPINE PL

RIPPLING BROO K PL

CARIB OU PL

CLEAR LA KE
R
D

ELSINORE W Y
AN
T
L
ER
RD
G
I
N
G
E
R
G
L
E
N
N
R
D
CEDAR
SHAD
OW

WARM SODA SPRINGS CT CK WY SPGS CT
ASH

G ATE WYMI L ANO ST
GENOA

ASHGATE PL
AS
H
GATE
C
T
S
UM
ME
R
I
S
L
A
N
D

APPLEWOOD DR NECTARCREEK
S
I
D
E
D
R

ALDER CREEK DR OAK C REEK DR

O A K C R
E
E
K
OA
KCREEK

STRAWBERRY CREEK PL ADLER CK TUOLUMNE
CT
C
E
D
A
R
G
L
E
N

LAURELTREE DR GINGERWOOD RD

OAKLEAF RD
MORNINGWOOD CT
SC
O
U
T
CT

PEACHTREE PL

BURNING TREE DR

MUSTANG PL PALOMINO PL

PINTO PL

TUMBLEWEED ST
C
H
APA
R
R AL
ST

COLD SPRINGS PL
R
WAY

USH CREEK
S
A
N
L
O
R
E
N
Z
O
R
V
RR

D YUBA RVR RD

B GI CREEK STRAWBERRY CREEK SNOWGRAEAGLE

TUOLUMNE PL
CO
U
N
T
R

YOAK S LOOP

MILL CREEK

M A D R VR RD

KINGS RVR LN
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
R
I
V
E
R
R
D

SAN LORENZO RVR RD GREYSTONE DR BRENTSTONE
ST

HARTFORD ST

MONO CK SH ERWIN CK PL WY

SALMON RIVER DR OWENS RIVER LN
McGEE CK LN

YUBA RIVER DR
WY

CK PL HOLCOMB

LIVEOAK CK CT

SANT IAGO
CRK
WAY

EEL RIVER PL

BRU S H CK PL

SALT CK
WY
McCLOUD RVR LN

RUSSIAN RVR DR YUBA RIV DR BOISE CK PL
W
H
IT
ES
T A G
RD
AN
T
LE
R
R
D

EV E R GREEN DR
MOOSE
DEER
DR
ANTLER
RD

ALDER DR
C
A
NA
RY
C
T

ACORN PL
CAPRI
ST
DAY
C
R
E
E
K
D
R

HONEYBROO
KW
Y
DEER
CREE K
L
O
OP
CLEAR
LAKE
RD

BUFFALO RD

BLACKPINE PL
CT
S
U
GA
R
M
A
P
L
E

MONTE G O AVE

TURNER AVE

DOUBLEDAY AVE

GINGERWOOD RD

COUNTRY OAKS OAK CR E EK DR EAGLE CK PL

MOOSE CK LN
CAR
I
BO
U
C
K

CT GRIZZLEY CK CT

CONDOR CK LN
BEAVER
CK LN
EL
K
CREEK
DR

BIG CREEK RD

YUBA RIVER DR
MERCED RIVER RDMcCLOUD RIVER RD

TRUCKEE RVR

MILLIKEN AVE

STANFORD AVE

DUPONT AVE

EXCISE AVE

PO NI TE AVE

SPRUCE ST

CEDAR ST

STERLING ST

PO NI TE AVE

TURNER AVE
POMONA FWY (SR-60)
POINTE
AVE

BUSIN ESS PARKWAY

CEDAR ST

FRANCIS ST

PROFORMA AVE

PROFORMA AVE
COLO
R
ADORV
R

RBUTTE CK PLD
McCLOUD RIVER RD

STONE CK

SILVERADO CREEK PL

KLAMATH

RIVER DR

FOX CK LN
ANTE L
O
PE
CREEK
DR

JURUPA ST

LINDSAY PRIVADO

JURUPA ST

TURNER AVE

DOUBLEDAY AVE

CARNEGIE AVE

LA SALLE ST
FRA
N
C
IS
ST
M ETRO
WAY

JURUPA ST JURUPA ST

ZINFANDEL CT

VANDERBILT ST

HUDSON AVE

FRANCIS ST FRANCIS ST

CHAMPAGNE AVE FRANCIS ST

CHABLIS AVE
C
L
A
R
K
S
T

JURUPA ST

VINTAGE AVE

VINTAGE AVE

SANTA ANA ST

MALAGA PL

SARAH PL SARAH PL

JURUPA ST

AUTO C ENTER DR
McNAMARA ST

WINEVILLE AVE

AUTO CENTER DR

ROCHESTER AVE

WANAM AKER

AVE WALL ST

WOODR U FF WAY

ROCKEFELLER AVE
LOW
E
L
L
S
T

SANTA ANA ST

DUPONT AVE

DO UB LED AY AVE

SANTA ANA ST
D
RT DR

PEPPER TREE LN
SYCA
M
O
R
E
R
D

TURNER AVE
GUA
STI

RD CENTRE
L
A
KE
DR
EB
O
NYST

SEQUOIA AVE

PONDEROSA AVE
AIR
P
ORT
DR

CLEVELAND AVE

GUASTI RD

BRICKELL ST

AIRPORT DR

BRICKELL ST

BRICKELL PRIVADO WANAMAKER AVE

ONTARIO MILLS
PA
RK
WA
Y

GIBRALTAR ST

AIRPORT DR

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

VINTAGE AVE

FRANKLIN
AVE

ONTARIO
MILLS
DR
M
I
L
L
S
C
IRCLE

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD

FERRARI L N

POR SCHE WY

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD LOTUS AVE
S
H
E
L
B
Y
S
T

TRIUMPH LN

CORVETTE DR

JAGUAR WY

TURNER AVE
CENTER
AVE
MALL
DR

MILLS CIRCLE
GURNEE
AVE

FR A N KLIN AVE

ONTARIO M IL LS DR ROCHESTER AVE

WINEVILLE AVE
DR

FOURTH ST

ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE

PHILADELPHIA ST

ARCHIBALD AVE

ARCAD AI N SHORES RD

OAK HILL DR
FA
I
R
F
I
E
L
D
ST

TURNSTONE

ARCHIBALD AVE

RIVERSIDE DR

MISSION BLVD

HAVEN AVE

MISSION BLVD DUPONT AVE

HAVEN AVE

FOURTH ST

HAVEN AVE

MILLIKEN AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)

MILLIKEN AVE MILLIKEN AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)

PHILADELPHIA ST

WINEVILLE AVE

BURGUNDY PL

PHILADELPHIA ST

ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE

FOURTH ST BARRINGTON AVE

EXCISE AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD

MERCEDES LN

CHINO AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)
SAN BERNARDINO FWY (I-10)

SHEA DR

PONDEROSA AV

SEQUOIA AV

FRANCIS ST

PACIFIC

PRIVADO
SLATER
CIR

GOLDEN TRAILS

SILVER SADDLE ST

PALOMINO CT

CENTURION PL

PLAINFIELD PL

OLD ARCHIBALD RANCH RD STALLION W Y

ROAN ST

RODEO PL

ARCADIAN SHORES RD

JOSHUA TREE RD

CENTURION PL

JOSHUA TREE ST
AUTUMN
RIDGE

RDROCKY LN GREENBRIAR DR
PONY
WY

CLOVER PL

STALLION ST

SWEETWATER
DR

ROCKYWY

CLOVER LN

DUNES ST

UREL VLY LN

SEA ISLAND TR

MILL CK

GUASTI RD

JOHN BANGS DR

MOTOR LN
EAR L
ST
O
N
ED
R
A
R
A

B IAN PL
CLY
D
ESDA
LE
ST

ARCADIAN SHORES AV

BURNING TREE DR

THOROUGHBRED ST BIG RANGE RDNORTH SHORES DR

CHINO AV

TURNER AV

CLEVELAND AVE

HAVEN AVE HAVEN AVE

EDISON AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE
H RD

SMIDERLE LP

CHINO AV

VIA ASTI

VIA ALBA

VIA PIEMONTE

VIA VILLAGIO

VIA TURIN

ONTARIO CE
N
TERP
A
RK
W
AY
K RD
HOFER RANCH RD.

KETTERING
DR

OLD GUASTI RD

GUASTI RD

COMMERCE PARKWAY COMMERCE PARKWAY

AIRPORT DR

TOYOTA WY

CONCOURS ST

CONCOURS ST

CONCOURS ST

CONCOURS ST TA H OE DR
AS

H GAT E WAY

SEDONA CT

DUES E N BE RG DR

EDENGLEN AVE
AUB
URNWY

DNI L CALLAWAY DR ENWOOD DR

HERITAGE LN
GROVE

LAND DR

COTTAGE WY

EDENGLEN AVE

QUINCY WY

EDENGLEN AVE

HAMPSHIRE DR BETHANY WY

EMORY LN

OAKWOOD DR EDENGLEN AVE

TULANE WYHAMPTON WY

BRADLEY LN CLAREMONT DR

WESTMONT LNHAMILTON WY CAMBRIDGE DR

HAMNER AVE HAMNER AVE

VIA TERRANO VIA CORVINA

VIA FIANO

VIAMOLINARA

VIA DOLCETTO

VIA BAROLO

HOPKINS ST GROWER AVE

DULISSE AVE

GREEN AVE

HYCHE AVE

WING ST

KLASSEN ST

TURNER AV

NEW HAVEN DR

ONTARIO RANCH RD

ONTARIO RANCH RD ONTARIO RANCH RD

SCHAEFER AVE

RUTHERFORD DR

LA AVENIDA DR

ALEXANDER AVE YOUNTVILLE DR O A K V ILLE AVE

EDISON AVE

LA AVENIDA DR

SCHAEFER AVE

PINE RIDGE LP SOMERSTON WY MONDAVI WY MERRYVALE
WY

TRINITAS WY

MAYACAMA WY

SILVER OAK WY STERLING
ST

ARTESSA
WY

CLOVERDALE WY

INGLENOOK WY

CARNEROS AV

COLONIAL AVE
M ST

WICH ST
URY ST

STER ST

NGTON ST
TON ST
N ST
MT. RAINIER DRIVE

GLACIER TRAIL BISCAYNE ST

ZION TRAIL

DENALI DRIVE

ACADIA AVE YELLOWSTONE DRIVE

YOSEMITE DRIVE

GRAND PARK ST

ACADIA AVE

ARCHES TRAIL

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ST TURNER AVE

OLYMPIC DRIVE
N

RG LN BARNVELDER

WYANDOTTE

ORPINGTON
IVADO

BORDEAUX DR

BOWERY PL

WILSHIRE RD

PENNY LN

BOURBON ST

ABBEY RD

GRAFTON ST

BROADWAY AV

BEALE WY OCEAN WY

CANAL WY

DRYDEN AV

KINGSTON AV

MANITOBA PL

OTTAWA AV

CORNWALL ST

EDMONTON ST

ALBERTA ST

SARNIA ST

CALGARY ST

WINNIPEG AV

WELLAND AV

BODEGA WY

KENDALL LN

TRELLIS WY

CELLARS
WY

MIDSUMMER PRIVADO WILD HORSE PRIVADO CARDINALE PRIVADO

PARADUXX

PRIVADO

QUINTESSA

PRIVADO

HAVEN AVE

SUNRISE AV

DAYLIGHT AV

MOONLIGHT ST ROSY PKWY
SUNSET
DR

CHEERFUL PASEO

MILL CREEK AV

TREE BLOSSOM ST

ASPEN ST

HEARTWOOD ST

SUMAC ST
N
E
LS
ON
DR

POLLOCK ST

EAMES ST

WRIGHT AVE

TWINKLE AVE

JACOBSON

LAUTNER

ALLSTON PASEO

PHEASANT
CRANE
KIWI

MEADOWLARK
WREN

TANAGER

ALMOND BLOSSOM ST

CRISANTA PRIVADO PEONY PASEO

SAGE PASEO

CLIFTON AV

HO LLYHOCK PASEO

HISBISCUS PASEO

MILL CREEK AV

HEATHER PRIVADO

CRISANTA PRIVADO

BR IGH T PASEO

DELIGH T PASEO

HAPPY PASEO

SU NN Y PASEO

LAN TER N PASEO

OASIS PASEO

SPARKLE PASEO

JOLLYPASEO

RADIANT D R

AMHERST AV

VENTURA AV

SUNSET ST

LA JOLLA ST CATALINA ST

CAMBRIA PRIVADO

ENCINITAS AVE

AVILA PRIVADO

HALTON PRIVADO

BASANITE AV

SHALE AV

DOLOMITE ST BROCKRAM DR KINGLET AV

CHATHAM ST

CLIFTON ST
73 2
2 8jS ARCHIBALD

S HAVEN

E AIRPORT

N HAVEN

S MILLIKEN S HAMNER

S ETIWANDA

E PHILADELPHIA

E INLAND EMPIRE

E JURUPA

S VINTAGE

N MILLIKEN

N ETIWANDA

S WINEVILLE

N ARCHIBALD

E SANTA ANA

E JURUPA

E INLAND EMPIRE

E EDISON E EDISON
±
EXHIBIT LU-01

LAND USE PLAN
Note: The City of Ontario in its entirety is
located within the Airport Influence Area
of Ontario International Airport.

An area in which current or future
airport-related noise, overflight, safety,
or airspace protection factors may
significantly affect land uses or necessitate
restriction on those uses.

Refer to the Ontario Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan for further
information.

Note: The location of the 350 plus acre
Great Park designatedas Open Space –
Parkland in Ontario Ranch
(area south of Riverside Drive) and the
approximate 5- acre Lakes (designated
as Open Space – Water) are conceptual.

Refer to Figure PR- 1 – Park Facilities for
further detail on existing and conceptual
park locations in Ontario Ranch.
www.ontarioplan.org
LEGEND
Other
Landfill
Rail
Airport
Public School
Public Facility
Open Space - Water
Open Space - Parkland
Open Space - Non-Recreation
Employment
Industrial (0.55 FAR)
Business Park (0.6 FAR)
Retail/Service
Hospitality (1.0 FAR)
Office Commercial (0.75 FAR)
General Commercial (0.4 FAR)
Neighborhood Commercial (0.4 FAR)
Mixed Use
Districts

1. Downtown

2. Airport Metro/Entertainment

3. Guasti

4. South Euclid

5. South Employment
Corridors

6. East Holt Blvd

7. Inland Empire Blvd
Neighborhood Centers
8a. Mountain and 6th
8b. Mountain and 4th
8c. Mountain and Holt
8d. Euclid and Francis
8e.Euclid and Walnut
8f. Euclid and Riverside
8g. Grove and Chino
8h. Grove and Edison
8i. Vineyard and Edison
8j. Parkside
Mixed Use
Residential
High Density (25.1 - 45 du / ac)
Medium Density (11.1 - 25 du / ac)
Low-Medium Density (5.1 - 11 du / ac)
Low Density (2.1 - 5 du / ac)
Rural (0 - 2 du/ac)

CHARDONNAY CT
(private drainage road)

OLIVE ST

PLACER CT

CAROLINE

SAN DIEGO
AV

HARVARD PL
C
T

DRIFTWOOD PL

NORTHSHORES PL

ROCHESTER AVE

SEAGULL AVE

FAIRFIELD ST

CRYSTAL SPGS PL ROCK SPGS PLOAK SPRINGS
PL
FO
XG
L
E
N
L

P ACORNGLENN PL

GLENNPLBADGER

FO X GLEN LP

LYTLE CREEK LP

BEAR CK
LYT LE
C
R
E

EK LOOP
H
ONE
Y
G
L
E
N
N
WY

ALISO CREEK
CREEK

OA K HILL DR PONY DR

PINTO PL
CR
YSTAL
LK
C
T
PA
R

K GLENN WY
CT

COLD CK WY
R
C
T

RAYMOND PL

CHERRY HILL ST

HAZELTINE
CT

CALAVER A S PL
T
A
M
OS
H
A
N
TE
R

PARKSIDE DR

V RI GIN AI WY

MARIGOLD WAY DEERFIELD ST M VIRGINIA PL ERION S T

MARIGOLD WY
D
O
RAL
CT

MERION CT
AMADOR
DO
R
AL
CT

MILDRED PL

PARCO AVE
C
O
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D
S
T
C
O
T
T
O
N
WOO
D
ST

MERION CT

DORAL CT

SANDPIPER AV DEERFIELD ST E
D

MILDRED PL

EL NORTE AVEMAIDSTONE ST
S
T
A
N
D
R
E
W
S
S
T

IMPERIAL

LASSEN AVE

BERMUDA
DUNES
ST

WALKER AVE
B
E
R
M
U
D
A
D
U
N
E
S
S

THARBOUR AVE

CASTLE MAIDSTONEST

COTTONWOOD ST

CA RNOUSTIE CT

MARIGOLD PL

MILDRED PL BANYAN

DEL NORT E AVE

OAK HILL OAK HILL SANDPIPER PL IMPE RIAL PL

BANYAN ST

LAKE AVE

BERMUDA DUNES ST

TAM O SHANTERLASSEN AVE

SPYGLASS CT
DORAL
CT

INVERNESS
CT

COSTACT

MERION DR

CASTLE HARBOUR PL

MEADOW B ROOK PL

CASCADES CASCADES TR PINEHURST CT AUGUSTA AVE

DORAL ST

MERION ST

RIVERSIDE DR
F
A
I
R
F
I
E
L
D
S
T

OAK HILL CT

BANYAN ST
C
H
E
R
RY
HILL
ST
O
A
K
H
I
L
L
C
T

P NI EHURST PL

BANYAN CT

TAM O SHANTER

HAZELTINE ST

AUGUSTA AVE
B
R
O
O
K
SID
E
S
T

ST ANDREWS PL

BANYANQUAKER RIDGE PLOAK
H
I
L
L
CT

CHERRY HILL ST PRARIE DUNES PL

BANYAN ST

HILL ST

BOCA RATON CT TIARA AVE BALBOA AVE VALENCIA AVE
CHERRY

SAN DIEGO PL

SACRAMENTO
PL

WHISPERING
BALBOA
PEBBLE
BEACH
CT
LAKES

INVERNESS

BROOKSIDE DR
S
T
A
N
D
R
E
W
S
D
R

BAKER AVE

DIVERSA DR
TAM A
RA
S
K
D
R

W H ISPERING

LAKES LN

SANDPIPER AVE HAZELTINE ST

DEL NORTE PL
STA
N
D
RE
WS
CT

MILDRED PL

AMADOR PL
O
A
K
H
I LL
DR

CALAV ERAS
PL

DEL N ORTE PL
F
IREC
REST

CTWOODLARK DR ARCADIAN SHORES RD WALNUT ST

HAZELTINE ST DRPEACHTREE PL PEACHTREE PL

BROOKSIDE CT
C
OTT
O
N
WOO
D
TR

COTTONWOOD CT

ST ANDREWS DR PEACHTREE PL DUNES ST

MERION ST PEACHTREE PLPLAINFIELD DR
NORTH

SHORES DR
NORTH
SHORES
SHORES
RD

ARCADIAN

TURNER AVE

PLAINFIELD DR

COLON AI L AVE

COG HILL CT COG HILL CT

DUNES ST

CYPRESS POINT PL CYPRESS POINT PL

PINE VALLEY AVE

ARCADIAN SHORES RD

SURREY WY

GREENBRIAR
DR
N

BRONCO DR
ORTH
SHORE
D

LONGHORN ST
R

PEACHTREE PL

NORTH SHORE DR

PLAINFIELDDR
B
L
A
CK
H
O
R
S
ED
R

TURNER AVE

PONY DR
STA
LLIO
N
W
Y

COLT WY

WRA N GLER PL
BLAC
K
HORSE
D
R
C
H
A
PA
RRAL
S
T

ROCKY PL

CLOVER WY

PEACHTREE
LN

OL D A RC HIBALD RANCH RD

G R EY F OX
L
N

RMUDA DUNES ST

VINEYARD AVE BERMUDA DUNES CT
HA

RBOUR TOWN TR

CANTERBURY

COLONIAL AVE CANTERBURY RICHMOND
S
T
BRO
OKSID
E
S
T
O AK
HI
L
LDR

PINE VALLEY

WALNUT ST W I L MINGTON DR

COLON AI L AVE

SEA SI LAND PL

DOVER PL

LEXINGTON PL
TAM O'

SHANTER

HAZELTINE ST

COGHILL ST

DUNES ST PINE VALLEY AVE

CEDAR RIDGE D
U
N
E
S
ST

DESERT FOREST AVE

CEDAR RIDGE
ST. ANDREWS ST

OAKMONT STT URNSTONE AVE

TAM O SHANTER WA
LNUT
ST

DUNLIN WY
B
IG
RANGE
RD

WRANGLER PL WRANGLER PL

PALOMINO PL MUSTANG DR BLACK HORSE DR

CENTURION WY

LAGO ST
W
O
OD

OAKLEAF CTRD

POPLAR DR

WOOD CT

MORNING
ST. TROPEZ DR
B
IS
O
N
WY
FAW
N CT

BLUE FOX DR
W

Y ANTEL OPE

REINDEER LN
PL
DE
CRYS
ER
C
R
E
E
K
L
O
O
P
TA
L
L
K
RD

PINECONE WY

REDPINE PL

RIPPLING BROO K PL

CARIB OU PL

CLEAR LA KE
R
D

ELSINORE W Y
AN
T
L
ER
RD
G
I
N
G
E
R
G
L
E
N
N
R
D
CEDAR
SHAD
OW

WARM SODA SPRINGS CT CK WY SPGS CT
ASH

G ATE WYMI L ANO ST
GENOA

ASHGATE PL
AS
H
GATE
C
T
S
UM
ME
R
I
S
L
A
N
D

APPLEWOOD DR NECTARCREEK
S
I
D
E
D
R

ALDER CREEK DR OAK C REEK DR

O A K C R
E
E
K
OA
KCREEK

STRAWBERRY CREEK PL ADLER CK TUOLUMNE
CT
C
E
D
A
R
G
L
E
N

LAURELTREE DR GINGERWOOD RD

OAKLEAF RD
MORNINGWOOD CT
SC
O
U
T
CT

PEACHTREE PL

BURNING TREE DR

MUSTANG PL PALOMINO PL

PINTO PL

TUMBLEWEED ST
C
H
APA
R
R AL
ST

COLD SPRINGS PL
R
WAY

USH CREEK
S
A
N
L
O
R
E
N
Z
O
R
V
RR

D YUBA RVR RD

B GI CREEK STRAWBERRY CREEK SNOWGRAEAGLE

TUOLUMNE PL
CO
U
NTR

YOAK S LOOP

MILL CREEK

M A D R VR RD

KINGS RVR LN
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
R
I
V
E
R
R
D

SAN LORENZO RVR RD GREYSTONE DR BRENTSTONE
ST

HARTFORD ST

MONO CK SH ERWIN CK PL WY

SALMON RIVER DR OWENS RIVER LN
McGEE CK LN

YUBA RIVER DR
WY

CK PL HOLCOMB

LIVEOAK CK CT

SANT IAGO
CRK
WAY

EEL RIVER PL

BRU S H CK PL

SALT CK
WY
McCLOUD RVR LN

RUSSIAN RVR DR YUBA RIV DR BOISE CK PL
W
H
IT
ES
T A G
RD
AN
T
LE
R
R
D

EV E R GREEN DR
MOOSE
DEER
DR
ANTLER
RD

ALDER DR
C
A
NA
RY
C
T

ACORN PL
CAPRI
ST
DAY
C
R
E
E
K
D
R

HONEYBROO
KW
Y
DEER
CREE K
L
O
OP
CLEAR
LAKE
RD

BUFFALO RD

BLACKPINE PL
CT
S
U
GA
R
M
A
P
L
E

MONTE G O AVE

TURNER AVE

DOUBLEDAY AVE

GINGERWOOD RD

COUNTRY OAKS OAK CR E EK DR EAGLE CK PL

MOOSE CK LN
CAR
I
BO
U
C
K

CT GRIZZLEY CK CT

CONDOR CK LN
BEAVER
CK LN
EL
K
CREEK
DR

BIG CREEK RD

YUBA RIVER DR
MERCED RIVER RDMcCLOUD RIVER RD

TRUCKEE RVR

MILLIKEN AVE

STANFORD AVE

DUPONT AVE

EXCISE AVE

PO NI TE AVE

SPRUCE ST

CEDAR ST

STERLING ST

PO NI TE AVE

TURNER AVE
POMONA FWY (SR-60)
POINTE
AVE

BUSIN ESS PARKWAY

CEDAR ST

FRANCIS ST

PROFORMA AVE

DE SOTO PL

PROFORMA AVE

SPRUCE CT DEL RIO WYCEDAR STHELLMAN AVE

CARLOS AVE

LYNX PL

CEDAR ST

QUAKER R DI GE P

GREVILLEA CT L

VINEYARD AVE

MONTICELLO CT

BAKER AVE

CASTLE HARBOUR PL SHEARWATER ST

FREMONT CT

CEDAR ST

AUGUSTA CT

WALKER AVE

PINEHURST AVE

SPRUCE ST

CEDAR ST

PARCO AVE

WALKER AVE

AUGUSTA PL SKYLARK ST

FRANCIS ST

MONTICELLO ST

FRANCIS ST
U
S
TST
COLO
R
ADORV
R

RBUTTE CK PLD
McCLOUD RIVER RD

STONE CK

SILVERADO CREEK PL

KLAMATH

RIVER DR

FOX CK LN
ANTE L
O
PE
CREEK
DR

MARIGOLD PL

LOCUST ST

ACACIA CT

WOODLAWN ST

PARKSIDE PL

ACACIA ST

MILDRED AVE

LOCUST ST BAKER AVE
ELM ST

ACACIA ST SACRAMENTO AVE

VINEYARD AVE

VALENCIA ST

BALBOA AVE
ELM ST

LOCUST CT

MAPLE PRIVADO

CARLOS AVE

BALBOA AVE

FRANCIS ST AVION PL

TOWER DR

JURUPA ST

LINDSAY PRIVADO

JURUPA ST

TURNER AVE

DOUBLEDAY AVE

CARNEGIE AVE

LA SALLE ST

VINEYARD AV

AIRPORT DR

WALKER ST

AIRPORT DR KERN ST PEACH AVE

ONTARIO BLVD

GROVE PL

MAIN ST

CUCAMONGA AVE

ST CUCAMONGA AVE T
FRA
N
C
IS
ST
M ETRO
W AY

JURUPA ST JURUPA ST

ZINFANDEL CT

VANDERBILT ST

HUDSON AVE

FRANCIS ST FRANCIS ST

CHAMPAGNE AVE FRANCIS ST

CHABLIS AVE
C
L
A
R
K
S
T

JURUPA ST

VINTAGE AVE

VINTAGE AVE

SANTA ANA ST

MALAGA PL

SARAH PL SARAH PL

JURUPA ST

AUTO C ENTER DR
McNAMARA ST

WINEVILLE AVE

AUTO CENTER DR

ROCHESTER AVE

WANAM AKER

AVE WALL ST

WOODR U FF WAY

ROCKEFELLER AVE
LOW
E
L
L
S
T

SANTA ANA ST

DUPONT AVE

DO UB LED AY AVE

SANTA ANA ST

EMPORIA ST

IMPERIAL AVE

ELMA CT

LASSEN PL

ELMA CT

CORONA AVE

SACRAMENTO AVE

VINEYARD AVE
CO
N
V
E
NTION
C
E
N
TER

WAY DEARBORN
CT

VINEYARD / TERMINAL WAY

GUASTI RD

AIRPORT DR

PEPPER TREE LN
SYCA
M
O
R
E
R
D

TURNER AVE
GUA
STI

RD CENTRE
L
A
KE
DR
EB
O
NYST

SEQUOIA AVE

PONDEROSA AVE
AIR
P
ORT
DR

CLEVELAND AVE

GUASTI RD

BRICKELL ST

AIRPORT DR

BRICKELL ST

BRICKELL PRIVADO WANAMAKER AVE

ONTARIO MILLS
PA
RK
WA
Y

GIBRALTAR ST

AIRPORT DR

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

VINTAGE AVE

FRANKLIN
AVE

ONTARIO
MILLS
DR
M
I
L
L
S
C
IRCLE

MARIN AVE

MADERA AVE

MADERA AVE
H ST

BAKER AVE

GRANADA CT PLAZA SERENA ORANGE AVE PLACER AVE

SACAMENTO AVE

SAN DIEGO AVE

ROSEWOOD CT
N
JAY ST

APA AVE

MERCED AVEROSEWOOD CT

MARIPOSA AVE

GRANADA CT LASSEN AVE

HUMBOLDT PL

GLENN PL
D ST

FLORA ST HUMBOLDT
CT
F ST

EL DORADO
CT
GLENN
CT

EL MORADO CT

LAKE AVE
E

GLENN AVE

HUMBOLDT CT

IMPERIAL AVE

L DORADO AVE

DEL NORTE AVE

CALAVERAS AVE CALAVERAS AVE
I ST
LASSEN
AVE

LAKE AVE
FRESNO
ST

GLENN AVE

HUMBOLT

EL DORADO AVE

ROSEWOOD
CT

FLORA ST ALAMEDA AVE AMADOR AVE

ALAMEDA AVE

PARKSIDE AVE

VIRGINIA AVE

G ST VIRGINIA AVE FLORA ST PARKSIDE AVE

E ST CUCAMONGA AVE

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD

FERRARI L N

POR SCHE WY

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD LOTUS AVE
S
H
E
L
B
Y
S
T

TRIUMPH LN

CORVETTE DR

JAGUAR WY

TURNER AVE

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
G ST

MARIPOSA AVE

LAKE AVE

HAWTHORNE ST

EL DORADO AVE

HAWTHORNE ST
B
O
NN
I
E
B
RA
E
C
T

YALE ST

PRINCETON ST

MANDALAY ST

PRINCETON ST

YALE ST

FIFTH ST ORANGE AVE PLACER AV

HAWTHORNE ST

VINEYARD AVE

FIFTH ST

BRAE CT
MU
LBE
R
R
Y
CT

BALBOA WAY
B
O
N
NIE

HAWTHORNE CT

CARLOS PL

ISADORA WAY

HACIENDA DR

LAMANCHA WYDEL RIO WY

LA DENEY ST

HELLMAN AVE

DEL RIO PL

YALE ST
CENTER
AVE
MALL
DR

MILLS CIRCLE
GURNEE
AVE

FR A N KLIN AVE

ONTARIO M IL LS DR ROCHESTER AVE

WINEVILLE AVE

CORONA AVE

LA DENEY CT

SIXTH ST

ARROYO DR

ALONDRA AVE CARLO S SOLANO PL

ALONDRA CT

DEODAR ST

SAN DIEGO
PL

S ACRAMENTO PL

ORANGE PL
L

VIRGINIA AVE

PARKSIDE AVE

BONNIE BRAE CT

FIFTH ST CAROLINE
ST

VIRGINIA AVE

CAROLINE CT VIRGINIA AVE
ORANGE

PLACER AVE

SACRAMENTO AVE

SAN DIEGO AVE

T R NI ITY

LOOP ALVA
R
A
D

OLA PAZ AVESEVENTH ST HIGHLAND CT OLIV
ES
T
S
Y
C
AMORES
T

BARRANCA AVE
C
A
R
O
L
I
N
E
C
T

HACIENDA SYCAMORE

CT HACIENDA DR
C
ARO
LINE
DR
D
EO
DARST

SOLANO AVE

ALVARADO CT

SYCAMORE CT

SEVENTH ST VIRGINIA AVE

HIGHLAND CT

OLIVE CT

RAYMOND ST RAYMOND CT PARKSIDE

EIGHTH ST AMADOR AVE CALAVERAS AVE

RAYMOND ST

HIGHLAND CT

DEL NORTE AVE

EL DORADO AVE OLIVE

CTEL DORADO AVE

GLENN AVE

HUMBOLT AVE

EL DORADO
AV

SYCAMORE ST

SYCAMORE

HUMBOLDT AVE
LAKE
AV
MADERA
AV

CORONA AVE

SEVENTH ST
MADERA

MAR NI AVE

ORANGE CT

PLACER PL

ISADORA WAY

CARLOS AV
L
A
D
E
N
EY
DR

LASSEN AVE
C

DEL NORTE CT

ALAVERAS CT

LA DENEY DR

AMADOR AVE

AMADOR AVE

ALVARADO ST
ST

GROVE AVE

BAKER AV

FOURTH ST FOURTH ST

HOLT BLVD

GROVE AVE

GROVE AVE
BLVD

GROVE AVE GROVE AVE

RIVERSIDE DR

PHILADELPHIA ST

FOURTH ST

ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE

PHILADELPHIA ST

ARCHIBALD AVE

ARCAD AI N SHORES RD

OAK HILL DR
FA
I
R
F
I
E
L
D
ST

TURNSTONE

ARCHIBALD AVE

RIVERSIDE DR

MISSION BLVD

HAVEN AVE

MISSION BLVD DUPONT AVE

HAVEN AVE

FOURTH ST

HAVEN AVE

MILLIKEN AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)

MILLIKEN AVE MILLIKEN AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)

PHILADELPHIA ST

WINEVILLE AVE

BURGUNDY PL

PHILADELPHIA ST

ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE

FOURTH ST BARRINGTON AVE

EXCISE AVE

CHINO AVE CHINO AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD
S AVE

VE LA DENEY DR

DEODAR ST

HIGHLAND CT

LEEDS AVE

BAKER AVE
L

LASSEN AVE

AKE AVE
LAKE

HUMBOLT
AV
MADERA
AV
MARIN
AV

CORONA AVE

SOLANO AVE
OL
IVE
CT

MERCEDES LN

MISSION BLVD

CHINO AVE CHINO AVE

CHINO AVE

BAKER AVE

CHINO AVE

GROVE AVE GROVE AVE GROVE AVE GROVE AVE
AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)
SAN BERNARDINO FWY (I-10)

SHEA DR

PONDEROSA AV

SEQUOIA AV

FRANCIS ST

PACIFIC

PRIVADO
SLATER
CIR

GOLDEN TRAILS

SILVER SADDLE ST

PALOMINO CT

CENTURION PL

PLAINFIELD PL

OLD ARCHIBALD RANCH RD STALLION W Y

ROAN ST

RODEO PL

ARCADIAN SHORES RD

JOSHUA TREE RD

CENTURION PL

JOSHUA TREE ST
AUTUMN
RIDGE

RDROCKY LN GREENBRIAR DR
PONY
WY

CLOVER PL

STALLION ST

SWEETWATER
DR

ROCKYWY

CLOVER LN

DUNES ST

LAUREL VLY LN

SEA ISLAND TR

EIGHTH ST

LOCUST CT

MILL CK

GUASTI RD

CARRILLO PRIVADO

MOORE WY

JOHN BANGS DR

MOTOR LN
EAR L
ST
O
N
ED
R
A
R
A

B IAN PL
CLY
D
ESDA
LE
ST

ARCADIAN SHORES AV

BURNING TREE DR

THOROUGHBRED ST BIG RANGE RDNORTH SHORES DR

CHINO AV

TURNER AV

GROVE AVE

WALKER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

CARPENTER AVE

CLEVELAND AVE EUCALYPTUS AVE

HAVEN AVE HAVEN AVE

EDISON AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

HAVEN AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE

MERRILL AVE

CARPENTER AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD

EUCALYPTUS AVE

MERRILL AVE

EDISON AVE

WALKER AVE WALKER AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

EDISON AVE

VINEYARD AVE

WALKER AVE

ONTARIO AVE ONTARIO AVE

SMIDERLE LP

CHINO AV

GREEN PRIVADO

PRIVADO
CHIEF

VIA ASTI

VIA ALBA

VIA PIEMONTE

VIA VILLAGIO

VIA TURIN

ONTARIO CE
N
TERP
A
RK
W
AY

GOLDE N OA K RD
HOFER RANCH RD.

KETTERING
DR

OLD GUASTI RD

GUASTI RD

COMMERCE PARKWAY COMMERCE PARKWAY

AIRPORT DR

TOYOTA WY

CONCOURS ST

CONCOURS ST

CONCOURS ST

CONCOURS ST

AVION ST

AVION ST

BAKER PRIVADO

MARIPOSA PRIVADO

ELMA PRIVADO
D ST

NOCTA PRIVADO MARIN PRIVADO

NOCTA ST

MADERA PRIVADO

COTTONWOOD CT PARKSIDE AV

VIRGINIA PL

WOOD CT

TA H OE DR
AS

H GAT E WAY

LAKE PL

LAKE PL
D
E
O
D
A
R
S
T

MARIPOSA AV
MARIN
AV
MADERA
AV

HIGHLAND CT

OLIVE ST

RAYMOND ST

MARINAV

MARIPOSA AV

FLORA ST

SEDONA CT

DUES E N BE RG DR
O

RANGE PR VI ADO

PLACER PR VI ADO

SOLANO PRIVADO

HARVARD PRIVADO

PLACER PRIVADO PLACER PRIVADO

EDENGLEN AVE
AUB
URNWY

DNI L CALLAWAY DR ENWOOD DR

HERITAGE LN
GROVE

LAND DR

COTTAGE WY

EDENGLEN AVE

QUINCY WY

EDENGLEN AVE

HAMPSHIRE DR BETHANY WY

EMORY LN

OAKWOOD DR EDENGLEN AVE

TULANE WYHAMPTON WY

BRADLEY LN CLAREMONT DR

WESTMONT LNHAMILTON WY CAMBRIDGE DR

RAYMOND
PL
ELM CT

WALNUT ST

SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE ER AVE SCHAEFER AVE

HAMNER AVE HAMNER AVE

VIA TERRANO VIA CORVINA

VIA FIANO

VIAMOLINARA

VIA DOLCETTO

VIA BAROLO

ARBOR LN

ARBOR LN

MERRIL AVE MERRIL AVE

KENSINGTON AVE ROSE PETAL WY

WICKFORD ST

OXFO RD
L N

M CCLEVE W Y WEST

MC CLE VE WY EAST

CENTE NNIAL CI
WES
T
C

ENTE N NIA L CI EAST

VICTORY LN

HE RI TAG
E
PASE O

CROWN CT PRIMROSE PL

SALISBURY WY
D
E
VO
N
S
H
I
RE
LN

DISCOVERY ST

CELEBRATION AVE

PARKPLACE AVE PARKVIEW ST

HOPKINS ST GROWER AVE

DULISSE AVE

GREEN AVE

HYCHE AVE

WING ST

KLASSEN ST

CELEBRAT OI N AVE

PARKPLACE AVE

TURNER AV

NEW HAVEN DR

ONTARIO RANCH RD

ONTARIO RANCH RD ONTARIO RANCH RD

SCHAEFER AVE

RUTHERFORD DR

LA AVENIDA DR

ALEXANDER AVE YOUNTVILLE DR O A K V ILLE AVE

EDISON AVE

LA AVENIDA DR

SCHAEFER AVE

CHIP SMITH WYALBRIGHT LN

VICTORIA ST

COTTAGE GARDEN WY

PINE RIDGE LP SOMERSTON WY MONDAVI WY MERRYVALE
WY

TRINITAS WY

MAYACAMA WY

SILVER OAK WY STERLING
ST

ARTESSA
WY

CLOVERDALE WY

INGLENOOK WY

CARNEROS AV
JAY ST
QVC WY

PLYMOUTH AVE NEWTON AVE

COLONIAL AVE

SALEM ST

NORWICH ST

DANBURY ST

COLCHESTER ST

BENNINGTON ST

LEWISTON ST

DARIEN ST

BELLEGRAVE AVE

BOUNTIFUL TR

GRAPEVINE TR

ROSEMARY WY

THOMPSON ST
MT. RAINIER DRIVE

GLACIER TRAIL BISCAYNE ST

ZION TRAIL

DENALI DRIVE

ACADIA AVE YELLOWSTONE DRIVE

YOSEMITE DRIVE

GRAND PARK ST

ACADIA AVE

ARCHES TRAIL

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ST TURNER AVE

OLYMPIC DRIVE

DERBY LN

WILLIAMSBURG LN BARNVELDER

WYANDOTTE

ORPINGTON

TANGERINE WAY

APRICO T W A

AGRARIAN ST
Y

PAIN TED C RESC ENT ST

PERENNIAL DR

STARRY NIGHT LN MASTERPIECE ST OPHELIA LN PASTEL LN

SWALLOWTAIL LN

MONARCH PL

BUTTERFLY LN

LAVEND ER DR

LILAC LN OR CH ARD ST

SAGEW OOD LN

KINGS DRCASTLE LN

GARD EN G AT E L N MO N TE P RI VA D O BELLA PRIVADO SALIDA PRIVADO

ESTRELLA PRIVADO

PERDIDO

PRIVADO

AFTON PRIVADO CIELO
PRIVAD
O
SON
RIS
A
P
RIVA
D
O

LUNA PRIVADO

AM HER ST PRIVAD O

BORDEAUX DR

BOWERY PL

WILSHIRE RD

PENNY LN

BOURBON ST

ABBEY RD

GRAFTON ST

BROADWAY AV

BEALE WY OCEAN WY

CANAL WY

AMIGOS PRIVADO

TESORO PRIVADO

PERDIDO PRIVADOPLAYA PR IVAD O AMANECER PRIVADO COLIBRI PRIVADO CORAZON PRIVADO

MILL CR EEK AV

ALMENDAREZ PRIVADO MONETA PRIVADO ARVADA PRIVADO

MONTROSE PRIVADO

SC OTT WY

ROGERS WY

WAYNE AV

KEN T W Y

DIAN A WY

BAN NER ST

MUR DOC K LN

PARKER LN

HOWLET T LN DRYDEN AV

KINGSTON AV

MANITOBA PL

OTTAWA AV

CORNWALL ST

EDMONTON ST

ALBERTA ST

SARNIA ST

CALGARY ST

WINNIPEG AV

WELLAND AV

SILVER SKY DR

COPPERH ILL STFLAGSTON E AV

REFLEC TION LN

SU SSEX PR IVADO

JASMINE LN

BAN TAMPASEO

BR ESSEPASEO

BR AHM APASEO

JAVAPASEO CLEMENTINE DR AVOCADO TR

STAR K LN
EC HO
C T

BODEGA WY

KENDALL LN

TRELLIS WY

CELLARS
WY

MIDSUMMER PRIVADO WILD HORSE PRIVADO CARDINALE PRIVADO

PARADUXX

PRIVADO

QUINTESSA

PRIVADO

HAVEN AVE

HELLMAN AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

OLIVIA WY

BLAIRE WY

CHARLOTTE AV

STELLA AV

LOLA AV

ELLIE AV

CORA WY

SCARLETT LN SCARLETT LN

MABEL LN MABEL LN

CLARA LN CLARA LN

HARPER ST HARPER ST

PENELOPE LN PENELOPE LN

PARKVIEW ST

REESE WY

ANSLEY AV

AVERY AV

TATUM LN

HARLOW LN
MAE WY

EMBRY LN

IVY AV IVY AV

PIPER WY

HAZEL ST

VIOLET LN

SUNRISE AV

DAYLIGHT AV

MOONLIGHT ST ROSY PKWY
SUNSET
DR

CHEERFUL PASEO

MILL CREEK AV

TREE BLOSSOM ST

ASPEN ST

HEARTWOOD ST

SUMAC ST

CALERA ST ATTALA ST

FINCASTLE ST

CALISTOGA AV

MENDOCINO AV

AMHERST AV

ANNISTON AV
N
E
LS
ON
DR

POLLOCK ST

EAMES ST

WRIGHT AVE

TWINKLE AVE

GARRICK ST

PRINCE WY GRAYSON WY

ANDERSON AV

WILSON AVJORDAN AV

KANE DR
AUSTIN

CURRY ST STEED

JACOBSON

LAUTNER

ALLSTON PASEO

PHEASANT
CRANE
KIWI

MEADOWLARK
WREN

TANAGER

ALMOND BLOSSOM ST

CRISANTA PRIVADO PEONY PASEO

SAGE PASEO

CLIFTON AV

HO LLYHOCK PASEO

HISBISCUS PASEO

MILL CREEK AV

HEATHER PRIVADO

CRISANTA PRIVADO

BR IGH T PASEO

DELIGH T PASEO

HAPPY PASEO

SU NN Y PASEO

LAN TER N PASEO

OASIS PASEO

SPARKLE PASEO

JOLLYPASEO

RADIANT D R

AMHERST AV

VENTURA AV

SUNSET ST

LA JOLLA ST CATALINA ST

CAMBRIA PRIVADO

ENCINITAS AVE

AVILA PRIVADO

HALTON PRIVADO

BASANITE AV

SHALE AV

DOLOMITE ST BROCKRAM DR KINGLET AV

CHATHAM ST

CLIFTON ST

CANTONA PASEO

FERGUSON PRIVADO

KANE DR

SU NST ONE ST
7 3
73 2
2 8j
8i
5 7
7 8h
8g

E FOURTH

S GROVE
E D

E CHINO

E RIVERSIDE

S ARCHIBALD

S HAVEN

E AIRPORT

E EDISON

N HAVEN

N GROVE

S MILLIKEN S HAMNER

S VINEYARD

S ETIWANDA
E HOLT

E EIGHTH

E PHILADELPHIA

E INLAND EMPIRE

E JURUPA

S VINTAGE

N MILLIKEN

N ETIWANDA

S WINEVILLE

N ARCHIBALD

E SANTA ANA

S SUMNER

N VINEYARD

E JURUPA

E EUCALYPTUS

E INLAND EMPIRE

E EDISON E EDISON E EDISON

E PHILADELPHIA
±
Approved by City Council on January 27, 2010
012
Miles
EXHIBIT LU-01

LAND USE PLAN
Note: The City of Ontario in its entirety is
located within the Airport Influence Area
of Ontario International Airport.

An area in which current or future
airport-related noise, overflight, safety,
or airspace protection factors may
significantly affect land uses or necessitate
restriction on those uses.

Refer to the Ontario Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan for further
information.

Note: The location of the 350 plus acre
Great Park designatedas Open Space –
Parkland in Ontario Ranch
(area south of Riverside Drive) and the
approximate 5- acre Lakes (designated
as Open Space – Water) are conceptual.

Refer to Figure PR- 1 – Park Facilities for
further detail on existing and conceptual
park locations in Ontario Ranch.
www.ontarioplan.org
LEGEND
Other
Landfill
Rail
Airport
Public School
Public Facility
Open Space - Water
Open Space - Parkland
Open Space - Non-Recreation
Employment
Industrial (0.55 FAR)
Business Park (0.6 FAR)
Retail/Service
Hospitality (1.0 FAR)
Office Commercial (0.75 FAR)
General Commercial (0.4 FAR)
Neighborhood Commercial (0.4 FAR)
Mixed Use
Districts

1. Downtown

2. Airport Metro/Entertainment

3. Guasti

4. South Euclid

5. South Employment
Corridors

6. East Holt Blvd

7. Inland Empire Blvd
Neighborhood Centers
8a. Mountain and 6th
8b. Mountain and 4th
8c. Mountain and Holt
8d. Euclid and Francis
8e.Euclid and Walnut
8f. Euclid and Riverside
8g. Grove and Chino
8h. Grove and Edison
8i. Vineyard and Edison
8j. Parkside
Mixed Use
Residential
High Density (25.1 - 45 du / ac)
Medium Density (11.1 - 25 du / ac)
Low-Medium Density (5.1 - 11 du / ac)
Low Density (2.1 - 5 du / ac)
Rural (0 - 2 du/ac)
Overlays
Landfill Impact Area
Industrial
Business Park
AH - Affordable Housing
Chino AIA - Chino Airport Influence Area
EL iiiiiiiiiiiliiiu T#
JL

IIID UIIIIIII
iHHE
it
■i■
IIS 1111
-------- HI
III
llI
I I III J!ii!iiIiJ1।!!iiIii■I!
I
Q
me
JSSMHS
____ __ _ % — IlgHmmug H e J
OE ■
IIIIIIIB:
! 2 • =
1 IU
■
bl □
MB
I
i
i
■
4 i
■■
2 g
/
%
..
■
qu”" =umg HllIE F
l
i
i
j
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
m i
III _____ AID I M1111HII TTTI - a 1111111111111 = 11111111111 iTm I 5 II111111111 mT11 ee 0un q • Itlllllllllll I HHHE am
UlIID
(IIID UllIIID I
#
H
S
IDuI
IIIIII
a
s
Kimley»Horn
575
Not to scale CenterPark Specific Plan
1-6
Sultana Ave Sultana Ave
Figure 3-7: Project Area Ownership
Source: CenterPark Specific Plan Traffic Analysis, Exhibit 1-2 Preliminary Land Use Plan and Phasing Plan, 2025. Eucalyptus Ave. Edison Ave.

Grove Ave.

Bon View Ave.

Walker Ave. PHASE 1 N
Parco Ave.

Cucamonga Ave.

Campus Ave. 2029 PHASE 2 2034
22201921
Ownership Area 1
Ownership Area 2
st x. Eu
[EARE
AAmad
3T
17 S-R

6.20 A (Ss I Srell IIIII
18 OS-R
13 44 AC
13 MDR

23.75 AC
12 MDR

15.46 AC
11 MU

15.67 AC
16 9
IIII
OS-R

9.90 AC
8 MDR

24.20 AC
OS-R

13.11 AC
MDR
12 18 AC
II
10 MU

14.10 AC
I
15 I
14 |
I
OS-R

13.33 AC
7 MDR

23.67 AC
i
I
—
F
11940
I
SAdKUEd 1
'•-W
"ifl"
1 -
- Yar
W.

F
MW*
i'l.
r
—dk—L .

Bi
J
r
2 MDR

15.57 AC 6
MDR

7.33 AC 3
MDR

7.70 AC 5
MU

7.41 AC 4
MU
7 13 AC 1
MDR

15.91 AC
-
t
Sates
atht 2.1 0
0 I
/
1 1 2
14 WB
1 6
— - i
Pg
— -- I —
y
S'
enk I J’ ; I&a ait *
- r. -
3 —
W
>
i
tat ■
25 g0
Kimley»Horn
■ s d— i ■ <
576
Not to scale CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario
1-6
Sultana Ave
Baker Ave Baker Ave
Sultana Ave
FFigure 3-8: Land Use Plan
Source: CenterPark Specific Plan Exhibit 1-3 Land Use Plan, 2025.

Eucalyptus Ave
Campus Ave
Edison Ave/
Ontario Ranch Rd
Cucamonga Ave
Bon View Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Campus Ave
Bon View Ave
Cucamonga Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Edison Ave/
Ontario Ranch Rd
1 MDR

15.91 AC
2 MDR

15.57 AC
3 MDR

7.70 AC
4 MU

7.13 AC
5 MU

7.41 AC
6 MDR

7.33 AC
10 MU

14.10 AC
11 MU

15.67 AC
7 MDR

23.67 AC
8 MDR

24.20 AC
9 MDR

12.18 AC
12 MDR

15.46 AC
13 MDR

23.75 AC
14 OS-R

13.33 AC
15 OS-R

13.11 AC
16 OS-R

9.90 AC
18 OS-R

13.44 AC
17 OS-R

6.20 AC
19 OS-NR

2.26 AC
20 OS-NR

2.68 AC
21 OS-NR

2.96 AC
22 OS-NR

3.38 AC
Specific Plan Boundary
MDR Medium Density Residential
MU Mixed-Use
OS-R Open Space-Recreation
OS-NR Open Space-Non Rec

FULL ACCESS

POTENTIAL ACCESS POINT
I
I
J
1 —
Kimley»Horn
I
I
I
I
577
Not to scale
Figure 3-9: City of Ontario Road Classification System
CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario
5-2

GROVE AVE

CUCAMONGA AVE

PARCO AVE

WALKER AVE

VINEYARD AVE

CUCAMONGA CHANNEL

CARPENTER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

BON VIEW AVE

CAMPUS AVE

SULTANA AVE

EUCLID AVE

MERRILL AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

CHINO AVE

RIVERSIDE DR
Other Principal Arterial:
8 Lanes
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Minor Arterial:
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Collector Street:
4 Lanes
2 Lanes

Enhanced Intersections

CenterPark Specific Plan
LEGEND
N
Campus Ave
Cucamonga Ave
Bon View Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Source: CenterPark Specific Plan Exhibit 5-1 City of Ontario Road Classification System, 2025. nil
# e ide a n----—.
—EHAN _ _____
IBBB. TT[Bs%
TIIIII
II111111 A 72 11 n i n 11 S 11111111111111111
31 □
■HS
a .asars. 000 117777 11
W ■
iiiiiIIHE II
tMessag HHHEEbaEmB sa_gga L
mne a
ThO EA7EH EI IAHAHHHEEE
KimleyHorn N
♦ ♦
♦

T TIIIH
n
1 —
578
Not to scale CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario
Figure 3-10: Conceptual Circulation Plan

RIO, CALIFORNIA
5-31
Source: CenterPark Specific Plan Exhibit 5-2 Conceptual Circulation Plan, 2025. ONTA Grove Ave Cucamonga Ave Parco Ave Eucalyptus Ave
Campus Ave
Edison Ave/
Ontario Ranch Rd
Cucamonga Ave
Sultana Ave
Bon View Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Campus Ave
Bon View Ave
Cucamonga Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Baker Ave Baker Ave
Sultana Ave
Edison Ave/
Ontario Ranch Rd

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY

FULL ACCESS

POTENTIAL ACCESS POINT

BACKBONE ARTERIAL STREET

BACKBONE COLLECTOR STREET

BACKBONE LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREET

BACKBONE PRIVATE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET

NEIGHBORHOOD PARK (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION)

ROUND-A-BOUT (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION)

FULL ACCESS

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
□
_ —
■
II
I 1I )I
I O mll
_R
KimleyHorn
II
I■I
—1 7
579
Center Park Specific Plan, City of Ontario Not to scale CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario
5-12

5.1.5 City Master Planned Trails and Bikeways
Multipurpose trails are an integral element to creating accessibility and mobility within and around CenterPark. Amulti-use trail is planned along the south side of Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road and along the eastern side of Grove Avenue and Campus Avenue within the Specific Plan area. The City also has a planned multi-use trail within the eastern neighborhood edge along Walker Avenue which bounds the project site Figure 3-11: Conceptual Pedestrian and Regional
Trail Circulation Plan
Source: CenterPark Specific Plan Exhibit 5-12 Conceptual Pedestrian and Regional Trail Circulation Plan, 2025. GROVE AVE CUCAMONGA AVE PARCO AVE WALKER AVE

VINEYARD AVE

CUCAMONGA CHANNEL

CARPENTER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

BON VIEW AVE

CAMPUS AVE

SULTANA AVE

EUCLID AVE

MERRILL AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

CHINO AVE

RIVERSIDE DRIVE
Multipurpose Trail
Class I Bicycle Lane
Class II Bicycle Lane
CenterPark Specific Plan Area
LEGEND
N
Campus Ave
Cucamonga Ave
Bon View Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
ILU BB lif EBB HMEEEEm E
1 □
]
L
E
E
J
-
e
-
TIIIIT
KimleyHorn
DII
[II] OII
580
Not to scale CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario
Figure 3-12: Internal Pedestrian Circulation Plan

RIO, CALIFORNIA
5-31
Source: CenterPark Specific Plan Exhibit 5-13 Internal Pedestrian Circulation Plan, 2025. ONTA Grove Ave Cucamonga Ave Parco Ave Eucalyptus Ave Campus Ave
Edison Ave/
Ontario Ranch Rd
Cucamonga Ave
Sultana Ave
Bon View Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Campus Ave
Bon View Ave
Cucamonga Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Baker Ave Baker Ave
Sultana Ave
Edison Ave/
Ontario Ranch Rd

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY

FULL ACCESS

POTENTIAL ACCESS POINT

PUBLIC STREET

BACKBONE PRIVATE STREET

CITY MASTER PLANNED MULTI-USE TRAILS

NEIGHBORHOOD PARK (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION)

SIDEWALKS / PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION)

ROUND-A-BOUT (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION)

PUBLIC STREETPOTENTIAL ACCESS POINT

FULL ACCESS

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
€
|iIrII
I
J
=
“I
t
II
? •ll I I
KimleyHorn
—
IIII
■■■■■I■
I
I1!I 1II1
►
->
581
Not to scale CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario
Figure 3-13: Conceptual Landscape Plan

RIO, CALIFORNIA
5-31
Source: CenterPark Specific Plan Exhibit 7-10 Landscape Framework Plan, 2025. ONTA Eucalyptus Ave
Campus Ave
Edison Ave/
Ontario Ranch Rd
Cucamonga Ave
Bon View Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Campus Ave
Bon View Ave
Cucamonga Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Edison Ave/
Ontario Ranch Rd
** Community Entry (Right)
Community Entry (Left)
Primary Intersection
Grand Park Entry
Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing
Neighborhood Park
Park / Open Space
East / West Primary Corridor
North / South Primary Corridor
Great Park Avenue
*
Kimley»Horn
X
n, __ • R. 18— X I*
■
I
I
I
l
X
X
582
Not to scale CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario
Figure 3-14: Conceptual Potable Water Master Plan 5-24
Source: CenterPark Specific Plan Exhibit 5-14 Conceptual Potable Water Master Plan, 2025. GROVE AVE CUCAMONGA AVE PARCO AVE WALKER AVE

VINEYARD AVE

CARPENTER AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCLID AVE

MERRILL AVE

ONTARIO RACH RD

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

CHINO AVE

RIVERSIDE DRIVE
16”
30”
16”
30-42” 30-42”
42”
12”
18”
12”
12”
16”
12”
12” 12”
16” 16” 16” 12”
16” 12” 12”
16” 16” 16” 16”
12” 12”
12”
24” 24” 24” 16” 16”
16” 16”
16” 16”
12”
16” 18” 18” 18”
12” 18” 18” 18”
12” 12”
16” 16”
16” 16”

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED POTABLE WATER MAIN

EXISTING POTABLE WATER MAIN (CITY OF ONTARIO)

ONTARIO RANCH MASTER PLAN IMPROVEMENTS
1010 PRESSURE ZONE
925 PRESSURE ZONE

RECOMMENDED EMERGENCY CONNECTION

RECOMMENDED ALTITUDE VALVE/PRS

CENTERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN

EXISTING WATER SYSTEM
LEGEND

IIISIMI
m
IO'
= ii ii in ii IL" HI : IIIIIIIII |iiiu
•IE
FAS ■H1111111111111 p
AKI T/1 PuT Ax’ JDOUOD- <
□
h
T
&
1 I1 I II i
l 1111111111U • Hill SIH
E °F
N UJOH<«A9|LUI>| HHH
583
Not to scale
Figure 3-15: Conceptual Potable Water System
CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario
EXHIBIT 5-13 CONCEPTUAL DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEM
Source: CenterPark Specific Plan Exhibit 5-15 Conceptual Potable Water System, 2025.

GROVE AVE

CUCAMONGA AVE

PARCO AVE

WALKER AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD
16”
30”
16”
30-42”
16”
12”
24” 16” 16”
16” 16”

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED POTABLE WATER MAIN

EXISTING POTABLE WATER MAIN (CITY OF ONTARIO)

CENTERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN
LEGEND
Potable water main sizing is dependent on Fire Flow Results and Fire Department’s requirements.
1 1 1 11
□
□
J
(N, Kimley»Horn 584
Not to scale CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario
Figure 3-16: Conceptual Recycled Water Master Plan
5-20

GROVE AVE

CUCAMONGA AVE

PARCO AVE

WALKER AVE

VINEYARD AVE

CARPENTER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCLID AVE

MERRILL AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

CHINO AVE

RIVERSIDE DRIVE
8”
8”
8”
8”
8”
8”
12”
20”
8”
8”
8”
8”
16”
8”
8”
20”
12”
8”
12”24”
12”
8” 8”
8”
8”
12”
12”
12”
30”
8”
8”
8”
30” 48” 48” 48”
54”
60”
30” 30” 30”
30” 30”
54”
30”
20” 20” 24” 20”
16” 16”
8” 8” 8” 8” 8”
8”
8”
8”
8” 8” 12” 12” 12” 12”
12” 12”
12”
12”
12” 8” 12”
16” 16”
8” 8” 8” 12” 12” 12” 12”
24” 24” 30” 36”
12”
12”
8”
12”
8”

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED RECYCLED WATER MAIN
(PER MASTER PLAN)

EXISTING RECYCLED WATER MAIN (CITY OF ONTARIO)

EXISTING RECYCLED WATER MAIN (IEUA)
1050 PRESSURE ZONE

ONTARIO RANCH MASTER PLAN IMPROVEMENTS

PRESSURE REDUCING STATION

PRESSURE REDUCING STATION

CENTERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN

POC (IEUA REGIONAL CONNECTION)
LEGEND
N
Source: CenterPark Specific Plan Exhibit 5-16 Conceptual Recycled Water Master Plan, 2025. 1111111111111111 r
I III
■
■
□
Ie
“al
L
—
J
a
—
J-=
(TIT JuII
3lB
7 kma
JIIVI
AA
KimleyHorn (N,
HE
ulI
mu
#ee
EmmSffl
F4 ____ -H
[InIII111III
MI
1IIID
a9998
585
Not to scale
Figure 3-16: Conceptual Recycled Water System
CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario
Source: CenterPark Specific Plan Exhibit 5-17 Conceptual Recycled Water System, 2025.

GROVE AVE

CUCAMONGA AVE

PARCO AVE

WALKER AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD
8”8”8”
30”
8”
8”
8”
30”
30” 30”
12”
12”
12”

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED RECYCLED WATER MAIN
(PER MASTER PLAN)

EXISTING RECYCLED WATER MAIN (CITY OF ONTARIO)

EXISTING RECYCLED WATER MAIN (IEUA)

CENTERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN

POC (IEUA REGIONAL CONNECTION)
LEGEND
E
L
IT
6 □
I
■
(N, KimleyHorn
1□
586
Not to scale CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario
Figure 3-18: Conceptual Sewer Master Plan 5-24 GROVE AVE CUCAMONGA AVE PARCO AVE

WALKER AVE

VINEYARD AVE

CARPENTER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCLID AVE

MERRILL AVE

KIMBALL AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

CHINO AVE

RIVERSIDE DRIVE
36” 36” 30”
20”
20”
16”18”
21”
18” 15”
16”

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED SEWER MAIN
(PER MASTER PLAN)

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED SEWER MAIN

EXISTING SEWER MAIN (CITY OF ONTARIO)

EXISTING CITY OF ONTARIO POC

CENTERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN
LEGEND
N
Source: CenterPark Specific Plan Exhibit 5-18 Conceptual Sewer Master Plan, 2025.

IB Lr EEESHJEEEEEEEEH-EEEEEHEEssH’SSI _O_ (TIIII 1uII
[ 11111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIH • 11111 (y1i ii Jsep HUEEE d-Bune 11111111111111IUW 1U11111111111_
I
□
3 5
“L
E
LI
J
—
3 J
(
Kimley»Horn
Anununnunn: AIIIIIIIIIIIIB
AnIAINpIIIInn
IDII

UIII TII
o
E•mE Rug
(N, 587
Not to scale
Figure 3-19: Conceptual Sewer System
CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario
EXHIBIT 5-18 CONCEPTUAL SEWER SYSTEM GROVE AVE CUCAMONGA AVE

PARCO AVE

WALKER AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD
20”
20”
16”18”
21”
18” 15”
16”
Source: CenterPark Specific Plan Exhibit 5-19 Conceptual Sewer System, 2025.

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED SEWER MAIN
(PER MASTER PLAN)

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED SEWER MAIN

EXISTING SEWER MAIN (CITY OF ONTARIO)

EXISTING CITY OF ONTARIO POC

CENTERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN
LEGEND
Final sizing to be per SSAMP.
n
CT
U
□
! 1 I *
Kimley»Horn
L
□
(N, 588
Not to scale CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario
Figure 3-20: Conceptual Drainage Master Plan
5-26
EXHIBIT 5-19 CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN GROVE AVE CUCAMONGA AVE PARCO AVE WALKER AVE VINEYARD AVE

CUCAMONGA CHANNEL

CARPENTER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCLID AVE

MERRILL AVE

EDISON AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

CHINO AVE

RIVERSIDE DRIVE
24” 24” 24”
24”
60”
102”
120”
24” 24” 13’x8’ RCB 24” 24” 24”-30”
24”
60”
96” 78”
96” 108”
108”

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED STORM DRAIN MAIN
(PER MASTER PLAN) (DIF)

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED STORM DRAIN MAIN
(PROJECT SPECIFIC)

EXISTING STORM DRAIN MAIN (CITY OF ONTARIO)

DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY XVI

DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY XIII

DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY XII

CENTERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN
LEGEND
N

GROVE AVE

CUCAMONGA AVE

PARCO AVE

WALKER AVE

VINEYARD AVE

CUCAMONGA CHANNEL

CARPENTER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCLID AVE

MERRILL AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

CHINO AVE

RIVERSIDE DRIVE
24” 24” 24”
24”
120”
60”
102”
120”
24” 24” 13’x8’ RCB 24” 24” 24”-30”
24”
60”
96” 78”
96” 108”
108”

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED STORM DRAIN MAIN
(PER MASTER PLAN) (DIF)

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED STORM DRAIN MAIN
(PROJECT SPECIFIC)

EXISTING STORM DRAIN MAIN (CITY OF ONTARIO)
EXISTING 9.5’ X 9.5, RCB

DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY XVI

DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY XIII

DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY XII

CENTERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN
LEGEND
N
Source: CenterPark Specific Plan Exhibit 5-20 Conceptual Drainage Master Plan, 2025. •I B
AImiiiiiD
gsnu
LH
IIIIIIIBNSannnnnnnnn)
a
E
L
—sree□ ll II LIIO I UAeEam "PYXE
i 111iiliiiiiiiiiE
mu
rr gymime gummm, NAAYA2 HHH • — — IIIII • — — — — — _________I II ii I EI 111 1U1H - 50g B Hs H s B #
IB M BESsHIEEEEEHRRslHSSEEmemsEme
an 1
-
-
IERas seig
Kimley»Horn
N
i A
■ - -
o
j
589
Not to scale
Figure 3-21: Conceptual Storm Drain Improvements
CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario
Source: CenterPark Specific Plan Exhibit 5-21 Conceptual Storm Drain Improvements, 2025.

EXHIBIT 5-20 CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS GROVE AVE CUCAMONGA AVE PARCO AVE

WALKER AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD
24” 24” 24”
24”
60”
102”120”
24” 24” 24” 24”-30” 24” 13’x8’ RC
24”
60”
96” 78”
96” 108”
108”
N

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED STORM DRAIN MAIN
(PER MASTER PLAN) (DIF)

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED STORM DRAIN MAIN
(PROJECT SPECIFIC)

EXISTING STORM DRAIN MAIN (CITY OF ONTARIO)

DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY XVI

DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY XIII

DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY XII

CENTERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN
LEGEND
n
IT
□
KimleyHorn
1 □
590
Not to scale CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario
Figure 3-22: Fiber Optic Master Plan

5.6 FIBER OPTICS
Source: CenterPark Specific Plan Exhibit 5-23 Fiber Optic Master Plan, 2025.

GROVE AVE

CUCAMONGA AVE

PARCO AVE

WALKER AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD
LEGEND
FIBER SIZE:

432
96 72
36 CenterPark Specific Plan
N
n
s □
U
E
KimleyHorn
L
□
591
Not to scale CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario
Figure 3-23: Conceptual Grading Plan

RIO, CALIFORNIA
5-31
Source: CenterPark Specific Plan Exhibit 5-23 Conceptual Grading Plan, 2025. ONTA GROV

CAMPUS AVE
x
MIN1%GRAD ’A
GRADE 4% NWN % 7oO 6
CENT
A°o w
EAVE
Ml
(O. ‘R4o, 6__
PARCO
AVE
o0
—
4 LEGEND:
e]nvi=NAWA

DIRECTION

OF GRADE
RPARK
TE_
g&i

WALKER AVE
%
Kimley»Horn
AMONGA
AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE EUCALYPTUS AVE

EDISON AVE
592
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4-1 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
This section examines the environmental setting of the Center Park Specific Plan (Project), analyzes the Project’s effects and the significance of its impacts, and recommends mitigations measures to reduce or avoid impacts. This section contains one separate environmental resource area that was determined to need further study in this Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (Focused EIR). This scope was determined in the Project’s CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis; the Draft Focused EIR’s notice of preparation (NOP); public and agency commentsreceived during the NOP comment period from June 11, 2025, to July 14, 2025 (see Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting Materials); and the court ruling. The environmental issue and its corresponding section is:
• Biological Resources
• Historic Resources
The Project is consistent with the analysis performed for the TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR (TOP EIR).

Further, the TOP EIR adequately anticipated and described the impacts of the Project, identified applicable mitigation measures necessary to reduce Project specific impacts, and the Project implements these mitigation measures, with the exception of Project impacts to biological resources and historic resources, which remains significant despite the implementation of mitigation measures. In order to address biological resources and historic resource impacts that were not adequately anticipated by the TOP EIR, a Focused EIR will be prepared.

A comprehensive environmental evaluation has been completed for the Project as documented in the Project’s CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis. This evaluation concludes that the Project requires additional environmental review because Tier II historical resources were identified within the Project site and impacts to Tier II historical resources were not explicitly analyzed within the TOP EIR.

Therefore, while the Project is consistent with the development density and use characteristics established by TOP 2050, as analyzed by the TOP EIR (SCH No. 2021070364, certified August 2022), and all required findings, with the exception of findings related to biological resources and historical resources, can be made. Consequently, a Focused EIR will be required for those Project impacts that were not adequately addressed in the TOP EIR.

Section 4.1: Biological Resources and Section 4.2: Historic Resources provides a detailed discussion of the environmental setting, effects associated with the Project, and mitigation measures designed to reduce significant impacts where required and when feasible. The residual impacts following the implementation of any mitigation measure are also discussed.

During the scoping period, it was also determined that certain thresholds under an environmental resource area would not be significantly affected by implementation of the Project. These resource areas are: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Archaeological Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, 593
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4-2 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Services Systems, and Wildfire, are discussed in Section 7.0: Effects Found Not to be Significant.

4.0.1 Approach to Environmental Analysis
Organization of Environmental Analysis
The potentially significant environmental resource areas are addressed in separate EIR sections (Section 4.1 and Section 4.2) and are organized into the following subsections:

1. Introduction

2. Environmental Setting

3. Regulatory Setting

4. Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria

5. Plans, Programs, and Policies

6. Impacts and Mitigation Measures

7. Cumulative Impacts

8. Significant Unavoidable Impacts

9. References
In addition, Section 1.0: Executive Summary, has Table 1-1: Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures that summarizes all impacts by environmental resource.

Terminology Used in this Draft Focused EIR
The threshold of significance is identified for each impact in this Draft EIR. Although the criteria for determining significance are different for each topic area, the environmental analysis applies a uniform classification of the impacts based on definitions consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines.
• No Impact. The project would not change the environment. • Less than significant impact. The project would not cause any substantial, adverse change in the environment.
• Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The EIR includes mitigation measures that avoid substantial adverse impacts on the environment.
• Significant and unavoidable. The project would cause a substantial adverse effect on the environment, and no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
594
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-1 4.1 | Biological Resources

4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.1.1 Introduction
This section of the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) examines the existing biological resources and potential impacts that may result from the construction and operation of the proposed CenterPark Specific Plan Project (Project). The analysis in this section is based in part on the following resources:
• Cadre Environmental. 2024. Biological Resources Technical Report Center Park Specific Plan City of Ontario, California. (Appendix C1)
• ELMT Consulting, Inc. 2024. Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment. (Appendix C2)
• The Ontario Plan 2050
• City of Ontario Municipal Code
• City of Ontario TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR
The Project site is anticipated to be developed in two “Ownership Areas” (representing different ownership conditions) within 22 planning areas (PAs), with “Ownership Area 1” proposed at a projectlevel entitlement and “Ownership Area 2” proposed at a “programmatic” level. Ownership Area 1 is owned by the applicant of the CenterPark Specific Plan. Ownership Area 2 contains parcels owned by others and are included as part of the Specific Plan. Ownership Area 1 of the Project includes Planning Areas (PAs) 5 and 7 through 18, which would allow for the development of up to 210,544 square feet of mixed-use retail and office, 3,095 residential dwelling units and 55.98 acres of parkland use. Ownership Area 2 of the Project includes potential future developments in PAs 1 through 4, 6, and 19 through 22, and would allow for the development of up to 40,376 square feet of mixed-use retail and office, 1,198 residential units, and 11.28 acres of open-space parkland and non-recreational uses. The Project Applicant does not own the parcels within Ownership Area 2 (PAs 1 through 4, 6, and 19 through 22) and does not have access to Ownership Area 2 at this time; refer to Figure 3-7: Project Area Ownership. Therefore, the City serves as the applicant for Ownership Area 2.

The Biological Resources Technical Report prepared by Cadre Environmental analyzed a 194.05-acre portion of the Project site that represents Ownership Area 1 within the Project site. The Biological Resources Technical Report includes a thorough literature review, results of the site reconnaissance survey, and biological resources recommendations for the Project; refer to Appendix C1: Biological Resources Technical Report. Currently, the Applicant does not control the Ownership Area 2 parcels, as described above. Therefore, a site reconnaissance survey was not completed for Ownership Area 2.

4.1.2 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
As discussed in Section 3.0: Project Description, the Project site consists of 29 existing parcels totaling 257.34 acres. The Project site comprises existing agricultural uses, including the raising of livestock, field 595
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-2 4.1 | Biological Resources
crop farming, dairy farming activities, and rural residences scattered throughout the area. Rural residential housing, farm buildings and other ancillary facilities occupy those areas not in active agricultural production. The natural vegetation and soil conditions that once occurred throughout the Project site have been significantly altered through agricultural uses, leaving little or no native vegetation.

Existing uses surrounding the Project site are similar to those on the site. Nursery/Field Crops, Dairy Operations, and Rural Residential and uses are located north of Edison Avenue. Dairy Operations and Rural Residential land uses are located south towards Eucalyptus Avenue. Field Crops, Dairy Operations, and Rural Residential land uses are located east of Campus Avenue and West of Walker Avenue. Refer to Section 3.0 and Figure 3-5: Surrounding Land Uses.

The City lies within the broad alluvial fan originating from the southern flank of the San Gabriel Mountains, and dips gradually southward to the confluence of San Antonio Channel, Cucamonga Channel/Mill Creek, and the Santa Ana River at the Prado Dam Flood Control Basin in Riverside County1. The Santa Ana River flows to the south of the City and Cucamonga Creek and Deer Creek traverse north to south through the City. The Project site generally slopes to the south at approximately 0.8 percent and 2.0 percent, with a gentle slope and elevations ranging from approximately 700 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the northeast portion of the Project site to approximately 680 feet amsl in the southwest portion of the Project site.

Plant Communities/Habitat2
The entire Project site has been disturbed by the previous development and agriculture and farming uses.

The majority of the Project site continues to be utilized as an active dairy including dry lots, milking parlors/feed storage facilities, and housing. These areas are either devoid of vegetation or dominated by ornamental, ruderal non-native, and native species commonly detected in disturbed habitats.

Furthermore, portions of the Project site continue to be actively farmed including the current production of feed and hay products.

As mentioned above, a majority of the Project site currently consists of active dairy with dry lots, milking parlors/feed storage facilities and housing. These areas are either devoid of vegetation or dominated by ornamental, ruderal non-native and native species commonly detected in disturbed habitats. Based on the site reconnaissance survey of Ownership Area 1 conducted by Cadre Environmental, these species include Palmer’s amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri), summer cypress (Bassia scoparia), horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), prostate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), castor bean (Ricinus communis), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), truncate finger grass (Chloris truncata), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crusgalli), goose grass (Eleusine indica), wild oat (Avena fatua), foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), and ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus).3Furthermore, several dairy effluent retention ponds are located on the Project site and are either devoid of vegetation or inundated with discharge. No riparian scrub, forest or woodland habitat is associated with these ponds. 1 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2024- 12/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf.
2 Cadre Environmental. 2024. Biological Resources Technical Report for CenterPark Specific Plan, page 15. (Appendix C1). 3 Ibid.
596
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-3 4.1 | Biological Resources
Disturbed portions of the Project site are either devoid of vegetation (dirt roads and follow fields) or dominated by the following species including golden crown beard (Verbesina encelioides), tumbling pigweed (Amaranthus albus), puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), London rocket (Sisymbrium irio), stinknet (Oncosiphon pilulifer), giant reed (Arundo donax), salt cedar (Tamarisk ramosissima), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), sacred datura (Datura wrightii), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata), Boccone’s sand spurrey (Spergularia bocconi), spiny cocklebur (Xanthium spinosum), Mediterranean canarygrass (Phalaris minor), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), common sow thistle (Sonchus oleraceus), annual beard-grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), and annual sunflower (Helianthus annus).

Furthermore, the site reconnaissance survey identified the following in the developed areas of the Project site: Peruvian peppertree (Schinus molle), bougainvillea (Bougainvillea sp.), pine (Pinus sp.), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), white mulberry (Morus alba), ash (Fraxinus sp.), olive (Olea europaea), Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), and jacaranda (Jacaranda sp.). No suitable habitat for sensitive plant species including those listed as federal or state threatened/endangered was documented within the Project site.

Sensitive Biological Resources4
Discussed below are plant and wildlife species potentially present in the Project site that have been afforded special recognition by federal or state agencies. This discussion is based on species that would pose considerable constraints on the Project because of their high sensitivity status (listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered) with state and/or federal resource agencies. In addition, plants included on Lists 1, 2, 3, or 4 of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) inventory are also considered of special status. Vegetation communities that are unique, of relatively limited distribution, or of particular value to wildlife and considered sensitive by state and/or federal resource agencies are also generally discussed. No suitable habitat for sensitive plant species including those listed as federal or state threatened/endangered was documented within the Project site. There is a low probability of occurrence due to the Project’s site-specific factors (e.g., disturbance level, land use, etc.).

In general, those species presented in Table 4.1-1: Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity and Table 4.1-2: Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity that are “not expected” or that have a “low occurrence potential” generally correspond to “less than significant” under CEQA. As it relates to the occurrence potential of special-status plant species, “not detected” refers to perennial plants and shrubs that are identifiable year-round. Therefore, if they are not detected they are not present at any time. “No potential” addresses annual plants that are not detectable year-round. In Table 4.1-1, “no potential” is followed by justification of why they are not expected to occur on-site. The occurrence potential of special-status plant and wildlife species is primarily based on habitat types present, occurrence records of sensitive species from the site vicinity, and results of the onsite reconnaissance surveys. Because the disturbance level, land use, and other environmental factors are consistent between Ownership Area 1 and Ownership Area 2, occurrence potential of special-status plant and wildlife species analyzed for Ownership Area 1 is anticipated to be the same for Ownership Area 2. 4 Ibid, pages 17 through 38.
597
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-4 4.1 | Biological Resources
Special-Status Plant Species
Thirteen sensitive plant species have the potential to occur within the vicinity of the Project site. However, no special-status plant species were detected within Ownership Area 1 during the reconnaissance survey, and none are expected within the entire Project site due to lack of suitable habitat, including those listed as federal or state threatened/endangered. Additionally, no sensitive special status plant species were documented or expected to occur within the Project site. Special-status plant species known from the region and their occurrence potential on the Project site are summarized below in Table 4.1-1.

Table 4.1-1: Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State CRPR
Nevin’s barberry (Berberis
nevinii)
FE SE 1B.1 Perennial evergreen shrub which
generally blooms from February to June
within chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, and riparian scrub in sandy,
gravelly substrates.

Not Detected.

Plummer’s mariposa-lily
(Calochortus plummerae)
-- -- 4.2 Perennial bulbiferous herb which
generally blooms from May to June within
chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, lower montane coniferous forest,
and grassland habitats with granite and
rocky substrates.

No Potential: Not expected to
occur on-site based on lack of
suitable undisturbed
vegetation or soils.

Lucky morning glory
(Calystegia felix)
-- -- 1B.1 Annual rhizomatous herb generally
blooming from March to September
within meadows, seeps and riparian scrub
habitat.

No Potential: Not expected to
occur on-site based on lack of
suitable undisturbed
vegetation or soils.

Parry’s spineflower
(Chorizanthe parryi var.
parryi)
-- -- 1B.1 Annual herb which generally blooms from
April to June within chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub and grassland
habitats with sandy and/or rocky
openings.

No Potential: Not expected to
occur on-site based on lack of
suitable undisturbed
vegetation or soils.

Slender-horned spineflower
(Dodecahema leptoceras)
FE SE 1B.1 Annual herb which generally blooms from
April to June within chaparral, cismontane
woodland and coastal scrub (alluvial fan)
with sandy substrates.

No Potential: Not expected to
occur on-site based on lack of
suitable undisturbed
vegetation or soils.

Mesa horkelia (Horkelia
cuneata ssp. puberula)
-- -- 1B.1 Perennial herb which generally blooms
from February to September within
chaparral (maritime), cismontane
woodland and coastal scrub with sandy or
gravelly substrates.

Not Detected.

Robinson’s pepper-grass
(Lepidium virginicum var.
robinsonii)
-- -- 4.3 Annual herb which generally blooms from
January to July within chaparral and
coastal sage scrub habitats.

No Potential: Not expected to
occur on-site based on lack of
suitable undisturbed
vegetation or soils.

Prostate vernal pool
navarretia (Navarretia
prostrata)
-- -- 1B.2 Annual herb generally blooming from
April to July within coastal scrub,
meadows and seeps, valley and foothill
grasslands and vernal pools.

No Potential: Not expected to
occur on-site based on lack of
suitable undisturbed
vegetation or soils.

Brand’s star phacelia
(Phacelia stellaris)
-- -- 1B.1 Annual herb generally blooming from
March to June within coastal sage scrub
and dune habitats.

No Potential: Not expected to
occur on-site based on lack of
suitable undisturbed
vegetation or soils.

White rabbit tobacco
(Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum)
-- -- 2B.2 Perennial herb generally blooming from
July to December within chaparral,
cismontane woodland, coastal scrub and
riparian woodland habitats.

Not Detected.
598
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-5 4.1 | Biological Resources
Special-Status Wildlife Species
A total of 50 sensitive invertebrate and wildlife species have the potential of occurring within the vicinity of the Project site. The Project site does not occur within or adjacent to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated critical habitat for any federally listed threatened or endangered species. No specialstatus wildlife species were observed within the Project site. However, Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) and White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) were observed adjacent to and within Ownership Area 1 during previous surveys of adjacent properties in 2022, resulting in a high potential to occur. Additionally, several species observed during the survey were deemed to have a moderate occurrence potential (primarily as foragers). Most remaining potentially occurring sensitive wildlife species are not expected to occur onsite due to lack of suitable habitat. Sensitive wildlife species potentially occurring on the Project site are summarized below in Table 4.1-2.

Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State CRPR
Salt spring checkerbloom
(Sidalcea neomexicana)
-- -- 2.2 Perennial herb which generally blooms
from March to June within chaparral,
coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous
forest, Mojavean desert scrub, and playas
within alkaline/mesic gravelly substrates.

Not Detected.

San Bernardino aster
(Symphyotrichum
defoliatum)
-- -- 1B.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb generally
blooming from July to December within
various vegetation communities in
associating with wetland substrates
(ditches, streams and springs).

Not Detected.

Rigid fringepod
(Thysanocarpus rigidus)
-- -- 1B.2 Annual herb generally blooming from
February to May within pinyon and
juniper woodland habitats.

No Potential: Not expected to
occur on-site based on lack of
suitable undisturbed
vegetation or soils.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS): California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) CRPR 1A – plants presumed extinct in California
CRPR 1B – plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere CRPR 2A – plants presumed extirpated in California but common elsewhere CRPR 2B – plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere CRPR 3 – plants about which we need more information, a review list CRPR 4 – plants of limited distribution, a watch list
.1 – Seriously endangered in California
.2 – Fairly endangered in California
.3 – Not very endangered in California
Federal (USFWS) Protection and Classification
FE – Federally Endangered
FT – Federally Threatened
FC – Federal Candidate for Listing
State (CDFW) Protection and Classification
SE – State Endangered
ST – State Threatened
Source: Cadre Environmental. 2024. Biological Resources Technical Report Center Park Specific Plan City of Ontario, California, page 26-28. (Appendix C1).
599
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-6 4.1 | Biological Resources
Table 4.1-2: Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State
Invertebrates
Crotch bumble bee
(Bombus crotchii)
-- SC Inhabits grasslands and shrublands and
requires a hotter and drier environment
than other bumblebee species.

No Potential: Not expected to occur
on-site based on lack of suitable
food sources and heavily disturbed
conditions.

Delhi Sands flower-loving
fly (Rhaphiomidas
terminatus abdominalis)
FE -- Restricted to Delhi sand formations in
Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.

Low Potential. The Delhi Sands
flower-loving fly is not expected to
occur on-site based on the historic
and ongoing impacts to the Project
site respective of active dairy and
agricultural use. However,
approximately 19-acres of the
eastern region of the Project site and
Ownership Area 2 are mapped as
Delhi soils.

Reptiles and Amphibians
Western spadefoot (Spea
hammondii)
SSC Primary habitat for this species includes
suitable breeding habitat below 1500
meters (i.e., vernal pools or other
standing water that is free of exotic
species) with secondary habitats
including adjacent chaparral, sage scrub,
grassland, and alluvial scrub habitats.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed soils and continuous
dairy and agricultural activities
conducted.

Southern California legless
lizard (Anniella stebbinsi)
SSC Broadleaved upland forest, chaparral,
coastal dunes, and coastal scrub. Occurs
in sandy or loose loamy soils under
sparse vegetation, generally in moist,
loose soil.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed vegetation or soils.

California glossy snake
(Arizona elegans
occidentalis)
SSC Generalist reported from a range of
scrub and grassland habitats, often with
loose or sandy soils.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed vegetation or soils.

Coastal western whiptail
(Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri)
SSC The coastal western whiptail occurs in a
wide variety of habitats including coastal
sage scrub, desert scrub, Riversidean
alluvial fan scrub, woodlands, grasslands,
playas, and respective ecotones between
these habitats.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed vegetation or soils.

San Bernardino ringneck
snake (Diadophis
punctatus modestus)
-- -- Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, grassland,
riparian, and woodlands.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed vegetation or soils.

Western pond turtle
(Actinemys marmorata)
-- SSC The western pond turtle inhabits slow
moving permanent or intermittent
streams, small ponds, small lakes,
reservoirs, abandoned gravel pits,
permanent and ephemeral shallow
wetlands, stock ponds, and sewage
treatment lagoons.

Not Detected. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed basking sites and
permanent water.

Coast horned lizard
(Phrynosoma blainvillii)
-- SSC Open areas of sandy soil with coastal sage
scrub, chaparral, grassland, riparian, and
washes and watercourses.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed vegetation or soils.

Coast patch-nosed snake
(Salvadora hexalepis
virgultea)
-- SSC The coast patch-nosed snake prefers
brushy coastal sage scrub/ chaparral
habitats.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed vegetation or soils.
600
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-7 4.1 | Biological Resources
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State
Two-striped gartersnake
(Thamnophis
hammondii)
-- SSC Marsh and swamp, riparian scrub,
riparian woodland, and wetland. Highly
aquatic, found in or near permanent
fresh water. Often along streams with
rocky beds and riparian growth.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed vegetation, soils or
permanent water.

Birds
Cooper's hawk (Accipiter
cooperii)
-- SSC Cooper’s hawk is most commonly found
within or adjacent to riparian/oak forest
and woodland habitats. This uncommon
resident of California increases in
numbers during winter migration.

Low Potential – May occasionally
forage on-site and breed within the
mature Eucalyptus trees.

Sharp-shinned hawk
(Accipiter striatus)
-- CWL Potential habitat for the sharp-shinned
hawk includes montane coniferous forest
for potential breeding areas and riparian
scrub, woodland, and forest habitat, oak
woodland and forest, chaparral, coastal
sage scrub, desert scrub, and Riversidean
alluvial fan sage scrub for foraging.

Low Potential – May occasionally
forage on-site.

Tri-colored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)
-- ST/SSC Marshes and grasslands. Breeding
colonies require nearby water, nesting
substrate, and foraging habitat of
grassland, woodland, or agricultural
cropland.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of nesting
habitat (cattail, rushes, and willows)
within or adjacent to the Project
site.

Golden eagle (Aquila
chrysaetos)
-- CWL, SFP Within southern California, the species
prefers grasslands, brushlands (coastal
sage scrub and chaparral), deserts, oak
savannas, open coniferous forests, and
montane valleys.

Low Potential – May occasionally
forage on-site.

Great egret (Ardea alba) -- Nesting
Colony
Wet areas, fields, margins of open water. Moderate Potential – Expected to occasionally forage on-site but not
breed.

Great blue heron (Ardea
herodias)
-- Nesting
Colony
Wet areas, fields, margins of open water. Moderate Potential – Expected to occasionally forage on-site but not
breed.

Burrowing owl (Athene
cunicularia)
-- SSC The burrowing owl uses predominantly
open land, including grassland,
agriculture, playa, sparse coastal sage
scrub, desert scrub habitats. Some
breeding burrowing owls are year-round
residents and additional individuals from
the north may winter throughout the
region.

Moderate Potential – Suitable
burrows larger than 4 inches in
diameter and foraging habitat
documented within the fallow fields
on-site.

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo
regalis)
-- CWL Grasslands and other open terrain of the
plains and foothills. Wintering species.

Primarily open fields with low vegetation.

Low Potential – May occasionally
forage on-site.

Swainson’s hawk (Buteo
swainsoni)
-- ST Grasslands and other open terrain. Low Potential – May occasionally forage on-site.

Mountain plover
(Charadrius montanus)
-- SSC Dry upland prairies and plains,
semidesert, bare dirt fields.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed vegetation.

Northern harrier (Circus
cyaneus)
-- SSC The northern harrier frequents open
wetlands, wet/lightly grazed pastures,
fields, dry uplands/prairies, mesic
grasslands, drained marshlands,
croplands, meadows, grasslands, open
rangelands, fresh and saltwater
emergent wetlands.

High Potential. Observed adjacent
to and on-site during previous
surveys of adjacent properties in
2022.
601
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-8 4.1 | Biological Resources
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State
Western yellow-billed
cuckoo (Coccyzus
americanus occidentalis)
FT SE Riparian. Uncommon to rare summer
resident of valley foothill and desert
riparian habitats.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed riparian scrub, forest or
woodland vegetation.

Snowy egret (Egretta
thula)
-- Nesting
Colony
Wet areas, fields, margins of open water. Moderate Potential – Expected to occasionally forage on-site but not
breed.

White-tailed kite (Elanus
leucurus)
-- SFP The white-tailed kite is found in riparian,
oak woodlands adjacent to large open
spaces including grasslands, wetlands,
savannahs and agricultural fields. This
non-migratory bird species occurs
throughout the lower elevations of
California and commonly nests in coast
live oaks.

Low Potential – May occasionally
forage on-site.

California horned lark
(Eremophila alpestris
actia)
-- CWL Variety of open habitats, usually where
trees and large shrubs are absent.

Moderate Potential – Expected to
occasionally forage and breed onsite.

Merlin (Falco
columbarius)
-- CWL Grasslands, coastal sage scrub and
estuaries, windrows, open fields.

Low Potential – May occasionally
forage on-site.

Prairie falcon (Falco
mexicanus)
-- CWL Habitat use of the prairie falcon includes
annual grasslands to alpine meadows.

The prairie falcon is associated primarily
with perennial grasslands, savannahs,
rangeland, some agricultural fields
during the winter season, and desert
scrub areas, all typically dry
environments of western North
American where there are cliffs or bluffs.
for nest sites.

Low Potential – May occasionally
forage on-site.

American peregrine falcon
(Falco peregrinus
anatum)
-- SFP Throughout the species' range, peregrine
falcons are found in a large variety of
open habitats, including tundra,
marshes, seacoasts, savannahs and high
mountains.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed vegetation.

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius
ludovicianus)
-- SSC This species of shrike hunts in open or
grassy areas and nests in large chaparral
shrubs such as ceanothus and lemonade
berry.

Low Potential – May occasionally
forage on-site.

California gull (Larus
californicus)
-- CWL Nearly all types of fresh and salt water,
cropland, landfills, refuse areas, open
lawns.

Moderate Potential – Expected to
occasionally forage on-site.

California black rail
(Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus)
-- ST/SFP Brackish marsh, freshwater marsh,
marsh and swamp, salt marsh, wetland.

Inhabits freshwater marshes, wet
meadows and shallow margins of
saltwater marshes bordering large bays.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats.

Long-billed curlew
(Numenius americanus)
-- CWL Coastal estuaries, upland herbaceous
areas, croplands, wet areas, open fields,
shores of open water.

Moderate Potential – Expected to
occasionally forage on-site.

Double-crested
cormorant
(Nannopterum auritum)
-- CWL Lakes, fresh, salt, and estuarine waters. Moderate Potential – Expected to occasionally forage on-site.

White-faced ibis (Plegadis
chihi)
-- CWL Freshwater marshes and brackish areas. High Potential. Observed adjacent to and on-site during previous
surveys of adjacent properties in
2022.
602
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-9 4.1 | Biological Resources
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State
Coastal California
gnatcatcher (Polioptila
californica californica)
FT SSC The coastal California gnatcatcher is a
nonmigratory bird species that primarily
occurs within sage scrub habitats in
coastal southern California dominated by
California sagebrush.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats including
coastal sage scrub and associations.

Mammals
Pallid bat (Antrozous
pallidus)
-- SSC Chaparral, coastal scrub, desert wash,
Great Basin grassland, Great Basin scrub,
Mojavean desert scrub, riparian
woodland, Sonoran desert scrub, upper
montane coniferous forest, and valley
and foothill grassland. Oak and grassland
ecotones. Prefers foraging in the open.

Roosts in attics or rock cracks; in the
open, near foliage at night.

Low Potential. Expected to
occasionally forage on-site
Northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse
(Chaetodipus fallax
fallax)
-- SSC The northwestern San Diego pocket
mouse occurs in coastal sage, upland
sage scrubs, and alluvial fan sage scrub,
sage scrub/grassland ecotones,
chaparral, and desert scrubs at all
elevations up to 6,000 feet.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats including
coastal sage scrub and associations.

Townsend’s big-eared bat
(Corynorhinus
townsendii)
-- SSC A wide variety of habitats including
woodlands and arid grasslands. Roosts in
mines and caves.

Low Potential. Expected to
occasionally forage on-site.

San Bernardino kangaroo
rat (Dipodomys merriami
parvus)
FE SSC Prefers alluvial scrub, coastal sage scrub
habitats with sandy and gravelly
substrates.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats including
Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub
and associations.

Stephens' kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys stephensi)
FE ST The Stephens' kangaroo rat is found
almost exclusively in open grasslands or
sparse shrublands with cover of less than
50 percent during the summer.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats.

Western mastiff bat
(Eumops perotis
californicus)
-- SSC Roosts in rocky areas and forages in
grassland, shrublands, and woodlands.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats.

Western yellow bat
(Lasiurus xanthinus)
-- SSC Roosts in the skirts of palm trees and
forages in adjacent habitats.

Low Potential. Scattered palm trees
representing potential roosting
habitat documented within the
central region on-site.

San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit (Lepus
californicus bennettii)
-- SSC The San Diego blacktailed jackrabbit in
open habitats, primarily including
grasslands, sage scrub, alluvial fan sage
scrub, and Great Basin sage scrub.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats.

Western small-footed
myotis (Myotis
ciliolabrum)
-- -- Feeds among trees or over brush. Roosts
in caves, mines, and in cliff or rock
openings.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats.

Yuma myotis (Myotis
yumanensis)
-- -- Water and wooded canyon bottoms.

Roosts in caves and abandoned
buildings.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats.

San Diego desert woodrat
(Neotoma lepida
intermedia)
-- SSC Riversidean and coastal sage scrub,
chaparral and nonnative grasslands. Shrub
and desert habitats, primarily associated
with rock outcroppings, boulders, cacti, or
areas of dense undergrowth.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats.
603
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-10 4.1 | Biological Resources
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State
Pocketed free-tailed bat
(Nyctinomops
femorosaccus)
-- SSC Desert habitats. Roosts in rock crevices in
cliffs.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats.

Big free-tailed bat
(Nyctinomops macrotis)
-- SSC Desert habitats. Roosts in rock crevices in
cliffs.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats.

Los Angeles pocket mouse
(Perognathus
longimembris
brevinasus)
SSC Low elevation grassland alluvial sage
scrub and coastal sage scrub habitats.

No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats.

Federal (USFWS) Protection and Classification
FE – Federally Endangered
FT – Federally Threatened
FC – Federal Candidate for Listing
State (CDFW) Protection and Classification
SE – State Endangered
SSC – State Species of Special Concern
CWL – California Watch List
SFP – State Fully Protected
SC – State Candidate for Listing
Source: Cadre Environmental. 2024. Biological Resources Technical Report Center Park Specific Plan City of Ontario, California, page 29-37. (Appendix C1).

Special-Status Habitats
Special-status habitat types are vegetation communities that support concentrations of sensitive plant or wildlife species, are of relatively limited distribution, or are of particular value to wildlife. Although sensitive habitats are not necessarily afforded legal protection unless they support protected species, potential impacts to them may increase concerns and mitigation suggestions by resource agencies.

Sensitive habitat types known from the Project site vicinity (mostly associated with Prado Dam and the Santa Ana River) include Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, Southern California Arroyo Chub/Santa Ana Sucker Stream, Southern Coast Live Oak Forest, Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, Southern Interior Cypress Forest, Southern Riparian Forest, Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland, and Southern Willow Scrub. No sensitive or undisturbed native habitats were documented within Ownership Area 1. As mentioned above, no sensitive or undisturbed native habitats are expected within Ownership Area 2 because the disturbance level, land use, and other environmental factors are consistent between Ownership Area 1 and Ownership Area 2.

Sensitive Habitats in the Project Vicinity
No sensitive or undisturbed native habitats were observed within the Project site. The Project site is characterized by heavily disturbed active dairy, agricultural facilities, developed, and disturbed land uses.

All of the active retention ponds are devoid of wetland vegetation including but not limited to riparian scrub, forest, or woodland habitat. The nearest known habitats (as mentioned above) that would support sensitive biological resources would be the Santa Ana River and Prado Dam areas located 7.3 miles south of the Project site. The species associated with these sensitive biological resource areas would not be expected to occur on-site due to lack of suitable habitat.

Jurisdictional Resources
The Project site is located within the Chino Basin between the Chino Hills to the southwest and San Gabriel Basin to the north. The presence of wetland hydrology was evaluated throughout the Project site by 604
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-11 4.1 | Biological Resources
recording the extent of observed surface flows, depth of inundation, depth to saturated soils, and depth to free water in the soil pits. Indicators of wetland or riverine hydrology were then recorded, such as water marks, drift lines, rack, debris, and sediment deposits. Additionally, indicators of hydric soils, such as redoximorphic features, buried organic matter, organic streaking, reduced soil conditions, gleied or lowchroma soils, or sulfidic odor were recorded. The on-site active dairy/effluent pond would not be subject to federal wetland regulatory requirements and would not be considered a freshwater pond.

Furthermore, the active dairy/effluent pond is not connected to a natural stream and does not divert natural flow from any river, stream, or lake. Since these waters are not a part of a natural stream, river, or lake, they would not be considered jurisdictional under the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. The Program states: “An entity shall not substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake….” Furthermore, the active dairy/effluent ponds are an isolated feature and are not tributary to, nor has a significant nexus (biological, chemical, or physical connection) to traditional navigable waters of the United States.

Therefore, the artificial basins on the Project site would not be considered federally jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act (CWA).

Based on the site reconnaissance survey conducted, no wetlands or jurisdictional resources regulated by the United State Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), CDFW, or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCD) were documented within Ownership Area 1. The artificially created unvegetated dairy effluent retention ponds are isolated, located in uplands and currently rotated in use resulting in a wet (inundated) and dry phase. All of the active retention ponds are devoid of wetland vegetation including but not limited to riparian scrub, forest or woodland habitat. Similarly, Ownership Area 2 contains artificial basins that would not be considered federally jurisdictional.

Additionally, Project construction and operation would be subject to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the San Bernardino County Regional Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) code provisions.

Wildlife Movement Corridors
The Project site is surrounded by various forms of existing development. The Project site is completely bordered by high traffic roads, commercial/residential development, active dairy/agricultural facilities and does not represent a wildlife movement corridor or route between open space habitats. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the Project site occupies an important location relative to regional wildlife movement.

4.1.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act
605
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-12 4.1 | Biological Resources
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), as amended, protects, and conserves any species of plant or animal and their habitats that are threatened or endangered with extinction. The “take” of endangered species is prohibited under FESA Section 9. The term “take” in this instance means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” FESA Section 7 requires federal agencies to consult with the USFWS on proposed federal actions that may affect any endangered, threatened, or proposed species or critical habitat that may support the species.

FESA Section 4(a) requires that critical habitat be designated by the USFWS “to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, at the time a species is determined to be endangered or threatened.” This provides guidance for planners/managers and biologists by indicating locations of suitable habitat and where preservation of a species has high priority. FESA Section 10 provides the regulatory mechanism for incidental take of a listed species by private interests and nonfederal government agencies during lawful activities. Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) for the impacted species must be developed in support of incidental take permits to minimize impacts to the species and formulate viable mitigation measures.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA; 16 United States Code [USC] Section 703-712 et seq.) is a federal statute that affirms and implements four international conservation treaties that the United States entered into with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia. This treaty is intended to protect shared migratory bird resources and ensures the sustainability of populations. The MBTA governs the transportation of migratory birds, their eggs, their parts, and their nests. It also prohibits the sale, purchase, barter, or offering of these items, except under a valid permit or as permitted in the implementing regulations.

USFWS administers permits concerning migratory birds in accordance with the MBTA. According to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), one can locate this list of protected migratory bird species under CFR Title 50 Part 10.13 (10.13 list). The 10.13 list was last updated in 2020, incorporating the most current scientific information on taxonomy and natural distribution.

Clean Water Act, Section 404
The USACE regulates discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands under the CWA. Activities in waters of the United States regulated under this program include fill for development, water resource projects, infrastructure development and mining projects. A permit is required before dredged or fill material may be discharged into waters of the United States, which entails assessment of potential adverse impacts to USACE wetlands and jurisdictional waters and any mitigation measures that the USACE requires unless the activity is exempt from Section 404 regulation (e.g., certain farming and forestry activities). Section 7 consultation with USFWS may be required for impacts to a federally-listed species. If cultural resources may be present, Section 106 review may also be required. When a Section 404 permit is required, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification is also required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

Clean Water Act, Section 401 and 402
Section 401(a)(1) of the CWA specifies that any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in any discharge into navigable waters shall provide the federal permitting agency with a certification, issued by the state in which the discharge originates, that any such discharge will 606
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-13 4.1 | Biological Resources
comply with the applicable provisions of the CWA. In California, the applicable RWQCB must certify that the Project will comply with water quality standards. Permits requiring Section 401 certification include USACE Section 404 permits and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 402 of the CWA. NPDES permits are issued by the applicable RWQCB. The City of Ontario is in the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB (Region 8).

State
California Fish and Game Code, Section 1600
The California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Section 1600 requires a project proponent to notify the CDFW of any proposed alteration of streambeds, rivers, and lakes. The intent is to protect habitats that are important to fish and wildlife. CDFW may review and place conditions on the project, as part of a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA), which addresses potentially significant adverse impacts within CDFW’s jurisdictional limits.

California Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5, 3511, 3515,3800 Section 3503.5 of the CFGC states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Activities that result in the abandonment of an active bird of prey nest may also be considered in violation of this code. In addition, CFGC, Section 3511 prohibits the taking of any bird listed as fully protected, and CFGC, Section 3515 states that it is unlawful to take any non-game migratory bird protected under the MBTA.

Section 3800 states that it is unlawful to take any nongame bird except as provided in this code or in accordance with regulations of the commission or, when relating to mining operations, a mitigation plan approved by the department.

California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA), enacted in 1970 and amended in 1984, is a California law that conserves and protects plant and animal species at risk of extinction. It generally parallels the main provisions of the FESA and is administered by the CDFW. Plant and animal species may be designated threatened or endangered under CESA after a formal listing process by the CFGC. With already approximately 250 species currently listed, a CESA-listed species, or any part or product of the plant or animal, may not be imported into the state, exported out of the state, “taken” (i.e., killed), possessed, purchased, or sold without proper authorization. Implementation of CESA has reduced and avoided impacts to California’s most imperiled plants and animals, has protected hundreds of thousands of acres of vital habitat, and has led to a greater scientific understanding of California’s incredible biodiversity.

Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though they were already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the Fish and Game Commission. Unlike the FESA, CESA does not include listing provisions for invertebrate species. Under certain conditions and if the take is incidental to otherwise lawful activities, CESA has provisions for take through Incidental Take Permits (ITP) or memorandum of understanding (MOU). In addition, some sensitive mammals and birds are protected by the state as “fully protected species.” California “species of special concern” are species designated as 607
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-14 4.1 | Biological Resources
vulnerable to extinction due to declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats. This list is primarily a working document for the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), which maintains a record of known and recorded occurrences of sensitive species. Informally listed taxa are not protected per se but warrant consideration in the preparation of biological resources assessments.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act provides for statewide coordination of water quality regulations. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) was established as the statewide authority and nine separate RWQCBs were developed to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis.

The SWRCB is the primary agency responsible for protecting water quality in California. As discussed above, the RWQCBs regulate discharges to surface waters under the CWA. In addition, the RWQCBs are responsible for administering the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the state is given authority to regulate waters of the state, which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters. As such, any person proposing to discharge waste into a water body that could affect its water quality must first file a Report of Waste Discharge if Section 404 of the CWA is not required for the activity. “Waste” is partially defined as any waste substance associated with human habitation, including fill material discharged into water bodies.

Natural Community Conservation Planning Act
In 1991, the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCP Act; CFGC Section 1900 et seq.) was approved and the NCCP Coastal Sage Scrub program was initiated in southern California.

California law (CFGC Section 2800 et seq.). The Act established the NCCP program “to provide for regional protection and perpetuation of natural wildlife diversity while allowing compatible land use and appropriate development and growth.” The NCCP Act encourages preparation of plans that address habitat conservation and management on an ecosystem basis rather than one species or habitat at a time.

CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Program
The Lake and Streambed Alteration Program requires that an entity shall not substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake.

Local
City of Ontario General Plan – The Ontario Plan 2050
The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Environmental Resources Element defines the ethic to guide management of the City’s environmental resources; establishes goals for Environmental Infrastructure; maps environmental justice areas; and establishes policies that support system integration, resource conservation and regeneration, energy independence, environmental justice, and healthy communities.

Included in TOP 2050 is the Policy Plan, which is a framework that would guide the City’s future growth 608
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-15 4.1 | Biological Resources
through the application of policies and goals. The following goals of TOP 2050 relate to visual and scenic resources. The TOP 2050 Environmental Resources Element contains policies which pertain to biological resources.

The following policy contained in the Environmental Resources Element is relevant to the Project:

Environmental Resources Element5
Goal ER5 Protected high value habitat and farming and mineral resource extraction activities that are compatible with adjacent development.

Policy ER5-1 Habitat Conservation Areas. We support the protection of biological resources through the establishment, restoration, and conservation of high-quality habitat areas.

Policy ER5-2 Entitlement and Permitting Process. We comply with state and federal regulations regarding protected species.

Policy ER5-4 Transition of Farms. We protect both existing farms and sensitive uses around them as agricultural areas transition to urban uses.

City of Ontario Municipal Code
Municipal Code, Section 6.05.020
Section 6.05.020, Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures, of the Ontario Development Code establishes policies and measures that would further the preservation, protection, and maintenance of established and healthy heritage trees within the City. A Heritage Tree is one that is designated for preservation as a tree of historic or cultural significance, or a tree of importance to the community due to any one of the following factors:
• It is one of the largest or oldest trees of species located within the City and has a trunk diameter of 18 inches or greater when measured at 54 inches above grade; • It has a historical significance due to association with a historic building, site, street, person, or event;
• It is a defining landmark or significant outstanding feature of a neighborhood or district, typical of early Ontario Landscapes. This includes Camphor Tree (Cinnamomum camphora), Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara), London Planetree (Platanus acerifolia), Cork Oak (Quercus suber), Holly Oak (Quercus ilex), and California Pepper (Schinus molle);
• It is a Native Tree. This means that it is one of the following California native tree species with a trunk diameter of more than 8 inches, measured at 54 inches above natural grade: California Sycamore (Platanus racemose), Torrey Pine (Pinus torreyana), Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Engelmann Oak (Quercus engelmannii), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), or California Bay (Umbellularia californica).
5 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Environmental Resources Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policyplan/environmental-resources. (accessed December 2025). 609
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-16 4.1 | Biological Resources
Healthy Heritage Trees that are approved for removal shall be replaced with new trees with a total trunk diameter equal to the tree(s) removed, or as deemed appropriate by the Approve Authority based on lot size and available planting space. Replacement trees are to be in addition to the quantity of trees required for landscaping. The Approving Authority is responsible for reviewing the landscape plan and approving appropriate species for tree replacement.

Several blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) and red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) eucalyptus trees are located adjacent to the northeast and western Project site boundaries, although these are not known to be Heritage Trees meeting the criteria set forth above.

Municipal Code, Volume II, Chapter 2
The City’s Municipal Code (MC), Volume II, Chapter 2 contains a provision for “Parkway Tree Regulations” (Ordinance 1664), to preserve parkway trees and to regulate the maintenance and removal of such trees.

Parkway is defined as “…that portion of any public street right-of-way between the right-of-way boundary line and the curb line, and also the area enclosed within the curb lines of a medial divider.” The property owner abutting upon public rights-of-way (ROW) is responsible to water any tree located in the parkway and for trimming that can be done from the ground to preserve the neat appearance and non-obstructed use of the parkway, while the City is responsible for all major pruning. Removal or relocation of any parkway tree requires prior authorization from the Public Works Agency of the City through a permit process, and planting of a replacement tree, whenever feasible, shall be a condition included in any permit issued by the City for the removal of any parkway tree. Alternatively, a cash-in-lieu deposit may be accepted by the City as an alternate to the actual planting of any required parkway tree based on a fair value established by the Public Facilities Manager.

City of Ontario Biological Resources Habitat Mitigation Fee6 Since the Settlement Agreement, the City has established a habitat mitigation fee to cover potential environmental impacts to the Burrowing Owl (BUOW), Delhi sands flower-loving-fly (DSFLF), raptor foraging, loss of open space, and agricultural lands. Development impact fees for new development in Ontario Ranch were adopted on June 23rd, 2003, by the City Council. The Ontario Ranch development impact fees include a habitat mitigation fee of $4,320 per net acre for proposed residential, commercial, hotel and restaurant, office, and industrial development. Mitigation fees have been collected by the City and have been deposited into a trust fund to be used for the acquisition, restoration, rehabilitation, and maintenance of lands deemed to have long-term conservation value. Up to $500 of the fees may be used for DSFLF.

The City has approved a Memorandum of Agreement with Inland Empire Resource Conservation District (IERCD) to administer the Greater Prado Basin Habitat Conservation Program and associated Ontario Ranch Habitat Mitigation Fees. Therefore, the Ontario Ranch Habitat Mitigation Fees would be administered by IERCD.
6 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.4, Biological Resources. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed December 2025). 610
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-17 4.1 | Biological Resources

4.1.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
According to Appendix G of the state CEQA Guidelines, a project would a have significant effect on the biological resources if the project would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; • Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service;
• Have substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; or
• Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Methodology
The Project and associated Plans, Program, and Policies in Section 4.1.5: Plans, Programs, and Policies are evaluated as to the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, to determine the potential level of significance of any impact concerning biological resources. This analysis considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or reduce the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.

Biological Resource Survey
Cadre Environmental conducted a field investigation of Ownership Area 1 on June 13, 2024. The purpose of the field survey was to document the existing habitat conditions, obtain plant and animal species information, view the surrounding uses, assess the potential for state and federal waters, assess potential for wildlife movement corridors, and if critical habitat is present, assess for the presence of constituent elements.

Aerial imagery, topographic maps, as well as vegetation and rare plant maps were previously prepared for the region and were used to determine community types and other physical features that could support sensitive plants or wildlife, uncommon taxa, or rare communities within or adjacent to the Project site.
611
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-18 4.1 | Biological Resources
A general plant survey was conducted throughout Ownership Area 1 and all plants observed were either identified in the field or collected and later identified using taxonomic keys. All animals identified during the reconnaissance survey by sight, call, tracks, scat, or other characteristic sign were documented. In addition to species actually detected, expected use of the site by other wildlife was derived from the analysis of habitats on the site, combined with known habitat preferences of regionally occurring wildlife species. Currently, the Applicant does not control parcels within Ownership Area 2. Therefore, a biological resources report was not completed at this time. At the time of Ownership Area 2 development, it will undergo its own site-specific CEQA analysis. However, because the disturbance level, land use, and other environmental factors are generally consistent between Ownership Area 1 and Ownership Area 2, occurrence potential of special-status plant and wildlife species analyzed for Ownership Area 1 is anticipated to be similar for Ownership Area 2.

Burrowing Owl Survey
The BUOW (SSC) uses predominantly open land, including grassland, agriculture, playa, sparse coastal sage scrub, and desert scrub habitats. The consultant concluded there would be a moderate potential for BUOW within the Project site. Suitable habitat including burrows larger than 4-inches in diameter, which is suitable habitat for the BUOW, was observed within the Project site.

4.1.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP BIO-1 The Project shall comply with the Federal Endangered Species Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

PPP BIO-2 The Project shall comply with the California Endangered Species Act and Fish and Game Code.

4.1.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance.

Impact 4.1-1 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Ownership Area 1) and Significant and Unavoidable (Ownership Area 2 Only).

Ownership Area 1
Construction
A substantial adverse effect to special-status species would occur if the Project would:
1) Reduce the population size or reduce the area of occupied habitat of a rare, threatened, or endangered species; or
612
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-19 4.1 | Biological Resources
2) Reduce the population size or reduce the area of occupied habitat of a locally uncommon species.

A substantial adverse effect on a special-status wildlife species occurs if the Project would:
1) Increase predation of a species, leading to population reduction; 2) Reduce habitat availability sufficiently to affect potential reproduction; or 3) Reduce habitat availability sufficiently to constrain the distribution of a species and not allow for natural changes in distributional patterns over time.

Development of the Project would cover a total of 257.34 acres within the City on 29 parcels allowing for a residential and mixed-use retail/office development. Furthermore, Ownership Area 1 is primarily comprised of heavily disturbed active dairy and agricultural facilities.

Sensitive Plants
Refer to Table 4.1-2 above. A total of 13 sensitive plant species have potential to occur within the vicinity of the Project site, however of these 13 plant species, eight were deemed to have no potential to occur, and five were not detected during the reconnaissance survey for Ownership Area 1. Lack of suitable habitat within the Project vicinity would make it difficult for these plant species to survive. Long-standing use of Ownership Area 1 for agricultural uses and other anthropogenic disturbances have likely altered soil chemistry and other substrate characteristics such that on-site soils are not likely capable of supporting those sensitive plant species known from the Project vicinity. Ownership Area 1 development would not eliminate significant amounts of habitat for potentially occurring special-status plant species, nor reduce population size of sensitive plant species below self-sustaining levels on a local or regional basis (if present). Therefore, the development of the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any plant species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulation or by the CDFW or USFWS in Ownership Area 1. Therefore, no significant impact on special-status plant species or their habitat would occur.

Sensitive Wildlife
Refer to Table 4.1-3 above. No special-status wildlife species were directly observed in Ownership Area 1; however, two special-status wildlife species were previously observed adjacent to and within Ownership Area 1. The species previously observed were the Northern harrier (SCC) and the White-faced ibis (CWL).

Additionally, several species observed during the survey were deemed to have a moderate occurrence potential (primarily as foragers). Most remaining potentially occurring sensitive wildlife species are not expected to occur on-site due to lack of suitable habitat. Impacts to agricultural-related habitats could amount to an incremental reduction of potential foraging habitat for certain species that may be considered locally adverse. However, development would not eliminate significant amounts of habitat for these species, nor reduce population size below self-sustaining levels on a local or regional basis, and impacts would be less than significant.
613
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-20 4.1 | Biological Resources
Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly
The federally endangered Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly is not expected to occur onsite based on the historic and ongoing impacts to the Project site respective of active dairy and agricultural use. However, approximately 19 acres of the north-northeastern region of the Project site is mapped as Delhi soils. Due to the presence of potential habitat for the DSFLF, protocol surveys were performed pursuant to the USFWS interim General Survey Guidelines for DSFLF. According to the DSFLF Habitat Suitability Assessment, provided as Appendix C2: Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment, a habitat assessment for the DSFLF was prepared and concluded that the Project site no longer supports clean Delhi Sand soils and is rated as unsuitable habitat.7 The City requires that the Project Applicant pay towards the City of Ontario Biological Resources Habitat Mitigation Fee program to cover potential environmental impacts to the DSFLF, burrowing owl, raptor foraging, loss of open space, and agricultural lands. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO-1, the Applicant would pay a habitat mitigation fee which would include payment of $4,320 per net acre for proposed residential, commercial, hotel and restaurant, office, and industrial development. These paid mitigation fees would then be collected by the City and be deposited into a trust fund to use for the acquisition, restoration, rehabilitation, and maintenance of lands deemed to have longterm conservation value. Therefore, impacts to the DSFLF associated with development of Ownership Area 1 would be less than significant with mitigation.

Nesting Birds
Most native bird species are protected under the federal MBTA and CFGC Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 which prohibit take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests, or eggs. If it were later determined that active nests of any of special-status or native species would be lost or indirectly impacted as a result of site-preparation, it could result in adverse impacts and would be in conflict with these regulations. If construction activities (e.g., site disturbances) are proposed during the nesting season, a nesting bird survey(s) may be required prior to development. Development activities performed outside of the avian breeding season (generally September 1st to December 31st) usually eliminates the need to conduct preactivity nesting surveys for most native species known from the site vicinity and ensure that there were no constraints to construction relative to the MBTA/CFGC Code. Compliance with the MBTA/CFGC Code would be necessary prior to development; however, no special permit or approval is typically required in most instances where BUOW are not present. Development activities performed outside of the avian breeding season would generally eliminate the need to conduct pre-activity nesting surveys for most common native species (other than BUOW), known to occur in the vicinity of the Project site, and would likely ensure that there are no constraints to construction relative to the MBTA/CFGC codes.

Within Ownership Area 1, suitable foraging and/or nesting habitat for the Cooper’s hawk (SSC), sharpshinned hawk (CWL), golden eagle (CWL, SFP), great egret (Nesting Colony), great blue heron (Nesting Colony), Burrowing owl (SSC), ferruginous hawk (CWL), Swainson’s hawk (ST), snowy egret (Nesting colony), white-tailed kite (SFP), California horned lark (CWL), merlin (CWL), prairie falcon (CWL), loggerhead shrike (SSC), California gull (CWL), long-billed curlew (CWL), and double crested cormorant 7 ELMT Consulting, Inc. 2024. Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment, page 12. (Appendix C2). 614
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-21 4.1 | Biological Resources
(CWL) was observed within the agricultural fields and the artificially created unvegetated dairy effluent retention ponds. Additionally, suitable habitat for breeding was documented within the Project site for Cooper’s hawk (SSC) and California horned lark (CWL). As stated in Section 4.1.3: Regulatory Setting, the City has approved a Memorandum of Agreement with Inland Empire Resource Conservation District to administer the Greater Prado Basin Habitat Conservation Program and associated Ontario Ranch Habitat Mitigation Fees. Consequently, the Project would adhere to the required Ontario Ranch development impact fees which include a habitat mitigation fee of $4,320 per net acre for proposed residential, commercial, hotel and restaurant, office, and industrial development. These paid mitigation fees would then be collected by the City and be deposited into a trust fund to use for the acquisition, restoration, rehabilitation, and maintenance of lands deemed to have long-term conservation value. Additionally, MM BIO-2 would require a qualified biologist to conduct a nesting bird survey(s) to be reviewed by the City to reduce impacts to nesting birds to less than significant levels. Therefore, implementation of MM BIO-2 would reduce potential impacts to these species to less than significant levels.

Many North American bat species tend to congregate at preferred roosting sites or at isolated water sources, several field methods are available to identify species and broad habitat associations (e.g., tree cavities, exfoliating bark, bark fissures, crevices, cliff faces, and/or dense foliage). Suitable foraging and/or roosting habitat were documented for the pallid bat (SSC), Townsend’s big-eared bat (SSC), and the western yellow bat (SSC) within Ownership Area 1. Potential impacts to foraging habitat for these species would be mitigated to a level of less than significant level with implementation of MM BIO-3. MM BIO-3 would require a qualified biologist to determine whether potential roosting sites for bats may be affected through exit counts and acoustic surveys that would be performed prior to ground disturbance activities.

If the results of the bat survey find a total of one single roosting individual of a special status bat species or 25 or more individuals of a non-special status bat species with potential to be present in Ownership Area 1 (i.e., western Mastiff bat, big free-tailed bat, or pallid bat), a Bat Management Plan shall be developed to ensure mortality to bats does not occur. The plan would be reviewed and approved by the CDFW. Therefore, impacts related to bat species would be less than significant with incorporation of MM BIO-3.

Burrowing Owl
BUOW is a CDFW Species of Special Concern. The BUOW uses predominantly open land, including grassland, agriculture, playa, sparse coastal sage scrub, and desert scrub habitats. The BUOW (lowoccurrence potential) often occur in less than optimal and/or disturbed conditions. Suitable burrows larger than 4 inches in diameter and foraging habitat for the BUOW were documented within and adjacent to the east of Ownership Area 1. However, despite the fact that the site has been exposed to long-standing disturbances, suitable BUOW habitat, including burrows larger than 4-inches in diameter, was observed within the fallow fields on Ownership Area 1. Although there is suitable BUOW habitat, potential impacts to refugia, nesting, and foraging habitat for this species would be mitigated to a level of less than significant following implementation of MM BIO-4, which would ensure BUOW surveys are completed prior to construction. MM BIO-4 would implement focused and preconstruction surveys to ensure potential impacts to refugia, nesting, and foraging habitat for the BUOW would be reduced to less than significant levels. Upon arrival at the survey area and prior to initiating the walking surveys, the biologist would use binoculars and/or spotting scope to scan suitable habitat. A total of four surveys would be 615
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-22 4.1 | Biological Resources
conducted with at least one site visit between February 15th and April 15th, and a minimum of three surveys at least three weeks apart between April 15th and July 15th. Furthermore, one site visit would occur after June 15th.

While this species is not protected by state or federal endangered species acts, BUOW (and other native avian species) are protected under the MBTA and CFGC Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 which prohibits take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests, or eggs (in particular raptor species such as BUOW). If it were later determined that active nests of BUOW (or other native species) would be lost as a result of Project site-preparation, it could result in significant adverse impacts and would be in conflict with these regulations. Specific BUOW survey and mitigation guidelines were developed and described in the 2012 CFGC Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation in order to reduce project-related impacts to BUOW (MM BIO-4). If Project site-preparation activities occur within potential BUOW habitat, a preconstruction BUOW / Initial Take Avoidance Survey conducted no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities, using the recommended methods described in the 2012 Staff Report, is required by CFGC to determine if active nests of species protected by the MBTA code. If it is determined BUOW are present in the construction zone, then the subsequently appropriate measures may be applied to reduce potential adverse project-related impacts. Therefore, implementation of MM BIO-4 would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Operations
Operations of the Project would not have a significant effect on sensitive plants, animals, or their habitat.

Once construction activities for the Project are completed, no additional impacts would occur with Project operations as it relates to sensitive species. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no further mitigation would be required.

Ownership Area 2
Construction and Operations
Refer to Ownership Area 1 discussion above. Ownership Area 2 is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. Upon commencement of project-level CEQA review for Ownership Area 2, a focused biological resources assessment and site reconnaissance survey would be conducted. During future development of Ownership Area 2, existing vegetation and habitat would be removed by grading, excavation, and other construction activities. Note that, in its current state, the Project site is devoid of vegetation or dominated by ornamental, non-native and native species commonly detected in disturbed habitats. These disturbed habitats would be removed upon implementation of Ownership Area 2. Similar to Ownership Area 1, development occurring within Ownership Area 2 would be subject to MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-4 to reduce potential impacts to special status wildlife species. However, in the absence of focused biological surveys, impacts within Ownership Area 2 are not fully known and could be potentially significant. At the time of the project-level CEQA analysis and associated biological resources assessment of Ownership Area 2, unforeseen site conditions could be discovered that warrant a finding of potentially significant impact. In that case, a subsequent CEQA analysis, in the form of a subsequent EIR or EIR Addendum, may be required pursuant 616
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-23 4.1 | Biological Resources
to Sections 15162(a) and 15164 of the state CEQA Guidelines. This determination will be made by City staff at the time of future Ownership Area 2 site-specific development applications.

A focused biological resources assessment and impact analysis would be conducted for future development areas prior to approval of any development within Ownership Area 2 to ensure potential adverse effects to sensitive species and resources would be minimized. Furthermore, any focused surveys and required mitigation measures would be implemented prior to Project approval and construction initiation (refer to MM BIO-5 below). Future development would modify the existing habitat when Ownership Area 2 is completed; however, impacts on sensitive species due to habitat modifications would be minimized with mitigation incorporated along with compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050. Furthermore, the Project zoning mirrors the existing TOP 2050 land use designations for the Project site, and is therefore consistent with TOP 2050.

As mentioned above, a subsequent CEQA analysis may be required should the new information presented by the focused surveys or focused biological resources assessment indicate that the Project will have significant impacts relating to biological resources.

Conclusion
As noted above, the Project is not anticipated to significantly impact sensitive species. MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-5 would be required to reduce impacts. For the Ownership Area 1 portion of the Project, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. However, because the extent of impacts within Ownership Area 2 cannot be known at this time, Project impacts relating to biological resources within Ownership Area 2 are considered potentially significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of recommended mitigation.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1 City of Ontario Biological Resources Habitat Mitigation Fee. The City of Ontario has established a habitat mitigation fee to cover potential environmental impacts to the burrowing owl, DSFLF, raptor foraging, loss of open space, and agricultural lands.

Development impact fees for new development in Ontario Ranch were adopted on June 23rd, 2003, by the City Council. The Ontario Ranch development impact fees include a habitat mitigation fee of $4,320 per net acre for proposed residential, commercial, hotel and restaurant, office, and industrial development. Mitigation fees have been collected by the City of Ontario and have been deposited into a trust fund to be used for the acquisition, restoration, rehabilitation, and maintenance of lands deemed to have long-term conservation value.

MM BIO-2 Nesting Bird and Raptor Preconstruction Survey. Regulatory requirement for potential direct/indirect impacts to nesting common and sensitive bird and raptor species will require compliance with the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Section 3503. Construction outside the nesting season (between September 1st and January 31st) do not require pre-removal nesting bird surveys. If construction is proposed during nesting season (February 1st and August 31st), a qualified biologist will conduct a nesting bird survey(s) no more than three (3) days prior to initiation of 617
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-24 4.1 | Biological Resources
grading to document the presence or absence of nesting birds within or directly adjacent (200 ft -500 ft for raptors) to the Project site.

The survey(s) will focus on identifying any raptors and/or bird nests that are directly or indirectly affected by construction activities. If active nests are documented, the qualified biologist will prepare and implement specific measures to prevent abandonment of the active nest. At a minimum, grading in the vicinity of a nest will be postponed until the young birds have fledged. The perimeter of the nest setback zone will be fenced or adequately demarcated with stakes and flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction personnel and activities will be restricted from the area.

The biologist shall establish a no-disturbance buffer around each active nest. The buffer area will be determined by the biologist based on the species present, surrounding habitat, and type of construction activities proposed in the area. The survey report will be submitted by the qualified biologist to the City of Ontario for review and approval prior to initiation of grading in the nest-setback zone.

Additionally, the qualified biologist will serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. A final monitoring report of the findings, prepared by a qualified biologist, will be submitted to the City of Ontario documenting compliance with the CFGC. Any nest permanently vacated for the season would not warrant protection pursuant to the CFGC.

MM BIO-3 Pre-construction Focused Bat Survey. Prior to implementation of Project activities, a qualified biologist shall be retained to determine whether potential roosting sites for bats may be affected. For large ornamental trees suitable for bat roosting/nursery, exit counts and acoustic surveys shall be performed prior to initial ground disturbance, vegetation or structure removal to determine whether the Project site and a 300-foot buffer supports a nursery or roost, and by which species. This work will occur between late -spring and late summer and/or in the fall (generally midMarch through late October).

If the results of the bat survey find a total of a single roosting individual of a special status bat species or 25 or more individuals of a non-special status bat species with potential to be present in the Project site (i.e., western Mastiff bat, big free-tailed bat, or pallid bat), a Bat Management Plan shall be developed to ensure mortality to bats does not occur. For each location confirmed to be occupied by bats, the plan will provide details both in text and graphically where exclusion devises/and or staged tree removal will need to occur, the timing for exclusion work and the timeline and methodology needed to exclude the bats. The plan will need to be reviewed and approved by CDFW prior to disturbance of the roost(s).

MM BIO-4 Focused and Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Surveys. Focused surveys for burrowing owl will be conducted in accordance with the March 7, 2022, CDFW staff report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Specifically, a total of four (4) surveys will be conducted: 1) at least one site visit between February 15th and April 15th, and 2) a minimum of three (3) surveys, at least three weeks apart, between April 15th and July 15th, with at least one visit after June 15th. A report of the findings prepared by a 618
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-25 4.1 | Biological Resources
qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City of Ontario prior to any permit or approval for ground disturbing activities.

A 14-day burrowing owl preconstruction survey will also be conducted immediately prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing construction to ensure protection for this species. The survey will be conducted in compliance with CDFW guidelines (CDFW 2012). A report of the findings prepared by a qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City of Ontario prior to any permit or approval for ground disturbing activities.

If burrowing owls are detected on-site during the focused surveys or 14-day preconstruction survey efforts, during the breeding season (February 1st to August 31st) then construction activities shall be limited to beyond 300 feet of the active burrows until a qualified biologist has confirmed that nesting efforts are complete or not initiated. In addition to monitoring breeding activity, if construction is proposed to be initiated during the breeding season or active relocation is proposed, a burrowing owl relocation plan will be developed and approved by the City of Ontario, CDFW and USFWS.

MM BIO-5 Programmatic Assessment Area CEQA Analysis. The Programmatic Assessment Area located within Ownership Area 2, including APN’s 0216-311-09, 1053-301-01 and -02; 1053-311-01 and -02, and 1053-321-01, -02, and -03, was not evaluated for biological resources as part of this analysis. Authorization to access this region of the project was not provided and therefore was analyzed programmatically based on aerial photographs and assessments from the adjacent parcel boundaries. To ensure that potential adverse effects to sensitive species and resources are reduced to a less than significant level, a focused biological resources assessment and impact analysis shall be conducted in the unsurveyed portion of the Project site prior to approval of development within this region. In addition to completing CEQA review, any focused surveys and required mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to project approval and initiation of construction.

Impact 4.1-2 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Ownership Area 1) and Significant and Unavoidable (Ownership Area 2 Only).

Ownership Area 1
Construction and Operations
As previously mentioned, Ownership Area 1 is heavily disturbed and mostly consists of developed, disturbed, active dairy, and agricultural facilities. Within Ownership Area 1, a total of 194.05 acres of vegetation communities would be directly impacted as a result of Project implementation as summarized in Table 4.1-3: Ownership Area 1 Vegetation Community Impacts. However, no riparian, sensitive, or undisturbed native/natural habitats were documented during the biological assessment. In addition, no 619
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-26 4.1 | Biological Resources
riparian scrub, forest, or woodland habitat was observed within the artificially created dairy effluent retention ponds located within Ownership Area 1. Furthermore, the adherence to the City’s Biological Resources habitat mitigation fee consistent with MM BIO-1, described previously, would reduce potential impacts to BUOW, raptor foraging, loss of open space, and agricultural lands to a less than significant level.

Table 4.1-3: Ownership Area 1 Vegetation Community Impacts Ownership Area 2
Construction and Operations
Refer to Ownership Area 1 discussion above. Ownership Area 2 is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. Furthermore, the Project zoning mirrors the existing TOP 2050 land use designations for the Project site, and is therefore consistent with TOP 2050. Within Ownership Area 2, impacts to riparian habitat would be minimized with compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050. However, in the absence of focused biological surveys, impacts within Ownership Area 2 are not fully known and could be potentially significant. At the time of the project-level CEQA analysis and associated biological resources assessment of Ownership Area 2, unforeseen site conditions could be discovered that warrant a finding of potentially significant impact. In that case, subsequent CEQA analysis, in the form of a subsequent EIR or EIR Addendum, may be required pursuant to Sections 15162(a) and 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. This determination will be made by City staff at the time of future Ownership Area 2 sitespecific development applications.

A focused biological resources assessment and impact analysis would be conducted for Ownership Area 2 area prior to approval of any development in this region to ensure potential adverse effects to sensitive species and resources would minimized. Furthermore, any focused surveys and required mitigation measures would be implemented prior to Project approval and construction initiation (refer to MM BIO-5 located above in Impact 4.1-1). As mentioned above, a subsequent CEQA analysis may be required should the new information presented by the focused surveys or focused biological resources assessment indicate that the Project will have significant impacts relating to biological resources.

Vegetation Community Ownership Area 1
Acres
Active Dairy 133.55
Active Agriculture 45.92
Disturbed 1.11
Developed 13.19
Ornamental (Eucalyptus) 0.28
Total 194.05
Source: Cadre Environmental. 2024. Biological Resources Technical Report Center Park Specific Plan City of Ontario, California, page 42. (Appendix C1).
620
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-27 4.1 | Biological Resources
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project is not anticipated to significantly impact any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by CDFW or USFWS.

Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Adherence to the City’s habitat mitigation fee would be required to reduce impacts to less significant levels. For the Ownership Area 1 portion of the Project, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. However, because the extent of impacts within Ownership Area 2 cannot be known at this time, Project impacts relating to biological resources within Ownership Area 2 are considered potentially significant and unavoidable despite the implementation of MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-5.

Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-5.

Impact 4.1-3 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Level of Significance: No Impact (Ownership Area 1) and Significant and Unavoidable (Ownership Area 2)
Ownership Area 1
Construction and Operations
A Jurisdictional Resources Assessment was conducted as part of the Project’s Biological Resources Technical Report to assess the presence/absence of USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB jurisdictional resources.

Non-wetland waters of the United States were assessed based on the limits of the ordinary high-water mark as determined by erosion, the deposition of vegetation or debris, and changes in vegetation and soil characteristics. The assessment utilized the methodology for routine wetland determination according to the methods outlined in the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Arid West Wetland Delineation Supplement and updated regulatory guidance letters.8 Wetlands are identified by the presence of three characteristics: hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. If any of these criteria were met, one or more transects were run to determine the extent of the wetland. Specifically, the presence of wetland hydrology was evaluated throughout the Project site by recording the extent of observed surface flows, depth of inundation, depth to saturated soils, and depth to free water in the soil pits, where applicable. In addition, indicators of wetland or riverine hydrology were recorded, including water marks, drift lines, rack, debris, and sediment deposits, as warranted. Any indicators of hydric soils, such as redoximorphic features, buried organic matter, organic streaking, reduced soil conditions, gleied, or low-chroma soils, or sulfidic odor were also recorded.9 As concluded in the Biological Resources Technical Report, no wetlands or jurisdictional resources regulated by the USACE, CDFW, or RWQCB were documented within the Project site. The artificially created unvegetated dairy effluent retention ponds are isolated, located in uplands, and currently rotated 8 Cadre Environmental. 2024. Biological Resources Technical Report Center Park Specific Plan City of Ontario, California, page 5. (Appendix C1) 9 Ibid, page 5.
621
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-28 4.1 | Biological Resources
in use resulting in a wet (inundated) and dry phase. All the active retention ponds are devoid of wetland vegetation including but not limited to riparian scrub, forest or woodland habitat. Therefore, no impacts associated with the Ownership Area 1 portion of the Project are anticipated.

Ownership Area 2
Construction and Operations
Refer to Ownership Area 1 discussion above. Ownership Area 2 is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. Furthermore, the proposed Ownership Area 2 land use designations are the same land use designations as contained in TOP 2050. Furthermore, any focused surveys and required mitigation measures would be implemented prior to Project approval and construction initiation (refer to MM BIO-5 located above in Impact 4.1-1) However, because the extent of impacts within Ownership Area 2 cannot be known at this time, Project impacts relating to biological resources within Ownership Area 2 are considered potentially significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of recommended mitigation.

Conclusion
As noted above, the Project is not anticipated to significantly impact federally protected wetlands, as no federally protected wetlands exist in the Project site. For Ownership Area 1 portion of the Project, impacts would be less than significant. However, because the extent of impacts within Ownership Area 2 cannot be known at this time, Project impacts relating to biological resources within Ownership Area 2 are considered potentially significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of recommended mitigation.

Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM BIO-5.

Impact 4.1-4 Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Ownership Area 1
Construction
Wildlife Movement Corridors
Ownership Area 1 is heavily disturbed with active dairy and agricultural uses and is surrounded by development including high traffic roads, commercial/residential development, active dairy/agricultural facilities, and therefore, it is highly unlikely that Ownership Area 1 occupies an important location relative to regional wildlife movement. As such, Project implementation would not have any substantial effect on local or regional wildlife movement. Ownership Area 1 is separated from regional wildlife movement corridors associated with the Prado Dam Flood Control Basin and Santa Ana River. Therefore, Ownership Area 1 does not function as a wildlife movement corridor. 622
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-29 4.1 | Biological Resources
Furthermore, although vegetation, including trees and shrubs would provide nesting habitat for raptors and migratory birds protected under the CFGC Codes are present within Ownership Area 1, development of Ownership Area 1 would comply with CFGC Code Section 3503 and implementation of MM BIO-2 would require a qualified biologist to conduct a nesting bird and raptor survey(s) no more than three days prior to initiation of grading. Furthermore, construction activities outside of the nesting season (between September 1st and January 31st) would not require any preconstruction nesting bird survey(s).

Ownership Area 1 does not represent a wildlife movement corridor or route between open space habitats.

Additionally, Ownership Area 1 is separated from regional wildlife movement corridors associated with the Prado Damn Flood Control Basin and Santa Ana River. Therefore, Ownership Area 1 does not function as a wildlife movement corridor. With implementation of MM BIO-2, development of Ownership Area 1 would not impede any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species and would not be located in a migratory wildlife corridor. Therefore, with mitigation incorporated, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Operations
Ownership Area 1 does not function as a wildlife movement corridor. As previously stated, Ownership Area 1 has been previously disturbed for agricultural use with multiple manmade structures present.

Operation of the Project would involve residential and mixed-use retail/office development infrastructure within Ownership Area 1. This usage would be consistent with previous uses of the site in that both would reduce the area’s ability to act as a natural wildlife corridor. Therefore, operation of the Ownership Area 1 portion of the Project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Therefore, operation of the Ownership Area 1 portion of the Project result in a less than significant impact.

Ownership Area 2
Construction and Operations
Refer to Ownership Area 1 discussion above. Ownership Area 2 is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. Furthermore, the Project zoning mirrors the existing TOP 2050 land use designations for the Project site and is therefore consistent with TOP 2050. A focused biological resources assessment and impact analysis would be conducted for Ownership Area 2 prior to approval of any development in this region to ensure potential adverse effects to sensitive species and resources would be reduced to a less than significant level. Furthermore, any focused surveys and required mitigation measures would be implemented prior to Project approval and construction initiation (refer to MM BIO-5 located above in Impact 4.1-1). As mentioned above, a subsequent CEQA analysis may be required should the new information presented by the focused surveys or focused biological resources assessment indicate that development within Ownership Area 2 would have significant impacts relating to biological resources.

Similar to Ownership Area 1, Ownership Area 2 has been previously disturbed for agricultural use with multiple manmade structures present in addition to other industrial operations. Operation of Ownership Area 2 would not change as a result of the Project. This usage would be consistent with previous uses of 623
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-30 4.1 | Biological Resources
the site in that both would reduce the area’s ability to act as a natural wildlife corridor. Additionally, the Project site (both Ownership Areas 1 and 2) is separated from regional wildlife movement corridors associated with the Prado Dam Flood Control Basin and Santa Ana River. Therefore, Ownership Area 2 area does not function as a wildlife movement corridor and development of Ownership Area 2 would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. With implementation of MM BIO-5 and compliance with applicable plans, policies, and programs, including the Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050, impacts would be less than significant. 10 Conclusion
As noted above, the Project is not anticipated to significantly impact any established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, nor impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. MM BIO-2 and MM BIO-5 are required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-2 and MM BIO-5 would apply.

Impact 4.1-5 Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Ownership Area 1) and Significant and Unavoidable (Ownership Area 2 Only).

Ownership Area 1
Construction and Operations
A Heritage Tree is one that is designated for preservation as a tree of historic or cultural significance, or a tree of importance to the community. As noted above, the majority of the Project site is occupied by agricultural operations, associated access roads and agricultural residential uses. Ownership Area 1 contains several, scattered mature trees, including but not limited to pine, California sycamore white mulberry, California ash, olive, Chinese elm, tree of heaven, blue gum and red gum trees. None of the trees on-site are known to meet the City’s Heritage Tree policy (they are not known to be the oldest or largest of their kind, are not known to have any historic significance, are not known to be a defining landmark or significant outstanding feature of the area, and are not known to include any of the listed native trees with trunk diameter greater than eight inches).

As previously mentioned, several blue gum and red gum eucalyptus trees are located in the east/southeastern portions of the Project site boundaries, although these trees do not meet the City’s Heritage Tree policy criteria. Prior to any site clearing or grading, a tree inventory would be prepared to ensure compliance with Ontario Municipal Code (MC) Section 6.05.020, Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures (refer to MM BIO-6). This policy would ensure healthy Heritage Trees that are approved for removal would be replaced with new trees with a total trunk diameter equal to the trees 10 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.4, Biological Resources. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed December 2025) 624
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-31 4.1 | Biological Resources
removed, or as deemed appropriate by the Approving Authority. With implementation of MM BIO-6, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Ownership Area 2
Construction and Operations
Refer to Ownership Area 1 discussion above. Ownership Area 2 is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. Furthermore, the Project zoning mirrors the existing TOP 2050 land use designations for Ownership Area 2 and is therefore consistent with TOP 2050. When Ownership Area 2 development is completed, impacts to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would be minimized with Mitigation Measure MM BIO-5 incorporated and would comply with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050. However, in the absence of focused biological surveys, impacts within Ownership Area 2 are not fully known and could be potentially significant. At the time of the project-level CEQA analysis and associated biological resources assessment of Ownership Area 2, unforeseen site conditions could be discovered that warrant a finding of potentially significant impact. In that case, subsequent CEQA analysis, in the form of a subsequent EIR or EIR Addendum, may be required pursuant to Sections 15162(a) and 15164 of the state CEQA Guidelines. This determination will be made by City staff at the time of future Ownership Area 2 site-specific development applications. As part of the project-level analysis, a focused biological resources assessment and impact analysis would be conducted for Ownership Area 2 prior to approval of any development in this region to ensure potential adverse effects to biological resources would minimized. Pursuant to MM BIO-6, the site-specific biological resources assessment would include a Heritage Tree survey prior to approving any future development within the Project’s Ownership Area 2; refer to MM BIO-6 below. As mentioned above, a subsequent CEQA analysis may be required should the new information presented by the focused surveys or focused biological resources assessment indicate that the Ownership Area 2 portion of the Project will have significant impacts relating to biological resources.

Conclusion
As noted above, the Project is not anticipated to significantly impact an established Tree Preservation Policy. Furthermore, the Project zoning mirrors the existing TOP 2050 land use designations for the Project site and is therefore consistent with TOP 2050. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, along with compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050. MM BIO-6 is required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

For the Ownership Area 1 portion of the Project, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

However, because the extent of impacts within Ownership Area 2 cannot be known at this time, Project impacts relating to biological resources within Ownership Area 2 are considered potentially significant and unavoidable despite the implementation of MM BIO-6.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-6 Tree Inventory. Prior to implementation of Project site clearing or grading, a certified arborist or qualified horticulturalist shall provide a tree inventory to ensure compliance with Ontario MC Section 6.05.020, Tree Preservation Policy and 625
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-32 4.1 | Biological Resources
Protection Measures in order to determine the presence/absence of Heritage Trees.

Healthy Heritage Trees that are approved for removal shall be replaced with new trees with a total trunk diameter equal to the tree(s) removed, or as deemed appropriate by the Approving Authority based on lot size and available planting space.

Replacement trees are to be in addition to the quantity of trees required for landscaping. The Approving Authority is responsible for reviewing the landscape plan and approving appropriate species for tree replacement (The Ontario Plan 2050).

Impact 4.1-6 Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Ownership Area 1 and Ownership Area 2
Construction and Operations
The Project is not located within or adjacent to a Conservation Program Area. Ownership Area 2 is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time.

Furthermore, the Project zoning mirrors the existing TOP 2050 land use designations for the Project site and is therefore consistent with TOP 2050. Ownership Area 2 future development is not located within or adjacent to a Conservation Program Area. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in a conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan and no impact would occur.

Therefore, no mitigation is required or proposed.

Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would not significantly impact an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The Project zoning mirrors the existing TOP 2050 land use designations for the Project site and is therefore consistent with TOP 2050. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.11 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

4.1.7 Cumulative Impacts
A project’s cumulative impact is “an impact to which that project contributes and to which other projects contribute as well. The Project must make some contribution to the impact; otherwise, it cannot be characterized as a cumulative impact of that project” (Sierra Club v. West Side Irrigation Dist. [2005] 128 Cal.App.4th 690, 700.). State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 provides the following definition of cumulative impacts:
11 Ibid.
626
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-33 4.1 | Biological Resources
“Cumulative impacts” refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. a. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects.
b. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a) further addresses the discussion of cumulative impacts, as follows:

1. As defined in Section 15355, a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. An EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the project evaluated in the EIR.

2. When the combined cumulative impact associated with the project’s incremental effect and the effects of other projects is not significant, the EIR shall briefly indicate why the cumulative impact is not significant and is not discussed in further detail in the EIR. A lead agency shall identify facts and analysis supporting the lead agency’s conclusion that the cumulative impact is less than significant.

3. An EIR may determine that a project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and thus is not significant. A project’s contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. The lead agency shall identify facts and analysis supporting its conclusion that the contribution will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable.

Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), the discussion of cumulative impacts shall be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness, and should include the following elements:

1. Either:
(A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the Agency, or (B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. Such plans may include: a general plan, regional transportation plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A summary of projections may also be contained in an adopted or certified prior environmental document for such a plan. Such projects may be supplemented with additional information such as a regional modeling program. Any such document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency.
627
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-34 4.1 | Biological Resources

2. When utilizing a list, as suggested in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), factors to consider when determining whether to include a related project should include the nature of each environmental resource being examined, the location of the project and its type. Location may be important, for example, when water quality impacts are at issue since projects outside the watershed would probably not contribute to a cumulative effect. Project type may be important, for example, when the impact is specialized, such as a particular air pollutant or mode of traffic.

3. Lead agencies should define the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitation used.

4. A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects with specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available.

5. A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects, including examination of reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative effects.”
The cumulative study area for biological resources includes the southwestern San Bernardino County. This area consists of a variety of land uses that includes agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The agricultural areas may include sensitive habitats which may contain special-status plants, migratory bird species, and jurisdictional resources. However, as discussed above, Project development of Ownership Area 1 is subject to mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to special-statusspecies to less than significant levels. Upon buildout of Ownership Area 2, implementation of MM BIO-5 would ensure that any focused surveys for special-status species likely to occur on-site are conducted. Required mitigation measures would be implemented prior to project approval and initiation of construction for Ownership Area 2. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant contribution to cumulative impacts to these resources, and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Additionally, project development would not involve the removal of critical habitat and would not make a considerable contribution to the decline of wildlife species. The Project would remove potential raptor and migratory bird habitat through development of the mixed-use and business park structures. Although the existing agriculture may provide foraging habitat for raptors, it is not expected to be valuable, as the lands are actively maintained to minimize use by small mammals (prey for raptors) and active ground squirrel management programs are continually implemented. This loss of potential raptor foraging habitat would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the regional decline of raptors.

The types of birds affected are common to the region and the number of individuals would be limited given the type of vegetation proposed for removal (i.e., agriculture, ornamental plantings). Based on the types of species and expected limited number of nesting pairs affected, development of the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the regional decline of native nesting bird populations. However, because native birds are protected by MBTA, mortality to a single native bird due to the Project would be in violation of the MBTA, CESA, or FESA. As discussed above, development activities performed outside of the avian breeding season would generally eliminate the need to conduct pre-activity nesting surveys for most common native species (other than BUOW), known to occur in the vicinity of the Project site, and would likely ensure that there are no constraints to construction relative to the MBTA/CFGC codes. Additionally, MM BIO-4 would ensure focused surveys for BUOW would be 628
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-35 4.1 | Biological Resources
conducted and potential BUOW impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. Therefore, Project impacts to nesting birds would not be cumulatively considerable.

The Biological Resources Technical Report also indicated that the Project would not impact CDFW jurisdictional waters and riparian habitats. Thus, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the regional decline of jurisdictional waters.

Mitigation has been incorporated into the Project that would avoid direct impacts to any potentially sensitive wildlife species that may occur on-site. Mitigation Measures MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-4 would mitigate impacts to sensitive wildlife species for the Project’s Ownership Area 1. Although there are potentially significant impacts to sensitive wildlife species due to uncertain conditions for Ownership Area 2, impacts are site-specific and are not otherwise anticipated to rise to a regional, cumulatively considerable impact with incorporation of applicable mitigation measures. Concerning Ownership Area 2, MM BIO-5 would require a focused biological resources assessment and impact analysis. Further, any focused surveys and required mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to project approval and initiation of construction within Ownership Area 2. This is anticipated to bring cumulative impacts to sensitive wildlife species to less than significant levels. Therefore, MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-5 would mitigate the potential of the Project to cumulatively combine with other projects; and the Project would not contribute to the cumulative loss of any special status wildlife species.

Lastly, the Project is consistent with TOP 2050 and would represent a consistent and logical continuation of the existing and planned pattern of development in Ontario, specifically the Ontario Ranch area. The City has long anticipated that this area would transition from dairy/agricultural to urban uses, and the Project Specific Plan is implementing TOP 2050.12 This Focused EIR has incorporated, by reference, the TOP EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), which address cumulative impacts from TOP 2050 buildout. The TOP EIR determined that buildout of TOP 2050 would not have significant impacts to biological resourcesthrough the implementation of proposed general plan policies that maintain the level of impact as less than significant levels for each impact threshold. The cumulative effects resulting from buildout of TOP 2050 were previously identified in the TOP EIR. The TOP EIR concluded that impacts to biological resources would be less than significant. The type, scale, and location of the Project’s Ownership Area 1 is consistent with TOP 2050 land use and zoning designation and is compatible with the pattern of development that has been approved for adjacent properties. Although there may be a significant and unavoidable impact due to uncertain conditions for Ownership Area 2, these impacts are anticipated to be mitigated to less than significant levels or not otherwise rise to a regional cumulative impact.

Considering this consistency, the potential cumulative environmental effects of the Project would fall within the impacts identified in the TOP EIR. Therefore, in consideration of the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to biological resources, the Project would not be cumulatively considerable.

4.1.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable biological resources impacts have been identified for Ownership Area 1 of the Project. However, impacts within Ownership Area 2 are not fully known and are therefore considered 12 Ibid.
629
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.1-36 4.1 | Biological Resources
significant and unavoidable. At the time of the project-level CEQA analysis and associated biological resources assessment of Ownership Area 2, unforeseen site conditions could be discovered that warrant a finding of potentially significant impact. In that case, a subsequent CEQA analysis, in the form of a subsequent EIR or EIR Addendum, may be required pursuant to Sections 15162(a) and 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. This determination will be made by City staff at the time of future Ownership Area 2 sitespecific development applications.

4.1.9 References
Cadre Environmental. 2024. Biological Resources Technical Report for Center Park Specific Plan. City of Ontario, California. (Appendix C1)
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Environmental Resources Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/aboutontario-ontario-plan-policy-plan/environmental-resources.

City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf.

City of Ontario. 2025. Ontario Municipal Code.
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ontarioca/latest/ontario_ca/0-0-0-35678.

ELMT Consulting, Inc. 2024. Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment. (Appendix C2) 630
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-1 4.2 | Historic Resources

4.2 HISTORIC RESOURCES

4.2.1 Introduction
This section of the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzes the potential impacts of the CenterPark Specific Plan Project (Project) on the surrounding historic resources on a regional and local level, within the City of Ontario (City). Cultural resources are comprised of buildings, sites, structures, or objects that may have historic, architectural, archaeological, cultural, and/or scientific importance.

However, for this Focused EIR section focuses on historic resources, as impacts to archaeological and tribal cultural resources were determined to be adequately addressed in the City’s TOP 2050 and associated Supplemental EIR (“TOP EIR”). Historic resources are cultural resources that are considered significant and eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Refer to Section 4.2.6: Impacts and Mitigation, for legal definitions and significance thresholds associated with historic resources.

Archaeological resources, paleontological resources (which are the fossilized remnants of plants and animals), and Tribal Cultural Resources are analyzed in the Project’s CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis, of this Draft EIR. The evaluation of the Project site and the potential impact on historic resources are largely based on the following sources:
• Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn). September 2025. Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report, Center Park Specific Plan Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. (Appendix B)
• Structural Focus. August 2025. Relocation of Five Structures – Feasibility Study 7587 Edison Ave, 9311 Edison Ave, 8381 Edison Ave, 8485 Edison Ave, and 14117 Grove Ave Ontario, California. (Appendix D of Appendix B)
• The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental EIR
• City of Ontario Municipal Code

4.2.2 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
The 257.34-acre Project site is bound to the north by a Southern California Edison (SCE) Easement located approximately 330 feet north of Edison Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue to the south, Campus Avenue to the west, Walker Avenue to the east, and bisected by Edison Avenue. The Project site consists of 29 parcels and are depicted in Figure 3-4: Project Assessor Parcel Numbers. The Project site currently comprises existing agricultural uses, including the raising of livestock, field crop farming, dairy farming activities, and rural residences scattered throughout the area. Rural residential housing, farm buildings and other ancillary facilities occupy those areas not in active agricultural production. The natural vegetation and soil conditions that once occurred throughout the Project site have been significantly altered through agricultural uses, leaving little or no native vegetation. Existing uses surrounding the Project site are similar to those on the site, consisting of ongoing crop farming, dairy operations, a nursery, and rural residencies.
631
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-2 4.2 | Historic Resources
The Project is situated in the northern Chino Valley region. The Chino Valley is characterized by a Mediterranean climate consisting of warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters. The Santa Ana River is located seven miles southeast of the Project site, and it originates in the San Bernardino Mountains and flows southwest through San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties to the Pacific Ocean. Elevation at the Project site is approximately 700 feet above mean sea level, and the topography is relatively flat across an alluvial fan. The late Quaternary Central Avenue fault line is located 5.5 miles to the west of the Project site. Soil compositions consist mostly of Hilmar loamy fine sand (Hr) and Tujunga loamy sand (TuB) across the Project site. Geologic maps for this vicinity indicate that the Project site was originally underlaid by Holocene-age alluvial gravel and sand of valley areas (Qa). However, the entire Project site has been graded and disced as a result of decades of agricultural activities. Minimal vegetation is present on the Project site as a result of the historic and modern agricultural disturbances, but this region would have once been a wet, lush valley that supported a variety of plant and animal resources.

Cultural and Historical Setting
Ethnography
The Project site is located within the ancestral territory of the Gabrieleño/Tongva. Although Alfred Kroeber recorded the territories of southern California tribes in 1925, the ancient territorial borders remain inexact for two reasons: first, territorial boundaries were flexible and, secondly, indigenous borders and land use were not recorded until after European settlements displaced many Native American communities. Although firm and defining borders cannot be known, archaeological, ethnographic, and historic evidence exists to support the prehistoric use by the Gabrieleño/Tongva in the Chino Valley.

The Gabrieleño/Tongva have a rich and diverse material culture, traditionally including shell set in asphaltum, carvings, painting, baskets, an extensive steatite industry, and a wide range of stone, shell, and bone materials. At the time of European colonization, they inhabited numerous permanent villages in fertile lowlands along waterways in sheltered areas along the coast, each of which held a population in the low hundreds. Smaller villages were also located at varying distances from these permanent villages, all of which were highly connected via economic, religious, and social ties. Villages contained circular and domed homes made of tule mats, fern, or carrizo, as well as small, circular earth-covered sweathouses.

Their hunting and gathering subsistence strategy included land and offshore efforts that resulted in the take of both small and large land animals, sea mammals, river and ocean fish, and a variety of plant resources. The population sometimes migrated between villages on a temporary basis throughout the year, returning to their permanent villages for ceremonies or when resources needed to be replenished.

Records show that the long history of European colonization and harmful displacement of Native Americans initially began in 1542 as a result of Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo visiting the area during exploration.

Following many subsequent Spanish visits to the region, the colonization of the indigenous population continued in 1769 around the same time as the establishment of Missions San Gabriel in 1771 and San Fernando in 1797. Due in part to the introduction of new diseases, as well as the harsh conditions of mission life, the indigenous population quickly dwindled and cultural practices were lost. Following the secularization of the missions, most surviving Gabrieleño/Tongva became wage laborers on the ranchos of Mexican California and were later nearly completely wiped out as a result of a smallpox outbreak in the 1860s. The combination of removal, murder, disease, forced labor, and poor diet contributed to the 632
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-3 4.2 | Historic Resources
harmful diaspora of the Gabrieleño/Tongva from established villages to scattered areas of the Los Angeles Basin for survival. This history of displacement within their own ancestral lands has led to difficulty in attaining federal recognition. However, the 20th century found a revitalization of the Gabrieleño/Tongva people and culture, and though the communities remain unrecognized by the Federal government, they remain a very active people in their ancestral lands today.

Prehistory
Cultural theoretic frameworks for Southern California archaeology are frequently debated and refined by archaeologists. The early chronologic models proposed by Wallace (1955, 1978) and Warren (1968) continue to be incorporated into current cultural studies with revisions. Archaeologists have developed the cultural frameworks in southern California by generally relying on relative dating methods using diagnostic artifacts, as opposed to absolute dating, due to a general lack of chronometric data available in the regional archaeological record. The framework proposed by Wallace introduced the Early Period, Millingstone Period, Intermediate Period, and Late Prehistoric Period, which generally follows the geologic time scale of Early, Middle and Late Holocene.

Early Holocene (10,000-7500 calibrated years Before Present (cal BP) A gradual warming of the environment occurred during the Early Holocene. Researchers have proposed that groups from the Early Holocene were highly mobile and traveled across wide ranges. Cultural resources were portable or expedient to accommodate mobility. Archaeologists have recorded artifacts associated with hunting and plant processing at early Holocene sites, such as projectile points, bifaces, and groundstone tools.

Middle Holocene (7500-3500 cal BP)
The Millingstone Period during the Middle Holocene is characterized by new artifact types. The warming of the environment resulted in adaptations to changing environments and associated plant and animal resources. Temporary and seasonal camps were utilized during the Middle Holocene. Tools were intentionally cached, which indicate an intent to return to specific sites over time. Diagnostic artifacts have been recorded at Middle Holocene sites, such as Pinto and Silver Lake projectile points.

Late Holocene (3500 cal BP through Historic Contact)
Archaeological sites from the Late Holocene contain increasingly diverse artifact assemblages. Increased population is evident and multiple family groups likely coexisted within the communities. Proximity to water was an important factor for the seasonal and permanent settlements. Late Prehistoric archaeological sites contained diverse artifact assemblages, including projectile points, ceramics, pendants, incised stones, and shell beads. An increase in hunting efficiency occurred during the Late Prehistoric Period and Protohistoric Period, which is evident by the bow and arrow technology. An abundance of mortars and pestles have been recorded at village sites and further indicate a transition towards sedentary habitation.
633
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-4 4.2 | Historic Resources
History
The Spanish first arrived at San Bernardino County in 1772 with the expedition of Pedro Fages. In 1774, Juan Bautista de Anza reached the San Bernardino Valley due to his commission to set up quarters at the Mission San Gabriel. At this time, an estimated thousands of Native Americans, including the Gabrieleño/Tongva, were either taken to the Mission, removed to work as forced agricultural labor at the estancia in Redlands that served as outpost for the Mission, fled the region, or were killed. The Mission San Gabriel and its outposts resulted in a large pastoral empire that extended across the San Bernardino Valley. Cattle ranching became a major local industry during the Mission period.

In 1821, Mexico overthrew Spanish rule, and the Missions began to decline. By 1833, the Mexican government passed the Secularization Act and the Missions, reorganized as parish churches, lost their vast land holdings, and released the indigenous people that remained. Following this, land throughout present-day California was organized into Mexican land grants, and these large pastoral estates continued conducting cattle ranching during the Mexican or Rancho Period. One of the largest land grants in the area was the 22,000-acre Rancho Santa Ana del Chino, which encompassed the current Project site. In 1841, the Spanish governor Alvarado granted Rancho Santa Ana del Chino to his uncle, Antonio Maria Lugo. After receiving ownership half of the ownership from Lugo, Isaac Williams built the Chino Ranch into an empire. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 ended the Mexican-American War and the Mexican Rancho Period, triggering what is commonly referred to as the American Period.

California achieved statehood in the U.S. in 1850, which was quickly followed by the establishment of the County of San Bernardino in 1853. The arrival of the Southern Pacific Railroad to the San Bernardino Valley stimulated further development and settlement. The citrus industry continued to fuel the local economy and contributed to the regional land boom. The local area of Ontario began as a township founded in 1881 by two brothers George and William Chaffey. The local landowners and developers named the township after their hometown of Ontario, Canada. The Chaffey brothers purchased 6,000 acres of land with water rights in present-day Ontario to start the township. Part of the land included space for the Chaffey Agricultural College. The planned Ontario township was declared a “Model Colony” by an Act of Congress. The water rights, agricultural college, and access to transportation encouraged farmers to settle there. Euclid Avenue was established as a main boulevard in the colony. Dairies were established in the local area in the 1890s after dairy cows came to the California market as a part of the Gold Rush.

The City of Ontario was incorporated in 1891, during which time citrus crops were the staple of the successful agricultural community, with the local dairy industry only just beginning. The Steel and Green Dairy, which was comprised of adobe buildings at the location of the Battle of Chino, is considered to be the first dairy developed in the area. Large, available tracts of land prime for agricultural uses in the area were a draw for dairy farmers from Los Angeles County, though citrus remained the dominate industry through the 1940s. Dairies remained smaller family-owned businesses during this period, and the 1920s saw an influx of Dutch immigrants establishing dairies in the areas. Despite the smaller sizes of the operations, the industry boomed alongside surrounding population growth, and dairies began switching from free grazing to dry-lot dairying and mechanized milking in order to optimize milk production and improve efficiency.
634
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-5 4.2 | Historic Resources
After World War I, many dairies were plagued by tuberculosis in dairy cows, leading to new requirements around pasteurization. Around the same time, some of the industry in Ontario transitioned to aviation when aviation enthusiasts Waldo Waterman and Archie Mitchell established Latimer Field. Eventually, the fliers were moved east to Ontario World Airport, which operated as a training facility for pilots during World War II. During this time, the population across the Los Angeles basin began to grow into a large urban area, pushing dairy farms further into the Chino Valley. By 1949, dairies in the local area provided for over 33% of the dairy production within the County. In the 1950s, the City experienced the same postWorld War II population and related housing boom that was so common across the region, and many farming families firmly settled in the area so that by the late 1950s/early 1960s, the Chino Valley was home to the most technologically advanced dairies in the entire country.

During the post-World War II era, an increased popularity in utilizing Herringbone milk parlors that raised cows on platforms for milking became popular as a way of providing safer working conditions and controlling costs of labor. Prior to this in the 1920s through 1940s, milk parlors were more often constructed in an Art Deco style (1920s-1930s) followed by the Streamline Moderne style (1930s-1940).

While the Art Deco milk parlors were more decorative with chevrons and zig-zags and maintained geometric and angular edges, the Streamline Moderne style milk parlors were more utilitarian and designed as two-part buildings with a large area for milking with a connected cooling area that would have maintained a smooth symmetrical style with a flat roof, stucco cladding, and glass block windows. The popularity of the glass block windows in milk parlors peaked in the 1950s, though continued to be constructed in the 1960s.

In 1967, the County of San Bernardino designated 14,000 acres of Chino Valley agricultural land as an agricultural preserve and, by 1980, the local area had evolved into a world-class dairy center. However, the land was annexed into Ontario, Chino, and Chino Hills during the 1990s due to rising dairy operation costs and housing demands. The City of Ontario then began referring to their annexed 8,200 acres of the former San Bernardino Agricultural Preserve as the New Model Colony (NMC), which was named after the original Model Colony of Ontario established by the Chaffey brothers. It also modernly known as Ontario Ranch.

Ontario’s diverse history of irrigation, agriculture, viticulture, dairy, aeronautical, and World War II production transitioned the City to the next stage of expansive growth, which was focused primarily on service industries and warehouses in the second half of the 20th century. The City’s modern economic base is primarily focused on industrial and manufacturing operations and transportation (freeway, rail, and airport). Today, the City is approximately 32,000 acres in size and continues to be a booming and thriving community.

Cultural Resources Report
A Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report (Cultural Resources Report) was prepared for the Project site and is provided as Appendix B: Cultural Resources Report of this Draft Focused EIR. The Cultural Resources Report includes a thorough literature review, a cultural resources field survey, and cultural resources recommendations for the proposed development (see Appendix B). Currently, the Applicant does not own or control the Ownership Area 2 parcels (Planning Areas 1 through 4, 6, and 635
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-6 4.2 | Historic Resources
19 through 22). Therefore, these inaccessible parcels were photographed and recorded from the public right of way.

Research
On June 10, 2024, a Sacred Lands File record search request was received from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and a cultural resources records search was conducted at the South-Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton. This archival research reviewed the status of all recorded historic and prehistoric cultural resources, as well as cultural studies completed, within the Project site plus a 0.5-mile buffer. Additional resources reviewed included the NRHP, the CRHR, and documents and inventories published by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), such as the list of California Historical Landmarks (CHL), Points of Historical Interest, and the Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD). Furthermore, a review was conducted of the City’s local register and the Historic Context prepared for the City of Ontario dairy industry by Galvin and Associates, Inc. in 2004. Finally, a review of historic aerial imagery and topographic maps was conducted to identify the ages and history of modifications of structures within the Project site.

Field Survey
A cultural resources field survey of the Project site was conducted on June 13, July 3, July 10, and July 16, 2024. The survey was conducted by walking parallel transects spaced approximately 15 meters apart across the accessible Project site. The following Assessor Parcel Numbers were not accessible due to lack of applicant ownership: 0216-311-09, 1053-321-01, -03, 1053-311-01, -02, 1053-301-01, -02, and 1053-321-02. These areas, in addition to fenced yards, building interiors, and livestock enclosures/feeding areas within surveyed parcels, were photographed and recorded from the public right of way. All encountered cultural resources were recorded on the applicable DPR 523 series forms. Digital photographs were taken at various points within the project site, including both overviews and detailed photographs of all cultural resources.

Results of the research and field survey conducted as a part of the Cultural Resources Report are discussed below under Section 4.2.4: Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria.

4.2.3 Regulatory Setting
State
California Environmental Quality Act
California public agencies must consider the effects of their actions on both “historical resources” and “unique archaeological resources.” Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21084.1, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC Section 21083.2 additionally requires agencies to determine whether proposed projects would have effects on “unique archaeological resources.” 636
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-7 4.2 | Historic Resources
“Historical resource” is a term with a defined statutory meaning. Under California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Chapter 3 (California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines), Section 15064.5(a) “historical resource” includes the following:

A resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC), for listing in the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1 and Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).

A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.

Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1 and Title 14 CCR Section 4852) including the following:
• Criterion 1 - Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; • Criterion 2 - Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; • Criterion 3 - Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
• Criterion 4 - Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

CEQA addresses significant impacts to historical resources. “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][1]).

CEQA also requires agencies to consider whether projects will affect “unique archaeological resources.” PRC Section 21083.2(g) states that “‘unique archaeological resources’ means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
637
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-8 4.2 | Historic Resources

2. Has a special and quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized, important prehistoric or historic event or person.”
However, if a resource is identified as both a historical resource and a “unique archaeological resource,” then it would undergo the provisions outlined for historical resources (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and PRC Section 21084.1 and 21083.2[l]).

California Public Records Act
Sections 6254(r) and 6254.10 of the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) were enacted to protect archaeological sites from unauthorized excavation, looting, or vandalism.

Section 6254(r) explicitly authorizes public agencies to withhold information from the public relating to “Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places and records of Native American places, features, and objects… maintained by, …, the Native American Heritage Commission….” Section 6254.10 specifically exempts from disclosure requests for “records that relate to archaeological site information and reports maintained by, or in the possession of, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the SHRC, the State Lands Commission, the NAHC, another state agency, or a local agency, including the records that the agency obtains through a consultation process between a California Native American tribe and a state or local agency.”
California Public Resources Code
Archaeological, paleontological, and historical sites are protected under a wide variety of State policies and regulations in the California PRC (PRC Sections 5020 to 5029.5, PRC Section 5079 to 5079.65, and PRC Section 5097.9 to 5097.991). In addition, cultural and paleontological resources are recognized as nonrenewable resources and receive protection under the PRC and CEQA.

PRC Sections 5020 to 5029.5 continued the former Historical Landmarks Advisory Committee as the SHRC.

The commission oversees the administration of the CRHR and is responsible for designating State Historical Landmarks and Historical Points of Interest.

PRC Section 5079 to 5079.65 define the functions and duties of the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), which administers federal- and state-mandated historic preservation programs in California as well as the California Heritage Fund.

PRC Section 5097.9 to 5097.991 provide protection to Native American historical and cultural resources and sacred sites; identify the powers and duties of the NAHC; require that descendants be notified when Native American human remains are discovered; and provide for treatment and disposition of human remains and associated grave goods.

California Register of Historical Resources
Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the CRHR is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to 638
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-9 4.2 | Historic Resources
indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (PRC Section 5024.1). Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP and California Historical Landmarks (CHL) numbered 770 and higher, are automatically included in the CRHR. Other properties recognized under the Point of Historical Interest (PHI) program, identified as significant in historical resources surveys, or designated by local landmarks programs, may be nominated for inclusion in the CRHR. A resource, either an individual property or a contributor to a historic district, may be listed in the CRHR if the SHRC determines that it meets any of the following criteria, which are modeled on NRHP criteria:
• Criterion 1: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. • Criterion 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. • Criterion 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic values.
• Criterion 4: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.

According to 14 CCR Section 4852(a), types of resources eligible for nomination:
1) Building. A resource, such as a house, barn, church, factory, hotel, or similar structure created principally to shelter or assist in carrying out any form of human activity. “Building” may also be used to refer to a historically and functionally related unit, such as a courthouse and jail or a house and barn;
2) Site. A site is the location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historical, cultural, or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing building, structure, or object. A site need not be marked by physical remains if it is the location of a prehistoric event, and if no buildings, structures, or objects marked it at that time. Examples of such sites are trails, designed landscapes, battlefields, habitation sites, Native American ceremonial areas, petroglyphs, and pictographs;
3) Structure. The term “structure” is used to describe a construction made for a functional purpose rather than creating human shelter. Examples of structures include mines, bridges, and tunnels; 4) Object. The term “object” is used to describe those constructions that are primarily artistic in nature or are relatively small in scale and simply constructed, as opposed to a building or a structure. Although it may be moveable by nature or design, an object is associated with a specific setting or environment. Objects should be in a setting appropriate to their significant historic use, role, or character. Objects that are relocated to a museum are not eligible for listing in the CRHR.

Examples of objects include fountains, monuments, maritime resources, sculptures, and boundary markers; and
5) Historic district. Historic districts are unified geographic entities which contain a concentration of historic buildings, structures, objects, or sites united historically, culturally, or architecturally.

Historic districts are defined by precise geographic boundaries. Therefore, districts with unusual boundaries require a description of what lies immediately outside the area, in order to define the 639
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-10 4.2 | Historic Resources
edge of the district and to explain the exclusion of adjoining areas. The district must meet at least one of the criteria for significance discussed in Section 4852(b)(1)-(4) of this chapter.

Under PRC Section 5024.1 and 14 CCR Section 4852(c), a cultural resource must retain integrity to be considered eligible for the CRHR. Specifically, it must retain enough character or appearance to be recognizable as a historical resource and convey reasons of significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to retention of such factors as location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Cultural sites that have been affected by ground-disturbing activities, such as agricultural activities and off-road vehicle use (both of which occur within the Project site), often lack integrity because they have been directly damaged or removed from their original location, among other changes. Additionally, due to requirements related to integrity of location and setting, relocation as mitigation may not be sufficient to reduce impacts to historical resources to less than significant.

Location - Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The relationship between the property and its location is often important to understand why the property was created or why something happened. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. Except in rare cases, the relationship between a property and its historic associations is destroyed if the property is moved.

Design - Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It results from conscious decisions made during the original conception and planning of a property (or its significant alteration) and applies to activities as diverse as community planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials.

A property's design reflects historic functions and technologies as well as aesthetics. It includes such considerations as the structural system; massing; arrangement of spaces; pattern of fenestration; textures and colors of surface materials; type, amount, and style of ornamental detailing; and arrangement and type of plantings in a designed landscape.

Design can also apply to districts, whether they are important primarily for historic association, architectural value, information potential, or a combination thereof. For districts significant primarily for historic association or architectural value, design concerns more than just the individual buildings or structures located within the boundaries. It also applies to the way in which buildings, sites, or structures are related: for example, spatial relationships between major features; visual rhythms in a streetscape or landscape plantings; the layout and materials of walkways and roads; and the relationship of other features, such as statues, water fountains, and archaeological sites.

Setting - Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historical role. It involves how not just where the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space. Setting often reflects the basic physical conditions under which a property was built and the functions it was intended to serve. In addition, the way in which 640
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-11 4.2 | Historic Resources
a property is positioned in its environment can reflect the designer's concept of nature and aesthetic preferences. The physical features that constitute the setting of a historic property can be either natural or man-made, including such elements as: topographic features (a gorge or the crest of a hill); vegetation; simple manmade features (paths or fences); and relationships between buildings and other features or open space. These features and their relationships should be examined not only within the exact boundaries of the property but also between the property and its surroundings. This is particularly important for districts.

Materials - Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. The choice and combination of materials reveal the preferences of those who created the property and indicate the availability of particular types of materials and technologies. Indigenous materials are often the focus of regional building traditions and thereby help define an area's sense of time and place.

A property must retain the key exterior materials dating from the period of its historic significance. If the property has been rehabilitated, the historic materials and significant features must have been preserved.

The property must also be an actual historic-era resource, not a re-creation; a recent structure fabricated to look historic is not eligible. Likewise, a property whose historic features and materials have been lost and then reconstructed is usually not eligible.

Workmanship - Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. Workmanship can apply to the property as a whole or to its individual components. It can be expressed in vernacular methods of construction and plain finishes or in highly sophisticated configurations and ornamental detailing. It can be based on common traditions or innovative period techniques.

Workmanship is important because it can furnish evidence of the technology of a craft, illustrate the aesthetic principles of a historic or prehistoric period, and reveal individual, local, regional, or national applications of both technological practices and aesthetic principles. Examples of workmanship in historic buildings include tooling, carving, painting, graining, turning, and joinery. Examples of workmanship in prehistoric contexts include Paleo-Indian Clovis projectile points; Archaic period beveled adzes; Hopewellian birdstone pipes; copper earspools and worked bone pendants; and Iroquoian effigy pipes.

Feeling - Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. For example, a rural historic district retaining original design, materials, workmanship, and setting will relate the feeling of agricultural life in the 19th century. A grouping of prehistoric petroglyphs, unmarred by graffiti and intrusions and located on its original isolated bluff, can evoke a sense of tribal spiritual life.

Association - Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the 641
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-12 4.2 | Historic Resources
presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. For example, a Revolutionary War battlefield whose natural and manmade elements have remained intact since the 18th century will retain its quality of association with the battle.

Typically, a prehistoric archaeological site in California is recommended eligible for listing in the CRHR based on its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion 4). Important information includes chronological markers such as projectile point styles or obsidian artifacts that can be subjected to dating methods or undisturbed deposits that retain their stratigraphic integrity. Sites such as these have the ability to address research questions.

California Historical Landmarks
CHLs are buildings, structures, sites, or places that have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value and that have been determined to have statewide historical significance by meeting at least one of the criteria listed below.

The resource also must have written consent of the property owner; be recommended by the SHRC; and be officially designated by the Director of California State Parks. The specific standards now in use were first applied in the designation of CHL No. 770. CHLs numbered 770 and above are automatically listed in the CRHR.

To be eligible for designation as a CHL, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria:
• It is the first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the state or within a large geographic region (northern, central, or southern California);
• It is associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of California; or,
• It is a prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement, or construction or is one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in a region of a pioneer architect, designer, or master builder.

California Historical Resources Status Codes
In order to be considered as significant, a resource must meet at least one of the above-listed NRHP or CRHR criteria and retain enough integrity to support its period of significance and association within a historical context. A resource is assigned a California Historical Resources (CHR) status code following evaluation, which identifies its significance level. The status codes and descriptions are:

1. Properties listed in the NRHP or the CRHR.

2. Properties determined eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR.

3. Appears eligible for NRHP or CRHR through survey evaluation.

4. Appears eligible for NRHP or CRHR through other evaluation.

5. Properties recognized as historically significant by local government.

6. Not eligible for listing or designation as specified. 642
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-13 4.2 | Historic Resources

7. Not evaluated for NRHP or CRHR or needs re-evaluation.

Typically, resources designated as CHR Status Code 6 are determined ineligible for designation under any criteria and are not considered historical resources. However, there are several subcategories that exist within each of the status codes that allow for various exemptions, such as whether a resource contributes to a Historic District.

California Historic Building Code (CHBC)
The CHBC provides guidelines for the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, relocation, and reconstruction of buildings or structures designated as qualified historical buildings or properties by a local, state, or federal jurisdiction, as defined by CHBC Section 8-218. The CHBC provides guidelines for long-term preservation efforts of qualified historical buildings or properties to allow owners to make improvements for access for persons with disabilities; to provide a cost-effective approach to preservation; and, to ensure overall safety of affected occupants or users.

As defined by the CHBC, a “qualified historical building” is “any building, site, structure, object, district, or collection of structures, and their associated sites, deemed of importance to the history, architecture, or culture of an area by an appropriate local, state, or federal governmental jurisdiction. This includes designated buildings or properties on, or determined eligible for, official national, state, or local historical registers or official inventories, such as the NRHP, CRHR, CHLs, California PHI, and officially adopted city or county registers, inventories, or surveys of historical or architecturally significant sites, places, or landmarks.”1
PRC Section 5097.91, PRC Section 5097.98, PRC Section 5097.94 and the Native American Heritage Commission
PRC Section 5097.91 established the NAHC, the duties of which include inventorying places of religious or social significance to Native Americans and identifying known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands. PRC Section 5097.98 specifies a protocol to be followed when the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner.

PRC Section 5097.94 establishes the powers and duties of the NAHC, including, but not limited to:
a) To identify and catalog places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans and known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands. The identification and cataloging of known graves and cemeteries shall be completed on or before January 1, 1984. The commission shall notify landowners on whose property the graves and cemeteries are determined to exist and shall identify the Native American group most likely descended from those Native Americans who may be interred on the property. b) To make recommendations relative to Native American sacred places that are located on private lands, are inaccessible to Native Americans, and have cultural significance to Native Americans 1 State of California. ND. Health and Safety Code, Division 13 – Part 2.7, Sections 18950 to 18962 of the California Historic Building Code. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&division=13.&title=&part=2.7.&chapter=&article=. (accessed June 2025).
643
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-14 4.2 | Historic Resources
for acquisition by the state or other public agencies for the purpose of facilitating or assuring access thereto by Native Americans.
c) To make recommendations to the Legislature relative to procedures that will voluntarily encourage private property owners to preserve and protect sacred places in a natural state and to allow appropriate access to Native American religionists for ceremonial or spiritual activities.

For a complete list of powers and duties, visit:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum=5097.94.

California Penal Code, Section 622.5
California Penal Code, Section 622.5, provides misdemeanor penalties for injuring or destroying objects of historic or archaeological interest located on public or private lands but specifically excludes the landowner.

California Penal Code, Section 622.5
California Penal Code, Section 622.5, provides misdemeanor penalties for injuring or destroying objects of historic or archaeological interest located on public or private lands but specifically excludes the landowner.

Local
City of Ontario General Plan – The Ontario Plan 2050
The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Community Design Element articulates design qualities that will create locally and regionally significant places and utilizes community design to help achieve the Vision in the areas of economic development, land use, housing, community health, infrastructure, and transportation.

Included in TOP 2050 is the Policy Plan, which is a framework that would guide the City’s future growth through the application of policies and goals. The following goals of TOP 2050 relate to historic resources.

The following policy contained in the Land Use Element is relevant to the Project:

Community Design Element2
Goal CD-4 Historic buildings, streets, landscapes, and neighborhoods, as well as the story of Ontario’s people, businesses, and social and community organizations, have been preserved and serve as a focal point for civic pride and identity.

Policy CD-4.1 Cultural Resource Management. We update and maintain an inventory of historic sites and buildings, professional collections, artifacts, manuscripts, photographs, documents, maps, and other archives.

Policy CD-4.2 Collaboration with Property Owners and Developers. We educate and collaborate with property owners and developers to implement strategies and best practices that 2 City of Ontario. 2022. The Ontario Plan 2050, Community Design Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/communitydevelopment/planning/ontario-plan/ontario-plan-policy-plan/community-design. (accessed December 2025). 644
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-15 4.2 | Historic Resources
preserve the character of our historic buildings, streetscapes, and unique neighborhoods.

Policy CD-4.3 Collaboration with Outside Agencies. We pursue opportunities to team with other agencies, local organizations, and nonprofits in order to preserve and promote Ontario’s heritage.

Policy CD-4.4 Incentives. We use the Mills Act and other federal, state, regional and local programs to assist property owners with the preservation of select properties and structures.

Policy CD-4.5 Adaptive Reuse. We actively promote and support the adaptive reuse of historic sites and buildings to preserve and maintain their viability.

City of Ontario Development Code
The City Development Code Chapters 4 and 7 establish the City’s scope of historic preservation activities and is the primary body of local law relating to historic preservation. Division 7.01 includes the purpose and authority for historic preservation, and Division 4.02 includes criteria for local historic designation and procedures for the alteration or demolition of historic properties.

Properties may be designated at the local level as Historic Landmarks or Districts. The Ontario Historic Preservation Commission maintains a record of historic properties that are eligible for local designation and the City Council determines placement on the City’s List of Designated Historic Landmarks or Districts.

Any property owner may request the designation of a Historical Resource as a Historic Landmark or District by applying to the City’s Planning Department.

Pursuant to Development Code Section 4.02.040, a property that meets one or more of the following criteria is eligible to be placed on the City’s List of Historic Landmarks and Districts as a Landmark:
• It meets the criteria for listing in the NRHP; or
• It meets the criterion for listing in the CRHR; or
• It meets one or more of the following criteria:
a. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s history; b. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; c. It is representative of the work of a notable builder, designer, architect, or artist; d. It embodies distinguishing characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction;
e. It is noteworthy example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; f. It embodies elements that represent a significant structural, engineering, or architectural achievement or innovation;
g. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community of the City; h. It is one of the few remaining examples in the City, region, state, or nation possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historical type or specimen; or 645
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-16 4.2 | Historic Resources
i. It has yielded or is likely to yield information important to the City’s history or prehistory.

Pursuant to Development Code Section 4.02.040, any neighborhood or area that meets one or more of the following criteria is eligible to be placed on the City’s List of Historic Landmarks and Districts as a District:
• Is a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of Historical Resources or thematically related grouping of structures which contribute to each other and are unified by plan, style, or physical development; and embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master and possesses high artistic values;
• Reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of a park landscape, site design, or community planning;
• Is associated with, or the contributing resources are unified by events that have a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or
• The historic resource is, or the contributing resources are associated with lives of persons important to Ontario, California, or national history.

Landmarks and Districts listed in the NRHP or the CRHR are automatically placed on the City’s List of Historic Landmarks and Districts. In addition to the criteria listed above that refer to the historical significance of the resource, the City also requires Landmarks and Districts to have integrity for the time in which they are significant.

Pursuant to Chapters 4 and 7 of the City’s Development Code, minor alterations, restoration, rehabilitation, and demolition of historic resources listed in the local register require issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness with findings and an approved replacement structure/building prior to impact. Additionally, as outlined in Subsections G and H of Chapter 4, historic resources that are on the local register are ranked from a 3-tier system by the Historic Preservation Subcommittee of the Historic Preservation Commission to determine the level of historic significance that a resource has.

Subsection G: Historic Resources Tiering System

1. Tier I consists of historic resources that should not be demolished or significantly altered under any circumstances, regardless of their designation status, as they are the City's most significant historical or cultural resources:
a. A resource listed on the Ontario Register that meets at least one of the criteria within the Architecture/Form category, and 3 criteria within the History category, listed in Subsection H; or
b. A contributing resource within a district that meets at least one of the criteria within the Architecture/Form Category and 3 criteria within the History Category as listed below. 646
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-17 4.2 | Historic Resources

2. Tier II consists of historic resources wherein demolition of these properties should be avoided:
a. Any historic resource listed or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places;
b. Any historic resource listed or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources;
c. A historic resource listed on the Ontario Register and meets at least 2 criteria within the Architecture/Form or History categories, listed in Subsection H; or d. A contributing resource within an eligible historic district wherein the district meets at least 2 of the criteria in either the Architecture/Form or History categories as listed in Subsection H (Historic Resource Tiering Criteria) of this Section.

3. Tier III consists of historic resources that are Designated Local Historic Landmarks, are contributing properties within Designated Local Historic Districts, or are eligible historic resources.

Demolition of these resources should be avoided where possible but may be appropriate under certain circumstances.

Subsection H: Historic Resources Tiering Criteria

1. Local Historic Landmark
a. Architecture/Form
(1) The resource is prototypical, or one of the finest examples, of a period, style, architectural movement, or construction in the City of a particular style of architecture, building type, or historical or archeological object. Only preeminent examples should be considered.

Good representative examples of a style, period or method of construction are not appropriate; or
(2) The resource is the first, last, only, or one of the finest examples, notable works, or the best surviving work by an architect or designer of major importance to the City, State or Nation.
b. History
(1) The resource is the location of a historic event(s) that has significantly contributed to the history of the City, State, or Nation;
(2) The resource is associated with a business, company, or individual that has made a significant cultural, social, or scientific contribution to the City, State, or Nation; (3) The resource is identified with a person(s) who has exerted a major influence on the heritage or history of the City, State, or Nation;
(4) The resource embodies the ideals or principles of the "Model Colony" or furthers the ideals or principals established by the Chaffey Brothers;
(5) The resource has a direct relationship to one of the principal historic contexts in the City's history, including the "Model Colony," (includes the Chaffey Brothers, the Ontario Land 647
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-18 4.2 | Historic Resources
and Improvement Company, or the citrus industry), the Guasti Winery or the wine industry, or the Dairy Preserve or the dairy industry;
(6) The resource is related with a business, company, or individual significant in the agricultural history of the City;
(7) The resource is related to the archeological past of the region.

2. Local Historic Districts
a. Architecture/Form
(1) The district contains resources that are a prototype of, or one of the finest examples of, or the first, last, only, or few remaining groupings of a period, style, architectural movement, or construction in the City of a particular style of architecture, building type, or historical or archeological object. Only preeminent examples should be considered. Good representative examples of a style, period or method of construction are not appropriate; or
(2) The district contains resources that are the first, last, only, or the finest examples, notable works, or the best surviving work by an architect or designer of major importance to the City, State or Nation.
b. History
(1) The district is the location of a historic event(s) that has significantly contributed to the history of the City, State, or Nation;
(2) The district is associated with a business, company, or individual that has made a significant, cultural, social, or scientific contribution to the City, State, or Nation; (3) The district is identified with a person(s) who has exerted a major influence on the heritage or history of the City, State, or Nation;
(4) The district embodies the ideals or principles of the "Model Colony," or furthers the ideals or principals established by the Chaffey Brothers;
(5) The district has a direct relationship to one of the principal historic contexts in the City's history, including the "Model Colony," (includes the Chaffey Brothers, the Ontario Land and Improvement Company, or the citrus industry), the Guasti Winery or the wine industry, or the Dairy Preserve or the dairy industry, or the citrus industry; or (6) The district is related with a business, company, or individual significant in the agricultural history of the City.

The City requires that EIRs associated with Specific Plans in New Model Colony (also referred to as NMC, or Ontario Ranch [OR]) must consider the findings discovered in the City of Ontario’s Historic Context for the New Model Colony Area3and address impacts to historical resources. Therefore, this analysis of the 3 Galvin and Associates. 2004. The City of Ontario’s Historic Context for the New Model Colony Area. Prepared for City of Ontario Planning Department. (accessed June 2025).
648
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-19 4.2 | Historic Resources
resources within the Project site considers the contextual aspects of the NMC Historic Context with an analysis of the Project.

The City Development Code Chapter 7.0: Historic Preservation4, promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare by:
• Safeguarding the character and history of the City which is reflected in its unique cultural, historical, and architectural heritage, with emphasis on the “Model Colony” as recognized by an Act of Congress and presented at the St. Louis World’s Fair in 1904; • Promoting public knowledge, appreciation, and understanding of the City’s past; • Fostering civic and neighborhood pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past; • Promoting the enjoyment and use of Historical Resources appropriate for the education and recreation of the people of the City;
• Enhancing the visual and aesthetic character, diversity, and interest of the City; • Enhancing property values and stabilizing neighborhoods within the City; • Recognizing Historical Resources and protecting areas of historical buildings from encroachment of incompatible designs;
• Providing economic benefits to the City and its inhabitants through financial incentives for preservation;
• Protecting and enhancing the City’s attraction to tourists and visitors, • Stimulating business and industry;
• Promoting public awareness of the benefits of preservation; and • Encouraging public participation in historic preservation, thereby increasing civic pride in the City’s heritage.

City of Ontario Adaptive Reuse Plan
The City of Ontario Municipal Code Chapter 14: Historic Building Code, Existing Building Code and Referenced Standards, adopts by reference the 2022 Edition of the California Historic Building Code (CHBC), as adopted by the California Building Standards Commission in California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 8. The CHBC provides alternative building regulations to address unique construction issues inherent in the maintenance, rehabilitation, preservation, restoration, adaptive reuse, or relocation of structures surveyed and identified as a historic resource. City Municipal Code Section 8-14.04: Alternative building standards for adaptive reuse projects, as well as the Historic Preservation-Adaptive Reuse Plan in Title 9 Development Code, allows for the establishment of alternative building standards for adaptive reuse projects (or change of building classification/occupancy). This furthers the targeted adaptive reuse of designated historic buildings to multiple-family residential, office, commercial, work/live, or retail while removing construction barriers related to zoning, building, and fire code compliance. In turn, the adaptive reuse program further incentivizes preservation of historically significant resources, streamline the review 4 City of Ontario. 2024. Development Code, Chapter 7.0: Historic Preservation. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2025- 01/Chapter%207%200%20-%20Historic%20Preservation_Rev%2012-03-2024.pdf. (accessed June 2025). 649
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-20 4.2 | Historic Resources
and approval process by waiving the development plan review, reduce underutilized sites, reduce demolition, and foster sustainable community development.

Adaptive Reuse projects are construction and remodeling projects that reconfigure existing spaces within existing buildings to accommodate a new use or purpose other than for what it was originally designed.

Adaptive Reuse projects require a change of use and building occupancy from office or commercial to residential, industrial to work/live, residential to office or commercial, or assembly to residential, office or commercial. The City’s Adaptive Reuse Plan applies to qualifying buildings, which include those listed on the National Register of Historic Places, on the California Register of Historic Resources, Ontario Register of Historic Resources as designated local landmarks or contributors to designated local historic districts located within the Adaptive Reuse Plan Area. A Certificate of Appropriateness pursuant to Section

4.02.050: Historic Preservation—Certificates of Appropriateness and Demolition of Historic Resources is required for any alteration, addition, restoration, rehabilitation, remodeling, relocation, repainting, and/or resurfacing of an historic resource.

4.2.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions concerning cultural resources. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been utilized as significance criteria in this section.

Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5;
Historical Resources
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 provides direction on determining significance of impacts to archaeological and historical resources. Generally, a resource shall be considered “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR.

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC Section 5024.1; 14 CCR Section 4852).

The fact that a resource is not listed in the CRHR, not determined to be eligible for listing, or not included in a local register of historical resources does not preclude a lead agency from determining that it may be a historical resource. The City is a Certified Local Government (CLG) that is required to review historic resource surveys and make a determination of eligibility for listing on an ongoing basis as part of the implementation of the certified historic preservation program. 650
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-21 4.2 | Historic Resources
Methodology and Assumptions
Cultural Resources Report Results
As discussed previously, a Cultural Resources Report was prepared for the Project site and is provided as Appendix B of this Draft Focused EIR. The Cultural Resources Report includes a thorough literature review, a cultural resources field survey, and cultural resources recommendations for the proposed development.

The results are discussed herein.

Records Search
The results from the NAHC indicated the Project site was positive for the presence of a Sacred Lands File within or near the Project site. Data from the SCCIC revealed that six previous cultural resources studies have taken place within the Project site plus 0.5-mile buffer, with four of those studies intersecting the Project site. Additionally, two cultural resources consisting of two historic Southern California Edison transmission lines were identified within 0.5-mile of the Project site, though none were identified within the Project site. Subsequent review of national, state, and local inventories and registers revealed five historic built environment resources were listed in the BERD as potentially significant though unevaluated:
• 7587 Edison Avenue
• 7721 Edison Avenue
• 8185 Edison Avenue
• 7914 Edison Avenue
• 14213 Bon View Avenue
Many additional buildings located in the Project vicinity, but outside of the Project site, were also listed in the BERD, specifically along Edison Avenue, Bon View Avenue, and Grove Avenue.

The 2004 Historic Context, prepared by Galvin and Associates, Inc., identified 15 properties within the Project site of potential historical significance:
• 14213 Bon View Avenue (also listed in BERD)
• 14283 Bon View Avenue
• 7587 Edison Avenue (also listed in BERD)
• 7691 Edison Avenue
• 7721 Edison Avenue (also listed in BERD)
• 7891 Edison Avenue
• 7914 Edison Avenue (also listed in BERD)
• 8061 Edison Avenue
• 8185 Edison Avenue (also listed in BERD)
• 8292 Edison Avenue
• 8311 Edison Avenue
• 8381 Edison Avenue
• 8485 Edison Avenue
• 14049 Grove Avenue
• 14117 Grove Avenue
A review of historic aerials and topographic maps indicated one resource, 8270 Ontario Ranch Road, was also of historic age and had not been previously recorded.

Field Survey
The field survey noted that the Project site has been completely disturbed by historic-period and modern dairy and agricultural developments. Additionally, many parcels also contained active dairy farms. Ground 651
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-22 4.2 | Historic Resources
visibility ranged widely during the pedestrian survey but averaged 80 percent. While visibility was excellent in the agricultural pastures, the Project site also contained many paved areas that affected surface soil visibility. However, the result resulted in the successful identification of all 15 historic built environment resources that were previously recorded within the Project site.

Conclusions
As a result of records search and field survey, a total of 15 historic built environment resources were identified within the Project site. However, further review of historic aerials and site information revealed that three of the cultural resources (14283 Bon View Ave, 7691 Edison Ave, and 8185 Edison Ave) were encompassed by larger sites. As such, these three resources were subsumed under three different resource records, resulting in a total of 12 identified historic built environment resources within the Project site.

Figure 4.2-1: Historic Resources Map depicts the 12 properties within the Project site that contain potentially historic built environment resources. Additional details of each site can be found in Table 4.2-1: Historic Resources within the Project Site, below.

Table 4.2-1: Historic Resources within the Project Site Addresses/Name APNs
7587-7697 Edison Ave 105337101, 105337102, and 105353101 14213-14297, 14333-14353, 14450,
and 14451 Bon View Ave
105335101, 105335102, 105354101, 105354102, 105357101, and 105357102
7914 Edison Ave 105317101, 105332102, 105332103, and 105317106 13715-13751 Grove Ave, 13817-13819
Grove Ave, 8270-8292 Edison Ave
021631105, 021631104, 021631103, 021631102, 021631101, and 021631109
8040 Schaefer Ave and 14050 Grove
Ave
105332101
8061 Edison Ave 105333101, 105333102, 105333103, 105333104, 105334101, and 105334102
7721-7891 Edison Ave 105336101, 105336102, and 105336103 8185 Edison Ave 021632103
8311 Edison Ave 021632108
8335-8381 Edison Ave 021632201, 021632202, 021632203, and 021632204 8485 Edison Ave and 14350 Walker
Ave
021632205 and 021632210
14049 Grove Ave 021631101 and 021631102
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn). 2025. Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report, Center Park Specific Plan Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California, Table 5: List of Properties (Addresses and APNs) Identified within the Project site. (Appendix B)
Evaluation Results
Review of the 2004 Historic Context
All 12 properties were evaluated for eligibility for listing in the CRHR. All but one property, 8185 Edison Ave (previously identified as 14117 Grove Ave), was evaluated for eligibility as a City of Ontario Historic Landmark, as this particular resource was previously determined eligible for designation by the City in 652
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-23 4.2 | Historic Resources
2014. Evaluations were conducted utilizing the existing Historic Context prepared by Galvin and Associates, Inc. in 2004, which identified nine (9) historic contexts of relevance:

1. Pre-1930: Rural Residential or Free-Grazing Dairy Properties

2. 1920-1940: Art Deco or Streamline Moderne Milk Parlors

3. 1930-1949: Dry Lot Dairying with Mechanization

4. Post-1950: Scientific, Large Capacity Dairies

5. No date specified: Dairy Support Industries or Other Commercial Properties

6. No date specified: Ranch Style Houses

7. No date specified: Craftsman Style Houses

8. No date specified: Buildings with Portuguese Design Influence, and

9. No date specified: Buildings with Dutch Design Influences However, a review of the City’s 2004 Historic Context by BCR Consulting, Inc. (BCR Consulting) in 2023 argued that actual construction of Streamline Moderne Milking Parlors did not take place within the Art Deco era of 1920-1940, but rather associated period of significance of 1940-1965. As such, evaluations for properties within the Project site were conducted with this later time period identified for Streamline Moderne Milk Parlors.

During review of the 2004 study for a nearby project in 2023, BCR Consulting identified issues with data availability within the historic context and argued that actual construction of Streamline Moderne Milking Parlors did not take place within the Art Deco era (1920-1940). Instead, their study resulted in the recordation and evaluation of this building type with an associated period of significance of 1940-1965. 2025 Historic Context
The City is currently undergoing an update to the 2004 Historic Context. Kimley-Horn reviewed the draft Historic Context for the City of Ontario dairy industry prepared by Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC (Urbana) in 2025. This 2025 Historic Context serves as an update to the 2004 Historic Context, described above, and examined the same 8,200-acre area that makes up the NMC, now known as Ontario Ranch.

During the efforts made for the updated 2025 Historic Context, Urbana recognized a similar error in the 2004 study, though differently from BCR Consulting, concluded that both the Art Deco and Streamline Moderne styles were utilized from the 1920s through the 1960s. Additionally, Urbana’s investigations identified inaccuracies with the year-built data utilized in the 2004 report, noting that many properties were developed later than what was recorded. As such, the 2025 Historic Context not only provides an updated historical narrative for the regional dairy industry but also includes necessary corrections to the prior context. In addition to updates to the historical context, the 2025 study included a large-scale survey of the Ontario Ranch area. The survey effort included recordation and evaluations of historic-era resources using the updated historic context, significant themes, and architectural styles. As a result of the survey, Urbana identified 12 potential historic properties within the current Project site that required further study.
653
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-24 4.2 | Historic Resources
One (1) of the identified properties, 8185 Edison Ave (previously identified as 14117 Grove Ave), was determined by the City’s Historic Preservation Subcommittee to meet local landmark designation and Tier II criteria in November 2014. The property was subsequently listed in the Ontario Register and is therefore subject to requirements of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, including the acquisition of a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition. The remaining two (2) properties (7587-7697 Edison Ave and 8335-8381 Edison Ave) have not yet been subject to this level of review, but have been formally evaluated and found to be eligible as a part of the 2025 survey effort. The complete results of evaluations conducted for each resource can be found in Table 4.2-2: Summary of Resource Evaluations below.

Additionally, Figure 4.2-1: Ontario Ranch Road Widening Cultural Resources Map depicts the locations of the eligible historic resources relative to the planned Ontario Ranch Road widening.5 As a result of resource evaluations, three of the identified resources are recommended eligible for listing the CRHR and/or for designation as a City of Ontario Historic Landmark and are considered historic resources under CEQA:
• 7587-7697 Edison Ave
• 8185 Edison Ave
• 8335-8381 Edison Ave
Table 4.2-2: Summary of Resource Evaluations
Addresses/Name
(APNs)
Evaluation Summary
7587-7697 Edison Ave
(105337101, 105337102, and
105353101)
The property as a whole is eligible under CRHR criterion 1 and local designation a. Individually, the Craftsman Bungalow and Ranch style residences are each eligible under CRHR criterion 3 and local designation d. The Ranch-style milk parlor is not individually eligible but remains a contributor to the eligibility of the whole property.
14213-14297, 14333-14353, 14450, and
14451 Bon View Ave
(105335101, 105335102, 105354101,
105354102, 105357101, and 105357102)
The property is not eligible under any criteria for the CRHR or City of Ontario.
7914 Edison Ave
(105317101, 105332102, 105332103,
and 105317106)
The property is not eligible under any criteria for the CRHR or City of Ontario.
13715-13751 Grove Ave, 13817-13819
Grove Ave, 8270-8292 Edison Ave
(021631105, 021631104, 021631103,
021631102, 021631101, and 021631109)
Only the Ranch Style properties that are outside of the Project site1 are eligible under CRHR criterion 3 and local designation d.

The Minimal Traditional residences within the Project site are not eligible under any criteria for the CRHR or City of Ontario. 8040 Schaefer Ave and 14050 Grove Ave
(105332101)
The property is not eligible under any criteria for the CRHR or City of Ontario.
5 The Ontario Ranch Road widening is currently listed in the City’s Capital Improvement Program and the City’s Master Street Plan (TOP 2050 Figure M-01 Roadway Classifications).
654
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-25 4.2 | Historic Resources
Addresses/Name
(APNs)
Evaluation Summary
8061 Edison Ave
(105333101, 105333102, 105333103,
105333104, 105334101, and 105334102)
The property is not eligible under any criteria for the CRHR or City of Ontario.
7721-7891 Edison Ave
(105336101, 105336102, and
105336103)
The property is not eligible under any criteria for the CRHR or City of Ontario.
8185 Edison Ave
(021632103)
The Ranch Style residence and Streamline Moderne milk parlor are each eligible under CRHR criterion 3 and local designation d. The Minimal Traditional dwelling is not eligible. The City’s Historic Preservation Subcommittee determined the property (identified as 14117 Grove Ave) met local landmark designation and Tier II criteria in November 2014.
8311 Edison Ave
(021632108)
The property is not eligible under any criteria for the CRHR or City of Ontario.
8335-8381 Edison Ave
(021632201, 021632202, 021632203,
and 021632204)
The Craftsman Bungalow style residence is eligible under CRHR criterion 3 and local designation d. The Ranch-style milk parlor is not eligible.
8485 Edison Ave and 14350 Walker Ave
(021632205 and 021632210)
The property is not eligible under any criteria for the CRHR or City of Ontario.
14049 Grove Ave
(021631101 and 021631102)
The property is not eligible under any criteria for the CRHR or City of Ontario.
1 The Project site consists of partial parcels comprising the vacant portions of the former dairy operation.

Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn). 2025. Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report, Center Park Specific Plan Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California, Table 6: Summary of Resource Evaluations. (Appendix B) Historic Resources Tiering
As a result of eligibility evaluations, described above, three of the identified resources (7587-7697 Edison Ave, 8185 Edison Ave, and 8335-8381 Edison Ave) are recommended eligible for listing the CRHR and designation as a City of Ontario Historic Landmark, and are considered historical resources under CEQA with the potential to be impacted by the Project. One of these properties, 8185 Edison Ave (previously identified as 14117 Grove Ave) was determined by the City’s Historic Preservation Subcommittee to meet local landmark designation and Tier II criteria in November 2014. The property was subsequently listed in the Ontario Register and is therefore subject to requirements of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, including the acquisition of a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition. The remaining two properties (7587-7697 Edison Ave and 8335-8381 Edison Ave) have not yet been subject to this level of review. However, per the City’s process, these properties are not subject to Tier determinations, as they have been identified and evaluated as a part of the 2025 survey effort and are not listed in the City’s historic inventory. As such, while the City’s Historic Preservation Subcommittee maintains authority to make tiering determinations for resources, lacking such a determination for the remaining two properties (7587-7697 Edison Ave and 8335-8381 Edison Ave), the mitigation fee for these historic resources that 655
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 4.2-26 4.2 | Historic Resources
are not listed in the Ontario Register shall be determined by the level of historic integrity. Moderate-level integrity shall be 10 percent and high-level integrity shall be 20 percent of the price per square foot construction cost as established in the most current International Code Council Building Valuation Data.

Approach To Analysis
This analysis of impacts on historic resources examines the Project’s temporary (i.e., construction) and permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on application of the significance criteria/thresholds outlined above. Each criterion is discussed in the context of the Project site and the surrounding characteristics/ geography. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in environmental conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the environment.

The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on field observations, review of Project maps and drawings; analysis of aerial and ground‐level photographs; and review of various data available in public records, including local planning documents. The determination that any components of the Project may result in “significant” adverse effects on historical and archaeological resources and human remains considers the existing site’s historic resource value and the severity of the Project implementation on resources that may be considered historic.
656
Not to scale
Figure 4.2-1: Ontario Ranch Road Widening, Historic Resources Map CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario
Sources: West Land Group, Inc., 2024; and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2025. 7587-7697 Edison Ave
7595 Schaefer Ave, 13752 Bon View Ave
Ranch Style
Residence Ranch Style
Milk Parlor
Legend
Eligible Buildings
Historic Resources
Excluded - No Historic Structures in Project Site
Not Eligible or Contains No Eligible Structures in the Project Site Eligible and Contains Eligible Structures in the Project Site o

CAMPUS AVENUE (PUBLIC)
npi 1 —108—
'42'
K
T
X 02
APN 1053-2
12712’
।
8 d me
f 24+00 2040°— 21+00
14+00 15400 16+00 N89"25/54"E 13+00
1 !
-A w. i 5*
h [I t _Sia a s -EX. R/W

10. J
A - t )PC&C- I

PROP R/W
APN 1053-391-01 ID,
108
... . -. .--- <
d Ice - ■

EDISON AVENUE LIC)

CAMPUS AVENUE (PUBLIC)
KimleyHorn
le
8 17—00 F8
54‘B3
142"
18+00 —
PROPAC BERM
PROP INTER tan AC BERM 119+00
Totet
5 .s C_% I
gi
!
-F—-
5 .
ezr
pROP” T AC BERM
X—-
.!
---PROPC&C--
wlg“E:
f I/ . 11
Ranch Style — —autmdice,
. i 4. AF 1080,97" V " ,
1(/) .
657
Not to scale
Figure 4.2-1: Ontario Ranch Road Widening, Historic Resources Map CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario
Sources: West Land Group, Inc., 2024; and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2025. 13839-13905 Bon View Ave
7587-7697 Edison Ave
7595 Schaefer Ave, 13752 Bon View Ave
7721-7891 Edison Ave
Craftsman
Bungalow
Legend
Eligible Buildings
Historic Resources
Excluded - No Historic Structures in Project Site
Not Eligible or Contains No Eligible Structures in the Project Site Eligible and Contains Eligible Structures in the Project Site o

BON VIEW AVENUE (PUBLIC)
20‘y
20‘_
X
1 32+00 _ N892812"E 33+00 37
28400 N89"25‘54"E29+00 27+00
«1ol3. 1- des’eeal s-Akopm—S5N we ____ soup NDDIAV.22000g_ --
ROP ULT .

C

EX R/W ai
PROPcss
2 200 ae
$
y
R/
f
92020 suit.

APN 1053-37-01 33 SGewrerveaveeV-%-%4%4; _ SEE2
1,
1 5‘ E0.0200. 4

EDISON AVENUE (PUBLIC) BON VIEW AVENUE (PUBLIC)
Kimley»Horn

PROP INTERN

AC BERM
PROP— i
BERM
-PROP INTERM

AC BERM
1I
100 c
Os ! se m i d
—PROP EOP
36+00
v, ••
"*
■
-23
2/00200.4
—0 .. . ■ ‘
22224 ‘*
31+00
"I
PA.
_______
WC
L 3
waata -
.ev “D.T 9,000002-0
1 7 Ae ’ J a 2C — J
27 g —Su---=!----==Y=--i--=P%=====-=91====-=---=== J vony “s 1100000009 "“T ■’I 19 -2ee4 122 fe_______ LLe2 gg “X=4--========7721-7891Edson — ’ 7 As -7.1 k i J va
03 t
====--—-- =n-A--$-
658
Not to scale
Figure 4.2-1: Ontario Ranch Road Widening, Historic Resources Map CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario
7914 Edison Ave
8040 Schaefer Ave, 14050 Grove Ave
7225 Edison Ave
8185 Edison Ave
14049 Grove Ave
Streamline
Moderne
Milk Parlor
Legend
Eligible Buildings
Historic Resources
Excluded - No Historic Structures in Project Site
Not Eligible or Contains No Eligible Structures in the Project Site Eligible and Contains Eligible Structures in the Project Site Sources: West Land Group, Inc., 2024; and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2025.

Legend
Eligible Buildings
Historic Resources
Excluded - No Historic Structures in Project Site
Not Eligible or Contains No Eligible Structures in the Project Site Eligible and Contains Eligible Structures in the Project Site (PUBLIC)

GROVE AVENUE (PUBLIC)
.x
37 0.000 a007
CT
11 11 I
I,
Jr onsnehis.aancp.. 1s | y5 T Lezo"_ ____
«
Pso""n90o*— /I | — — - —--ItHs- । !
17 I
rr
-
811 « Cleeld-s==A
pRop INTERM .
2400
•PROP EOP- AC BERM 53100 54+00 55+00 N89‘28‘12'E 56+00 •00 52+00 ,N89"28’12"E4 -==- lPROP AC BE
14Aa
8 | = $., - ' , vr
----------------------- -
.0199 ! . 1s11 22026. 7 * eeseo
J
i .* 41
4 vsiS
22 I
“A
39 5 W rreenmn
17%i T X j -
e l
115 l
—
l g tr
il|I1
th
■
Aee719 rd
..AeLEUA " .“hezs -J
•ng “ X08
8070 eaeni
Tree 40 • Toeune"e.m TPMPU,
-*9 < e... - _ - -.-==-1$---=- - - tna a.B
. ==-=-=-;-------- --------------- Te- al ? A - -------------- ---------- 00—
I
-ULT. R/W 19’19’
M° A i
gs. - EX. R/W
.1 -30 T I “PROP.B*
124’ 62’
l
i
! il t- —----—
58+00
• X 3
— t
□
594
4—= —
33’4
42’ i 13
PROP—s

AC BERM - -
57+00
s
8 8
!1
| ' • See ., Pn--====== Zeeu t; W.Ol h. X , 1...030i
Ep
o
Kimley»Horn
mFm
in
‘ 5 j! ' $ 1 , |a -830112 “ 2 2 i l | 2 ' ' Jg
- ------ .
““Sav de, •.
1 Ted - 1191 S Yee’e
oi 00
119
.ole I
il il i || I L
01 ■ 1 209li ll!
KJ IIl ।
e 1
CCe431
1 2 h " his sore rvst i• in " ■ ■; 22126 0
I I l i ---
20 M6 /
s
. I nil l I
poaeec. ’ Sveey ’..lyy a 22010e
‘ I ll -I e
I if) 1 . '
wAe 22
■ 100% i '— e. s i reee ! $ 224 ' I I
o - /os 8./ '
wavl w • 0.0
—l d
"014 eor dised "go Ua
664144 -sve-—-t3.2..

U00e weet tlongied
00 12020.00 toe Wz ‘61 ′ 200/000000% Yec. tdoo e -avaves Selgw-e * s dr i ts 659
Not to scale
Figure 4.2-1: Ontario Ranch Road Widening, Historic Resources Map CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario
Sources: West Land Group, Inc., 2024; and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2025.

Legend
Eligible Buildings
Historic Resources
Excluded - No Historic Structures in Project Site
Not Eligible or Contains No Eligible Structures in the Project Site Eligible and Contains Eligible Structures in the Project Site 8185 Edison Ave 8311 Edison Ave
14049 Grove Ave 13715-13751 Grove Ave, 13817-13819 Grove Ave, 8270-8292 Edison Ave Ranch Style
Residence
V , . ta
$
0 W
oeec 11007) A APN 07%6-am-09. .
. Telte. o* ... SSAUT-3
•2 ,2 es YeV
LPROP ULT __ _
X. R/
______
1 S
Z XX_ROP &C
---
10202020000 00
AFN 0215-32H05W.
-000 "9
a . y• p.o.
’ -PROP R/w ar e
24 ..i J ee6e‘ -000%2
- _
re,s
a
.9
ppn$ ptnd
----- — r3 " w0221
"8 -- -205 zooer. -- ueeele," ■
eee .
-
E »M' C ‘e.s‘ Gev'
rjr
-
%02
SSe, (89 sr • "A T %y
s ‘
"WA
ve,tI F
gerere” re
1 PROP INTERM _Z PROPEOP_ -AC BERM 68+00 69- 66+00 67+00 64+00 65+00 63400 1 APN 0216
$ w% si. 0‘
rfll
T
[
-
PROP EOP "A.s
—it
- __ —9= 3 K f
A62+00 61100
8 R
8 R/
— 27
r
OR/F
! 1 . +
.
3 i!
PROP INTERMAC BERM
E R/W
-5
Ii
oo _ _
par JTH MEDL
, oFet=
311-01 4
!"
_ ____________ L
-10eoa
.3 - 5
A 0216-321-03 4

EDISON AVENUE (PUBLIC)
o
Kimley»Horn 50%de 5
* .
. s
L * •
so
v nee) d I gee I
- IJ
ta
660
Not to scale
Figure 4.2-1: Ontario Ranch Road Widening, Historic Resources Map CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario
Sources: West Land Group, Inc., 2024; and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2025.

Legend
Eligible Buildings
Historic Resources
Excluded - No Historic Structures in Project Site
Not Eligible or Contains No Eligible Structures in the Project Site Eligible and Contains Eligible Structures in the Project Site 8335-8381 Edison Ave
8485 Edison Ave, 14350 Walker Ave,
Craftsman
Bungalow
o

COMET AVENUE (PUBLIC)
$
» 8 |
d A7 W52 Sy
0216-312-09 AFN 0210-312-10 I- / Sy ,
e
a
a
zJLT. R/We
v
■I
ULT. R/W
$
FUT. C&G
E
r’ UT. Ci buggst < 7
ini
— 8 1 (. R) I metf
T es Bsf 77+00 78+00 75+00 76+00 74+00 71100 72+00 -00 70+00 8485 Edteon A
M*. 14950 wakler A..
""
e - - ________
L_____pDopc&c----
.----------------------
4 aizt. 24 ROF rees"ses yor-- ,
Exrowg
_
----
4 PROP C&C
— PROP C&G.
------- —A haeeva -- I J0. 0000 t
" VAA, —PROP R/W
E
■ 100 Rooedsa
I F 00
1 poee
r
f