Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, March 17, 2026 (part 6 of 8)

ATTACHMENT B:

File No. PSP24-002
Conditions of Approval
(Department Conditions of Approval to follow this page) 956

Page 1 of 2 ends

303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420

LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Date Prepared: 2/11/2026
File No: PSP24-002
Related Files: N/A
Project Description: A public hearing to consider certification of the Focused Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2025060731), including the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, in conjunction with a Specific Plan (File No. PSP24-002 – CenterPark Specific Plan) to establish the land use districts, development standards, guidelines, and infrastructure improvements for the potential development of up to 4,293 residential dwelling units, 115,809 square feet of retail land 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 within the proposed MDR (Medium Density Residential) and MU (Mixed Use) districts of the proposed CenterPark Specific Plan and a Development Agreement (File No. PDA25-001) between the City of Ontario and Ontario Ranch Venture I, LLC. and Ontario Ranch Venture II, LLC., to establish the terms and conditions for the associated Specific Plan; (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); submitted by RCCD, Inc.

Prepared By: Rafael Torres, Assistant Planner
Phone: 909.395.2979 (direct)
Email: [email protected]
The Planning Department, Land Development Section, conditions of approval applicable to the above-described Project, are listed below. The Project shall comply with each condition of approval listed below:

1.0 Standard Conditions of Approval. The project shall comply with the Standard Conditions for New Development, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2017-027 on April 18, 2017. A copy of the Standard Conditions for New Development may be obtained from the Planning Department or City Clerk/Records Management Department.

2.0 Special Conditions of Approval. In addition to the Standard Conditions for New Development identified in condition no. 1.0, above, the project shall comply with the following special conditions of approval:

2.1 Specific Plan/Specific Plan Amendment. The following shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 30 days following City Council approval of the Specific Plan/Specific Plan Amendment:
957
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PSP24-002

Page 2 of 2 ends

(a) Two copies of the final Specific Plan document.
(b) One complete, unbound copy of the final Specific Plan document. (c) One USB drive, or download link, containing a complete Microsoft Word, or editable, copy of the final Specific Plan document, including original figures, images and all required revisions.

2.2 Additional Fees.
(a) Within 5 days following final application approval, the Notice of Determination (“NOD”) filing fee shall be provided to the Planning Department. The fee shall be paid by check, made payable to the "Clerk of the Board of Supervisors", which shall be forwarded to the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, along with all applicable environmental forms/notices, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Failure to provide said fee within the time specified will result in the extension of the statute of limitations for the filing of a CEQA lawsuit from 30 days to 180 days. 958
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO

PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

CERTIFYING THE CENTERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL FOCUSED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.
2025060731), ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS, STATEMENTS OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING

AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE CENTERPARK SPECIFIC

PLAN, LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTHWESTERN PORTION OF THE

CITY OF ONTARIO BOUNDED BY A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON EASEMENT LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 330 FEET NORTH OF

EDISON AVENUE, WALKER AVENUE ON THE EAST, EUCALYPTUS

AVENUE ON THE SOUTH, CAMPUS AVENUE ON THE WEST, AND

BISECTED BY EDISON 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”) proposes to develop the CenterPark Specific Plan (“Project”), development would include up to 250,919 square feet of commercial retail/office uses, up to 4,293 residential units across medium, and mixeduse residential uses, 67.26 acres of open space parkland/non-recreation uses and associated on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements on an approximately 257.34- acre site in the southwestern portion of the City of Ontario; and WHEREAS, the Project site consists of 28 parcels and 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; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“TOP 2050 EIR”) (SCH # 2021070364) in association with the 2050 General Plan Update (“GPU”) and certified the TOP 2050 EIR on August 16, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the TOP 2050 EIR is a Supplemental EIR, an update to the approved TOP 2009; therefore, TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR relies on the findings of the 2009 Draft Focused EIR, 2010 Recirculated Draft Focused EIR, and 2010 Final Focused EIR; and 959
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15183, the Project Applicant prepared and staff review and concurred as to a CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis, to document that the proposed Project is consistent with the City’s TOP 2050 and its associated TOP 2025 SEIR and determined that, with the exception of potential impacts to historic resources, the Project is adequately addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR 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; and
WHEREAS, the City originally issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the CenterPark Specific Plan for which the public review period extended from June 11, 2025, through 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 Draft Focused EIR considers only the “peculiar” Environmental impacts of the Project, as well as the additive effects of growth throughout the City and the region and evaluates a range of potential feasible alternatives anticipated to reduce significant impacts of the Project, including a No Project/No Build Alternative; and WHEREAS, a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (“Draft Focused EIR”) 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 historic 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 resources and historic resources; and
WHEREAS, after completing the Draft Focused EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2025060731), the City released the document for public review for a 45-day public comment period, beginning December 29, 2025, and concluding February 12, 2026. A Notice of Availability (“NOA”) was circulated along with the Draft Focused EIR 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. At that time, the City also provided a Notice of Availability to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested such notice; and
960
WHEREAS, copies of the Draft Focused EIR were distributed to the Planning Commission, City departments, and federal, state, regional, local, and other agencies and individuals; and
WHEREAS, during the 45-day comment period on the Draft Focused EIR, 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, during the official public review period for the Draft Focused EIR, the City received fourteen written comment letters, all of which the City responded to in the Final Focused EIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to PRC §21092.5, the City provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies at least ten days prior to the City’s consideration of the Final Focused EIR on March 17, 2026; and
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the EIR at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the EIR was fully studied and concluded said hearing on that date.

After considering all public testimony, the Planning Commission issued Resolution No.

PC26-015, recommending City Council certification of the Project EIR; and WHEREAS, fourteen written public comments were received prior to the Planning Commission hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared the Final Focused EIR, which consists of the Draft Focused EIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft Focused EIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft Focused EIR, written responses to all written comment letters received on the Draft Focused EIR; and WHEREAS, the “Focused EIR” consists of the Final Focused EIR and its attachments and appendices, as well as the Draft Focused EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final Focused EIR); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to PRC §21092.5, the City provided copies of the Final Focused EIR to all commenting public agencies; and
WHEREAS, the City provided a Notice of Public Hearing and/or Intent to Certify an 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 961
WHEREAS, all potential significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the Final Focused EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario is the lead agency on the Project, and the City Council is the approving authority for the proposed approval to construct and otherwise undertake the Project; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2026, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing on the Project and concluded said hearing on that date; 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 Focused EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the Focused EIR 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 City Council 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, environmental impacts identified in the EIR which the City finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section IV, B hereof; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Focused EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the Focused EIR and set forth herein and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A, are described in Section IV, C hereof; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Focused EIR as potentially significant and which the City finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final Focused EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section IV, D hereof; and 962
WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the Focused EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section IV, E hereof; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section IV, F hereof; and WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts and significant and irreversible environmental changes resulting from the proposed Project identified in the Focused EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section IV, G hereof; and WHEREAS, because some environmental impacts identified in the Focused EIR as potentially significant cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Focused EIR and set forth herein, the City Council has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project against its significant and unavoidable impacts, and has determined that the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts, and therefore, render those impacts “acceptable.” The City Council has documented its determination regarding significant and unavoidable impacts in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section V hereof; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the Focused EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings on the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Focused EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; 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 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 City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:
963
SECTION 1. Recitals. The recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference as findings of fact.

SECTION 2. Summary of Findings. The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the Focused EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the Focused EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines §15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft Focused EIR that would require recirculation. Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the Focused EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.

SECTION 3. Procedural Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act
A. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed Project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
 The NOP, NOA, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed Project.
 The Draft Focused EIR and Final Focused EIR for the proposed Project.  All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft Focused EIR.
 All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft Focused EIR.  All written and verbal public testimony presented during noticed public hearings for the proposed Project.
 The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
 The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Final Focused EIR.
 All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft Focused EIR and Final Focused EIR.
 The Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the proposed Project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment period and responses thereto.  Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
 Any documents expressly cited in these Findings.
 Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by PRC §21167.6(e).
964
B. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the proposed Project are at the City of Ontario - Planning Department, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, CA. The City Planning Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the Project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the offices of the Planning Department. This information is provided in compliance with PRC §21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines §15091 (e).

C. PROJECT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The Project provides zoning regulations for development of the Project site by establishing permitted land uses, development standards, infrastructure requirements, and implementation requirements for development. The Project establishes the procedures and requirements to approve new development within the Project site.

The following objectives have been established for the proposed Project and will aid decision makers in their review of the proposed Project and associated environmental impacts:

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.
 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. 965
 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.  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.
966
 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 autoaccessible enabling residents to either walk or bike from neighborhoods to the parks.

SECTION 4. California Environmental Quality Act Findings. CEQA (Pub.

Resources Code, §21000 et seq.) requires that public agencies shall not approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report (EIR) has been certified that identifies one or more significant adverse environmental effects of a project unless the public agency makes one or more written Findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each Finding (State CEQA Guidelines [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15000 et seq.], §15091). This document presents the CEQA Findings of Fact made by the City of Ontario, in its capacity as the CEQA lead agency, regarding the CenterPark Specific Plan (Project), evaluated in the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (“Draft Focused EIR”) and Final Focused Environmental Impact Report (“Final Focused EIR”) for the Project. The City Council hereby adopts the “CEQA Findings of Fact” which were prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines §15091, and which are as follows:

D. INTRODUCTION
PRC §21002 states that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed 967
projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.”
Pursuant to §21081 of the PRC, a public agency may only approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects if the agency makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.

2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

As indicated above, §21002 requires an agency to “avoid or substantially lessen” significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that “substantially lessen” significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy §21002’s mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 [“CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level”]; Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed., Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 300, 309 [“[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance . . . if such would render the project unfeasible”].)
While CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts, an agency need not adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (Pub. Resources Code, §21002.1(c) [if “economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects on the environment of a project, the project may nonetheless be carried out or approved at the discretion of a public agency”]; see also State CEQA Guidelines, §15126.6(a) [an “EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible”].) CEQA defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Pub. Resources Code, §21061.1.).

The State CEQA Guidelines add “legal” considerations as another indicia of feasibility. (State CEQA Guidelines, §15364.) Project objectives also inform the determination of “feasibility.” (Jones v. U.C. Regents (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 818, 828-829.). “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and 968
technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) “Broader considerations of policy thus come into play when the decision-making body is considering actual feasibility.]” (Cal. Native Plant Soc’y v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1000 (“Native Plant”); see also Pub. Resources Code, §21081(a)(3) [“economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations” may justify rejecting mitigation and alternatives as infeasible] (emphasis added).) Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347)
The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576). In addition, perfection in a project or a project’s environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that sufficient information be produced “to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned.” Outside agencies (including courts) are not to “impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves] within the area of discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken.” (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287)
E. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING

MITIGATION
The City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of Mitigation Measures.

1. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. Wetlands
Threshold: 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?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft Focused EIR, p. 4.1-27 and 4.1-28) Explanation: Ownership Area 1
Construction and Operations
A Jurisdictional Resources Assessment was conducted as part of the Project’s Biological Resources Technical Report (Draft Focused EIR Appendix C1) to assess the presence/absence of United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdictional resources. Non-wetland waters of the United 969
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. 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.

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 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. b. Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: 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? Finding: No impact. (Draft Focused EIR, p. 4.1-32)
Explanation: Ownership Areas 1 and 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 970
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.

F. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT

CAN BE REDUCED TO A LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The City Council hereby finds that Mitigation Measures have been identified in the EIR and these Findings that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level. The potentially significant impacts, and the Mitigation Measures that will reduce them to a less-thansignificant level, are as follows:

1. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. Sensitive Species
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft Focused EIR, p. 4.1-18 through 4.1-25)
Explanation: Ownership Area 1
Construction
Sensitive Plants
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
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 (Circus hudsonius), species of special concern (SSC), and the White-faced 971
ibis (Plegadis chihi) high-priority species for wetland conservation (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.

Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly
The federally endangered Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSFLF) 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 Draft Focused EIR 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.

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 long-term conservation value. Therefore, impacts to the DSFLF associated with
development of Ownership Area 1 would be less than significant with mitigation.

Nesting Birds and Bats
Within Ownership Area 1, suitable foraging and/or nesting habitat for the Cooper’s hawk (SSC), sharp-shinned hawk (CWL), golden eagle 972
(CWL, Specifically Fully Protected (SFP)), great egret (Nesting Colony), great blue heron (Nesting Colony), Burrowing owl (SSC), ferruginous hawk (CWL), Swainson’s hawk (State-listed (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 (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 Draft Focused EIR 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 973
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)
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.

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.

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.

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 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 975
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, 2012, CDFW staff report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities for all phases of Project construction. 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. The Designated Biologist shall provide CDFW a GIS or KMZ map of BUOW burrow
complex(es) and atypical burrows (e.g. culverts, buckled concrete, etc.) The map shall be at a scale of 1:24,000 or finer to show details and shall show locations of all BUOW sightings and labeled if sightings were potential burrows, occupied burrows, satellite burrows, areas of concentrated burrows, and BUOW sign. Locations documented by use of GPS coordinates must be collected in NAD83 datum. The map shall include an outline of the Project Site, a title, north arrow, scale bar, and legend.

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 owl occupancy is confirmed, and if Project activities may impact burrowing owl, including burrow exclusion and closure, the Project Proponent shall begin early coordination with CDFW for appropriate CESA authorization (i.e., Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under Fish and Game Code section 2081) prior to commencement of Project activities. The ITP application shall describe, at a minimum, project activities and equipment, proposed
avoidance/buffers, temporary and permanent impacts, monitoring, relocation and/or translocation, and minimization and compensatory mitigation actions. ITP compensatory mitigation will be fulfilled by 976
one or more of following options: 1) Permittee- responsible mitigation land acquisition or 2) Conservation or Mitigation Bank credits (if available).
b. Riparian Habitat
Threshold: 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? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft Focused EIR, p. 4.1-25 through 4.1-27)
Explanation: Ownership Area 1
Construction and Operations
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 Draft Focused EIR 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 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.

See MM BIO-1.
c. Wildlife Movement
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft Focused EIR, p. 4.1-28 through 4.1-30)
Explanation: 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 977
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.

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
978
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). 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 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.

See MM BIO-2.

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 979
significant level, a focused biological resources assessment and impact analysis shall be conducted in the un-surveyed 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.
d. Tree Preservation Policy
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft Focused EIR, p. 4.1-30 through 4.1-32)
Explanation: Ownership Area 1
Construction and Operations
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 OMC 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 removed, or as deemed appropriate by the Approving Authority. With implementation of MM BIO-6, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

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).
980

2. CULTURAL RESOURCES
G. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS THAT

CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and in these Findings, the following environmental impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein:

4.1-25)
Explanation: Ownership Area 2
Construction and Operations
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 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. 981
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.

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 grading to document the presence or absence of nesting birds within or directly adjacent (200 ft -500 ft for raptors) to the Project site.
982
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.

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 983
to exclude the bats. The plan will need to be reviewed and approved by CDFW prior to disturbance of the roost(s).

If burrowing owl occupancy is confirmed, and if Project activities may impact burrowing owl, including burrow exclusion and closure, the Project Proponent shall begin early coordination with CDFW for appropriate CESA authorization (i.e., Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under Fish and Game Code section 2081) prior to commencement of Project activities. The ITP application shall describe, at a minimum, project activities and equipment, proposed
avoidance/buffers, temporary and permanent impacts, monitoring, relocation and/or translocation, and minimization and compensatory mitigation actions. ITP compensatory mitigation will be fulfilled by one or more of following options: 1) Permittee- responsible mitigation land acquisition or 2) Conservation or Mitigation Bank credits (if available).
984
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.
b. Riparian Habitat
Threshold: 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? Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft Focused EIR, p. 4.1-25 through

4.1-27)
Explanation: Ownership 2
Construction and Operations
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 site-specific development applications. 985
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 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). 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.

Refer to MM BIO-5.
c. Wetlands
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft Focused EIR, p. 4.1-27 and 4.1- 28)
Explanation: Ownership Area 2
Construction and Operations
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) 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.

See MM BIO-5 above.
d. Tree Preservation Policy
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft Focused EIR, p. 4.1-30 through

4.1-32)
Explanation: Ownership Area 2
Construction and Operations
986
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 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 minimize.

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.

See MM BIO-5 above.

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 987
Authority is responsible for reviewing the landscape plan and approving appropriate species for tree replacement (The Ontario Plan 2050.

2. HISTORIC RESOURCES
a. Historical Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft Focused EIR, p. 4.2-33 through

4.2-37)
Explanation: Ownership Area 2
Construction and Operations
To reduce impacts to historic resources, MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-8 would apply. MM CUL-2 would require that, prior to the issuance of a building permit for demolition of any historic resources pursuant to MM CUL-1, adequate documentation, 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 historical resources subject properties, be submitted to the City Planning Department for approval and publication. Additionally, MM CUL-3 requires that, prior to the 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, identified as feasible for relocation shall be submitted to the City. The relocation 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. Additionally, pursuant to MM CUL-4, every effort shall be made to relocate the historic resources, except for the Streamline Moderne Milk Parlor, a local Tier II Historic Resources addressed to 8185 Edison Avenue. The structures shall be offered at no cost for those who can relocate off-site; and advertisements notifying the public of the opportunity to relocate the buildings would be placed on-site with temporary signage, in at least three local publications (newspapers, magazines, local organization newsletters), and on local bulletin boards (realtor’s offices, local business), for a minimum of 30 days. Pursuant to Ontario Development Code Section

7.01.030, a mitigation fee would be paid to the City Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits for demolition of any of the identified historical resources for which relocation was determined by the City to be infeasible (MM CUL-5). According to 988
MM CUL-6, prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition of any of the three significant historic resources, 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. Additionally, pursuant to MM CUL-7, should 8185 Edison Avenue be subject to demolition, and prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition of the resource, which is listed in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, the applicant shall apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness and approval of a Demolition approval by the Historic Preservation Subcommittee prior to demolition pursuant to the Ontario Development Code Section 4.02.050 and MM CUL-6. A Certificate of 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 requires that, prior to the 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 shall be made.

With these mitigation measures in place, impacts to historical resources as a result of the Project would be substantially reduced.

However, given that the resources would be either relocated or, if relocation proves infeasible, demolished, impacts to these resources remains significant.

CenterPark Mitigation Measures:

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 Buildings Survey (HABS) or an Historic 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). 989
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 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 for 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 990
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 proposed for 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 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 dairy 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.

H. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
All cumulative impacts for the environmental resource topics were adequately addressed in the TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR, and the Project is consistent with the findings of the TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR cumulative analysis, except for Biological and Historic Resources as outlined below. See TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR Sections 5.1: Aesthetics through 5.20: Wildfire for further discussion.

1. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
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 991
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-status species 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 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 BIO1 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 992
incorporation of applicable mitigation measures. Concerning Ownership Area 2, MM BIO5 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. 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 resources through 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. (Draft Focused EIR, pp. 4.1-32 and 4.1-35)

2. HISTORIC RESOURCES
Impacts to historic resources are typically site specific and generally do not combine to result in cumulative impacts. Additionally, the Project site is not located in an area designated as a “Historic District” by the City. However, the Project site is within an area designated by the City as having a singular Historic Context related to the early-to-mid 20th century dairy farming industry. Specifically, the Project site is located within the Ontario Ranch area, formerly known as New Model Colony, an 8,200-acre portion of the former San Bernardino County Agricultural Preserve annexed by the City in 1999. In 2004, the City prepared an inventory of all historic-era properties within the Ontario Ranch area and approved a Historic Context that identified time periods and architectural styles that are historically and culturally significant within the Ontario Ranch area. The agricultural properties within the Ontario Ranch area have a shared history and consistent architectural themes. Therefore, the City recognizes that the historical resources within 993
the Project site exist in a broader historical context that is not site-specific. Tier II historic resources were identified within the Project site. As discussed in the Project’s CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis, the TOP EIR did not explicitly analyze impacts to Tier II resources and instead deferred to the City’s process for identifying and mitigating impacts. Additionally, the planned Ontario Ranch Road widening, as shown in TOP 2050, would expand the right-of-way of Edison Ranch/Ontario Ranch Road, which traverses the Project site in a north-south direction. The widening of this roadway has the potential to negatively affect eligible historic buildings and properties and is cumulatively considerable, in combination with the Project, with respect to historic resources. That is, vibrations from construction (e.g., grading, excavation, drilling, auguring, use and movement of heavy equipment, and other construction activities to remove the existing sidewalk and construct sidewalk, curb, and other roadway infrastructure) could physically impact historic resources given the proximity of this work to eligible historic buildings adjacent to Edison Ranch/Ontario Ranch Road. Additionally, the integrity of the setting around 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 by the Ontario Ranch Road widening. As depicted on Figure 4.2-1, the road widening would require the City to approve the modification/demolition/relocation of at least one of the historic buildings (Craftsman Bungalow) within 7587-7697 Edison Ave, as well as the historic Streamline Modern Milk Parlor within 8185 Edison Ave.

Consequently, the Project includes mitigation measures to ensure proper identification, treatment, and preservation of historic resources within the Project site. While implementation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-8 would reduce Project-specific impacts to the extent feasible, Project-specific impacts to historic resources would remain significant and unavoidable.

Other projects within the historic resources cumulative study area, defined as the Ontario Ranch area, also have the potential to result in damage and/or loss to these resources.

The combination of the Project as well as past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the City and County would be required to comply with all applicable state, federal, County, and local regulations concerning preservation, salvage, or handling of cultural resources, including compliance with required mitigation. Similar to the Project, these projects also would be required to implement and conform to mitigation measures where determined by the City to avoid, minimize or offset impacts to significant historic resources. Additionally, historic resources investigations would be required for other projects before the City of Ontario would permit ground disturbances or demolition or substantial alteration of existing structures. Such investigations would identify resources that are or appear to be eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR. Such investigations would also recommend mitigation measures to protect and preserve historic resources.

However, as discussed above, other projects have the potential to impact Tier II historic resources not analyzed by the TOP EIR. Therefore, in concert with other cumulative projects, the Project represents a potentially cumulatively considerable impact to historic 994
resources. These Project-related contribution to significant historic resource impacts has been mitigated to the extent feasible.

This Focused EIR has incorporated, by reference, the TOP EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), which address cumulative impacts from City buildout. The TOP EIR determined that buildout of TOP 2050 would not have significant impacts to cultural resources through the implementation of proposed general plan policies and TOP EIR mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to 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 historical resources categorized under Chapter 4 of the City’s Development Code as Tier III could potentially be impacted with implementation of TOP 2050 and would be potentially significant; and therefore, cumulatively considerable. It should be noted that the TOP EIR did not explicitly analyze impacts to Tier II resources and instead deferred to the City's process for identifying and mitigating impacts. The type, scale, and location of the Project 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. 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 Tier II historic resources, the Project would be cumulatively considerable. (Draft Focused EIR, p. 4.2-37 and 4.2-40)
I. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The City Council hereby declares that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR and described below. Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which could feasibly achieve most of its basic objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects identified in the EIR analysis. An EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a proposed project. Rather, an EIR must consider a reasonable range of alternatives that are potentially feasible; an EIR is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible. In addition, an EIR should evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Therefore, this section sets forth the potential alternatives to the Project analyzed in the EIR and evaluates them in light of the objectives of the Project, as required by CEQA.

Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines relating to the alternatives’ analysis (§15126.6 et seq.) are summarized below (Draft Focused EIR at p. 6-1 through 6-2):
 [T]he discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the Project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the Project objectives or would be more costly.” (§15126.6[b]).  “The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact.” (§15126.6[e][1])
995
 “The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” (§15126.6[e][2])
 “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” (§15126.6[f])  “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries…, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)” (§15126.6[f][1])
 “Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.” (§15126.6[f][2][A])
 “An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.” (§15126.6[f][3])

1. RATIONALE FOR SELECTING POTENTIALLY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES The alternatives must include a no-project alternative and a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project if those reasonable alternatives would attain most of the Project objectives while substantially lessening the potentially significant Project impacts. The range of alternatives discussed in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason,” which the State CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)(3) defines as:
. . . set[ting] forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decisionmaking.

Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives (as described in the State CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)([1]) are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, 996
and whether the Project proponent could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, and whose implementation is remote or speculative.

For purposes of this analysis, the Project alternatives are evaluated to determine the extent to which they attain the basic Project objectives, while significantly lessening any significant effects of the Project.

2. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE

SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies that an EIR should (1) identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were eliminated from detailed consideration because they were determined to be infeasible during the scoping process; and (2) briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. 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; and/or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

The following is a discussion of the land use alternative considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why it was not selected for detailed analysis in the EIR.
a. Alternative Site
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the Project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project. The key question and first step in the analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the Project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the Project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (State CEQA Guidelines §15126[5][B][1]). In addition, an alternative site need not be considered when implementation is “remote and speculative,” such as when the alternative site is beyond the control of a project applicant.

In the event land could be purchased of suitable size and developmental characteristics, based on the known general conditions in the southern portion of the City of Ontario (City), an alternative site would likely have similar impacts as the Project. Given the size and nature of the Project and the Project objectives, it would be impractical and infeasible to propose the Project on an alternate site in the area with fewer environmental impacts.

Additionally, other land in the vicinity of the Project site or within the southern portion of the City have the potential to contain historical resources similar to the Project site. The potential for significant impacts could still occur with an alternative site. Given the size and type of the Project, a similarly sized project and use elsewhere would result in the same Project-level and cumulative impacts. Therefore, analysis of an alternative site for the proposed 250,919 square feet of commercial retail/office uses, up to 4,293 residential units across medium, and mixed-use residential uses, and 67.26 acres of open space parkland/non-recreation uses, is neither meaningful nor necessary, because the 997
significant impacts resulting from the Project would not be avoided or substantially lessened by its implementation. (Draft Focused EIR, p. 6-5) Finding: The City Council rejects the Alternative Site alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative:
(1) the alternative does not avoid any significant and unavoidable impacts, (2) the alternative would likely not further reduce any of the proposed project’s significant impacts; and (3) the alternatives are technically, financially, and legally infeasible given that there are no suitable alternative sites within the control of the Project applicant.

Therefore, the Alternative Site alternative is eliminated from further consideration.

3. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
Based on the Project objectives identified in Draft Focused EIR Section 3.0: Project Description, the following three 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 the following sections.
 Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
 Alternative 2: Avoidance Alternative
 Alternative 3: Reduced Development Area Alternative
a. Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
Description: Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires analysis of the No Project Alternative. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, the No Project/No Build Alternative for a development project on an identifiable property consists of the circumstance under which the Project does not proceed as provided by §15126.6(e)(3)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) provides that, “In certain instances, the no project alternative means ‘no build’ wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained.” Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, 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 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 area have been significantly altered through agricultural uses, leaving little or no native vegetation. (Draft Focused EIR, p. 6-5 through 6-6)
Impacts: 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 998
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 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. (Draft Focused EIR, p. 6-6)
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 historic resources. Impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed Project. (Draft Focused EIR, p. 6-6)
Attainment of Project Objectives:

Ability to Reduce Impacts
The No Project/No Build Alternative would reduce impacts related to biological resources and historic resources that would occur from implementation of the proposed Project.
999
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.

Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet any of the Project objectives and would not provide any of the Project benefits that would occur with the implementation of the proposed Project, including creating a professional, well-maintained and attractive environment for development; and (2) TOP 2050 envisions the Ontario Ranch area will include housing, commercial and Business Park areas, parks, recreational uses, trails and bike links. Specific plans are required to guide development in Ontario Ranch to ensure the City objectives are achieved. The CenterPark Specific Plan, the proposed Project, is a major “next step,” creating a specific plan to implement the vision outlined by the City of Ontario for the western portion of the Ontario Ranch area, formerly New Model Colony.
b. Alternative 2: Avoidance Alternative
Description: The Avoidance Alternative would avoid eligible historic structures identified in Section 4.2: Historic Resources. (Draft Focused EIR, p. 6-7) Impacts: 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 extent 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 to those of the proposed Project.(Draft Focused EIR, p. 6-7) Historic Resources
The Avoidance Alternative could reduce impacts to historic resources on site by orienting the pattern to avoid historic structures, discussed in more 1000
detail in Draft Focused EIR Section 4.2: Historic Resources. See Draft Focused EIR Section 4.2: Historic Resources, Figure 4.2-1: Ontario Ranch Road Widening, Historic Resources Map for locations of eligible historic resources. For the specifics of each address, see below:
7587-7697 Edison Avenue (Craftsman Bungalow style residence, Ranchstyle residence and milk parlor): At the halfway point between Bon View Avenue and Campus Avenue, 7587-7697 Edison Avenue fronts Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road from the south. A residential development is planned for that area, and 7587 Edison Avenue occupies the most logical entry point into the tract. 7587-7697 Edison Avenue, which is an eligible resource, contains three eligible historic structures including a Craftsman Bungalow, Ranch-style residence and Ranch-style milk parlor adjacent to Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road. Under this alternative, development would be restricted in the immediate area of the historic structures, immediately adjacent to the Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road right-ofway. 8185 Edison Avenue (Streamline Moderne Milk Parlor): East of Grove Avenue and fronting Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road from the south, 8185 Edison Avenue occupies the City’s TOP 2050 planned location of a mixed-use residential and retail/office center as well as a regional park that would extend beyond the Project site to the south. 8185 Edison Ave, which meets local landmark designation and other City criteria for historic resources, contains two eligible historic structures including a Ranch- Style residence and Streamline Moderne milk parlor. Under this alternative, development would be restricted in the immediate area of the historic structure, at the corner of Grove Avenue and Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road.
8335-8381 Edison Avenue (Craftsman Bungalow style residence): Fronting Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road from the south, 8335-8381 Edison Avenue occupies the City’s TOP 2050 planned location of a mixed-use residential and retail/office center as well as a regional park that would extend beyond the Project site to the south. 8335-8381 Edison Avenue contains one eligible historic structure, a Craftsman Bungalow style residence. Under this alternative, development would be restricted in the immediate area of the historic structure, immediately adjacent to the Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road right-of-way.

Under the Avoidance Alternative, the above-mentioned historic buildings would be avoided. However, the integrity of the setting around these historic resources (i.e., historic dairy farm/agriculture uses associated with the structures that lend themselves 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 1001
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 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. (Draft Focused EIR, p. 6-7 and 6-8)
Attainment of Project Objectives:

Ability to Reduce Impacts
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 extent of impacts within Ownership Area 2 cannot be known at this time even with the implementation of recommended mitigation. Therefore, biological resource impacts would be the same to those of the proposed Project.

The Avoidance Alternative would avoid impacts to existing historic structures but would have similar 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 on historic resources under the Avoidance Alternative would be similar 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 these five historic resources, located within PA 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 Avenue 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 1002
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.

Lastly, the planned Ontario Ranch Road widening, as shown in TOP 2050, would expand the right-of-way of Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road, which traverses the Project site in a east-west direction. The widening of this roadway has the potential to negatively affect eligible historic buildings and properties and is cumulatively considerable, in combination with the proposed Project, with respect to historic resources. That is, vibrations from construction (e.g., grading, excavation, drilling, auguring, use and movement of heavy equipment, and other construction activities to remove the existing sidewalk and construct sidewalk, curb, and other roadway infrastructure) could potentially physically impact historic resources given the proximity of this work to eligible historic buildings adjacent to Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road. Although this Alternative seeks to avoid impacts to historic structures, the integrity of the setting around 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. As depicted on Draft Focused EIR Section 4.2:

Historic Resources, Figure 4.2-1, the planned Ontario Ranch Road widening would physically impede at least one of the historic buildings (Craftsman Bungalow) within 7587-7697 Edison Avenue as well as the historic Streamline Modern Milk Parlor within 8185 Edison Avenue. Even if this Alternative were implemented, the historic structures and properties would likely be impacted by planned Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road widening, rendering the effectiveness of the Alternative in reducing impacts to historic resources moot.

Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 2: No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, which was analyzed against the TOP 2050. TOP 2050 envisions the Ontario Ranch area will include housing, commercial and Business Park areas, parks, recreational uses, trails, and bike links. Specific plans are required to guide development in Ontario Ranch to ensure the City objectives are achieved. The CenterPark Specific Plan, the proposed Project, is a major “next step,” creating a specific plan to implement the vision outlined by the City of Ontario for the western portion of the Ontario Ranch area, formerly New Model Colony.
c. Alternative 3: Reduced Development Area Alternative
Description: 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 1003
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/non-recreation uses would occur. (Draft Focused EIR, p. 6-8)
Impacts: 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 the same as those of the proposed Project. (Draft Focused EIR, p. 6-8)
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. Under this alternative, a total of 162,183 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/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 1004
Avenue, and 8335-8381 Edison Avenue. 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 three 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 historic resources. Impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed Project. (Draft Focused EIR, p. 6-8 and 6-9)
Attainment of Project Objectives:

Ability to Reduce Impacts
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, biological impacts would be same 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 historic 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.
1005
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-used 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.

As shown in Draft Focused EIR Section 6.0: Alternatives, Figure 6-1:

Reduced Development Area Alternative, 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 (see Draft Focused EIR Section 3.0: Project Description, Figure 3-10: Conceptual Circulation Plan) 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.

The City’s Housing Element identifies the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) target for the 2021 to 2029 cycle at 20,854 units which is inclusive of Extremely/Very Low Income, Low Income, Moderate Income, and Above Moderate-Income housing. The proposed Project would create an additional 4,293 units of housing within the City, which would be completed prior to and after 2029. As such, implementation of the Project would aid the City in reaching its 2029 RHNA goal. The Reduced Development Area Alternative would contribute 1,156 fewer residential DUs to help meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment goals, compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative may also affect the City’s ability to meet certain housing objectives identified in TOP 2050.

Lastly, the planned Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road widening, as shown in TOP 2050, would expand the right-of-way of Edison Ranch/Ontario Ranch Road, which traverses the Project site in a east-west direction. The widening of this roadway has the potential to negatively affect eligible historic buildings and is cumulatively considerable, in combination with the proposed Project, with respect to historic resources. That is, 1006
vibrations from construction (e.g., grading, excavation, drilling, auguring, use and movement of heavy equipment, and other construction activities to remove the existing sidewalk and construct sidewalk, curb, and other roadway infrastructure) could physically impact historic resources given the proximity of this work to eligible historic buildings adjacent to Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road. Additionally, under this alternative, the eligible historic buildings would be left in place. However, the integrity of the setting around 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. As depicted on Draft Focused EIR Section 4.2: Historic Resources, Figure 4.2-1, the planned Ontario Ranch Road widening would physically impede at least one of the historic buildings (Craftsman Bungalow) within 7587-7697 Edison Avenue as well as the historic Streamline Modern Milk Parlor within 8185 Edison Avenue.

As with the Avoidance Alternative, even if the Reduced Development Area Alternative were implemented, the historic structures and properties would likely be impacted by planned Ontario Ranch Road widening, rendering the effectiveness of the Alternative moot.

Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 3: Reduced Intensity Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative would not achieve the project benefits to the extent the proposed Project does since a reduction in intensity would generate less job opportunities in the City; (2) the alternative fails to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts relating to agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, and historical resources; and (3) the alternative is infeasible.

4. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the “environmentally superior alternative” and, in cases where the “No Project” Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, the environmentally superior development alternative must be identified. The Reduced Intensity Alternative has been identified as “environmentally superior” to the proposed Project.

Reduced Development Area Alternative
The Reduced Development Area Alternative has been identified as the environmentallysuperior alternative because it would result in lessened impacts related to historic resources such that the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level under this alternative. Additionally, impacts related to biological resources would be similar to the proposed Project under the Reduced Development Area Alternative. However, while the Reduced Development Area Alternative would reduce impacts related to historic resources, compared to the proposed Project, the Reduced Development Area Alternative would be less effective at accomplishing the Project objectives.
1007
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 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]). (Draft Focused EIR, p. 6-14)
J. ADDITIONAL CEQA CONSIDERATIONS

1. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES DUE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project should it be implemented. Specifically, the State CEQA Guidelines state:
“Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highways improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses.

Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.” Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if:
 The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
 The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources;  The project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; or  The proposed irretrievable commitments of nonrenewable resources are not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy).

In the case of the proposed CenterPark Specific Plan Project, its implementation would involve a land use, development, and implementation framework to support up to a maximum build-out of up to 250,919 square feet of commercial retail/office uses, up to 4,293 residential units across medium, and mixed-use residential uses, 67.26 acres of open space parkland/non-recreation uses, and associated on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements within the City. According to the Project’s CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis (Draft Focused EIR Appendix F), significant irreversible changes that would be caused by implementation of the Project would be:
 Construction activities that would entail the commitment of nonrenewable and/or slowly renewable energy resources; human resources; and natural resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, other metals, water, and fossil fuels.
1008
 Operation that would require the use of natural gas and electricity, petroleumbased fuels, fossil fuels, and water. The commitment of resources required for the operation of the Project would limit the availability of such resources for future generations or for other uses during the life of the Project. o Increased traffic on area roadways;
o Emissions of air pollutants associated with operations; and o Consumption of non-renewable energy associated with operation of the Project due to the use of automobiles, lighting, heating and cooling systems, and appliances.
 An increased commitment of social services and public maintenance services (e.g., police, fire, sewer, and water services) would also be required. The energy and social service commitments would be long-term obligations in view of the low likelihood of returning the land to its original condition once it has been developed.  Employment growth related to Project implementation would increase vehicle trips over the long term. Emissions associated with such vehicle trips would continue to contribute to the South Coast Air Basin’s (SCAB) nonattainment designations for ozone, particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), under the California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS and NAAQS, respectively), and nonattainment for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) under the CAAQS.

Given the low likelihood that the land would revert to lower intensity uses or to its current form, the Project would generally commit future generations to these environmental changes. However, as discussed in Draft Focused EIR Section 3.0: Project Description, the Project is committed to sustainable design strategies that integrate principles of environmental stewardship into the design and construction process. Appropriate strategies would be determined for each phase of the Project. Strategies include, but are not limited to:

Sustainable Construction & Technology Concepts
 Design and construct energy-efficient buildings to reduce air, water, and land pollution and environmental impacts from energy production and consumption.  Employ passive design including skylights, building orientation, landscaping, and strategic colors to improve building energy performance.  Reduce the heat island effect by providing shade structures and trees that produce large canopies. In addition, choose roof and paving materials that possess a high level of solar reflectivity.
 Use recycled and other environmentally-friendly building materials wherever possible.
 Use energy-efficient light-emitting diode (LED) (or similar) products.  Use drought-tolerant landscaping with drip irrigation and include plantings such as trees, shrubs, groundcovers and/or vines. Optional amenities include benches, trellises, thematic fencing, and decorative walkways.

Water Quality
1009
 Utilize landscape areas including retention/infiltration swales and basins, or employ bio treatment when infiltration is infeasible, as required by the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit and Water Quality Management Plan.
 Select native and drought-tolerant plants to reduce water demand.  Use recycled water to irrigate landscape areas and for other appropriate uses. The use of recycled water for certain purposes is required by the City Recycled Water Master Plan.

The commitment of resources to the Project is not unusual or inconsistent with projects of this type and scope. However, once these commitments are made, it is improbable that the Project area would revert back to its current condition. Thus, the Project would result in significant irreversible changes to the environment throughout the lifespan of the structures. (Draft Focused EIR, p. 5-1 through 5-3)

2. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Pursuant to Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, this section is provided to examine ways in which the Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. To address this issue, potential growth-inducing effects will be examined through analysis of the following questions:
 Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development?  Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service?
 Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment?  Would approval of this project involve some precedent-setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
Please note that growth-inducing effects are not to be construed as necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which this Project could contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the direct consequences of developing the land use concept examined in the preceding sections of the Draft Focused EIR.

1. Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development? The removal of a physical obstacle to growth, such as the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that are not presently in the area, would be considered a potentially growth inducing impact. As discussed in Draft Focused EIR Section 3.0, the Project would include various new infrastructure improvements on-site and off-site, 1010
including water, wastewater, storm drain facilities, roadway improvements, and dry utilities (natural gas, electricity, telecommunications).

Implementation of the Project would require the construction and improvement of roadways and extension of major infrastructure into areas off-site that would facilitate additional planned growth, consistent with TOP 2050. Although the infrastructure improvements are planned for in the City’s master plans, the improvements would allow further development to occur within the Ontario Ranch area. The Project is consistent with TOP 2050 and its associated TOP EIR, which evaluated long-term implications associated with the site’s land use designations. Therefore, the Project would remove obstacles to growth to accommodate the demands of this Project at full buildout, which could allow for future development in the area once adequate infrastructure is in place and would be considered growth inducing.

2. Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service?
As the City continues to develop, it requires the further commitment of public services in the form of fire protection, police services, and other public facilities. The Project is consistent with TOP 2050 and its associated TOP EIR, which evaluated long-term implications associated with the site’s land use designations. As discussed in the Project’s CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis (Draft Focused EIR, Appendix F), the Project would not necessitate the immediate expansion of existing resources in order to maintain desired levels of service. The Project would not, therefore, have significant growth-inducing consequences with respect to public services.

3. Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? During Project construction, a number of design, engineering, and construction-related jobs would be created. However, construction related jobs would not result in a significant population increase because they would be filled by workers in the region and the construction phase would be temporary.

As shown in Draft Focused EIR Section 5.0: Other CEQA Considerations, Table 5 1:

Ownership Area 1 Project Generated Employment, the Ownership Area 1 would result in the creation of approximately 234 new long-term jobs. As the number of employees in the Project area grows, these employees would seek shopping, entertainment, auto maintenance, and other economic opportunities in the surrounding area. This would facilitate economic goods and services and could, therefore, encourage the creation of new businesses and/or the expansion of existing businesses to address these economic needs.

However, the increase in opportunities for employees would not create substantial growth inducement because it would improve the jobs-housing ratio, growth could be accommodated within regional and local projections, and jobs would be filled by the local workforce. As stated in the Project’s CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis, the Project, inclusive of Ownership Areas 1 and 2, would result in an improvement in the jobs-household balance, which is currently in a housing-rich area. 1011
The majority of new jobs that would be created by implementation of the Project would be positions that do not require a specialized workforce, and this type of workforce exists in the City and surrounding areas. Thus, due to the availability of a workforce within the City, it is anticipated that new jobs would be filled by people within the City and the immediately surrounding communities and would not induce an unanticipated influx of new labor into the City. Although, the Project would result in new permanent employment opportunities and stimulate economic activity, it would meet future employment demands anticipated in SCAG’s regional growth projections. Lastly, the Project is consistent with TOP 2050 and its associated TOP EIR, which evaluated long-term implications associated with the site’s land use designations. Overall, the Project would not result in increased levels of growth that would otherwise not occur. Therefore, the Project would not encourage or facilitate economic effects that could significantly affect the environment.

4. Would approval of this project involve some precedent-setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
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, and mixed-use residential uses, 67.26 acres of open space parkland/non-recreation uses, and associated on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements. Pressures to develop other land in the surrounding area would derive from regional economic conditions and market demands for housing, commercial, and mixed-use land uses that are not directly or indirectly influenced by zoning actions on a particular property. Lastly, the Project is consistent with TOP 2050 and its associated TOP EIR, which evaluated long-term implications associated with the site’s land use designations. Approval of the proposed Project would not, therefore, involve a precedent-setting action that could be applied to other properties and thereby encourage or facilitate growth that would not otherwise occur.

Environmental Impacts of Induced Growth
As described above, implementation of the Project would provide development to accommodate City forecasted employment demands. All physical environmental effects from construction of development have been analyzed in the technical section of this Draft Focused EIR. For example, activities such as excavation, grading, and construction as required for the proposed commercial retail/office, residential and open space parkland/non-recreation uses, were analyzed in Draft Focused EIR Section 4.1 Biological Resources and Section 4.2: Historic Resources and the Project’s CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis (Draft Focused EIR Appendix F). Therefore, construction of the Project has been analyzed in this Draft Focused EIR and would be adequately mitigated either through implementation of Plans, Programs, and Policies (PPPs) and/or mitigation measures contained in Section 4.1 and Section 4.2, of the Draft Focused EIR. (Draft Focused EIR, p. 5-1 through 5-6)
1012
SECTION 5. Statement Of Overriding Considerations. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered “acceptable” (State CEQA Guidelines §15093[a]). CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the FEIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (State CEQA Guidelines §15093 [b]). The agency’s statement is referred to as a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

The following provides a description of the project’s significant and unavoidable adverse impact and the justification for adopting a statement of overriding considerations.

A. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The City identifies the following significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project, which would continue to be applicable upon implementation of the proposed Project:

Biological Resources
 Impact 4.1-1: 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? (Ownership Area 2 Only)
 Impact 4.1-2: 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? (Ownership Area 2 Only)
 Impact 4.1-3: 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? (Ownership Area 2 Only)
 Impact 4.1-5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Ownership Area 2 Only)
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? B. PROJECT BENEFITS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS
The following section describes the benefits of the proposed Project that outweigh the project’s unavoidable adverse effects and provides specific reasons for considering the Project acceptable even though the Final Focused EIR has indicated that there will be eight significant and unavoidable project impacts if the mitigation measures for Impact 1013

4.2-1 (Draft Focused EIR Appendix F), Impact 4.3-1(Draft Focused EIR Appendix F), Impact 4.3-2 (Draft Focused EIR Appendix F), and Impact 4.1-1, Impact 4.1-2, Impact

4.1-3, Impact 4.1-5, Impact 4.2-1 (Draft Focused EIR) are implemented. Accordingly, this Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding potentially significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the proposed Project, as set forth below, has been prepared. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15093(c), the Statement of Overriding Considerations will be included in the record of the Project approval and will also be noted in the Notice of Determination. Each of the benefits identified below provides a separate and independent basis for overriding the significant environmental effects of the proposed Project.

Having reduced the potential effects of the proposed Project through all feasible mitigation measures as described previously herein, and balancing the benefits of the proposed Project against its potential unavoidable adverse impacts, the City finds that the following legal requirements and benefits of the proposed Project individually and collectively outweigh the potentially significant unavoidable adverse impacts for the following reasons:

1. Implements the Objectives Established for the Proposed Project The Project objectives include creating a professional, well-maintained, and attractive environment for development; providing entitlements and framework for development of mixed-uses; providing employment opportunities for community residents; facilitating the construction of utilities, roads, and other major infrastructure; expanding Ontario’s mixed uses in proximity to local airports and regional transportation networks; and creating an economic engine to drive future growth and spur improvements in the area.

2. Provides Employment Opportunities
The Project would provide high-quality mixed uses within the City and the TOP area and would increase employment opportunities for City and area residents. The proposed Project would include up to 115,809 square feet of commercial retail uses, up to 4,293 residential units generating 10,183 residents, and 135,110 square feet of office uses which would generate employment opportunities.

3. Provides Substantial Infrastructure Improvements
The Project will be responsible for the construction of area-wide infrastructure construction within the Ontario Ranch area, including roadway, water, and sewer and storm drains as set forth in the Draft Focused EIR and CenterPark Specific Plan. The Project would construct improvements and infrastructure consistent with the 2050 TOP and the City’s various master plans for roadways and sewers, among others.

4. Consistency with the Regional Goals in the RTP/SCS
SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS was adopted September 3, 2020. The RTP/SCS identifies that land use strategies that focus on new housing and job growth in areas served by high quality transit and other opportunity areas would be consistent with a land use development pattern that supports and complements the proposed transportation network. The overarching strategy in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is to provide for a plan that allows the southern California region to grow in more compact communities in existing 1014
urban areas; provide neighborhoods with efficient and plentiful public transit and abundant and safe opportunities to walk, bike, and pursue other forms of active transportation; and preserve more of the region’s remaining natural lands.

The proposed Project would create an economic engine to drive future growth in Ontario Ranch, spur infrastructure improvements in the area, and would allow for the development of urban uses on currently underutilized land. The implementation of the proposed Project would facilitate the construction of roads and other major infrastructure investments that will ensure that mobility accessibility for people and goods would be maximized. The Specific Plan would expand Ontario’s mixed uses in proximity to local airports and regional networks, and the vehicular and pedestrian improvements called for in the Specific Plan would be implemented and maintained to meet the needs of employees and visitors. Additionally, all modes of public and commercial transit throughout the Project area would be required to follow safety standards set by state, regional, and local regulations. The proposed Specific Plan would preserve and ensure access to the local public transportation near the Project site. The proposed Project would improve and maintain local and area-serving transportation systems to maximize efficiency and productivity. Moreover, the proposed Project would incorporate energy efficiency and sustainability strategies.

5. Consistency with the City’s Community Climate Action Plan The Project will comply with the City’s adopted CAP, which strives to achieve GHG reductions City-wide that comply with the State’s reduction requirements. The primary purpose of the City’s Community CAP is to design a feasible strategy to reduce GHG emissions generated by community activities that is consistent with statewide Scoping Plan GHG reduction efforts. TOP 2050, which includes the CCAP, identifies GHG emissions policies and reductions targets for the City of Ontario that would ensure consistency with the State GHG reduction goals and substantial progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goals. As a result, projects consistent with the CCAP are also consistent with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan and other applicable GHG reduction plans. With the implementation of CCAP, TOP 2050 would result in an 80 percent decrease in GHG emissions in the City by 2050 from existing conditions.

6. Remediates On-site Contamination
The Project would remediate existing site conditions, which consist of historic agricultural and dairy-related uses that contributed to on-site contamination.

C. CONCLUSION
The City Council of Ontario has balanced the Project’s benefits against the significant unavoidable impacts. The City Council finds that the proposed Project’s benefits, which aim to meet the goals and policies of the City of Ontario General Plan (TOP) 2050, outweigh the Project’s significant unavoidable impacts, and these impacts, therefore, are considered acceptable in the light of the Project’s benefits. The City Council finds that each of the benefits described above is an overriding consideration, independent of the 1015
other benefits, that warrants approval of the Project notwithstanding the Project’s significant unavoidable impact.

SECTION 6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Pursuant to PRC §21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan shall control.

SECTION 7. Project Approval Based upon the entire record before it, including the EIR, Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and all written and oral evidence presented, City Council hereby approves the proposed Project.

SECTION 8. Staff Direction.

A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of San Bernardino within five (5) working days of final Project approval
SECTION 9. 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 10. 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.

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

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 17th day of March 2026. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________
1016

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
1017

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2026- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held _______________ by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2026- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held ____________. _____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
1018
EXHIBIT A:

CenterPark Specific Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
(Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program follow this page) 1019
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2025060731
Lead Agency:

Rafael Torres, Assistant Planner
City of Ontario
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, CA 91761
Consultant:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
3801 University Avenue, Suite 300
Riverside, CA 92501
March 2026
1020
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents City of Ontario March 2026
This page intentionally left blank.
1021
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents City of Ontario March 2026
i
Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction

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

1.2 Organization of the Final Focused EIR...................................................................................1-2

1.3 CEQA Requirements for a Final Focused EIR.........................................................................1-2

1.4 Clarifications, Amplifications and Modifications to the Draft Focused EIR.............................1-3 Section 2: Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR

2.1 Introduction to Comments and Responses...........................................................................2-1 Comment Letter L1 – Mary Ann Ruiz.................................................................................2-3 Responses to Comment Letter L1 .................................................................................2-7 Comment Letter L2 – City of Chino....................................................................................2-9 Responses to Comment Letter L2 .................................................................................2-10 Comment Letter L3 – City of Eastvale................................................................................2-11 Responses to Comment Letter L3 e ..............................................................................2-13 Comment Letter T1 – Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe ............................................................2-15 Responses to Comment Letter T1.................................................................................2-17 Comment Letter T2 – Agua Caliente Cahuilla Band of Indians............................................2-19 Responses to Comment Letter T2.................................................................................2-20 Comment Letter T3 – Cahuilla Band of Indians..................................................................2-21 Responses to Comment Letter T3.................................................................................2-25 Comment Letter T4 – Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation ...........................2-27 Responses to Comment Letter T4.................................................................................2-37 Comment Letter S1 – California Department of Toxic Substances Control .........................2-39 Responses to Comment Letter S1 .................................................................................2-45 Comment Letter S2 – State Water Resources Control Boards............................................2-47 Responses to Comment Letter S2 .................................................................................2-50 Comment Letter S3 – California Department of Fish and Wildlife ......................................2-51 1022
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents City of Ontario March 2026
ii
Responses to Comment Letter S3 .................................................................................2-61 Comment Letter P1 – Edison Ranch LLC ............................................................................2-73 Responses to Comment Letter P1.................................................................................2-76 Comment Letter O1 – SAFER, c/o Kylah Staley Lozeau Drury, LLP ......................................2-81 Responses to Comment Letter O1 ................................................................................2-83 Comment Letter O2 – Western States Regional Council of Carpenters, c/o Mitchell M. Tsai .................................................................................................2-85 Responses to Comment Letter O2 ................................................................................2-364 Comment Letter O3 – Southern California Edison .............................................................2-373 Responses to Comment Letter O3 ................................................................................2-375 Section 3.0: Errata to the Draft Focused EIR

3.1 Introduction to the Errata ....................................................................................................3.0-1

3.2 Changes to the Draft Focused EIR.........................................................................................3.0-2 1023
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 1 - Introduction City of Ontario March 2026
1-1
Section 1.0 Introduction

1.1 INTRODUCTION
The Final Environmental Impact Report (Final Focused EIR) for the CenterPark Specific Plan Project has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 indicates that the contents of a Final EIR shall consist of:
(a) Environmental Impact Reports shall contain the information outlined in this article, but the format of the document may be varied. Each element must be covered, and when these elements are not separated into distinct sections, the document shall state where in the document each element is discussed.
(b) The EIR may be prepared as a separate document, as part of a general plan, or as part of a project report. If prepared as a part of the project report, it must still contain one separate and distinguishable section providing either analysis of all the subjects required in an EIR or, as a minimum, a table showing where each of the subjects is discussed. When the Lead Agency is a state agency, the EIR shall be included as part of the regular project report if such a report is used in the agency’s existing review and budgetary process.
(c) Draft EIRs shall contain the information required by Sections 15122 through 15131. Final EIRs shall contain the same information and the subjects described in Section 15132. (d) No document prepared pursuant to this article that is available for public examination shall include a “trade secret” as defined in Section 6254.7 of the Government Code, information about the location of archaeological sites and sacred lands, or any other information that is subject to the disclosure restrictions of Section 6254 of the Government Code.

The Final Focused EIR includes all of these required components.

In accordance with § 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Ontario (City), as the lead agency for the proposed Project, evaluated comments received on the Draft Focused EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2025060731) and has prepared responses to the comments received. The preceding Table of Contents and Section 1.0 provides a list of all persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft Focused EIR. Section 2.0 includes the Responses to Comments received on the Draft Focused EIR. It should be noted that responses to comments also result in various editorial clarifications and corrections to the original Draft Focused EIR text. Added or modified text is shown in Section 3.0: Errata, by underlining (example) while deleted text is shown by striking (example). The additional information, corrections, and clarifications are not considered to substantively affect the conclusions within the Focused EIR. This Response to Comments document is part of the Final Focused EIR, which includes the Focused EIR pursuant to § 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

After review and discussion by City staff and the City Planning Commission, responses to comments will be sent to commenting agencies and individuals. This satisfies the requirement of Section 21092.5 of CEQA to send responses to the public agency comments received on the Draft Focused EIR at least 10 days prior to Project approval. This document includes responses to all written and verbal comments received on the Draft Focused EIR.
1024
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 1 - Introduction City of Ontario March 2026
1-2

1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL FOCUSED EIR
This Final Focused EIR provides the requisite information required under CEQA and is organized as follows:

Section 1.0 Introduction. This section provides an introduction to the Final Focused EIR, including the requirements under CEQA, the organization of the document, as well as brief summary of the CEQA process activities to date.

Section 2.0 Response to Comments. This section provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the Draft Focused EIR; copies of comment letters received during the public review period, and individual responses to written comments. To facilitate review of the responses, each comment letter has been reproduced and assigned a number. Individual comments have been numbered for each letter, and the letter is followed by responses with references to the corresponding comment number.

Section 3.0 Errata to the Draft Focused EIR. This section details changes to the Draft Focused EIR.

1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR A FINAL FOCUSED EIR
As described in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088, 15089, 15090 and 15132, the Lead Agency must evaluate comments received on the Draft Focused EIR and prepare written responses and consider the information contained in a Final Focused EIR before approving a project.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) outlines parameters for submitting comments, and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of Draft Focused EIRs should be:
“…on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of a Focused EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible. …CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the Focused EIR.”
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises:
“Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” 1025
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 1 - Introduction City of Ontario March 2026
1-3
Section 15204(d) also states:
“Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility.” Section 15204(e) states:
“This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.”
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 recommends that where a response to comment makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the Draft Focused EIR, the Lead Agency either revise the text of the Draft Focused EIR or include marginal notes showing that information. The Final Focused EIR for the Project has been prepared in accordance with CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 indicates that the contents of a Final Focused EIR shall consist of:
“The Draft Focused EIR or a revision of the draft;
Comments and recommendations received on the Draft Focused EIR either verbatim or in summary;
A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft Focused EIR; The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
Any other information added by the Lead Agency.”
The City has evaluated comments on environmental issues from persons who reviewed the Draft Focused EIR and has prepared a written response, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b), the City provided written responses to comments to any public agency that commented on the Draft Focused EIR, at least ten (10) days prior to the City Council consideration of certifying the Focused EIR as adequate under CEQA. Written responses to comments will also be provided to non-public agency individuals, organizations, and entities that commended on the Draft Focused EIR.

In addition, the Final Focused EIR will be made available to the general public at the City’s Planning Division office and on the City’s website a minimum of 10 days prior to the City Council public hearing.

The Final Focused EIR, along with other relevant information and public testimony at the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings, will be considered by the City’s Council.

1.4 CLARIFICATIONS, AMPLIFICATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE

DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Section 3.0, Errata to the Draft Focused EIR, details the proposed changes to the Draft Focused EIR. In response to public comments, text changes have been made to Draft Focused EIR sections to clarify and amplify the analysis or mitigation measures, and to make insignificant modifications to the Draft Focused EIR. This information does not rise to the level of significant new information as the resulting impact analysis and alternatives considered remain essentially unchanged, and no new or more severe impacts 1026
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 1 - Introduction City of Ontario March 2026
1-4
have been identified. These changes do not warrant Draft Focused EIR recirculation pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines §15088.5.

CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 describes when a Focused EIR requires recirculation prior to certification, stating in part:
“(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate a Focused EIR when significant new information is added to the Focused EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft Focused EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term "information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an Focused EIR is not "significant" unless the Focused EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to apply it.
(4) The Draft Focused EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043).
(b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the Focused EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate Focused EIR.” As discussed herein and as elaborated upon in the respective Response to Comments, none of the clarifications or changes made in the Errata reflect a new significant environmental impact, a “substantial increase” in the severity of an environmental impact for which mitigation is not proposed, or a new feasible alternative or mitigation measure that would clearly lessen significant environmental impacts but is not adopted, nor do the Errata reflect a “fundamentally flawed” or “conclusory” Draft Focused EIR. In all cases, as discussed in individual responses to comments, master responses and Draft Focused EIR Errata, these minor clarifications and modifications do not identify new or substantially more severe environmental impacts that the City has not committed to mitigate. Here, the public has not been deprived of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Project or an unadopted feasible Project alternative or mitigation measure. Instead, the information added supports the existing analysis and conclusions, and responds to inquiries made from commenters.

Therefore, this Final Focused EIR is not subject to recirculation prior to certification. 1027
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-1
Section 2.0 Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a) states that: “The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft Focused EIR and shall prepare a written response. The Lead Agency shall respond to comments that were received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments.” In accordance with these requirements, this section of the Final Focused EIR provides the City of Ontario’s responses to each of the comments on the Draft Focused EIR received during the public comment period.

Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of the Draft Focused EIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented.

Changes to the Draft Focused EIR text are shown in underlined text for additions and strikeout for deletions.

The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the Draft Focused EIR during the public review period: December 29, 2025, through February 12, 2026.

2.1 INTRODUCTION TO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Comments have been numbered as shown below, with responses to each comment following the respective comment letter.

Letter Date Received Organization/Name
Local
L1 December 30, 2025 Mary Ann Ruiz
L2 February 13, 2026*
City of Chino
Warren Morelion, Director of Development Services
L3 February 12, 2026
City of Eastvale
David Murray, City Planner
Tribe
T1 December 30, 2025
Ft. Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe
H. Jill McCormick, Historic Preservation Office
T2 December 30, 2025
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Anthony Kline, Cultural Resources Analyst
T3 January 6, 2026
Cahuilla Band of Indians
BobbyRay Esparza, Cultural Director
T4 January 8, 2026
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
Sophia Pina
State
S1 December 31, 2025
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Dave Kereazis, Associate Environmental Planner
S2 January 9, 2026
State Water Resources Control Boards
Lori Schmitz, Environmental Scientist
1028
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-2
Letter Date Received Organization/Name
S3 February 12, 2026
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
Kim Freeburn, Environmental Program Manager
Private Party
P1 February 3, 2026
Edison Ranch LLC
Eric S. Chavez, Manager/Agent
Organizations/Agencies
O1 February 12, 2026
Supporters Alliance for Environmental
Responsibility (“SAFER”)
Kylah Staley, Lozeau Drury LLP
O2 February 12, 2026
Western States Regional Council of Carpenters (“WSRCC”) Omar Corona, Attorneys for Western States Regional Council of Carpenters
O3 February 17, 2026*
Southern California Edison
Stevi N. Luevano
*Received after the closure of the public review period on February 12, 2026. 1029
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-3
Comment Letter L1 – Mary Ann Ruiz
1030
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-4
1031
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-5
1032
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-6
1033
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-7
Responses to Comment Letter L1 – Mary Ann Ruiz
Response L1 – a
Comment noted for the record. This comment does not raise a significant environmental issue or concerns about the adequacy of the Draft Focused EIR. Therefore, no further action is needed. 1034
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-8
This page intentionally left blank.
1035
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-9
Comment Letter L2 – City of Chino
1036
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-10
Responses to Comment Letter L2 – City of Chino
Response L2 – a
Comment is introductory and general in nature and does not raise a significant environmental issue or concerns about the adequacy of the Draft Focused EIR. Therefore, no further action needed.

Response L2 – b
Comment is noted for the record. The comment makes no specific claim regarding the validity of the Draft Focused EIR. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a), a lead agency is only required to evaluate and respond to comments raised on environmental issues, and thus no further response is necessary. The City of Ontario will coordinate with the City of Chino regarding the CenterPark Specific Plan. Therefore, no further revision to the analysis in the Draft Focused EIR is required.

Response L2 – c
This comment summarizes the comments that proceeded and does not raise a significant environmental issue or concerns about the adequacy of the Draft Focused EIR. As such, no further response is necessary. 1037
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-11
Comment Letter L3 – City of Eastvale
1038
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-12
1039
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-13
Responses to Comment Letter L3 – City of Eastvale
Response L3 – a
Comment is noted for the record. The City has provided access for the CenterPark Specific Plan (File No.

Response L3 – b
Comment is noted for the record. The City has provided access for the CenterPark Specific Plan (File No.

PSP24-002) Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report Appendix F: CEQA Guidelines 15183 Consistency Analysis, under “Center Park Specific Plan Draft Focused EIR Appendices 1b” on the City’s website; see here for access: https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/communitydevelopment/planning/environmental-documents. See Appendix I: Traffic Analysis of Appendix F, for the Project’s potential impacts on roadways and intersections within the City of Eastvale. As shown in Table 1-3 of the Traffic Analysis, Archibald Avenue and Limonite Avenue were shown to perform at acceptable levels of service (LOS), until 2050 without and with Project, which forecast LOS deficiencies. Therefore, the recommended improvement strategies identified within the Traffic Analysis would be implemented to achieve acceptable LOS at these intersections. The Project responsibility towards these improvements is a fair share payment and implementing the recommended improvements needed to accommodate site access and maintain acceptable peak hour operations for the Project; see Table 1-4 of the Traffic Analysis for the recommended improvements.

Additionally, the City received the City of Eastvale’s comment letter on July 14, 2025. The comments provided were addressed and included within the Draft Focused EIR Appendix F Response L3 – c
On July 14, 2025, the City of Eastvale commented on the Project’s Notice of Preparation (NOP) during the public scoping period for the Focused EIR. The comment is provided in Draft Focused EIR Appendix A:

Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting Materials. The NOP comment states that: “The Focused EIR and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Exemption Analysis should describe potential cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed project together with all other reasonably foreseeable, planned, and approved future projects producing related or cumulative impacts. To that end, the DEIR should consider and incorporate the City of Eastvale’s General Plan (“Eastvale 2040”) when evaluating cumulative effects of the Specific Plan Amendment” (City of Eastvale, 2025). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, an assessment of traffic within the Draft Focused EIR would only be required should there be substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant effect on that environmental resource. As discussed in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis, provided as Draft Focused EIR Appendix F, the Project is consistent with the land use and development intensity envisioned by the City’s TOP 2050 Land Use Plan. Therefore, Project impacts concerning traffic were anticipated by the TOP 2050 Supplemental 1040
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-14
EIR. As further described in Draft Focused EIR Appendix F, the Project would not result in any peculiar or cumulatively considerable traffic impacts beyond those analyzed in the TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR.

The commenter states the Draft Focused EIR appears to not have incorporated the Eastvale 2040 General Plan into the cumulative analysis. See Appendix I of the Draft Focused EIR Appendix F for analysis of cumulative impacts including the Project. A cumulative project list was developed for the purposes of the Traffic Analysis through consultation with planning and engineering staff from the City of Ontario and the neighboring jurisdictions of the City of Chino and City of Eastvale. The cumulative projects listed are those that would generate traffic and would contribute to study area intersections. Exhibit 4-6 of the Traffic Analysis illustrates the cumulative development location map. A summary of cumulative development projects and their proposed land uses are shown in Table 4.3 of the Traffic Analysis. Cumulative projects have been included for the long-range forecasts developed from San Bernardino County Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) based on a comparison of a project’s location within a Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) and the current socio-economic data (SED) within the TAZ. The SED data was reviewed to ensure that the cumulative projects are accounted for within the traffic model.

Response L3 – d
This comment summarizes the comments that proceeded and does not raise a significant environmental issue or concerns about the adequacy of the Draft Focused EIR. As such, no further response is necessary. 1041
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-15
Comment Letter T1 – Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe
1042
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-16
1043
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-17
Responses to Comment Letter T1 – Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe Response T1 – a
Comment is noted for the record. No further response is required. 1044
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-18
This page intentionally left blank.
1045
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-19
Comment Letter T2 – Agua Caliente Cahuilla Band of Indians 1046
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-20
Responses to Comment Letter T2 – Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Response T2 – a
Comment is noted for the record. No further response is required. 1047
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-21
Comment Letter T3 – Cahuilla Band of Indians
1048
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-22
1049
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-23
1050
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-24
1051
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-25
Responses to Comment Letter T3 - Cahuilla Band of Indians Response T3 – a
Comment is noted for the record. No further response is required.

Response T3 – b
Comment is noted for the record. The commenter confirmed receipt of the Project notice and requested all cultural materials associated with the Project for review on January 5, 2026. Requested Project materials and documentation were provided by the City on January 6, 2026, via email to the commenter.

As of January 6, 2026, the commenter confirmed receipt of the Project materials for review. No further response is required.
1052
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-26
This page intentionally left blank.
1053
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-27
Comment Letter T4 – Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 1054
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-28
1055
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-29
1056
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-30
1057
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-31
1058
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-32
1059
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-33
1060
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-34
1061
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-35
1062
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-36
1063
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-37
Responses to Comment Letter T4 - Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation Response T4 – a
Comment noted for the record. The City evaluated the applicability of AB 52 consultation in connection with preparation of the Draft Focused EIR. Assembly Bill (AB) 52 dictates a government-to-government consultation process that applies at the project level when a project may result in a significant impact to Tribal Cultural Resources, as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21074. The Project’s less than significant impacts related to Tribal Cultural Resources are analyzed in the Draft Focused EIR Appendix F:

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis. Additionally, the Project includes a Specific Plan and, as such, is subject to consultation requirements under Senate Bill (SB) 18, which applies to the adoption or amendment of general plans and specific plans.

As of August 13, 2025, the City of Ontario (City) received the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation’s substantial evidence and requested mitigation measures. On August 13, 2025, the City followed up with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation on the request to consult for the above Project (PSP-24-002) in the City. The City stated that on April 4, 2025, the City was able to complete consultation with Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation under SB 18, referencing the provided mitigation measures utilized for a nearby project (Walker Ranch Specific Plan). The City asked if these same mitigation measures provided by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, could be utilized as part of this consultation request. On August 13, 2025, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation responded, stating that the City can utilize the same mitigation measures used for the nearby project, for the CenterPark Project, and provided the same measures just titled with the correct project name.

Response T4 – b
Comment noted for the record. As discussed in Draft Focused EIR Section 4.2: Historic Resources, this section analyzes historic resources only, 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 Draft Focused EIR Appendix F: CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis; see Draft Focused EIR Section 4.2: Historic Resources and Draft Focused EIR Appendix F: CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis, Sections 4.5: Cultural Resources and

4.18: Tribal Cultural Resources, for further information.

As discussed in the Draft Focused EIR Appendix F, in accordance with SB 18, the City sent Tribal consultation letters to the Native American Tribes, including the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation responded and has requested mitigation measures, in conformance with the mitigation requirements set forth in the TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR, be applied to the Project. The recommended mitigation measures provided by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation are included as MM TCR-3 through MM TCR-5 within Appendix F. Project findings are consistent with those of TOP 2050. In compliance with State law, the mitigation measures 1064
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-38
requested for inclusion by the Consulting Tribes are intended to implement the policies and mitigation requirements set forth in the TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is new or substantially more severe than anticipated by the TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR, and feasible mitigation measures contained within or consistent with the TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR (MMs 5-3, 5-4, TCR-1, and TCR-2), would be applied to the Project.

Response T4 – c
See Response T4 – b above.

Response T4 – d
See Response T4-a and T4-b, above. As noted above, the City has imposed all requested mitigation measures consistent with the TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR on the Project. 1065
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-39
Comment Letter S1 – California Department of Toxic Substances Control 1066
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-40
1067
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-41
1068
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-42
1069
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-43
1070
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-44
1071
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-45
Responses to Comment Letter S1 – California Department of Toxic Substances Control Response S1 – a
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed in March 2025 for the Ownership Area 1 development area in accordance with most recent guidelines and screening levels provided by the Department of Toxic Substances Control at the time of completion. As identified in the Draft Focused EIR Appendix F: CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis, the amount of OCPs historically used on the property were recorded and documented within Appendix F: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of Draft Focused EIR Appendix F. Ownership Area 2 is being evaluated only at a programmatic level based on available information from TOP 2050, and there are no specific development proposals at this time.

For Ownership 1, limited soil sampling was conducted and reported slightly elevated levels of dieldrin.

However, it was determined that clearing and grading of the property would reduce the dieldrin level below screening levels, therefore unrestricted use of the property is warranted. Therefore, the Project’s impacts with respect to Ownership Area 1 would be within the limit of impacts identified in the TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR.

Response S1 – b
Comment noted for the record. As discussed in the Draft Focused EIR Appendix F: CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis, earthwork for the Project would include grading, trench excavation, pipe subgrade preparation, pipeline bedding placement and trench backfill, as well as roadway pavement construction; see Appendix E: Geotechnical Investigation of Draft Focused EIR Appendix F. The Project is required to adhere to the recommendations listed within Appendix E, on treatment of imported soil/fill material and outlines procedures for the fill material ensuring it suitability for the intended land use. These recommendations are incorporated as Conditions of Approval. See Section 3.0: Errata of the Final Focused EIR.

Response S1 – c
See Response S1-a above. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was completed for Ownership Area 1 of the Project site and soil testing was conducted; see Appendices E and F to Draft Focused EIR Appendix F.

Trace to low concentrations of OCPs were detected in the sampled locations, below residential screening levels, except for one location which reported slightly elevated dieldrin. However, considering this was an isolated area, the clearing and grading of the property was determined to reduce the dieldrin level below screening levels.

Response S1 – d
This comment summarizes the comments that proceeded and does not raise a significant environmental issue or concerns about the adequacy of the Draft Focused EIR. As such, no further response is necessary. 1072
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-46
This page intentionally left blank.
1073
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-47
Comment Letter S2 – State Water Resources Control Boards 1074
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-48
1075
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-49
1076
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-50
Responses to Comment Letter S2 – State Water Resources Control Boards Response S2 – a
Comment noted for the record. The construction and operation of required water infrastructure is analyzed within the City’s Water Master Plan Update, for which an MND is now in circulation (State Clearinghouse #2025120702). These are regional facilities for which the Project will be contributing fair share/fees (addressed in the City’s Development Agreement with the Project Applicant). Further, the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse #2023020281), along with the broader The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental EIR, addresses connections to the 925 PZ reservoir. As determined in the City’s Water, Recycled Water, Sewer, and Drainage Master Plans Updates Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), impacts to utilities were determined to have a less than significant impact. 1077
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-51
Comment Letter S3 – California Department of Fish and Wildlife 1078
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-52
1079
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-53
1080
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-54
1081
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-55
1082
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-56
1083
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-57
1084
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-58
1085
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-59
1086
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-60
1087
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-61
Responses to Comment Letter S3 - California Department of Fish and Wildlife Response S3 – a
Comment is introductory and general in nature. Therefore, no further action needed.

Response S3 – b
Comment requests update of species’ status on Draft Focused EIR Table 4.1-2: Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity (pages 4.1-6 through 4.1-10) for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax), San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus), Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephens), and San Diego blacktailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii). The recommendations have been adopted as follows:
• The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) listing of Burrowing owl has been updated and Burrowing owl is now considered by CDFW as a Candidate species; • Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit are no longer listed as a Species of Special Concern under state status;
• The CESA listing of San Bernardino kangaroo rat has been updated as an Endangered species; and, • The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) listing of Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephens) has been updated and Stephens’ kangaroo rat is now considered by CDFW as a Federally Threatened species).

As discussed in Draft Focused EIR Appendix C1: Biological Resources Technical Report (page 5), the reconnaissance survey of the Ownership Area 1 conducted on June 13, 2024, was used to characterize and identify potential sensitive plant and wildlife habitats, and to establish the accuracy of the data identified in the literature search. Habitat assessments were conducted for, but not limited to, the following target species/groups: Delhi sands flower loving fly, coastal California gnatcatcher, burrowing owl, common and sensitive bat species, and sensitive plants.

Petitioned in March 2024, western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) was designated as a candidate species on October 25, 2024. In early 2022, western burrowing owl was previously designated by CDFW as a Species of Special Concern. As mentioned above, the reconnaissance survey conducted a habitat assessment for burrowing owl for Ownership Area 1, and the western burrowing owl was analyzed under the Draft Focused EIR (See pages 4.1-18, 4.1-21, and 4.1-22). With the revised burrowing owl mitigation outlined in Response S3 – e, below, impacts to burrowing owl would remain less than significant with Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-4.

Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit were previously listed as State Species of Special Concern in the Draft Focused EIR (page 4.1-9) but did not have State special species status at the time of publication of the Draft Focused EIR. This has been corrected below and is reflected in Section 3.0: Errata to the Draft Focused EIR of this Final EIR. Nonetheless, the Draft Focused EIR conducted a habitat assessment on Ownership Area 1 to determine the occurrence potential for northwestern San Diego pocket mouse and found that it is not expected to occur on-site based on a lack of suitable undisturbed habitats including coastal sage scrub and associations (Draft Focused EIR page

4.1-9). The Draft Focused EIR also found that San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit is not expected to occur 1088
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-62
on-site based on a lack of suitable undisturbed habitats (Draft Focused EIR page 4.1-9). Impacts to northwestern San Diego pocket mouse and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit would not constitute as an impact to special-status species. However, future development of Ownership Area 2 would need to undergo a Programmatic Assessment Area CEQA Analysis consistent with MM BIO-5 for any special-status species changes for northwestern San Diego pocket mouse and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit in addition to other special-status protected species.

The San Bernardino kangaroo rat was listed under the FESA on September 24, 1998. In early 2022, the San Bernardino kangaroo rat was a CDFW Species of Special Concern. Under the CESA, it was added to the endangered species list on November 22, 2023. Therefore, as mentioned above, the San Bernardino kangaroo rat has been updated as an Endangered species pursuant to CESA. As discussed in Draft Focused EIR Section 4.1: Biological Resources (page 4.1-9), San Bernardino kangaroo rat is not expected to occur on Ownership Area 1 based on a lack of suitable undisturbed habitats including Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub and associations. As analyzed in the Draft Focused EIR, Ownership Area 1 does not contain suitable habitat for this species, and this species is not considered to be present. Impacts to San Bernardino kangaroo rat would remain less than significant for Ownership Area 1. Impacts to San Bernardino kangaroo rat would be reduced with MM BIO-5, Programmatic Assessment Area CEQA Analysis, for Ownership Area 2.

Stephens’ kangaroo rat was listed as federally endangered under the FESA on September 30, 1988. On February 17, 2022, Stephens’ kangaroo rat was downlisted to federally threatened. As discussed in Draft Focused EIR Section 4.1: Biological Resources (page 4.1-9), Stephens' kangaroo rat is not expected to occur on Ownership Area 1 based on a lack of suitable undisturbed habitats. As analyzed in the Draft Focused EIR, Ownership Area 1 does not contain suitable habitat for this species, and this species is not considered to be present. Impacts to Stephens’ kangaroo rat would remain less than significant for Ownership Area 1.

Impacts to Stephens’ kangaroo rat would be reduced with MM BIO-5, Programmatic Assessment Area CEQA Analysis, for Ownership Area 2.

In consideration of the above, revisions to special species status for the above identified species do not constitute a substantial change to the approved Project as described by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 and therefore do not necessitate recirculation of the EIR.

Refer to Section 3.0: Errata to the Draft Focused EIR of this Final EIR and below for the revisions to Draft Focused EIR Table 4.1-2 (pages 4.1-6 through 4.1-10) concerning revisions of special species status:

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-2: Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State
Invertebrates
Crotch’s 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
1089
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-63
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State
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.

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
Low Potential – May occasionally
forage on-site.
1090
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-64
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State
scrub, woodland, and forest habitat, oak
woodland and forest, chaparral, coastal
sage scrub, desert scrub, and Riversidean
alluvial fan sage scrub for foraging.

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)
-- SC 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.

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
Low Potential – May occasionally
forage on-site.
1091
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-65
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State
California and commonly nests in coast
live oaks.

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.

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
1092
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-66
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State
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 SE 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)
FT 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.

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
1093
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-67
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State
Source: Cadre Environmental. 2024. Biological Resources Technical Report Center Park Specific Plan City of Ontario, California, page 29-37. (Appendix C1).

Response S3 – c
Comment requests correction of Draft Focused EIR Section 4.1.3: Regulatory Setting (pages 4.1-13 and

4.1-14) to include invertebrate species under CESA. While a 2020 Sacramento Superior Court ruling initially held that invertebrates were not eligible for protection under CESA, the 2022 decision in Almond Alliance of California et al. v. Fish and Game Commission et al. (2022) by the Third Appellate District Court reversed this, ruling that invertebrates—including terrestrial insects like bumble bees—are eligible for listing as threatened or endangered. Comment also requests a habitat assessment and species-specific surveys to be conducted for CESA invertebrate species that may occur within the Project site. Although invertebrate species were not explicitly listed on pages 4.1-13 and 4.1-14, invertebrate species assigned special species status were considered in the Draft Focused EIR, and the habitat assessments were inclusive of invertebrate species containing both FESA and CESA listed invertebrates as demonstrated in Draft Focused EIR Table 4.1-2 (page 4.1-6), Draft Focused EIR Appendix C1 (page 29), and in Draft Focused EIR Appendix C2: Delhi Sands Flower-Lowing Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment (page i).

Draft Focused EIR Appendices C1 and C2 identified Crotch’s bumble bee (SC) and Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (FE) as potentially occurring in the site vicinity. However, Draft Focused EIR Appendix C1 (page 29) concluded that there is no potential for Crotch’s bumble bee to occur on Ownership Area 1 due to disturbed conditions; refer to Response S3 – f, below, for additional discussion on Crotch’s bumble bee.

Draft Focused EIR Appendix C2 (pages 9 and 10) also concluded that the Project site no longer supports clean Delhi Sand soils and is rated as unsuitable habitat. All Delhi Sand soils that may have occurred on the project site have either been removed by maintenance of the stock ponds or is so contaminated with cow mature and other waste products that clean Delhi Sand soils needed by Delhi Sands flower-loving fly no longer exist with the project site.

Impacts to special status invertebrates would be reduced for Ownership Area 1. Furthermore, as mentioned in Draft Focused EIR Section 4.1: Biological Resources (page 4.1-23), a focused biological resources assessment and impact analysis consistent with CEQA 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, Programmatic Assessment Area CEQA Analysis. No changes are necessary.

Refer to Section 3.0: Errata to the Draft EIR of this Final EIR to see the update as follows:

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 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.

Response S3 – d
In this comment, CDFW requests additional mitigation for focused surveys to determine the presence or absence of candidate, sensitive, or special status species. However, a biological resources survey was conducted to include 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 (Draft Focused EIR Page 4.1-17). Therefore, the City finds that additional biological resources surveys would not be required for Ownership Area 1 and impacts to special-status species would maintain less than significant levels with MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-4. Furthermore, as mentioned in Draft Focused EIR Section 4.1:

Biological Resources (page 4.1-23), a focused biological resources assessment and impact analysis consistent with CEQA 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, Programmatic Assessment Area CEQA Analysis. No changes are necessary.

Response S3 – e
As outlined in Response S3 – b, burrowing owl has been updated as a Candidate species pursuant to CESA.

Refer to Section 3.0: Errata to the Draft Focused EIR of this Final EIR and below for the revisions to the Draft Focused EIR page 4.1-21:

Burrowing Owl
BUOW is a CDFW Candidate species pursuant to CESA Species of Special Concern. The BUOW uses predominantly open land, including grassland, agriculture, playa, sparse coastal sage scrub, and 1095
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-69
desert scrub habitats. The BUOW (low-occurrence 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 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.

Refer to Section 3.0: Errata to the Draft Focused EIR of this Final EIR and below for the revisions to the Draft Focused EIR page 4.1-18:

Burrowing Owl Survey
The BUOW (SC 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.

The City has accepted the recommendation to revise MM BIO-4 (pages 4.1-24 and 4.1-25) to maintain less than significant impact levels with mitigation. Refer to Section 3.0: Errata to the Draft Focused EIR of this Final EIR and below for the revisions:

MM BIO-4 Focused and Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Surveys. Focused surveys for burrowing owl will be conducted in accordance with the March 7, 20122022, CDFW staff report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities for all phases of Project construction. 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. The Designated Biologist shall provide CDFW a GIS or KMZ map of BUOW burrow complex(es) and atypical burrows (e.g. culverts, buckled concrete, etc.) The map shall be at a scale of 1:24,000 or finer to show details and shall show locations of all BUOW sightings and labeled if sightings were potential 1096
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-70
burrows, occupied burrows, satellite burrows, areas of concentrated burrows, and BUOW sign. Locations documented by use of GPS coordinates must be collected in NAD83 datum. The map shall include an outline of the Project Site, a title, north arrow, scale bar, and legend.

Response S3 – f
As outlined in Response S3 – b and Draft Focused EIR Table 4.1-2: Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity (page 4.1-6), Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) has been previously identified as a CESA candidate species denoted with SC, State Candidate for Listing. According to CDFW, the Project site is within the historic geographic range for Crotch’s bumble bee, which generally extends from San Diego, CA to Redding, CA in a variety of habitats including open grasslands, shrublands, chaparral, desert margins including Joshua tree and creosote scrub, and semi-urban settings within California. Crotch’s bumble bee is a candidate species under the CESA, meaning it is afforded the same protections as those listed threatened or endangered species while the listing review process is underway by CDFW. Crotch’s bumble bee became a candidate species for listing under CESA on June 12, 2019. This status was reinstated on September 30, 2022, following a decision by the California Fish and Game Commission.
1097
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-71
Crotch’s bumblebee, however, is presumed absent from the Project site based on lack of suitable food sources and heavily disturbed conditions. According to CDFW1, nesting and overwintering sites for candidate bumble bee species occur in undisturbed soils such as abandoned rodent burrows, root masses, or loose soil cavities; frequent disturbance or compaction reduces habitat suitability. However, as mentioned in Draft Focused EIR Section 3.0: Project Description (page 3-1), the Project site currently comprises agricultural uses, including the raising of livestock, field crop farming, dairy farming activities, and rural residences scattered throughout the area. Therefore, soil compaction, tilling, or frequent ground disturbance within the Project site may reduce the likelihood of suitable nesting sites for candidate bumble bee species. The Project site generally represents low biological resource value due to highly disturbed site conditions and historic daily/agricultural use, resulting in low biological diversity. No changes are necessary. Furthermore, as outlined in Response S3 – b, habitat assessments were conducted for target species/groups and included Crotch’s bumble bee as outlined in Draft Focused EIR Table 4.1-2 (page 4.1-6). Therefore, additional focused Crotch’s bumble bee surveys would not be necessary for Ownership Area 1 and impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee would be less than significant. Furthermore, impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee would be reduced with implementation of MM BIO-5, Programmatic Assessment Area CEQA Analysis, for Ownership Area 2.

Response S3 – g
This comment states that information development in environmental impact reports must be incorporated into a database to be used for determinations. It also includes a reminder to report specialstatus species to the California Natural Diversity Database. This comment is consistent with standard professional practice for consulting biologists and does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft Focused EIR.

This comment mentions the required CDFW filing fee the Project Applicant would be required to pay when filing the Notice of Determination for the EIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to decision makers for consideration; no further response is warranted.

As discussed in the responses above, the Final Focused EIR incorporates revisions to MM BIO-4 for burrowing owl, asserts that no additional focused mitigation is necessary for Crotch’s bumble bee, and asserts that no additional general biological surveys are necessary based on the previous habitat assessment. Impact 4.1-1 (Ownership Area 1) would maintain less than significant levels with mitigation incorporated. As for Impact 4.1-1 for Ownership Area 2, Mitigation Measures MM BIO-1 through MM BIO4 would reduce potential impacts to special status wildlife species. Furthermore, a programmatic assessment area CEQA analysis of Ownership Area would be incorporated as MM BIO-5, Programmatic Assessment Area CEQA Analysis. Nonetheless, as concluded in Draft Focused EIR Section 4.1: Biological Resources (page 4.1-23) the Project is not anticipated to significantly impact sensitive species. MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-5 would be required to reduce impacts to special-status species. 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. Therefore, as discussed in Responses S3 – b 1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species, page 3. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=213150&inline (Accessed February 2026). 1098
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-72
through Responses S3 – f, the changes in FESA/CESA status for certain species, identified above, would not constitute significant new information as described by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, which would require recirculation of a Draft EIR should new information show new significant impacts or impacts substantially more severe than previously disclosed. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to decision makers for consideration; no further response is warranted.

This page intentionally left blank.
1099
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-73
Comment Letter P1 – Edison Ranch LLC
1100
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-74
1101
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-75
1102
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-76
Responses to Comment Letter P1 – Edison Ranch LLC
Response P1 – a
Comment is noted for the record. As stated within Draft Focused EIR Section 3.0: Project Description, the Project is consistent with the City’s The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 land use and zoning designations. The Project would not change the existing land use and zoning designations of residential, commercial/mixeduse, retail, office, parks and open space, within TOP 2050, including the referenced property within Ownership Area 2; see the Project Specific Plan for additional information. The Project (Ownership Areas 1 and 2) consists of 22 planning areas accommodating a variety of land uses 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 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 Draft Focused EIR Figure 3 8: Land Use Plan). The proposed residential development within the Ownership Area 2 is consistent with the City’s TOP 2050 Policy CE1-6 Diversity of Housing. Adherence to Policy CE1-6 would ensure collaboration with residents, housing providers and the development community to provide housing opportunities for every stage of life, as well allow for a variety of housing types and price points to encourage the development of housing supportive of the City’s efforts to attract business in growing sectors of the community while being respectful of existing viable uses. The Specific Plan allows for the development of up to 4,293 residential dwelling units comprised of a variety of single-family attached and detached homes.

Residential land use areas are linked by a network of street-separated sidewalks and Multipurpose Trails connecting all neighborhoods to parks. Residential development is designed to address a variety of lifestyles and economic segments of the marketplace.

Response P1 – b
The comment is noted for the record. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65450, a city may initiate and prepare a Specific Plan for all or any portion of the area covered by the General Plan in order to systematically implement General Plan policies. The preparation of a Specific Plan is a legislative planning action initiated by the City and is not dependent on property owner application or consent. The inclusion of privately owned parcels within the Specific Plan planning area does not alter property ownership rights and does not, by itself, approve development or confer entitlements.

Further, there is no requirement that a lead agency obtain a property owner’s permission to evaluate environmental impacts of a site for CEQA purposes (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 and 15125).

CEQA is a procedural statute requiring environmental review of discretionary projects, but it does not grant or require property access rights. The City has complied with all applicable state and local noticing and public participation requirements, including notification to affected property owners and opportunities for public review and comment through noticed public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council, consistent with California planning law and CEQA requirements. 1103
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-77
The Project Specific Plan has been prepared in conformance with the goals and policies of the City’s TOP 2050. The TOP 2050 analysis in Table 9-1, Policy Plan Consistency describes the manner in which the Project Specific Plan complies with TOP 2050 policies applicable to the Project; see the Project Specific Plan for further information.

The Project is consistent with the City’s TOP 2050 land use and zoning designations. TOP 2050 Exhibit LU01, Land Use Plan designates the Project Specific Plan area as Mixed-Use, Medium Density Residential (11.1 - 25.0 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space/Parkland. The Project Specific Plan area is within the Chino Airport Overlay Zone. The Project Specific Plan area is zoned SP/AG (Specific Plan AG preserve), which requires approval of a specific plan from the City for development. Therefore, by including the commenter’s parcels within the Project’s Specific Plan, future development of these parcels consistent with the adopted TOP 2050 Land Use Plan is made possible without requiring a new or amended Specific Plan, provided that the land uses proposed under future development applications are consistent with those envisioned by TOP 2050.

Additionally, see Draft Focused EIR Section 6.0: Alternatives for a list of alternatives to the Project in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. CEQA does not require the analysis of every conceivable alternative. Rather, an EIR is required to evaluate a reasonable range of project alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed project while avoiding or substantially lessening the project’s identified significant environmental effects – i.e., the Project’s significant impacts to biological resources and historic resources (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[a]– [b]).

Response P1 – c
Comment is noted for the record. The Project is consistent with the City’s TOP 2050 land use and zoning designations. As discussed within the Project Specific Plan, master planned utilities serving the development, as identified in the approved respective Master Plan, shall be constructed prior to issuance of first occupancy. Exhibits shall show all frontage improvement requirements per the City’s adopted Master Plans. The Project shall comply with the requirements as set forth in the Standard Conditions of Approval adopted by the City Council (Resolution No. 2017-027). The ultimate sizing and alignment of utilities (potable water, recycled water, sewer, and storm drain) will follow the most current approved Master Plan and/or hydraulic analysis approved by the City. Additionally, the proposed development was previously considered as part of the TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR, and therefore the master plans are consistent with this development.

Response P1 – d
Comment is noted for the record. The Project is consistent with the findings of the TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR. According to the TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR, agricultural land within the Ontario Ranch area has the potential to be converted to non-agricultural uses, upon buildout of TOP 2050 and the Specific Plan overlay. This was identified as a significant cumulative impact in TOP 2010 Certified EIR and TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR. Implementation of the Project would contribute to the reduction of agricultural resources in the region and cumulatively contribute to the loss of agricultural resources. However, in 1104
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-78
accordance with the Project Specific Plan’s Allowable Uses, temporary and interim agricultural uses would be permitted within the Medium Density Residential and Mixed-Use land use areas.

Furthermore, the Project would adhere to the following policies from the TOP 2050 Environmental Resources Element, pertaining to existing farms and improving the transition of farms to urban uses:
• Goal ER-5 Protected high value habitat and farming and mineral resource extraction activities that are compatible with adjacent development.
• Policy ER-5.3 Right to Farm. We support the right of existing farms to continue their operations within the Ontario Ranch.
• Policy ER-5.4 Transition of Farms. We protect both existing farms and sensitive uses around them as agricultural areas transition to urban uses
Additionally, the Project would adhere to the City’s Municipal Code containing regulations pertaining to agricultural resources in the City, including:
• Ontario Development Code, Chapter 6, Development and Subdivision Regulations, Division 6.01, District Standards and Guidelines, Division 6.01, Section 6.01.035, Overlay Zoning Districts. The purpose of the SP-AG Overlay District is to accommodate the continuation of agricultural uses within the City, on an interim basis, and to allow for the establishment of general agricultural uses, such as dairies, within certain areas of concentrated agricultural use. This section regulates development in the Ontario Ranch area to create compatibility between agricultural and nonagricultural uses. It recognizes that specific plans would guide the development of the Ontario Ranch area. The overall goal of the ordinance is to prevent unnecessary urban development in the area unless the development has been planned. New construction, except for agricultural uses or agricultural-related activities, and single-family homes and building ancillary thereto, shall first require the adoption of a Specific Plan, which prescribes the allowed land uses, development regulations and guidelines, and sign regulations applicable to the Project.

Response P1 – e
See Response P1 – b. The Project Specific Plan is consistent with the City’s TOP 2050 land use and zoning designations. As discussed in Draft Focused EIR Section 3.0: Project Description, the Project Specific Plan would be designed as a living community and create a comprehensive system for multiple modes of travel by implementing the following objectives related to traffic and reducing potential conflict between domestic traffic and the job-creating logistics industry:
• 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.
• 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. 1105
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-79
• 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 trafficcalming 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.

Additionally, in accordance with TOP 2050 Policies CD1-2, CD3-1, and CD3-5, the Project Specific Plan includes Design Guidelines to guide the physical character of all future residential development and all community and neighborhood features, including the overall landscape treatment within the Project; promote street-facing front entries and architectural elements visible from adjacent streets, sidewalks and parks within the Project to allow for a safe and aesthetically pleasing vibrant human-scale experience; and provide bike and pedestrian accessibility throughout the community through a network of off-street bike and pedestrian trails within the neighborhood edges of major arterial streets. Connectivity to this network of off-street trails from all residential Planning Areas is provided through the local street system.

Response P1 – f
The comment is noted for the record. This comment does not raise any substantive issues regarding the adequacy of the Draft Focused EIR. Therefore, no further response is needed. 1106
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-80
This page intentionally left blank.
1107
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-81
Comment Letter O1 – SAFER, c/o Kylah Staley Lozeau Drury, LLP 1108
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-82
1109
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-83
Responses to Comment Letter O1 – SAFER, c/o Kylah Staley Lozeau Drury, LLP Response O1 – a
This comment is noted for the record. This comment does not raise any substantive issues regarding the adequacy of the Draft Focused EIR. Therefore, no further response is needed.

Response O1 – b
The commenter concludes that the Draft Focused EIR fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s biological and historic resources impacts. The Draft Focused EIR identifies numerous biological resources and historic resources mitigation measures to minimize impacts to the extent feasible. Furthermore, Draft Focused EIR Sections 4.1: Biological Resources and 4.2: Historic Resources provide an analysis for the potential feasible mitigation measures that would substantially lessen impacts.

In addition, see Appendix F: CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis for further analysis and discussion on potential impacts associated with the Project, and its findings that are consistent with the TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR.

CEQA does not require adoption of every imaginable feasible mitigation measure. CEQA’s requirement applies only to feasible mitigation that will “substantially lessen” a project’s significant effects (Public Resources Code, Sections 21002 and 21002.1(b)). As explained by one court: A lead agency's “duty to condition project approval on incorporation of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures would [avoid or] ‘substantially lessen’ a significant environmental effect…Thus, the agency need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mitigation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the project EIR.” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519.) Rather, an EIR should focus on mitigation measures that are feasible, practical, and effective. (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 365.).

Response O1 – c
The comment is noted for the record. This comment does not raise any substantive issues regarding the adequacy of the Draft Focused EIR. Therefore, no further response is needed. 1110
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-84
This page intentionally left blank.
1111
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-85
Comment Letter O2 – Western States Regional Council of Carpenters, c/o Mitchell M. Tsai 1112
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-86
1113
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-87
1114
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-88
1115
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-89
1116
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-90
1117
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-91
1118
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-92
1119
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-93
1120
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-94
1121
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-95
1122
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-96
1123
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-97
1124
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-98
1125
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-99
1126
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-100
1127
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-101
1128
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-102
1129
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-103
1130
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-104
1131
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-105
1132
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-106
1133
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-107
1134
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-108
1135
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-109
1136
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-110
1137
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-111
1138
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-112
1139
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-113
1140
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-114
1141
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-115
1142
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-116
1143
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-117
1144
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-118
1145
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-119
1146
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-120
1147
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-121
1148
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-122
1149
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-123
1150
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-124
1151
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-125
1152
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-126
1153
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-127
1154
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-128
1155
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-129
1156
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-130
1157
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-131
1158
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-132
1159
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-133
1160
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-134
1161
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-135
1162
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-136
1163
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-137
1164
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-138
1165
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-139
1166
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-140
1167
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-141
1168
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-142
1169
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-143
1170
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-144
1171
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-145
1172
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-146
1173
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-147
1174
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-148
1175
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-149
1176
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-150
1177
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-151
1178
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-152
1179
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-153
1180
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-154
1181
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-155
1182
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-156
1183
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-157
1184
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-158
1185
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-159
1186
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-160
1187
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-161
1188
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-162
1189
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-163
1190
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-164
1191
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-165
1192
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-166
1193
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-167
1194
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-168
1195
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-169
1196
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-170
1197
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-171
1198
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-172
1199
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-173
1200
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-174
1201
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-175
1202
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-176
1203
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-177
1204
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-178
1205
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-179
1206
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-180
1207
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-181
1208
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-182
1209
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-183
1210
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-184
1211
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-185
1212
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-186
1213
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-187
1214
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-188
1215
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-189
1216
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-190
1217
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-191
1218
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-192
1219
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-193
1220
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-194
1221
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-195
1222
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-196
1223
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-197
1224
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-198
1225
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-199
1226
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-200
1227
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-201
1228
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-202
1229
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-203
1230
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-204
1231
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-205
1232
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-206
1233
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-207
1234
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-208
1235
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-209
1236
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-210
1237
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-211
1238
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-212
1239
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-213
1240
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-214
1241
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-215
1242
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-216
1243
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-217
1244
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-218
1245
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-219
1246
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-220
1247
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-221
1248
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-222
1249
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-223
1250
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-224
1251
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-225
1252
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-226
1253
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-227
1254
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-228
1255
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-229
1256
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-230
1257
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-231
1258
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-232
1259
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-233
1260
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-234
1261
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-235
1262
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-236
1263
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-237
1264
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-238
1265
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-239
1266
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-240
1267
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-241
1268
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-242
1269
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-243
1270
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-244
1271
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-245
1272
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-246
1273
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-247
1274
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-248
1275
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-249
1276
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-250
1277
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-251
1278
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-252
1279
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-253
1280
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-254
1281
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-255
1282
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-256
1283
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-257
1284
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-258
1285
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-259
1286
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-260
1287
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-261
1288
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-262
1289
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-263
1290
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-264
1291
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-265
1292
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-266
1293
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-267
1294
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-268
1295
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-269
1296
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-270
1297
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-271
1298
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-272
1299
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-273
1300
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-274
1301
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-275
1302
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-276
1303
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-277
1304
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-278
1305
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-279
1306
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-280
1307
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-281
1308
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-282
1309
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-283
1310
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-284
1311
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-285
1312
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-286
1313
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-287
1314
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-288
1315
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-289
1316
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-290
1317
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-291
1318
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-292
1319
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-293
1320
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-294
1321
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-295
1322
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-296
1323
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-297
1324
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-298
1325
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-299
1326
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-300
1327
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-301
1328
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-302
1329
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-303
1330
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-304
1331
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-305
1332
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-306
1333
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-307
1334
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-308
1335
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-309
1336
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-310
1337
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-311
1338
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-312
1339
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-313
1340
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-314
1341
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-315
1342
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-316
1343
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-317
1344
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-318
1345
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-319
1346
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-320
1347
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-321
1348
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-322
1349
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-323
1350
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-324
1351
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-325
1352
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-326
1353
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-327
1354
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-328
1355
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-329
1356
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-330
1357
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-331
1358
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-332
1359
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-333
1360
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-334
1361
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-335
1362
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-336
1363
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-337
1364
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-338
1365
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-339
1366
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-340
1367
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-341
1368
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-342
1369
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-343
1370
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-344
1371
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-345
1372
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-346
1373
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-347
1374
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-348
1375
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-349
1376
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-350
1377
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-351
1378
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-352
1379
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-353
1380
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-354
1381
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-355
1382
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-356
1383
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-357
1384
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-358
1385
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-359
1386
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-360
1387
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-361
1388
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-362
1389
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-363
1390
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-364
Responses to Comment Letter O2 – Western States Regional Council of Carpenters (WSRCC), c/o Mitchell M. Tsai
Response O2 – a
Comment noted for the record. This comment does not raise any substantive issues regarding the adequacy of the Draft Focused EIR. The commenter requests to be included on the noticing list for all future notices referring or related to the Project related to CEQA and the California Planning and Zoning Law. The commenter has been added to the noticing and mailing list.

The City of Ontario intends to fully comply with the requirements of California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq., 21092.2, and 21167(f), California Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code Sections 65000-65010), and California Government Code Section 65092. That is, the comment requests that the City comply with CEQA when responding to Western States Regional Council of Carpenters’ (WSRCC) comments. As requested, the City’s responses to WSRCC’s comments will be sent to the WSRCC as part of the Final Focused EIR distribution prior to certification of Final Focused EIR. As the comment does not raise any issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft Focused EIR or the Project’s environmental effects, no further response is warranted. The comment is included here to provide a complete record of WSRCC’s letter. The comment will become part of the administrative record and will be considered by the decision-makers. The comment does not raise any CEQA related issues, and no response is therefore warranted.

Response O2 – b
Comment noted for the record. The commenter requests that the City require the Project to be built using local workers (i.e., residing within 10 miles of the Project) in order to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), improve jobs/housing balance and the economic performance of the Project and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The commenter also requests that the City require the Project to be built with construction workers who have graduated from a specified apprenticeship program in order to produce a positive economic impact of the Project. The Draft Focused EIR is intended to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Project.

CEQA does not require an analysis of the Project’s economic effects or allow mitigation measures intended to address economic characteristics of the Project (14. Cal. Code Regs. Sections 15064[e], 15064[f][6], 15131[a] and 15382). Accordingly, the commenter’s request for the City to require construction labor requirements in order to improve economic conditions does not raise any CEQA issues. This comment will be provided to the City’s decision-makers for their policy consideration.

Regarding VMT as to construction workers, CEQA provides the lead agency with discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s VMT (14. Cal. Code Regs. Sections 15064.3[b][4]).

CEQA does not require a separate VMT analysis for construction worker trips or for the construction phase of the Project. The Project’s Traffic Analysis (provided as Appendix I to Appendix F of the Draft Focused EIR) was conducted in accordance with San Bernardino County’s Traffic Impact Study Guidelines.

Additionally, the VMT analysis in the Traffic Analysis concluded that the Project would have a less than significant impact related to VMT, as analyzed in Appendix F of the Draft Focused EIR. 1391
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-365
The Project would have a less than significant impact regarding the GHG emissions from construction, as discussed in Appendix F of the Draft Focused EIR, pages 97 through 102. As indicated in Appendix B of Appendix F of the Draft Focused EIR, Table 9, the combined 30-year amortized construction GHG emissions for Phases I and II would be 602 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalents (MTCO2e; 93 and 509 MTCO2e, respectively). This would account for approximately 0.7 percent of all GHG emissions related to the Project, including operational emissions, which is approximately 85,987 MTCO2e (refer to Section

4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Appendix F, pages 97 through 102).

The commenter included a letter from Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) dated March 8, 2021, which discusses GHG emissions associated with trip lengths for construction workers traveling to a job site. The SWAPE letter provided calculations for GHG emissions reductions resulting from local hire provisions being applied to the Project’s construction. The SWAPE letter concludes that if a local hire provision with a 10-mile radius were implemented, the GHG emissions associated with Project construction would decrease by approximately 17 percent. However, the SWAPE letter, and the calculations provided, utilized data and information related to a different project in a separate jurisdiction, the Village South Specific Plan and City of Claremont, respectively. The SWAPE letter also uses CalEEMod 2016, while the current version available is CalEEMod 2022.1. The SWAPE letter also uses EMFAC2014 data, while EMFAC2021 is the latest. Therefore, the calculations do not pertain to the Project and are not based on the correct modeling. In comparison, the analysis provided in the Draft Focused EIR utilizes the most up to date and most relevant modeling for the Project.

Furthermore, the SWAPE letter states that it ran a model “reducing all worker trip lengths to 10 miles…” (page 4 of the SWAPE Letter). Thus, the SWAPE letter assumes that a local hire program would result in local residents comprising 100% of the project’s construction workforce, while being located within 10 miles of the project site. In fact, most local hire programs are able to ensure that only a small percentage of construction workers reside locally. For example, the Community Workforce Agreement between the City of Moreno Valley and the construction workers union (CWA) governing public works contracts defines “Local Residents” as residing in the City of Moreno Valley or Riverside County. The CWA only requires that contractors use “best efforts” to hire local residents and sets a goal of 30 percent of the workforce be local residents. Accordingly, the commenter’s suggestion that all construction workers live within 10 miles of the Project site is unrealistic.

Using the attainment of the 30 percent goal as an example of an existing local hire program and utilizing the SWAPE letter’s assumption that 100 percent local resident workforce would reduce constructionrelated GHG emissions by 17 percent (and assuming the SWAPE letter’s conclusions are transferrable to the Project), implementing a local hire program for the Project would result in a 5.1 percent reduction in construction-related GHG emissions (30 percent of 17 percent). This would represent a reduction of 15.81 MTCO2e of construction-related GHG emissions or approximately 0.018 percent of the Project’s mitigated construction and operational mitigated emissions combined (85,987 MTCO2e of construction and operational GHG emissions). This would not constitute a significant reduction in GHG emissions and therefore the implementation of a local-hire provision as a mitigation measure would be ineffective in reducing GHG emissions. The City’s “duty to condition project approval on incorporation of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures would ‘substantially lessen’ a significant environmental effect (Public Resources Code Section 21002; CEQA Guidelines, Section 15021, subd. [a][2]). Thus, the [City] need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mitigation scheme brought to 1392
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-366
its attention or proposed in the project EIR…” (San Franciscans For Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco [1989] 209 Cal.App.3d 1502.) Furthermore, it is quite possible that the 30 percent goal would not be attained and the reduction in GHG emissions could be substantially less. In addition, the local hire program would require extensive record-keeping and monitoring that would not be justified in light of the insignificant reduction in GHG emissions (i.e., the mitigation would not be roughly proportional to the impact as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, subd. [a][4][A]–[B]). Therefore, no revisions to the Draft Focused EIR are required.

Response O2 – c
The commenter requests that the City require certain construction protocols to address the possibility of COVID-19 infections among construction worker during the construction process. This comment does not address the adequacy of the environmental analysis and/or document. This comment is noted for the record. In addition, at this time, COVID-19 public health restrictions on workplace activities functions have been repealed and are no longer in effect. If COVID-19 infections were to increase in severity, it is expected that applicable public health authorities would impose new restrictions and protocols for testing, distancing and other measures on construction sites to address these public health concerns. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft Focused EIR are required.

Response O2 – d
Comment noted for the record. This comment does not raise any substantive issues regarding the adequacy of the Draft Focused EIR. Therefore, no further response is needed.

Response O2 – e
Comment noted for the record. The commenter incorrectly states that the Draft Focused EIR fails to substantiate all of its conclusions to allow meaningful public review and comment, provide adequate mitigation measures, and fully assess all pertinent environmental factors – necessitating revision and recirculation of the Draft Focused EIR. The commenter has failed to identify any instances where the Draft Focused EIR contains insufficient information that precluded inadequate impact analysis. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]), this Draft Focused EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2025060731) has been prepared as a “Program EIR”, as this EIR addresses the proposed Project and is intended to cover anticipated future discretionary approvals.

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 the Draft Focused EIR, to document that the proposed Project is consistent with TOP 2050 and its associated TOP 2050 Supplemental 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.
1393
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-367
Response O2 – f
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) states that:
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The Project is consistent with the City’s TOP 2050 land use and zoning designations. The Project would not change the existing land use and zoning designations within TOP 2050, including the referenced property within Ownership Area 2; see the Project Specific Plan for additional information. The Project (Ownership Areas 1 and 2) consists of 22 planning areas accommodating a variety of land uses 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 Land Use Plan implements the vision of TOP 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 1394
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-368
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 Draft Focused EIR Figure 3 8: Land Use Plan). As such, the Project does not propose a substantial change in land use and density compared to those analyzed in the original TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(a), additional environmental review via the Focused EIR is only required for impacts that are: peculiar to the project or property; not previously analyzed as significant in the prior EIR (the TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR); or potentially significant off-site or cumulative impacts not discussed in the prior EIR.

In its recent 2024 decision in Hilltop Group Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024), California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal clarified that CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 does not permit additional environmental review for project’s consistent with and within the scope of the prior EIR (i.e., the TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR), except as necessary to determine whether a project will have significant effects that are peculiar to the project or the site that were not analyzed in the prior EIR and cannot be substantially mitigated by uniformly applied development policies or standards. Additionally, California Public Resources Code 21083.3(a) provides that:
(a) If a parcel has been zoned to accommodate a particular density of development or has been designated in a community plan to accommodate a particular density of development and an environmental impact report was certified for that zoning or planning action, the application of this division to the approval of any subdivision map or other project that is consistent with the zoning or community plan shall be limited to effects upon the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report.

Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(a), where peculiar impacts exist for the Project (i.e., historic resources and biological resources), a Focused EIR has been prepared. As such, new significant effects arising from conditions specific to the Project site are documented and analyzed in the Draft Focused EIR. The City has incorporated feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts to Tier II historic and biological resources to the extent feasible; see Draft Focused EIR Section 4.2: Historic Resources for additional information.

Response O2 – g
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 states:
(a) CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies.

As stated by the commenter, “consistency” with an established general plan, as stipulated by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, is explicitly defined as the proposed Project’s density being the same or less than the standard expressed in the certified plan (i.e., TOP 2050). As described in Response O2 – f, the 1395
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-369
Project is consistent with the development density established by the existing zoning and general plan land use set forth by TOP 2050. Refer to Draft Focused EIR Table 3-2: Maximum Project Buildout, which demonstrates that the Project, across 22 planning areas, could be developed at the maximum density envisioned by TOP 2050, which includes up to 4,293 residential dwelling units, 115,809 square feet of retail uses, and 135,110 square feet of offices uses. Additionally, the Project would aid the City in achieving its Regional Housing Needs Assessment goal for new residential dwelling units within the City (i.e., 20,854 additional housing units by 2029). Therefore, the Project is consistent with both TOP 2050 and the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element, which establishes the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment target for 2021 to 2029.

Response O2 – h
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4) states that: “A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project's vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project's vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence.” Consistent with City Guidelines, the efficiency metric VMT per service population has been adopted by the City of Ontario for transportation impact analysis.

Project impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are assessed in Draft Focused EIR Appendix F:

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis, page 140, based on the findings of the Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis (VMT Analysis), provided as Appendix I2 of Draft Focused EIR Appendix F. The Consistency Analysis includes an assessment of the Project’s consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, the Project prepared a VMT Analysis that analyzes Project-related VMT consistent with City guidelines. The VMT Analysis determined that the cumulative effect on VMT with buildout of the Project would not exceed the City impact threshold of 27.6 VMT per service population. As such, the Project-generated VMT was estimated under baseline and buildout conditions and was found to be below the City’s impact threshold. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur regarding inconsistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 (Appendix F, page 140). The TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact for conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). Therefore, the Project-specific impacts to VMT are consistent with or lesser than those identified for the buildout of TOP 2050. Therefore, no changes to the Draft Focused EIR are required.

Response O2 – i
Refer to Response O2 – h, above. As discussed in the Project’s Draft Focused EIR Appendix F, the Project would result in a less than significant VMT impact, consistent with the findings of TOP 2050’s Supplemental EIR, which anticipated a significant and unavoidable VMT impact resulting from full buildout of the TOP 2050 Land Use Plan.

The Reduced Development Area Alternative is described in Draft Focused EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives. As described on Draft Focused EIR pages 6-11 through 6-12, the Reduced Development Area Alternative would reduce impacts of the proposed Project to historic and biological resources. However, the Reduced Density Alternative would fail to achieve certain Project objectives consistent with TOP 2050’s Policy Plan, 1396
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-370
including the provision for 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 (Draft Focused EIR page 6-12). The Reduced Development Area Alternative, intended to reduce the Project’s anticipated significant and unavoidable impacts to historic resources, would prevent development within properties identified as having historic significance; refer to Draft Focused EIR page 6-8 through 6-9 for further information. Therefore, the Reduced Development Area Alternative would result in a Specific Plan configuration consisting of discontinuous parcels not conducive for local connectivity within the Specific Plan. Even though this alternative fails to fully support the TOP 2050 objective of designing a comprehensive circulation system for multiple modes of travel, this alternative has been identified as the “environmentally-superior alternative” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), because it would result in lessened impacts to historic resources; refer to Draft Focused EIR page 6-15 for more information.

As described in Draft Focused EIR Section 6, 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 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]). Therefore, the Reduced Development Area Alternative may not be considered due to its inability to achieve the Project’s objectives and, by extension, TOP 2050 Policy Plan. Therefore, no changes to the Draft Focused EIR are required.

Response O2 – j
Comment noted for the record. The commenter incorrectly states that the Draft Focused EIR contains deficient and insufficient analysis concerning significant environmental impacts, specifically those related to Biological Resources and Historic Resources; continuing to claim that the analysis of the Project’s impacts to Biological Resources is fundamentally flawed, suffering from various analytical shortcomings, limitations, and overall inadequacy due to the incomplete evaluation of “Ownership Area 2,” resulting in a conclusion of “significant and unavoidable” impacts for that portion of the site.

As discussed in Draft Focused EIR Section 4.1: Biological Resources, Ownership Area 2 is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. 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. Upon commencement of a project-level CEQA review for Ownership Area 2, a focused biological resources assessment and site reconnaissance survey would be conducted for this area, determining the project’s potential impacts. Any focused surveys and required mitigation measures would be implemented prior to project approval and construction initiation. 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, 1397
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-371
the Project zoning mirrors the existing TOP 2050 land use designations for the Project site and is therefore consistent with TOP 2050 findings.

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 State CEQA Guidelines. This determination would be made by City staff at the time of future Ownership Area 2 site-specific development applications.

In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, the Draft Focused EIR determines the significance of impacts based on substantial evidence in the record. Where the analysis concluded that impacts would be significant, the Draft Focused EIR identified feasible mitigation measures pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 to avoid or substantially lessen those impacts. After incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the Draft Focused EIR determined that biological resources impacts for Ownership Area 2 would remain significant and unavoidable, as impacts within Ownership Area 2 are not fully known until the time of project-level analysis. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15144, the determination of significant and unavoidable impacts for biological resources in the Draft Focused EIR reflects a good-faith, reasoned analysis based on available information at the time of preparation. The Draft Focused EIR evaluates impacts at a level of detail, commensurate with the Project’s programmatic nature and incorporates mitigation measures where feasible. Where mitigation cannot feasibly reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level, the Draft Focused EIR discloses that conclusion.

The City as the Lead Agency may approve a project with unavoidable significant impacts upon adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations supported by substantial evidence.

Response O2 – k
Commented noted for the record. The commenter incorrectly states that the Draft Focused EIR’s analysis concerning historic resources is fatally flawed and lacks necessary depth; continuing that the document fails to provide the robust evidence and detailed discussion necessary to establish that the Project's impacts to Historic Resources will be appropriately identified and minimized. The City disagrees with these assertions. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, the Draft Focused EIR determines the significance of impacts based on substantial evidence in the record. Where the analysis concluded that impacts would be significant, the Draft Focused EIR identified feasible mitigation measures pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 to avoid or substantially lessen those impacts for historic resources.

After incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the Draft Focused EIR determined that historic resources impacts would remain significant and unavoidable given that the resources would be either relocated or, if relocation proves infeasible, demolished. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15144, the determination of significant and unavoidable impacts for historic resources in the Draft Focused EIR reflects a good-faith, reasoned analysis based on available information at the time of preparation. The Draft Focused EIR evaluates impacts at a level of detail, commensurate with the Project’s programmatic nature and incorporates mitigation measures where feasible. Where mitigation cannot feasibly reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level, the Draft Focused EIR discloses that conclusion.

See Draft Focused EIR Section 4.2: Historic Resources and Appendix F: CEQA Guidelines 15183 Consistency Analysis of the Draft Focused EIR for further discussion. 1398
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-372
The City as the Lead Agency may approve the project upon adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations supported by substantial evidence.

Response O2 – l
See Response O2 – j and O2 – k, above. Public Resources Code Sections 21002 and 21002.1(b) establish that agencies must mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects where feasible. Similarly, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1) requires an EIR to describe feasible mitigation measures that could minimize significant adverse impacts. The standard is one of feasibility and substantial evidence—not elimination of all impacts. Where the analysis concluded that impacts would be significant, the Draft Focused EIR identified feasible mitigation measures pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 to avoid or substantially lessen those impacts for biological and historic resources. After incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the Draft Focused EIR determined that biological and historic resources impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) requires disclosure of significant effects that cannot be avoided if the project is implemented. Where impacts remain significant and unavoidable after adoption of all feasible mitigation, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 authorizes the decision-making body to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

The existence of significant and unavoidable impacts does not demonstrate that mitigation is ineffective or legally deficient. Rather, it reflects that the Lead Agency has applied all feasible mitigation measures and reduced impacts to the greatest extent feasible, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines.

Response O2 – m
Comment noted for the record. The commenter asserts that the Draft Focused EIR failed to identify and analyze all viable and feasible mitigation measures for the Project’s impacts to biological and historic resources. See Response O2 – l above. Substantial evidence is provided on Draft Focused EIR pages 4.1- 13 through 4.1-16 to support the finding that no feasible mitigation measures were identified to substantially lessen the Project’s significant impacts related to biological and historic resources to a lessthan-significant level.

Response O2 – n
This comment summarizes the comments discussed above and does not raise a significant environmental issue or concerns about the adequacy of the Draft Focused EIR. As such, no further response is necessary. 1399
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-373
Comment Letter O3 – Southern California Edison
1400
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-374
1401
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-375
Responses to Comment Letter O3 – Southern California Edison Response O3 – a
Comment noted for the record. This comment does not raise any substantive issues regarding the adequacy of the Draft Focused EIR. The commenter requests to be included on the noticing list for all future notices referring or related to the Project related to CEQA and the California Planning and Zoning Law. The commenter has been added to the noticing and mailing list.

Response O3 – b
Comment noted for the record. The commenter states that the project proponent must submit a signed Method of Service agreement to SCE and pay engineering fees for an electric service study to be completed. This comment does not raise any substantive issues regarding the adequacy of the Draft Focused EIR. Therefore, no further response is required. 1402
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
2-376
This page intentionally left blank.
1403
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
3-1
Section 3.0 Errata to the Draft Focused EIR

3.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE ERRATA
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 (a), this section of the Final Focused EIR provides changes to the Draft Focused EIR that have been made to clarify, correct, or supplement the information provided in that document. This section contains revisions to the Draft Focused EIR based upon (1) additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment; (2) applicable updated information that was not available at the time of Draft Focused EIR publication; and/or (3) typographical errors. This section also includes additional mitigation measures to fully respond to commenter concerns as well as provide additional clarification to mitigation requirements included in the Draft Focused EIR.

These changes and additions are due to recognition of inadvertent errors or omissions, and to respond to comments received on the Draft Focused EIR during the public review period. The changes described in this section do not add significant new information to the Draft Focused EIR that would require recirculation of the Draft Focused EIR. More specifically, CEQA requires recirculation of a Draft Focused EIR only when “significant new information” is added to a Draft Focused EIR after public notice of the availability of the Draft Focused EIR has occurred (refer to California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5), but before the EIR is certified. Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines specifically states:

New information added to an EIR is not ‘significant’ unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. ‘Significant new information’ requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
• A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
• A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. • A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
• The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 also provides that “[re]circulation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR... A decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.” As demonstrated in this Final Focused EIR, the changes presented in this section do not constitute new significant information warranting recirculation of the Draft Focused EIR as set forth 1404
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
3-2
in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Rather, the Draft Focused EIR is comprehensive and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA.

As explained below, none of the changes adds any new significant information and recirculation is not required.

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

Changes to the Draft Focused EIR are listed by Section, page, paragraph, etc. to best guide the reader to the revision. Changes are identified as follows:
• Deletions are indicated by strikeout text.
• Additions are indicated by underline text.

3.1 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
The following text has been revised in response to comments received on the Draft Focused EIR.

Section 2.0 Introduction

1. Table 2-1: NOP Written Comments Summary
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
Refer to Section 4.1:

Biological Resources
Not applicable to
Historic Resources*
SoCal Gas No Conflict 7/28/2025 • No issues No response required. 1405
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
3-3
*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.

Section 4.1 Biological Resources

1. Table 4.1-2 on pages 4.1-6 through 4.1-10 is revised as follows:

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.

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.

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
Not Detected. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
1406
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
3-4
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State
streams, small ponds, small lakes,
reservoirs, abandoned gravel pits,
permanent and ephemeral shallow
wetlands, stock ponds, and sewage
treatment lagoons.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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)
-- SSCSC 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.
1407
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
3-5
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State
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.

High Potential. Observed adjacent
to and on-site during previous
surveys of adjacent properties in
2022.

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.

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.

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
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats.
1408
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
3-6
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State
meadows and shallow margins of
saltwater marshes bordering large bays.

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.

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

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 SESSC 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)
FTFE 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.
1409
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
3-7
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State
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.

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.

2. Draft Focused EIR Section 4.1.3.: Regulatory Setting on pages 4.1-13 and 4.1-14 has been revised as follows:

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, and invertebrates, 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 1410
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
3-8
are protected by the state as “fully protected species.” California “species of special concern” are species designated as 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.

3. Draft Focused EIR Section 4.1.4: Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria page 4.1-18 has been revised as follows:

Burrowing Owl Survey
The BUOW (SCSSC) 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. Draft Focused EIR Section 4.1.6: Impact and Mitigation Measures pages 4.1-20 and 4.1-21 has been revised as follows:

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 (SCSSC), 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 (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.

5. Draft Focused EIR Section 4.1.6: Impact and Mitigation Measures pages 4.1-21 and 4.1-22 has been revised as follows:

Burrowing Owl
BUOW is a CDFW Candidate species pursuant to CESA Species of Special Concern. The BUOW uses predominantly open land, including grassland, agriculture, playa, sparse coastal sage scrub, and desert scrub habitats. The BUOW (low-occurrence potential) often occur in less than optimal and/or disturbed 1411
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
3-9
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 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.

6. Mitigation Measure MM BIO-4 on pages 4.1-24 and 4.1-25 has been revised as follows:

MM BIO-4 Focused and Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Surveys. Focused surveys for burrowing owl will be conducted in accordance with the March 7, 20122022, CDFW staff report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities for all phases of Project construction. 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. The Designated Biologist shall provide CDFW a GIS or KMZ map of BUOW burrow complex(es) and atypical burrows (e.g. culverts, buckled concrete, etc.) The map shall be at a scale of 1:24,000 or finer to show details and shall show locations of all BUOW sightings and labeled if sightings were potential burrows, occupied burrows, satellite burrows, areas of concentrated burrows, and BUOW sign. Locations documented by use of GPS coordinates must be collected in NAD83 datum. The map shall include an outline of the Project Site, a title, north arrow, scale bar, and legend.

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. 1412
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft Focused EIR City of Ontario March 2026
3-10
If burrowing owl occupancy is confirmed, and if Project activities may impact burrowing owl, including burrow exclusion and closure, the Project Proponent shall begin early coordination with CDFW for appropriate CESA authorization (i.e., Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under Fish and Game Code section 2081) prior to commencement of Project activities. The ITP application shall describe, at a minimum, project activities and equipment, proposed avoidance/buffers, temporary and permanent impacts, monitoring, relocation and/or translocation, and minimization and compensatory mitigation actions. ITP compensatory mitigation will be fulfilled by one or more of following options: 1) Permittee- responsible mitigation land acquisition or 2) Conservation or Mitigation Bank credits (if available). 1413
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1 Attachment A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CenterPark Specific Plan Project
1414
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2 SECTION 1: AUTHORITY
This environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Program) has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq.) Sections 15091(d) and 15097, to ensure implementation of and provide for the monitoring of mitigation measures required of the CenterPark Specific Plan Project (Project), as set forth in the Focused Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for the Project. This report will be kept on file in the offices of the CEQA Lead Agency, the City of Ontario (City).

As noted in the FEIR, the Project has been designed to avoid sensitive resources, as reflected in Project design plans and in Project Design Features. The Draft FEIR also addresses the potential environmental impacts of the Project, and, where appropriate, recommends mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental impacts. The Program detailed in the matrix table below is designed to monitor and ensure implementation of all mitigation measures that are adopted for the Project.

The City is the Lead Agency for the Project and assumes ultimate enforcement responsibilities for implementation of all mitigation measures listed in this Program. The City may assign responsibility for implementation or monitoring to appropriate designees such as a construction manager or thirdparty monitor. However, as the Lead Agency, the City remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with this Program. In some cases, the City is required to secure permits or approvals from third-party agencies in order to implement a mitigation measure. In these cases, the City is responsible for verifying that such permits or approvals have been obtained in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the mitigation measure. The City’s existing planning, engineering, operations, and procurement review and inspection processes will be used as the basic foundation for the Program procedures and will also serve to provide the documentation for the reporting program.

SECTION 2: MONITORING SCHEDULE
Prior to construction, while detailed design plans are being prepared by City staff or its agents, City staff will be responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation monitoring applicable to the Project construction, development, and design phases. Once construction has begun and is underway, monitoring of the mitigation measures associated with construction will be included in the responsibilities of City staff, who shall prepare or cause to be prepared periodic monitoring reports as appropriate. Regulatory agencies will have to harmonize CEQA mitigation with regulatory permit conditions and monitoring/reporting as part of the regulatory permitting process and will likely require submittal of formal monitoring reports. Once construction has been completed, the City will monitor the project as specified in the mitigation measures or as otherwise deemed necessary. At minimum, the City will prepare a mitigation monitoring status report prior to commencing construction, prior to commencing operations, within 90 days of commencing operations, and following completion of the first full year of operations. 1415
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3 SECTION 3: SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
Findings and related documentation supporting the findings involving modifications to mitigation measures shall be maintained in the Project file with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and shall be made available to the public upon request.

SECTION 4: FORMAT OF MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
The mitigation monitoring matrix on the following pages identifies the environmental issue areas for which monitoring is required, the required mitigation measures, the time frame for monitoring, and the responsible implementation and monitoring agencies.

SECTION 5: DEFINITIONS
The following list provides definitions for acronyms used in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

Acronyms/Abbreviation Description
AMP...............................................Archaeological Monitoring Plan AQ .................................................Air Quality AQMD............................................Air Quality Management District BIO.................................................Biological Resources CCR................................................California Code of Regulations CDFW.............................................California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA .............................................California Environmental Quality Act CFGC..............................................California Fish and Game Code City ................................................City of Ontario County ...........................................County of San Bernardino CUL ................................................Cultural Resources DSFLF.............................................Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly EIR .................................................Environmental Impact Report EPA................................................Environmental Protection Agency HABS .............................................Historic American Buildings Survey HAER .............................................Historic American Engineering Record MC ................................................Municipal Code MM ...............................................Mitigation Measure PPV................................................Peak Particle Velocity SCAQMD........................................South Coast Air Quality Management District
State..............................................State of California TCR................................................Tribal Cultural Resources USFWS...........................................United States Fish and Wildlife Service VOC...............................................Volatile Organic Compound 1416
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)

AIR QUALITY
MM 3-1: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, The City of Ontario Building Department shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include:
• Require fugitive dust control measures that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403, such as:
o Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion.
o Applying water every four hours to active soil disturbing activities.
o Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of
freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.
• Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 interim or higher exhaust emission limits.
• Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
• Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.
• Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant
architectural coating manufacturers can be found on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s website at:

City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
Landowner/Project
Applicant
Prior to individual
project approvals and
during construction
activities
City of Ontario
Planning/Building
Department
1417
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/SuperCompliant_AIM.pdf.

These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Department.

MM 3-2: The City of Ontario shall evaluate new development proposals within the City and require all developments to include access or linkages to alternative modes of transportation, such as transit stops, bike paths, and/or pedestrian paths (e.g., sidewalks).

City of Ontario
Planning/Engineering
Departments in
coordination with
the
Landowner/Project
Applicant
Prior to individual
project approvals
City of Ontario
Planning
Department
MM AQ-1: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with SCAQMD methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Planning Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities.

The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
• For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.
• Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in
City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
the
Landowner/Project
Applicant
Prior to individual
project approvals
City of Ontario
Planning Department
1418
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 6 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy
generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
• Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for
loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 sec. 2485).
• Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures). • Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 of CALGreen (Residential Voluntary Measures).
• Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuelefficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
• Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 and Section A5.106.8.2 of CALGreen
(Nonresidential Voluntary Measures; Residential Voluntary Measures).
• Applicant-provided appliances shall be Energy Star–certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers).

Installation of Energy Star– certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City during plan check.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
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.

Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of
permits for any
construction activity
City of Ontario
Planning Department
1419
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 7 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
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 grading to document the presence or absence of nesting birds within or directly adjacent (200 ft -500 ft for raptors) to the Project site.

Qualified Biologist Prior to the issuance of
permits for any
construction activity
City of Ontario
Planning Department
1420
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 8 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
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).

Qualified Biologist Prior to implementation
of Project activities
CDFW
MM BIO-4: Focused and Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Surveys.

Focused surveys for burrowing owl will be conducted in
accordance with the March 7, 20122022, CDFW staff report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation prior to vegetation removal or grounddisturbing activities for all phases of Project construction.

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. The Designated Biologist Qualified Biologist Prior to implementation
of Project activities
CDFW
1421
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 9 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
shall provide CDFW a GIS or KMZ map of BUOW burrow
complex(es) and atypical burrows (e.g. culverts, buckled concrete, etc.) The map shall be at a scale of 1:24,000 or finer to show details and shall show locations of all BUOW sightings and labeled if sightings were potential burrows, occupied burrows, satellite burrows, areas of concentrated burrows, and BUOW sign. Locations documented by use of GPS coordinates must be collected in NAD83 datum. The map shall include an outline of the Project Site, a title, north arrow, scale bar, and legend.

A 14-day burrowing owl preconstruction survey will also be conducted immediately prior to the initiation of grounddisturbing 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.

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.

Qualified Biologist Prior to implementation
of Project activities
CDFW
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

Certified arborist or
qualified
horticulturalist
Prior to implementation
of Project site clearing
or grading
City of Ontario
Planning Department
1423
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 11 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)

CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM 5-1: Historic or potentially historic resources in the City shall be evaluated for historic significance through the City’s tier system prior to the issuance of plan or development approvals in the Focus Areas.

Pursuant to City’s Development Code (Chapter 4, Permits, Actions, and Decisions, and Chapter 7, Historic Preservation), mitigation measures for all Tier III Historic Resources shall include the following:
a) Each historic resource shall be fully documented and cataloged pursuant to Historic American Building Survey/Historic
American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) standards, to
provide a record of the resource, including, but not limited to:
[i] the preparation of site plans, floor plans, exterior and interior elevations, and detail drawings of character defining features (such as moldings, stairs, etc.); and [ii] photographs of the resource, including the exterior, interior, and interior and exterior character defining features (such as moldings, light fixtures, trim patterns, etc.).
b) A mitigation fee established pursuant to Section 7.01.030 (Historic Preservation Mitigation Fee) shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for Tier III historic resources. Fees for Tier I and II historic resources shall be determined during the Environmental Impact Report process.

The fees established for Tier III will be used as a reference point for establishing fees for Tier I and II historic resources. c) A Certificate of Appropriateness shall not be issued for the demolition of an historic resource, either in whole or in part, until such time that a demolition permit application and a replacement structure has been approved by the City, and appropriate permits have been issued for its construction, unless: [i] a waiver is granted pursuant to Subsection H (Replacement Structure Waiver for Historic Resources Located within Industrial Zoning Districts) of Section 4.02.050; [ii] a deferral of the replacement structure requirement is granted pursuant to Subsection G (Replacement Structure Deferral) of Section 4.02.050; or [iii] demolition is required pursuant to Section 7.01.050 (Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions) of this Development Code.

City of Ontario
Planning Department
Prior to individual
project approvals
City of Ontario
Planning Department
1424
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 12 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
d) In an effort to preserve features and artifacts from historic resources, a determination whether items within or on the resource should be salvaged must be made by the Planning Department and may include the local historical society prior to the issuance of the demolition permit. The applicant shall be responsible for the removal, relocation, storage, and donation of such items selected for salvaging. The applicant shall provide an inventory of salvaged items to the Planning Department, and shall include a list of each item name, description, and dimension (as necessary), and the location of each item on a floor plan.

MM 5-2: In areas of documented or inferred archaeological and/or paleontological resource presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the
presence/absence of such resources. On properties where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements:
a) Archaeologists and/or paleontologist shall be retained for the project and will be on call during grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities.
b) Should any cultural resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director or designee is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources.
c) Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by a San Bernardino County Certified Professional
Archaeologist/Paleontologist. If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates, and other special studies; submit materials to a museum for permanent curation; and provide a comprehensive final report including catalog with museum numbers.

City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
Landowner/Project
Applicant
Prior to individual
project approvals and
during ground disturbing
activities
City of Ontario
Planning Department
1425
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 13 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
MM 5-2: In areas of documented or inferred archaeological and/or paleontological resource presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the
presence/absence of such resources. On properties where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements:
a. Archaeologists and/or paleontologist shall be retained for the project and will be on call during grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities.
b. Should any cultural resources be discovered; no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director or designee is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources.
c. Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by a San Bernardino County Certified Professional
Archaeologist/Paleontologist. If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates, and other special studies; submit materials to a museum for permanent curation; and provide a comprehensive final report including a catalog with museum numbers.

Project Applicant Prior to issuance of a
development permit
City of Ontario
Planning Department

GREENHOUSE GAS
MM 3-2: The City of Ontario shall evaluate new development proposals within the City and require all developments to include access or linkages to alternative modes of transportation, such as transit stops, bike paths, and/or pedestrian paths (e.g., sidewalks).

City of Ontario
Planning Department
Prior to Project approval City of Ontario
Planning Department
MM AQ-1: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be Project Applicant Prior to Project approval City of Ontario Planning Department
1426
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 14 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
prepared in conformance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Planning Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval.

Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
• For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.
• Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in
appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy
generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
• Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for
loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 sec. 2485).
• Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures). • Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 of CALGreen (Residential Voluntary Measures).
• Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuelefficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
• Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 and Section A5.106.8.2 of CALGreen
(Nonresidential Voluntary Measures; Residential Voluntary Measures).
• Applicant-provided appliances shall be Energy Star–certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency (e.g., 1427
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 15 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers).

Installation of Energy Star– certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City during plan check.

HISTORIC RESOURCES
MM CUL-1: The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any demolition, relocation, or alteration of any significant historic resource.

Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of a
demolition building
permit
City of Ontario
Planning Department
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 Buildings Survey (HABS) or an Historic 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).

Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of a
demolition building
permit
City of Ontario
Planning Department
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 Historic Preservation Subcommittee (or Historic Preservation Commission) shall be required for the relocation plan.

Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of a
demolition building
permit
City of Ontario
Planning Department
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 Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of a
demolition building
permit
City of Ontario
Planning Department
1428
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 16 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
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 for 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.

Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of a
demolition building
permit
City of Ontario
Planning Department
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.

Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of a
building permit
City of Ontario
Planning Department
MM CUL-7: Should the Streamline Moderne Milk Parlor, a local Tier II Historic Resource, addressed to 8185 Edison Avenue be proposed for 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 Appropriateness shall not be issued for the demolition of the resource, either in whole or in part, until such time that a demolition permit Historic Preservation
Commission or
Historic Presercation
Subcommittee
Prior to the issuance of a
building or demolition
permit
City of Ontario
Planning Department
1429
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 17 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
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 dairy 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 Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy
City of Ontario
Planning Department
NOISE
MM 12-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits for any project that involves a noise-sensitive use within the 65 dBA CNEL of the Ontario International Airport, the project property owner/developers shall retain an acoustical engineer to conduct an acoustic analysis and identify, where appropriate, site design features and/or required building acoustical improvements (e.g., sound transmission class rated windows, doors, and attic baffling), to ensure compliance with the City’s Noise Compatibility Criteria and the California State Building Code and California Noise Insulation Standards (Titles 24 and 21 of the California Code of Regulations).

City of Ontario
Planning/Building
Department in
oordination with
Landowner/Project
Applicant
Prior to individual
project approvals
City of Ontario
lanning/Building
Department
MM 12-2: Prior to issuance of a building permit, individual projects that involve vibration-intensive construction activities, such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers near sensitive receptors shall be evaluated for potential vibration impacts. For construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, within 100 feet of nonengineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and City of Ontario
Planning/Building
Department in
coordination with
Landowner/Project
Applicant’s
construction
contractor
Prior to and during
construction
City of Ontario
Building Department
1430
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 18 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for nonengineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses shall be used, such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded.

MM 12-4: Construction activities associated with new development that occurs near sensitive receptors shall be evaluated for potential noise impacts. Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction activities in the City of Ontario. Construction plans submitted to the City shall identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans. The City of Ontario Planning and Building Departments shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits.
• Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 6:00 pm Monday through Friday and 9:00 am to 6:00 pm Saturdays and Sundays, as prescribed in Municipal Code
Section 5-29.09.
• During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best-available noise control techniques wherever feasible (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re-design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds).
• Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with
external noise jackets on the tools.

City of Ontario
Planning/Building
Department in
coordination with
Landowner/Project
Applicant’s
construction
contractor
During construction City of Ontario
Building Department
1431
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 19 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
• Stationary equipment such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses.
• Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noisesensitive receptors. • Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes established by the City’s Engineering Department.
• At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.
• Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the onsite construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
• During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws.
• Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line-of-sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq. Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that has a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier and 1432
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 20 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
may be lined on the construction side with an acoustical blanket, curtain, or equivalent absorptive material.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM 5-3: Upon receipt of an application for a proposed project subject to CEQA and is within the City’s jurisdiction, the City’s representative shall consult with the relevant tribe(s)’ representative(s) to determine if the proposed project is within a culturally sensitive area to the tribe. If sufficient evidence is provided to reasonably ascertain that the site is within a [tribal] culturally sensitive area, an archaeologist shall prepare a cultural resources assessment. The findings of the cultural resources assessment shall be incorporated into the CEQA documentation. A copy of the report shall be forwarded to the tribe(s). If mitigation is recommended in the CEQA document, the procedure described in Mitigation Measure 5-4 shall be followed.

City of Ontario
Planning Department
Prior to individual
project approvals
City of Ontario
Planning Department
MM 5-4: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for a proposed project for which the CEQA document defines cultural resource mitigation for potential tribal resources, the project applicant shall contact the designated tribe(s) to notify them of the grading, excavation, and monitoring program. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Ontario and the tribal representative(s) to develop mitigation measures that address the designation, responsibilities, and participation of tribal monitors during grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities; scheduling; terms of compensation; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The City of Ontario shall be the final arbiter of the conditions for projects within the City’s jurisdiction.

City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
Landowner/Project
Applicant
Prior to issuance of
grading permit(s)
City of Ontario
Planning Department
MM TCR-1: Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring. The project archaeologist, in consultation with interested tribes, the developer, and the City of Ontario, shall develop an archaeological monitoring plan (AMP) to address the details, timing, and responsibility of archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. Details in the AMP shall include:

1. Project-related ground disturbance (including, but not limited to, brush clearing, grading, trenching, etc.) and development scheduling;
City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
Landowner/Project
Applicant’s
archeologist and
interested tribes
Prior to and during
construction
City of Ontario
Planning Department
1433
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 21 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)

2. The development of a rotating or simultaneous schedule in coordination with the developer and the project archeologist for designated Native American Tribal Monitors from the consulting tribes during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities on the site: including the scheduling, safety requirements, duties, scope of work, and Native American Tribal Monitors’ authority to stop and redirect grading activities in coordination with all project archaeologists (if the tribes cannot come to an agreement on the rotating or simultaneous schedule of tribal monitoring, the Native American Heritage Commission shall designate the schedule for the onsite Native American Tribal Monitor for the proposed project);

3. The protocols and stipulations that the developer, City, Tribes, and project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.

At least 30 days prior to application for a grading permit and before any brush clearance, grading, excavation, and/or ground disturbing activities on the site, the developer shall retain a tribal cultural monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources.

Pursuant to the AMP, a tribal monitor from the consulting tribe shall be present during the initial grading activities. If tribal resources are found during grubbing activities, the tribal monitoring shall be present during site grading activities.

MM TCR-2: Treatment and Disposition of Cultural Resources. In the event that Native American cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during the course of any ground-disturbing activities, including but not limited to brush clearance, grading, trenching, etc., for the proposed project, the following procedures will be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:

1. Temporary Curation and Storage: During the course of construction, all discovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure location on-site or at the offices of the project archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts from the City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
Landowner/Project
Applicant’s
archeologist and
interested tribes
During construction City of Ontario
Planning Department
1434
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 22 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
project site will need to be thoroughly inventoried with tribal monitor oversight of the process;

2. Treatment and Final Disposition: The landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and nonhuman remains as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City of Ontario with evidence of same:
a. Accommodate the process for on-site reburial of the
discovered items with the consulting Native American
tribes or bands. This shall include measures and
provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all
cataloging, basic analysis, other analyses as
recommended by the project archaeologist and
approved by consulting tribes, and basic recordation
have been completed; all documentation should be at
a level of standard professional practice to allow the
writing of a report of professional quality;
b. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified
repository in San Bernardino County that meets
federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79, and therefore
the resource would be professionally curated and
made available to other archaeologists/researchers
for further study. The collections and associated
records shall be transferred, including title, to an
appropriate curation facility in San Bernardino
County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees
necessary for permanent curation;
c. For purposes of conflict resolution, if more than one Native American tribe or band is involved with the
project and cannot come to an agreement as to the
disposition of cultural materials, materials shall be
curated at the San Bernardino County Museum by
default; and
1435
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 23 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
d. At the completion of grading, excavation, and grounddisturbing activities on the site, a Phase IV Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City documenting
monitoring activities conducted by the project
archaeologist and Native Tribal Monitors within 60
days of completion of grading. This report shall
document the impacts to the known resources on the
property; describe how each mitigation measure was
fulfilled; document the type of cultural resources
recovered and the disposition of such resources;
provide evidence of the required cultural sensitivity
training for the construction staff held during the
required pre-grade meeting; and, in a confidential
appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes
from the archaeologist. All reports produced will be
submitted to the City, County Museum, and consulting
tribes.

MM TCR-3: Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities
a. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The
monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement
of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject
project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection
with the project, such as public improvement work).
“Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not
limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing,
auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading,
excavation, drilling, and trenching.
b. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or
the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a
ground-disturbing activity.

City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
Landowner/ Kizh
monitor and/or Kizh
archaeologist
Prior to the
commencement of any
ground-disturbing
activity
City of Ontario in
coordination with
Native American
Monitor from or
approved by the
Gabrieleño Band of
Mission Indians –
Kizh Nation
1436
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 24 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
c. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant grounddisturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities,
soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other
facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of
significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not
limited to, Native American cultural and historical
artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc.,
(collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral)
human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor
logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead
agency upon written request to the Tribe.
d. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the
latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing
activities and phases that may involve grounddisturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a
determination and written notification by the Kizh to
the project applicant/lead agency that no future,
planned construction activity and/or
development/construction phase at the project site
possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.

MM TCR-4: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects (Non-Funerary/Non-Ceremonial)
a. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction
activities in the immediate vicinity of the
discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the
surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until
the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the
Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh
will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the
form and/or manner the Tribe deems
City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
Landowner/ Kizh
monitor and/or Kizh
archaeologist
In the event of discovery
of any TCRs
City of Ontario in
coordination with
Native American
Monitor from or
approved by the
Gabrieleño Band of
Mission Indians –
Kizh Nation
1437
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 25 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for
any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate,
including for educational, cultural and/or historic
purposes.

MM TCR-5: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects.
a. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. b. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 shall be followed.
c. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
d. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.
e. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

Individual
Development
Project Applicant(s)
and Project
Contractor(s)
In the event of
discovery of human
remains
City of Ontario
1438
Center Park Specific Plan
File No: PSP24-002
Focused EIR Appendices
https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/communitydevelopment/planning/environmental-documents 1439
ORDINANCE NO. ________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING, PURSUANT TO THE CERTIFIED FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.
2025060731) FOR THE CENTERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN, THE
CENTERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN (FILE NO. PSP24-002), TO 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, 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 the CenterPark Specific Plan (File No. PSP24-002), as described in the title of this Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as “Application” or “Project”); 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 properties surrounding the project site are generally established with agricultural uses. To the north of the Project site, the area is within the Specific Plan (SP) zoning district and is developed with dairy farms, livestock, a truck terminal, a nursery, and vacant land. The properties to the south of the Project site are within the SP zoning district and include dairy farms, a truck terminal storage and single-family residential uses. The properties to the east of the Project site are within the SP zoning district and are developed with single-family residential uses and dairy farms. The properties to the west of the Project site are within the SP zoning district and are developed with single-family residential uses, dairy farms and vacant land; and WHEREAS, the CenterPark Specific Plan, attached hereto as "Attachment A", establishes a comprehensive set of design guidelines and development regulations to guide and regulate site planning, landscape, and architectural character, and ensuring that excellence in community design is achieved during project development. In addition, the Specific Plan will establish the procedures and requirements to approve new development within the project site to ensure The Ontario Plan 2050 (“TOP 2050”) goals and policies are achieved; and
1440
WHEREAS, the CenterPark Specific Plan consists of approximately 258 acres of land, which includes potential development of up to 4,293 residential dwelling units, 115,809 square feet of retail uses, 135,110 square feet of office land uses, and 68 acres of open space (parkland/non-recreational uses); and
WHEREAS, the land use intensity of the CenterPark Specific Plan anticipated in 22 planning areas is consistent with TOP 2050. The Specific Plan proposes a potential buildout of up to 4,293 dwelling units with a land use intensity of 22 dwelling units per acre for Medium-Density Residential (MDR) and Mixed-Use (MU) residential designations. The Specific Plan also proposes ten (10) percent of the office uses with a maximum floor area ratio (“FAR”) of 0.70, twenty (20) percent retail uses with a maximum FAR of 0.30, and seventy (70) percent of residential development with a maximum density of 35 dwelling units per acre, within the Mixed-Use land use areas (Planning Areas 4, 5, 10, and 11). Planning Areas 19, 20, 21, and 22 are designated Open Space – NonRecreational land use and no development is planned for these areas; and WHEREAS, the CenterPark Specific Plan has been prepared in conformance with the goals and policies of the City of Ontario Policy Plan (General Plan). The policy (General Plan) analysis in “Section 9. General Plan Consistency” of the Specific Plan describes the manner in which the CenterPark Specific Plan complies with the Policy Plan goals and policies applicable to the CenterPark Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and an initial study has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, a Focused Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2025060731), including the adoption of a Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), Findings of Fact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, have been prepared in accord with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Guidelines to address the environmental effects of the CenterPark Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2026, the City adopted Resolution ____ certifying the FEIR, and adopting the Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and MMRP; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the City Council the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject Application; and
WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan 2050, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
1441
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter referred to as "ALUCP"), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Chino Airport, within the City of Ontario boundary, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies criteria set forth in Reference I, Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CNO ALUCP), which applies only to jurisdictions within City of Ontario, and addresses the safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the FEIR, MMRP, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution No. PC26-015 & PC26-016, recommending the City Council approve the Application; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2026, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Final FEIR, MMRP, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:

SECTION 1. Environmental Determination and Findings. Pursuant to Resolution ____, as the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR, including the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis, as well as the Findings of Fact, the MMRP, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared for the Project and supporting documentation. Based upon the facts and information contained in the FEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2025060731) and the administrative record, including the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis and all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, it has certified the FEIR, and approved the Findings of Fact, the MMRP, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project.

SECTION 2. Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as 1442
the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council finds that based upon the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan 2050. The Project site includes properties listed in the Housing Element Sites Inventory contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 of the Housing Element Technical Report, and the proposed Project is consistent with the number of dwelling units (4,293) and densities (22 du/ac for Medium Density Residential and 35 du/ac for Mixed-Use Residential) specified in the Housing Element Sites Inventory.

SECTION 3. 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.
(1) On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2- 2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the City Council, 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; and (2) On August 2, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted a Development Code Amendment to establish the Chino Airport (“CNO”) Overlay Zoning District (“OZD”) and Reference I, Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“CNO ALUCP”). The CNO OZD and CNO ALUCP established the Airport Influence Area for Chino Airport, solely within the City of Ontario, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. The CNO ALUCP is consistent with policies and criteria set forth within the Caltrans 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The proposed Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Chino Airport and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the CNO ALUCP. As the decisionmaking body for the Project, the City Council 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 City Council, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in 1443
conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the Chino ALUCP.

SECTION 4. Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 through 3 above, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan 2050. The approximately 258-acre CenterPark Specific Plan is suitable for residential and mixed-use developments and is consistent with the goals and policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of TOP 2050. “Section 9. General Plan Consistency” of the CenterPark Specific Plan describes the manner in which the Specific Plan complies with the Policy Plan goals and policies; and (2) The proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. The proposed CenterPark Specific Plan is in conformance with the Land Use Policies and Goals of the Policy Plan and will provide standards and guidelines for the harmonious development within the districts, in a manner consistent with the Policy Plan.

The Specific Plan is proposing residential and mixed use (office, retail and residential) development for the approximately 258-acre site, which is what is mandated by the land use plan of the Policy Plan; therefore, the proposed residential and mixed-use land uses will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City because it will provide land uses that are consistent with the existing and future development of the surrounding area; and
(3) In the case of an application affecting specific property(ies), the proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses. The proposed Specific Plan will modify the land use from agricultural, dairy farm, recreational vehicle storage, residential and vacant land uses to Residential and Mixed Use, which aligns with surrounding land uses planned in TOP 2050 and allows for similar development intensities under the Residential and Mixed-Use designation; and
(4) In the case of an application affecting specific property(ies), the subject site is physically suitable, including, but not limited to, parcel size, shape, access, and availability of utilities, for the request and anticipated development. The proposed Specific Plan will allow for residential and mixed-use on the subject site. When in conformance with the Specific Plan, the project site is suitable in size and shape, and the project site design allows for sufficient access and availability of utilities to accommodate the anticipated development.

SECTION 5. City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 3, above, the City Council hereby APPROVES the herein 1444
described CenterPark Specific Plan, attached hereto as "Attachment A," and incorporated herein by this reference, and subject to the Conditions of Approval.

SECTION 6. 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 7. 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 8. Notice of Determination. City Council hereby directs staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse regarding approval of the Project pursuant to the FEIR.

SECTION 9. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any entity, person or circumstance is held for any reason to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The People of the City of Ontario hereby declare that they would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days following its adoption.

SECTION 11. Publication and Posting. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption and shall cause a summary thereof to be published at least once, in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario, California within 15 days following the adoption. The City Clerk shall post a certified copy of this ordinance, including the vote for and against the same, in the Office of the City Clerk, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ________ day of _________ 2026. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
1445
ATTEST:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
1446

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Ordinance No. _______ was duly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ontario held _____________ and adopted at the regular meeting held ___________, 2026 by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
I hereby certify that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance No. _______ duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held ____________ and that Summaries of the Ordinance were published on ___________ and _____________, in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper.
__________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
1447
ATTACHMENT A:

File No. PSP24-002;
CenterPark Specific Plan
(Document follows this page)
1448

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA

SPECIFIC
PLAN
MONTH 2025
ORDINANCE NO. 0000
1449
This page intentionally left blank
1450

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA

SPECIFIC PLAN
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MONTH DAY, 2026
FILE NO. PSP24-002
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX
1451
This page intentionally left blank
1452

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA

SPECIFIC PLAN
Submitted to:

CITY OF ONTARIO
303 East B Street
Ontario, California 91764
Submitted by :

SARES REGIS
3501 Jamboree Rd, Suite 3000
Newport Beach, California 92660
1453
This page intentionally left blank
1454

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA

SPECIFIC PLAN
Consultant Team:

T&B PLANNING, INC.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92602

FUSCOE ENGINEERING
3257 E. Guasti Rd, Suite 300
Ontario, California 91761
1455
This page intentionally left blank
1456

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
i
table of contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1-1

1.2 COMMUNITY VISION 1-1

1.3 RELATIONSHIP TO THE ONTARIO PLAN 1-5

1.4 GOVERNING DOCUMENTS 1-8

1.5 SPECIFIC PLAN COMPONENTS 1-8
SECTION 2: INTRODUCTION 2-1

2.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN 2-1

2.2 SPECIFIC PLAN VISION AND OBJECTIVES 2-2

2.2.1 Objective: Design CenterPark as a Living Community 2-2

2.2.2 Objective: Create a Comprehensive Circulation System for Multiple Modes of Travel 2-3

2.2.3 Objective: Provide for City-Planned Public Community Facilities and Services 2-3

2.2.4 Objective: Integrate Parks and Trails into the Framework of CenterPark 2-4

2.2.5 Objective: Compose “A Genius of Place” through Exceptional Planning and Distinct Architecture 2-4

2.3 PROJECT SUMMARY 2-5

2.3.1 Mixed-use Development 2-5

2.3.2 Residential Uses 2-5

2.3.3 Parks, Trails and Open Space 2-6

2.4 AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS 2-7

2.4.1 Authority 2-7

2.4.2 Statutory Requirements of the Specific Plan 2-7

2.5 RELATIONSHIP TO THE ONTARIO PLAN (TOP) AND ZONING 2-8

2.5.1 The Ontario Plan (Policy Plan) 2-8

2.5.2 Zoning 2-8

2.6 DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL 2-9

2.6.1 Specific Plan 2-9

2.6.2 Development Agreement 2-9

2.6.3 Subdivision Maps 2-9

2.6.4 Development Plan Review 2-10
1457
ii

2.7 CEQA COMPLIANCE 2-10

2.8 AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREAS 2-10
SECTION 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS 3-1

3.1 PROPERTY OWNERSHIPS 3-1

3.2 WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACTS 3-2

3.3 EXISTING ON SITE IMPROVEMENTS 3-3

3.4 SURROUNDING LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS 3-3

3.5 TOPOGRAPHY 3-11

3.6 EXISTING CIRCULATION AND ACCESS 3-12

3.7 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE /UTILITIES / PUBLIC SERVICES 3-13

3.7.1 Potable Water 3-13

3.7.2 Recycled Water 3-13

3.7.3 Sewer 3-13

3.7.4 Drainage 3-14

3.7.5 Electricity 3-14

3.7.6 Natural Gas 3-14

3.7.7 Communication Systems 3-14

3.7.8 Solid Waste 3-14

3.8 HYDROLOGY 3-14

3.9 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3-14

3.10 SEISMICITY 3-15

3.11 VEGETATION 3-15

3.12 EXISTING NPDES COMPLIANCE 3-15
SECTION 4: LAND USE PLAN 4-1

4.1 COMMUNITY DESIGN 4-1

4.2 MIXED-USE PLANNING AREAS 4-1

4.3 RESIDENTIAL PLANNING AREA 4-4

4.4 RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE 4-4
1458

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
iii
table of contents
SECTION 5: INFRASTRUCTURE 5-1

5.1 CIRCULATION 5-1

5.1.1 Master Plan Roadways 5-2

5.1.1.1 Ontario Ranch Road 5-6

5.1.1.2 Grove Avenue 5-7

5.1.1.3 Walker Avenue 5-8

5.1.1.4 Campus Avenue 5-9

5.1.1.5 Bon View Avenue 5-10

5.1.1.6 Parco Avenue and Cucamonga Avenue 5-11

5.1.2 Local Streets 5-12

5.1.2.1 Private Streets 5-13

5.1.2.2 Common Drives, Private Drives and Alleys 5-14

5.1.3 Traffic Calming 5-15

5.1.3.1 Traffic Circles 5-16

5.1.3.2 Intersection Chokers 5-16

5.1.4 Pedestrian Circulation 5-16

5.1.5 City Master Planned Trails and Bikeways 5-16

5.1.6 Proposed Local Trails and Paseos 5-17

5.1.7 Parks 5-17

5.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES 5-20

5.3 POTABLE WATER PLAN 5-21

5.4 RECYCLED WATER PLAN 5-24

5.5 SEWER PLAN 5-28

5.6 DRAINAGE 5-32

5.6.1 NPDES Compliance 5-32

5.7 FIBER OPTICS 5-36

5.8 GRADING CONCEPT 5-38

5.9 SCHOOLS 5-40

5.10 NATURAL GAS 5-40

5.11 ELECTRICITY 5-40

5.12 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 5-42
1459
iv
SECTION 6: DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 6-1

6.1 INTRODUCTION 6-1

6.2 DEFINITION OF TERMS 6-1

6.3 APPLICABILITY 6-1

6.4 ADMINISTRATION 6-1

6.5 GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 6-2

6.6 PERMITTED USES AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 6-3

6.6.1 Permitted Uses 6-3

6.6.2 Residential Development Standards 6-6

6.6.3 Use and Benefit Easements 6-22

6.7 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 6-23

6.8 RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARDS 6-24

6.8.1 Off-Street Parking Requirements 6-24

6.9 OPEN SPACE/AMENITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 6-26

6.10 LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 6-28

6.10.1 General Provisions 6-28

6.10.2 Landscape Standards 6-29

6.11 SIGNAGE 6-30

6.11.1 Master Sign Program Contents 6-30

6.12 LIGHTING 6-31

6.12.1 Street Lights along Public Streets 6-31

6.12.2 Alley Lighting Fixtures 6-31

6.12.3 Lighting within Parks, Paseos, Tot Lots, and Other Recreational Areas 6-31

6.13 PARK FURNITURE 6-31

6.14 BUS SHELTERS 6-31

6.15 MAILBOXES 6-31
1460

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
v
table of contents
SECTION 7: COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES 7-1

7.1 INTRODUCTION 7-1

7.2 GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER 7-1

7.2.1 Sustainability 7-1

7.2.2 Architectural Character 7-2

7.3 ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT 7-3

7.3.1 Traditional Influences 7-5

7.3.2 Spanish Influences 7-6

7.3.3 Southern California Influences 7-10

7.3.4 Art Deco/Modern Influences 7-12

7.3.5 Adaptive Traditional Influences 7-14

7.3.6 Transitional Southern European Influences 7-16

7.3.7 Transitional Southern California Influences 7-18

7.4 MASSING PRINCIPLES 7-20

7.4.1 Front Articulation 7-20

7.4.2 Side Articulation 7-21

7.4.3 Rear Articulation 7-21

7.4.4 Roof Forms 7-22

7.4.5 Balconies and Projections 7-22

7.4.6 Building Composition 7-23

7.4.7 Front Porches and Entry Courtyards 7-23

7.5 GARAGE PLACEMENT 7-24

7.6 MATERIALS AND DETAILS 7-25

7.6.1 Wall Materials/Finishes 7-25

7.6.2 Accent Materials 7-26

7.6.3 Doors and Windows 7-26

7.6.4 Roofing Materials and Slope 7-27

7.6.5 Eaves, Fascias and Rakes 7-28

7.6.6 Exterior Colors 7-28

7.7 ADDITIONAL DESIGN ELEMENTS 7-28

7.8 MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL/OFFICE GUIDELINES 7-29

7.8.1 Architectural Design 7-30

7.8.1.1 Guiding Principles 7-30

7.8.1.2 Site Planning 7-31

7.8.1.3 Building Design 7-32
1461
vi

7.9 COMMUNITY STRUCTURES 7-34

7.10 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER 7-34

7.11 FRAMEWORK STREETSCAPE DESIGN 7-35

7.12 LANDSCAPE STREETSCAPE TREATMENT 7-37

7.12.1 Ontario Ranch Road 7-38

7.12.2 Grove Avenue 7-40

7.12.3 Walker Avenue 7-42

7.12.4 Campus Avenue 7-44

7.12.5 Bon View Avenue 7-46

7.12.6 Cucamonga Avenue 7-46

7.12.7 Parco Avenue 7-48

7.12.8 Grand Park Avenue 7-48

7.12.9 Neighborhood Streets 7-48

7.12.10 Private Drives 7-50

7.12.11 Common Drives/Alleys 7-52

7.13 ENTRIES AND MONUMENTATION 7-56

7.13.1 Community Entry and Monumentation 7-57

7.13.2 Mixed-Use Intersection Monumentation and Signage 7-60

7.14 PARKS, PASEOS, AND PRIVATE RECREATION AREAS 7-63

7.14.1 City of Ontario Grand Park 7-63

7.14.2 Neighborhood Parks 7-64

7.14.3 Local Parks 7-66

7.14.4 Landscape Design 7-68

7.14.4.1 Minimum Landscape Requirements 7-68

7.14.4.2 Landscape and Open Space Design 7-70

7.15 COMMUNITY WALLS AND FENCING 7-72

7.15.1 Community Walls 7-72

7.15.2 Solid Walls and Fencing 7-72

7.15.3 Open View Fencing 7-72

7.16 OUTDOOR LIGHTING 7-75

7.17 COMMUNITY PLANT PALETTE 7-75

7.17.1 Plant Matrix 7-75

7.17.2 Prohibited Plant Material 7-75
1462

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
vii
table of contents
SECTION 8: IMPLEMENTATION 8-1

8.1 METHODS AND INTERPRETATION 8-1

8.2 APPLICABILITY 8-1

8.3 INTERPRETATION 8-1

8.4 SEVERABILITY 8-1

8.5 IMPLEMENTATION OF DESIGN GUIDELINES 8-1

8.6 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS 8-2

8.6.1 Subdivision Maps 8-2

8.6.2 Development Plan 8-2

8.6.3 Development Agreement 8-2

8.7 TRANSFER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS 8-2

8.8 SPECIFIC PLAN MODIFICATIONS AND AMENDMENTS 8-3

8.8.1 Minor Modifications 8-3

8.8.2 Specific Plan Amendments 8-3

8.9 VARIANCES 8-4

8.10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 8-4

8.11 COMPLIANCE WITH MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN 8-4

8.12 PROJECT PHASING 8-4

8.12.1 Mixed-Use Development 8-4

8.12.2 Residential Development 8-4

8.12.3 Infrastructure 8-6

8.12.4 Public Regional Park 8-6

8.12.5 Private Parks 8-6

8.12.6 Community Facilities and Services 8-6

8.13 APPEALS 8-6

8.14 PROJECT FINANCING 8-7

8.14.1 Facilities and Services 8-7

8.14.2 Operation and Maintenance 8-7

8.15 MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES 8-7

8.15.1 Public Maintenance 8-7

8.15.2 Homeowners Association 8-9
1463
viii
SECTION 9: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY 9-1
LAND USE ELEMENT 9-1
COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT 9-3
COMMUNITY ECONOMICS ELEMENT 9-8
MOBILITY ELEMENT 9-9
HOUSING ELEMENT 9-10
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ELEMENT 9-11
SAFETY ELEMENT 9-14
PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT 9-15
SOCIAL RESOURCES ELEMENT 9-16
COMMUNITY ECONOMICS ELEMENT 9-17
1464

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
ix
table of contents

EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-1 REGIONAL LOCATION MAP 1-2
EXHIBIT 1-2 VICINITY MAP 1-3
EXHIBIT 1-3 LAND USE PLAN 1-6
EXHIBIT 2-1 CHINO AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA 2-11
EXHIBIT 3-1 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 3-1
EXHIBIT 3-2 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT STATUS 3-2 EXHIBIT 3-3 EXISTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES 3-4
EXHIBIT 3-4 EXISTING CONDITIONS KEYMAP 3-5
EXHIBIT 3-5 EXISTING SITE TOPOGRAPHY 3-11
EXHIBIT 4-1 LAND USE PLAN 4-2
EXHIBIT 5-1 CITY OF ONTARIO ROAD CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 5-4 EXHIBIT 5-2 CONCEPTUAL CIRCULATION PLAN 5-5
EXHIBIT 5-3 ONTARIO RANCH ROAD 5-6
EXHIBIT 5-4 GROVE AVENUE 5-7
EXHIBIT 5-5 WALKER AVENUE 5-8
EXHIBIT 5-6 CAMPUS AVENUE 5-9
EXHIBIT 5-7 BON VIEW AVENUE 5-10
EXHIBIT 5-8 PARCO AVENUE AND CUCAMONGA AVENUE 5-11
EXHIBIT 5-9 LOCAL STREETS 5-13
EXHIBIT 5-10 COMMON DRIVES, PRIVATE DRIVES AND ALLEYS 5-14 EXHIBIT 5-11 CONCEPTUAL PEDESTRIAN AND REGIONAL TRAIL CIRCULATION PLAN 5-18 EXHIBIT 5-12 INTERNAL PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION PLAN 5-19
EXHIBIT 5-13 CONCEPTUAL POTABLE WATER PLAN 5-22
EXHIBIT 5-14 CONCEPTUAL POTABLE WATER SYSTEM 5-23
EXHIBIT 5-15 CONCEPTUAL RECYCLED WATER PLAN 5-26
EXHIBIT 5-16 CONCEPTUAL RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM 5-27
EXHIBIT 5-17 CONCEPTUAL SEWER PLAN 5-30
EXHIBIT 5-18 CONCEPTUAL SEWER SYSTEM 5-31
EXHIBIT 5-19 CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE PLAN 5-34
EXHIBIT 5-20 CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 5-35
EXHIBIT 5-21 FIBER OPTIC MASTER PLAN 5-36
EXHIBIT 5-22 FIBER OPTIC PLAN 5-37
EXHIBIT 5-23 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN 5-39
EXHIBIT 5-24 EXISTING ON-SITE FACILITIES 5-41
1465
x
EXHIBIT 6-1 CONVENTIONAL SFD 6-7
EXHIBIT 6-2 Z LOT/ZERO LOT SFD 6-8
EXHIBIT 6-3 LARGE CLUSTER SFD 6-9
EXHIBIT 6-4 SMALL CLUSTER SFD 6-10
EXHIBIT 6-5 COURTYARD SFD 6-11
EXHIBIT 6-6 COTTAGE SFD 6-12
EXHIBIT 6-7 DUPLEX/TRIPLEX SFD 6-13
EXHIBIT 6-8 TOWNHOME/ROWTOWN SFA 6-14
EXHIBIT 6-9 AUTOCOURT SFA 6-15
EXHIBIT 6-10 COURTYARD TOWNHOMES 6-16
EXHIBIT 6-11 3 STORY PODIUM SFA 6-17
EXHIBIT 6-12 TUCK UNDER APARTMENT/CONDOMINIUM 6-18
EXHIBIT 6-13 MOTORCOURT APARTMENT/CONDOMINIUM 6-19
EXHIBIT 6-14 WRAP MULTI-FAMILY 6-20
EXHIBIT 6-15 PODIUM MULTI-FAMILY 6-21
EXHIBIT 6-16 USE AND BENEFIT EASEMENTS 6-22
EXHIBIT 7-1 TRADITIONAL INFLUENCES 7-7
EXHIBIT 7-2 SPANISH INFLUENCES 7-9
EXHIBIT 7-3 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INFLUENCES 7-11
EXHIBIT 7-4 ART DECO/MODERN INFLUENCES 7-13
EXHIBIT 7-5 ADAPTIVE TRADITIONAL INFLUENCES 7-15
EXHIBIT 7-6 TRANSITIONAL SOUTHERN EUROPEAN INFLUENCES 7-17 EXHIBIT 7-7 TRANSITIONAL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INFLUENCES 7-19 EXHIBIT 7-8 GARAGE PLACEMENT 7-24
EXHIBIT 7-9 LANDSCAPE FRAMEWORK PLAN 7-36
EXHIBIT 7-10 ONTARIO RANCH ROAD STREETSCAPE 7-39
EXHIBIT 7-11 GROVE AVENUE STREETSCAPE 7-41
EXHIBIT 7-12 WALKER AVENUE STREETSCAPE 7-43
EXHIBIT 7-13 CAMPUS AVENUE STREETSCAPE 7-45
EXHIBIT 7-14 BON VIEW AVENUE STREETSCAPE 7-47
EXHIBIT 7-15 NEIGHBORHOOD STREET STREETSCAPE 7-49
EXHIBIT 7-16 PRIVATE DRIVES SECTIONS 7-51
EXHIBIT 7-17 PRIVATE DRIVE PARKING 7-53
EXHIBIT 7-19 ENHANCED DRIVEWAY/COMMON DRIVES AND ALLEY PAVING DETAIL 7-55 EXHIBIT 7-18 COMMON DRIVES/ALLEYS 7-55
EXHIBIT 7-20 COMMUNITY MONUMENTATION (LEFT SIDE) 7-58
EXHIBIT 7-21 COMMUNITY MONUMENTATION (RIGHT SIDE) 7-59
1466

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
xi
table of contents
TABLES
TABLE 1-1 LAND USE PLAN SUMMARY 1-7
TABLE 4-1 LAND USE PLAN SUMMARY 4-3
TABLE 5-1 STUDENT POPULATION 5-40
TABLE 6-1 ALLOWABLE LAND USES 6-4
TABLE 6-2 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 6-23
TABLE 6-3 OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS 6-25
TABLE 6-4 OPEN SPACE/AMENITIES STANDARDS 6-26
TABLE 7-1A PLANT MATRIX - TREES 7-76
TABLE 7-1B PLANT MATRIX - SHRUBS 7-77
TABLE 7-1C PLANT MATRIX - GROUNDCOVERS AND VINES/ESPALIER 7-78 TABLE 7-2 PROHIBITED PLANT LIST 7-78
TABLE 8-1 MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES 8-8
TABLE 9-1 POLICY PLAN CONSISTENCY 9-1
EXHIBIT 7-22 MIXED USE INTERSECTION MONUMENTATION AND SIGNAGE 7-61 EXHIBIT 7-23 CONCEPTUAL NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 7-65
EXHIBIT 7-24 ILLUSTRATIVE LOCAL PARK 7-67
EXHIBIT 7-25 COMMUNITY WALL AND FENCE PLAN 7-73
EXHIBIT 7-26 WALL AND FENCE DETAILS 7-74
EXHIBIT 8-1 PHASING PLAN 8-5
1467
xii
This page intentionally left blank
1468

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
1-1
executive summary
SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The CenterPark Specific Plan is a proposal for a new planned community on approximately 257.34 acres within the City of Ontario. The community of CenterPark will provide a pedestrian friendly mixed-use retail/office center and up to 4,293 new residential dwelling units within thirteen distinct planning areas designed in conjunction with a comprehensively planned open space system consisting of regional and neighborhood park facilities. The Specific Plan area is bounded to the north by a Southern California Edison (SCE) Easement corridor located approximately 330 ft. north of Ontario Ranch Road, the planned Grand Park to the south, Campus Avenue to the west, and Walker Avenue to the east. The regional context and local setting of the CenterPark Specific Plan are illustrated in Exhibit 1-1, Regional Location Map and Exhibit 1-2, Vicinity Map.

1.2 COMMUNITY VISION
The relationship between man and nature; between the human spirit and the transcending effect that open space has on every human sense – is the inspiration for CenterPark. Alexander Pope, an English poet of the 18th century, penned a satirical prose to describe the British aristocracy and their landscape treatment on large estates and public open spaces that tried to emulate Versailles and other ornamental garden designs that were popular at the time. Instead, he advanced the idea that landscape design should respond to nature.

His advice: “Consult the genius of place in all”. This ideology is widely used in discussions about the sense of place or inherent character of the landforms, landscapes and environmental conditions and systems to describe our relationship with our surroundings.
“Genius of Place” describes the concept of learning from nature’s genius in a specific area or location.

In design, it is applied to the vision of reflecting on the landscape character of the past and, in some cases, reintroducing or integrating nature into the built environment. In other cases, the natural history and landscape character can be replicated in design to create a unique sense of place rooted in nature. The vision for the CenterPark Specific Plan embraces the positive relationship between people and open space, the benefits of one’s environment and surrounding beauty on the human condition.

Fredrick Law Olmstead, the co-creator of
Central Park in Manhattan, the grounds of
the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair and several
other regional and destination parks of
national prominence and considered to be a
pioneer in the field of landscape architecture,
claimed late in his career:
“The root of all my good work is
an early respect for, regard and
enjoyment of scenery”
Fredrick Law Olmstead
1469
1-2
N

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 1-1 REGIONAL LOCATION MAP

PROJECT
SITE
1470

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
1-3
executive summary
EXHIBIT 1-2 VICINITY MAP

PROJECT
SITE
N

NOT TO SCALE
1471
1-4
Olmstead developed a series of Design Principles in his ambition to use landscape design to meet deep human needs extending the influence of landscape beyond garden decoration within a process he termed the “elegance of design” – the creation of a composition in which all parts were subordinate to an overall, single, coherent effect. The master planned vision for CenterPark is to create an elegant composition of homes and neighborhoods, combined with mixed-use opportunities for employment, retail, dining, entertainment experience, and recreational open space and scenery into a singular balance.

Throughout his career, Olmstead sought to exploit benefits of open space on society in general with his understanding of the relationship between community and recreational and cultural needs. He had visions of vast recreational and cultural achievements in the hearts of cities. He did not see parks as just vast meadows, but rather he saw them as places of harmony; places where people would go to escape life and regain their sanity. He wanted these parks to be available to all people. “If we analyze the operations of scenes of beauty upon the mind, and consider the intimate relation of the mind upon the nervous system and the whole physical economy, the action and reaction which constantly occur between bodily and mental conditions, the reinvigoration which results from such scenes is readily comprehended. The enjoyment of scenery employs the mind without fatigue and yet exercises it; tranquilizes it and yet enlivens it; and thus, through the influence of the mind over the body gives the effect of refreshing rest and reinvigoration to the whole system.”
The master planned community at CenterPark is reminiscent of Olmstead’s vision for parks and recreational spaces integrated into the city core and available to all people. The community framework follows his principles of elegant design where development and open space are subordinate elements within an overall balance. CenterPark offers parks, trails and landscaped open spaces within walking and biking distance of all residential neighborhoods.

The plan for CenterPark establishes individual neighborhoods sited with tree-lined streets that encourage walking within and between neighborhoods. Residences are planned to front onto streets and open spaces including larger regional facilities and local neighborhood parks, recreational features and passive open space/gathering areas. A collection of smaller residential enclaves are intended to seamlessly integrate into overall character and “genius of space” envisioned for the CenterPark Community.
1472

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
1-5
executive summary

1.3 RELATIONSHIP TO THE ONTARIO PLAN
The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP) Exhibit LU-01, Land Use Plan designates the CenterPark Specific Plan area (Specific Plan area) as Mixed-Use, Medium Density Residential (11.1 - 25.0 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space/Parkland. The Specific Plan Area is within the Chino Airport Overlay Zone. The Specific Plan area is zoned SP/AG (Specific Plan AG preserve), requiring approval from the City for development within the CenterPark Specific Plan area.

Based on the land use designations established with The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP) Land Use Element, the following development requirements apply to the Specific Plan area:
• Mixed-Use. Mixed-Use development comprised of 10% Office with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.70, 20% Retail with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.30 and 70% Residential with a maximum density of 35 dwelling units per acre, is allowed. The Ontario Plan (TOP) allows up to 135,110 sq. ft. of office development, 115,809 sq. ft. of retail development and a maximum of 1,086 residential dwelling units within the Mixed-Use Planning Area of the CenterPark Specific Plan. • Residential. Residential Medium Density development at 11.1 - 25.0 dwelling units per acre per The Ontario Plan adjusted gross acre is allowed. The TOP proposes 93.6 acres of Medium Density Residential land uses. At a target density of 22.0 du/ac, the TOP allows up to 3,207 total units. • Open Space - Parkland. The TOP Land Use Plan depicts approximately 67.26 adjusted gross acres of Parkland.
• Parks. A minimum of 2 acres of Parkland per 1000 residents is required as part of the proposed residential development. The actual on-site park acreage requirement will be established with approval of future Tentative Tract Maps.

The CenterPark Land Use plan is illustrated in Exhibit 1-3, Land Use Plan. The CenterPark Specific Plan serves as the land use, zoning regulations and guidelines governing development of a new master planned community within the 257.34 acre Specific Plan area.
1473
1-6
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
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
EXHIBIT 1-3 LAND USE PLAN
N
1474

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
1-7
executive summary
TABLE 1-1 LAND USE PLAN SUMMARY
PA LAND USE TOP 2050

ACREAGE

DENSITY PER
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 AC
PROJECT TOTAL 257.34 AC 16.7 DU/AC 4,293 DU 115,809 SF 135,110 SF 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 1475
1-8

1.4 GOVERNING DOCUMENTS
Development of CenterPark will be governed by the following planning and zoning documents:
• The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP) which establishes policies governing land use, circulation, housing, conservation and open space, noise, safety and public facilities within the CenterPark Specific Plan area. • The CenterPark Specific Plan which serves as the zoning regulations for the Specific Plan area and includes a Land Use Plan, Infrastructure Plan, Design Guidelines, Development Regulations and plans for implementation of development within CenterPark.
• The City of Ontario Development Code which shall govern where the CenterPark Specific Plan is silent. • ONT/Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Document.
• The City of Ontario Subdivision Ordinance which shall regulate the subdivision of land within CenterPark.
• Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s) to be established by the developers of CenterPark which shall provide a means of ensuring and enforcing quality design and development of the master planned community.
• Development Agreements which establish assurances that regulations contained within the Specific Plan will be in force during approved timelines and that development of public facilities within the CenterPark Specific Plan will occur pursuant to the terms and conditions approved by the City. • The CenterPark Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report which evaluates the environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the development proposal and identifies methods to eliminate or reduce impacts to a less than significant level and a means for monitoring the methods through the development and operation of the project.

1.5 SPECIFIC PLAN COMPONENTS
In addition to Section 1, Executive Summary, the CenterPark Specific Plan is organized into the following sections:

SECTION 2 - INTRODUCTION
The Introduction serves to acquaint the reader with:
• The Specific Plan vision and objectives,
• The purpose of the Specific Plan,
• A general description of the project proposal,
• The authority and requirements of the Specific Plan,
• The entitlements required to implement development within the Specific Plan; and • The relationship of the CenterPark Specific Plan to The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP) and Ontario Development Code.
1476

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
1-9
executive summary
SECTION 3 - EXISTING CONDITIONS
The physical setting for CenterPark is described in this section outlining the existing physical conditions in and around the Specific Plan area.

SECTION 4 - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
This section describes the land use plan proposal and the necessary infrastructure and public services required as part of development of the proposed project. A summary of the City’s land use and planning policies and regulations governing development of the Specific Plan area is provided with a description of the CenterPark land use plan including a detailed description of each residential and mixed-use planning area, the type and number of residential dwelling units and other uses allocated to each planning area and the areas allocated to the site, park sites and the system of trails planned within the community.

SECTION 5 - INFRASTRUCTURE
This section provides information in circulation improvements, planned backbone water, sewer, and storm drain systems, the grading concept for the project and a discussion of public facilities to serve the project site.

Information on the infrastructure improvements to be constructed as part of project development is provided in this section to include a description of the planned circulation improvements, water, sewer, storm drain and water quality improvements, the grading concept for the development of the project, and a discussion of public utilities and services planned for CenterPark
SECTION 6 - DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Development Regulations to govern allowable uses and regulate development of allowable land use within the Specific Plan are established in this section. The relationship of the CenterPark Specific Plan development regulations to the City of Ontario Development Code is also discussed. The policies and procedures for the City’s review and approval of specific development projects proposed within CenterPark subsequent to Specific Plan approval are established in this section.

SECTION 7 - DESIGN GUIDELINES
The CenterPark Design Guidelines, which are intended to direct the site planning, landscaping, and architectural quality of the development are established in this section. Streetscapes, entries, edge treatments, walls and fencing, lighting, signage and architectural design are some of the features to be addressed in the Design Guidelines.

SECTION 8 - IMPLEMENTATION
The policies and procedures for the City’s review and approval of specific development proposals, within the CenterPark Specific Plan, are established in this section. This section provides the methods and procedures for interpreting and amending the CenterPark Specific Plan as necessary. A summary of project financing and project maintenance responsibilities for new development within the Specific Plan area is provided in this section.

SECTION 9 - GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
This section provides a matrix comparing the goals and policies of The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP) applicable to the Specific Plan and the consistency of the CenterPark Specific Plan to each policy of The Ontario Plan 2050. 1477
This page intentionally left blank
1478

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
2-1
introduction
SECTION 2: INTRODUCTION
The CenterPark Specific Plan is a comprehensive plan for development of a balanced community consisting of neighborhood commercial, varied residential and a variety of open space uses on approximately 258 acres in the City of Ontario. The site is located within a region known as the Ontario Ranch, which is transitioning from historical agricultural uses to urban development. The site is bounded by a SCE Easement located approximately 330 ft. north of Ontario Ranch Road, and by Campus Avenue on the west and Walker Avenue on the east.

CenterPark is designed in a village concept comprised of several distinct residential neighborhoods, all located within walking and biking distance to mixed-use areas and public and private parks. The Community is focused around a large centrally located regional park that comprises approximately 56.0 acres and extends from Campus Avenue on the western boundary across the entire site to the eastern boundary at Walker Avenue. This central regional park is part of a larger, City-wide parkland element that connects the City’s Grand Park on the eastern end of the Ontario Ranch to the future Mixed-Use activity area designated on The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP) at the southeast corner of Ontario Ranch Road and Euclid Avenue.

2.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN
The purpose and intent of the CenterPark Specific Plan is to comprehensively describe the proposed commercial, residential and open space/recreational land uses planned for the project site. An ordinance adopting the CenterPark Specific Plan establishes the zoning for the proposed planned development and defines the permitted uses, development regulations, design guidelines governing future development as well as the procedures and requirements to approve and implement that development in a manner consistent with the City of Ontario Plan (TOP) General Plan.

The purpose and intent of the CenterPark Specific Plan is established on the following guiding principles:
• Establish a comprehensive land use plan and development standards designed to address the unique features of the Specific Plan area;
• Implement the City’s goals and policies as established in The Ontario Plan (TOP) for the Specific Plan area and establish a mechanism for the implementation of the AG/SP zoning designation for the Specific Plan area;
• Establish design guidelines to guide the City’s review and approval of subsequent development applications for Mixed-use and residential development projects such as subdivision maps, development plans, landscape plans, grading plans, and building plans; and • Provide a plan that ensures development of the Specific Plan area is accomplished in a uniform and cohesive manner.
1479
2-2

2.2 SPECIFIC PLAN VISION AND OBJECTIVES
The vision for CenterPark is established through the following key objectives which will result in the design and development of a traditional, walkable community that encourages an outdoor lifestyle, promotes interaction among neighbors and provides a sense of place and community identity for residents.

2.2.1 Objective: Design CenterPark as a Living Community CenterPark is designed as a livable community consisting of unique neighborhood commercial and retail development, distinct residential neighborhoods and a park and open space system that are functional, emphasize social interaction and are identifiable through implementation of the following community design features:
• 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.
• 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 CenterPark 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.
1480

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
2-3
introduction

2.2.2 Objective: Create a Comprehensive Circulation System for Multiple Modes of Travel
Street design within CenterPark strengthens connectivity and enhances community identity through improvements to the public right of way such as entry monuments, street trees, landscaped parkways, decorative street lighting and street furniture. Parks and open space areas are connected with the surrounding neighborhoods by walkways and trails providing connectivity and accessibility to future residents and the general public. The plan for CenterPark provides a system of streets designed for the safe and efficient movement of automobiles while also improving walkability and biking opportunities through the following community design features:
• 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 CenterPark Specific Plan area.

2.2.3 Objective: Provide for City-Planned Public Community Facilities and Services The CenterPark Specific Plan provides for the development of required public facilities to serve the community as follows:
• New water, sewer, storm drain and water quality facilities consistent with City’s Technical 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 56 acres of regional open space – parkland to allow for a centrally located regional public open space facility.
• 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.
1481
2-4

2.2.4 Objective: Integrate Parks and Trails into the Framework of CenterPark The master plan for CenterPark will provide new parks, trails and landscaped open space areas to enhance the public realm and provide outdoor recreational opportunities for residents of CenterPark and the surrounding community as follows:
• 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 Community Development 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.

2.2.5 Objective: Compose “A Genius of Place” through Exceptional Planning and Distinct Architecture
Diverse and varied architecture combined with comprehensive site planning within CenterPark will produce neighborhoods that have aesthetic and functional harmony, preserve residents’ privacy and encourage neighborhood interaction. The Design Guidelines for CenterPark provides a strong sense of place through the following community design features.
• 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. 1482

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
2-5
introduction

2.3 PROJECT SUMMARY
The CenterPark Land Use Plan is outlined in Section 1’s Table 1-1, Land Use Plan Summary and described below.

2.3.1 Mixed-use Development
Mixed-Use development comprised of 10% Office with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.70, 20% Retail with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.30 and 70% Residential with a maximum density of 35 dwelling units per acre, is allowed. The Ontario Plan (TOP) allows up to 135,110 sq. ft. of office development, 115,809 sq. ft. of retail development and a maximum of 1,086 residential dwelling units within the Mixed-Use Planning Area of the CenterPark Specific Plan.

2.3.2 Residential Uses
A variety of residential housing types may be developed up to 5 stories maximum height. The maximum allowable units within the CenterPark Specific Plan is not to exceed 4,293 units. The blending of residential densities within the plan is encouraged as long as the density within any one planning area does not exceed 35 du/ac in the mixed-use zone and does not exceed 25 du/ac in the overall Specific Plan area.

The following housing types are allowed within the Specific Plan area:
• Conventional SFD - 2 Story. This housing type includes conventional single family neighborhoods, traditional single-family and cluster SFD neighborhoods, including condominium developments, with 1 and 2 story buildings.
• Small Lot/Cluster SFD - 2/3 Story. This housing type includes conventional single-family neighborhoods, traditional single-family and cluster SFD neighborhoods, including condominium developments, with buildings up to 3 stories tall.
• Attached SFA - 2 Story. This housing type includes duplexes/paired homes, triplexes, townhomes/ rowtowns and stacked flats, including condominium and apartment developments, with buildings up to 2 stories tall.
• Attached SFA - 3 Story. This housing type includes duplexes/paired homes, triplexes, townhomes/ rowtowns and stacked flats, including condominium and apartment developments, with buildings up to 3 stories tall.
• Attached SFA/Multi-Family - 3+ to 5 Story. This housing type includes attached homes, including condominium and apartment developments, with buildings greater than 3 stories tall with a maximum of 5 story buildings.
1483
2-6

2.3.3 Parks, Trails and Open Space
The CenterPark open space concept is oriented around a large public regional park comprised of

55.98 acres. The plan includes a system of private parks that will be well distributed throughout the Specific Plan area, within the residential neighborhoods. Each private park will have a minimum of

0.25 acres and include a variety of facilities to serve the needs of the future residents.

Enhanced neighborhood edges will include pedestrian walkways providing connectivity to and from the Specific Plan area and to the street, separated public sidewalks, private pedestrian walkways and pathways to be developed within the community, connecting all residential neighborhoods to the central park and several private parks.

Parks provided on-site will be consistent with TOP. Actual required park acreage will be determined at the time of tentative tract map approval.

An overall Conceptual Open Space Plan and Program will be developed and approved concurrently with each subdivision map in each Planning Area. At a minimum the plan will indicate the location and size of parks proposed within the map area and will include proposed amenity features within the area to be mapped as well as amenity program listing the proposed facilities for the private amenities within the remainder of the Specific Plan area.

The Grand Park will be designed and constructed per the Ontario Grand Park Conceptual Master Plan.

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. The details of this partnership will be included in the development agreement accompanying the approval of the Specific Plan. 1484

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
2-7
introduction

2.4 AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS

2.4.1 Authority
State of California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Section 65453 and 65353 grants authority to cities to adopt Specific Plans for purposes of implementing the goals and policies of their General Plans. The Government Code specifies that Specific Plans may be adopted either by resolution or by ordinance and that the Specific Plan is required to be consistent with the General Plan. When adopted by the City of Ontario by ordinance, the CenterPark Specific Plan shall establish the land use and zoning regulations for development of the Specific Plan area.

2.4.2 Statutory Requirements of the Specific Plan
California Government Code Section 65451 mandates that a Specific Plan be structured as follows:

1. A Specific Plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams, which specify all of the following in detail:
• The distribution, location and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan;
• The proposed distribution, location, extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan;
• Standards and criteria by which improvements will proceed, standards for the conservation, development and utilization of natural resources, where applicable; • A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects and the financing measures necessary to carry out 1, 2 and 3 above; • A statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to The Ontario Plan (TOP) - General Plan.

The CenterPark Specific Plan meets the requirements of the State of California Government Code. 1485
2-8

2.5 RELATIONSHIP TO THE ONTARIO PLAN (TOP) AND ZONING

2.5.1 The Ontario Plan (Policy Plan)
The Ontario Plan (TOP) designates the Specific Plan area for the following land uses:
• Mixed-use development comprised of 10% Office with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.70, 20% Retail with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.30 and 70% Residential with a maximum density of 35 dwelling units per acre, is allowed. The Ontario Plan (TOP) allows up to 135,110 sq. ft. of office development, 115,809 sq. ft. of retail development and a maximum of 1,086 in mixed-use units. • Medium Density Residential (11.1 to 25.0 dwelling units per acre) with a minimum of 1,603 residential units and a maximum development capacity of 3,207 residential units. The CenterPark Specific Plan proposes a maximum average overall density of 22.0 units per the TOP Adjusted Gross Acreage consistent with the City’s TOP policies. The table below provides a breakdown of the number of units allowed per Planning Area.
• A 55.98 acre public regional park within the CenterPark Specific Plan. • Private improved parks at a ratio of 2 acres per thousand population. The CenterPark Specific Plan provides for development of private parks, greenbelts and trails consistent with the City’s TOP policies.

The CenterPark Specific Plan Land Use Plan is consistent with The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP). For more detailed information, see the Policy Consistency Matrix in Section 9.

2.5.2 Zoning
The City of Ontario has zoned the Specific Plan area as SP/AG (Specific Plan/AG preserve).

The zoning designation of “SP” requires approval of a Specific Plan to implement the goals, policies and objectives of The Ontario Plan. The CenterPark Specific Plan is designed to meet the requirements of the State of California Government Code and The Ontario Plan. The City of Ontario will adopt the CenterPark Specific Plan by ordinance, thereby establishing the land use and zoning regulations for the development of the Specific Plan area. The requirements of the Specific Plan shall take precedence over the City of Ontario Development Code. In instances where the Specific Plan is silent, the City of Ontario Development Code shall prevail.
1486

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
2-9
introduction

2.6 DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL

COMPONENTS
The components of the development approval process for projects within CenterPark are discussed below.

2.6.1 Specific Plan
The CenterPark Specific Plan, when adopted, provides the land use and development standards and zoning regulations for the Specific Plan area. It serves as a “blueprint” for development by establishing the distribution of land use and criteria for development as set forth herein. The CenterPark Specific Plan also serves as the legal document to implement the General Plan goals, objectives and policies established in The Ontario Plan for the Specific Plan area.

2.6.2 Development Agreement
Unless developed in a coordinated manner and with adequate fiscal planning, development projects within the City are likely to present a challenge in their implementation due to the lack of existing public facilities that include streets, sewage, transportation, drinking water, schools and utility facilities. California law establishes a mechanism for ensuring the adequate provision of such facilities while providing assurances to applicants that, upon project approval, applicants can proceed with their projects.

Approval of the CenterPark Specific Plan will be followed by an application for approval of development agreements 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 CenterPark Specific Plan.

The development agreements 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 various segments of the community consistent with the City’s regional housing needs assessments.

The above mentioned development agreements must be fully approved prior to or concurrent with the approval of any Tentative Tract Map submitted within this Specific Plan area.

2.6.3 Subdivision Maps
A tentative tract map(s) will be submitted by the applicant for approval by the City of Ontario for the CenterPark Specific Plan area indicating the approximate location of lot lines, streets and proposed grading.

Following approval by the City of the 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.
1487
2-10

2.6.4 Development Plan Review
All development proposals for individual Planning Areas within the CenterPark Specific Plan will be subject to the Development Plan Review process pursuant to the City’s Development Code.

2.7 CEQA COMPLIANCE
A Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the City of Ontario for the CenterPark Specific Plan, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), evaluates impacts associated with the Specific Plan and subdivision map(s). The EIR recommends mitigation measures to reduce impacts of the project to a less than significant level. The EIR serves as the required CEQA environmental review for the Specific Plan and provides a basis for the required CEQA environmental review of all subsequent discretionary and ministerial actions.

2.8 AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREAS

ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
The Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP) was adopted by the Ontario City Council on April 19, 2011. The purpose of a compatibility plan is to avoid conflicts between airport operations and surrounding land uses. The Specific Plan area 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 of Ontario.

CHINO AIRPORT
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 Specific Plan is located within the Airport Influence Area of Chino Airport, Overflight Notification Zone and Airspace Protection Zone.
1488

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
2-11
introduction
EXHIBIT 2-1 CHINO AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA
N

SEAGULL A

MALCOLM ST

PINTO PL

OAK HILL ST

TAM O' SHANTER CT

BON VIEW AVE

GOLDCREST AVE

GARF EI LD AVE

HOPE AVE

TAYLOR PL

CALDWELL
P
P
L
HOENIX

PL BANYAN ST
C
GOLD

CREST PBL

ANYAN ST

GARFIELD
PL

MALCOLM
AVE

RAYMOND PL

CHERRY HILL ST

HAZELTINE
CT

HAZELTINE
CT
GREEN

WOOD PL

CALAVER A S PL

TAM O SHANTER

PARKSIDE DR

V RI GIN AI WY

MARIGOLD WAY

ST ANDREWS ST

DEERFIELD ST

VIRGINIA PL

MERION S T MARIGOLD WY DORAL CT

MERION CT
AMADOR

CALDWELL AVE

PHOEN XI AVE

MERION ST

DORAL CT

MILDRED PL

PARCO AVE

COTTONWOOD ST COTTONWOO D ST

MERION CT

DORAL CT

SANDPIPER AV DEEERFIELD ST

MILDRED PL

DEL NORTE AVEMAIDSTONE ST

ST ANDREWS ST

IMPERIAL

LASSEN AVE

BERMUDA
DUNES
ST

WALKER AVE

BERMUDA DUNES ST

HARBOUR AVE

CASTLE MAIDSTONE
ST

COTTONWOOD ST

CA RNOUSTIE CT

PALM AVE

FERN AV
P
T
H
G
G
GH

MARIGOLD PL

HOLMES PL
MILD
BANYAN

DEL NORT E AVE

OAK HILL

SANDPIPER P
MI PE

R AI L PL

BANYAN ST

LAKE AVE

BERMUDA DUNES ST

TAM O SHANTER

LASSEN AVE

SPYGLASS CT
DORAL
CT

COSTACT

INVERNESS
CT

MERION DR

CASTLE HARBOUR PL

MEADOW B ROOK PL

CASCADES CASCADES TR PINEHURST CT

AUGUSTA AVE

DORAL ST

MERION ST

RIVERSIDE DR

M RI AMONTE A

OAKHILL ST

BANYAN CT PLEASANT A

MALCOLM AV

SULTANA AVE

TAM O'SHANTER ST

M RI AMONTE
PL

MONTEREYPL

TAM O'SHANTER ST

BERMUDA DUNES ST

MONTEREY

CHERRY HILL
ST

DORAL ST

DUNES CT

MERION ST

MALCOLMAVE

CONCORD PL

OAK HILL CT

BANYAN ST

CHERRY HILL ST

OAK HILL CT

P NI EHURST

BANYAN CT

TAM O SHANTER

HAZELTINE ST

AUGUSTA AVE

BROOKSIDE ST

ST ANDREWS PL
BANYAN

QUAKER RIDGE PL

OAK HILL CT

CHERRY HILL ST

PRAR EI DUNES PL

BANYAN ST

HILL ST

BOCA RATON CT

TIARA AVE

BALBOA AVE

VALENCIA AVE
CHERRY

SAN DIEGO PL

SACRAMENTO
PL
PEBBLE
BEACH
CT
BALBOA

WHISPERING
LAKES

NI VERNESS

BROOKSIDE DR

ST ANDREWS DR

BAKER AVE

DIVERSA DR

TAM A RASK DR W H ISPERING LAKES LN

SANDPIPER AVE HAZELTINE ST

DEL NORTE PL

ST ANDREWS CT MILDRED PL

AMADOR PL

OAKH I LL DR
V ERAS
TE PL

FIRECRES
W
AR
WA
HA
BROOK

COTTONWOOD TR

COTTONWOOD
S
SHORES
RD

ARCADIAN

COLON AI L AVE

COG HIL

DUNES ST

CYPRESS POINT PL CYPRESS POINT PL

PINE VALLEY AVE

ARCADIAN SHORES RD

SURREY WY

NORTH S

LONGHORN

WRA N GLER PL

OL D A RC HIBALD RAN

LEMON AVE

PLUM AVE

CHERRYPL CHERRY AVE

CHERRY HILL
CT
WY

DORAL ST

PLUM LN

COTTONWOOD ST
CHERRY

PLUM LNBANYAN ST
CP

OAKHILL ST

FERN AV
E R
CT

BER M UDA DUNES CT

CORMORANT DR

BLUE JAY WAY

LAUREL ST

BERMUDA DUNES ST BERMUDA DUNES ST BERMUDA DUNES ST

VINEYARD AVE BERMUDA DUNES CT

HARBOUR TOWN TR

CANTERBURY

COLONIAL AVE CANTERBURY

RICHMOND ST

BROOKSIDE ST

O AK HILL DR

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 R DI GE DUNES ST

DESERT FOREST AVE

CEDAR RIDGE
ST. ANDREWS ST

OAKMONT ST

T URNSTONE AVE

TAM O SHANTER

WALNUT ST

DUNLIN WY

BI G RANGE RD

WRANGLER PL WRANGLER PL

PALOMINO PL

MUSTANG DR

BLACK HORSE DR

BURNING T

MUSTANG PL

PALOMINO PL

PINTO PL

TUMBLEWEED ST

CHAPARR AL ST

EUCLID AVE

RIVERSIDE DR

GROVE AVE

RIVERSIDE DR

ARCHIBALD

ARCAD AI N SHORES RD

OAK HIL
TURNS

ARCHIBALD AVE

LEMON PL

CHINO AVE CHINO AVE CHINO AVE CHINO AVE CHINO AVE

ONTARIO

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 BON VIEW AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EDISON AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

EUCLID AVE EUCLID AVE EUCLID AVE EUCLID AVE EUCLID AVE

DEERFIELD ST

CHERRY AVE
GOLDEN
SILVER

OLD ARCHIBALD RANCH RD STALLION W
RO

RODEO PL
SHORES
RD

ARCADIAN
JOSHU

DUNES ST

LAUREL VLY LN

SEA SI LAND TR

CONCORD AVE

MERION ST PLUM LN

DEERFIELD CT
ST. ANDREWS ST

DORAL ST MONTEREY AVE

DEERFIELD ST

TAM O'SHANTER ST
ST. ANDR EWS ST

PLEASANT AVE

HAZELTINE ST

BLUE JAY WAY

HAZELTINE ST

WINDSOR ST

CONCORDAVE

CHERRY AVE

COTTONWOOD ST

GOLDCREST PL DORAL CT

DEERFIELD ST

HOLMES AV HOLMES PL

GARFIELD AVE

DUNES ST

HOPE AVE

DEERFIELD ST

CUCAMONGA AVE

GREENWOOD ST

TAYLOR AVE

AR A B IAN PL

CLYDESDALE ST

ARCADIAN SHORES AV

BURNING TREE DR

NORTH SHORE

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
ST. ANDREWS ST
R
P

WALNUT ST

WALNUT ST WALNUT ST

SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE

VIA RUA RIO

VIA RUA FLORES

V AI BELAMAR AI

ARBOR LN

MERRIL AVE

KENSINGTON AVE ROSE PETAL WY

WICKFORD ST

OXFO RD L N

M CCLEVE W Y WEST
M

CENTE NNIAL CI WEST C E

VICTORY LN

HE RI TAG E PAS
CROWN
CT

PRIMROSE PL

SALISBURY WY

DEVONSHIRE LN

PARKPLACE AVE PARKV

PARKPLACE AVE
L

VICTORIA ST COTTAGE

GARDEN WY

PLYMOUTH AVE NEWTON AVE

COLONIAL AVE

SALEM ST

NORWICH ST

DANBURY ST

COLCHESTER ST

BENNINGTON ST

LEWISTON ST

DARIEN ST

BOUNTIFUL TR

GRAPEVINE TR

ROSEMARY WY

THOMPSON ST

DERBY LN

WILLIAMSBURG LN BARNVELDER

WYANDOTTE

ORPINGTON

TANGERINE WAY

APRICO T W A

AGRARIAN ST Y

BORDEAUX DR

BOWERY PL WILSHIRE RD
PEN
BOU
ABB
GRA

BROADWAY AV

CANAL WY

SCOTT WY

ROGERS WY

WAYNE AV

KEN T W Y

DIAN A WY

BAN NER ST

MUR DOC K LN

PARKER LN

HOWLETT LN

DRYDEN AV

KINGSTON AV

MANITOBA PL

OTTAWA AV

CORNWALL ST

EDMONTON ST

ALBERTA ST

SARNIA ST

WINNIPEG AV
SILVER

COPPERH

SU SSEX

BR ESSEPASEO

JAVAPASEO

CLEMENTINE
DR

AVOCADO
TR

STAR K LN

KENDALL LN TRELLIS WY

BODEGA WY

CELLARS
WY

HELLMAN AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

OLIVIA WY

BLAIRE WY

CHARLOTTE AV

LOLA AV

STELLA 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

HAZELST

VIOLET LN

PHEASANT
CRANE
KIWI
M

WREN EADOWLARK

TANAGER

HALTON PRIV

BASANITE AV

SHALE AV

DOLOMITE ST

BROCKRAM DR

KINGLET AV

MADELEINE

PRIVADO
JOSEPH

PRIVADO
LENA

PRIVADO SCHMIDT PRIVADO

SU NSTONE
8j
8i
5 4
8h
8g

S GROVE

S EUCLID

E CHINO

E RIVERSIDE

E MERRILL

E EDISON

E SCHAEFER
S V
I

E EUCALYPTUS

E EDISON E EDISON
y
8f
8e
CHINO

AIRPORT

PROJECT SITE
N

RANCIS ST

CHABLIS AVE

CLARK ST

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

ELPHIA ST

ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE

S ET WI ANDA

N ETIWANDA

NTA ANA
is
ea
www.ontarioplan.org
LEGEND
Retail/Service
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)

ROCHESTER AVE
OP
CREEK
D

Y CREEK

GRAEAGLE

MILL CREEK

M A D R VR RD

KINGS RVR LN

AMERICAN RIVER RD

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
T
WAY

EEL RIVER PL

BRU S H CK PL SALT CK WY
McCLOUD RVR LN

RUSSIAN RVR DR

YUBA RIV DR

BOISE CK PL

DOUBLEDAY AVE
R

YUBA RIVER DR

MERCED RIVER RD
McCLOUD RIVER RD

TRUCKEE RVR

MILLIKEN AVE

STANFORD AVE

DUPONT AVE

COLORADO RVR RBD

UTTE CK PL
McCLOUD R VI ER RD

STONE CK

SILVERADO

CREEK PL

KLAMATH RIVER DR

FOX CK LN

E CREEK DR

DOUBLEDAY AVE

JURUPA ST

ZINFANDEL CT

VANDERBILT ST

HUDSON AVE

FRANCIS ST FRANCIS ST

CHAMPAGNE AVE FRANCIS ST

CHABLIS AVE

CLARK ST

JURUPA ST

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

LOWELL ST

SANTA ANA ST

DUPONT AVE

DO UB LED AY AVE

SANTA ANA ST
NY ST

SEQUOIA AVE

AIRPORT DR

CLEVELAND AVE

GUASTI RD

BRICKELL ST

AIRPORT DR

BRICKELL ST

BRICKELL PRIVADO

WANAMAKER AVE

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

GIBRALTAR ST

AIRPORT DR

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

V NI TAGE AVE

FRANKLIN
AVE

ONTARIO
MILLS
DR

MILLS CIRCLE

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

AND EMPIRE BLVD

FERRARI L N
MALL
DR

MILLS CIRCLE GURNEE
AVE

FR A N KLIN AVE

ONTARIO M IL LS DR ROCHESTER AVE

W NI EVILLE AVE
DR

MISSION BLVD

DUPONT AVE
ST

MILLIKEN AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)

MILLIKEN AVE MILLIKEN AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)

PHILADELPHIA ST

W NI EVILLE AVE

BURGUNDY PL

PHILADELPHIA ST

ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE

FOURTH ST

BARR NI GTON AVE
ONTAR OI FWY (I-15)
SAN BERNARDINO FWY (I-10)

SHEA DR
T

PACIFIC

PRIVADO

SLATER CIR

MILL CK

GUASTI RD

MOTOR LN
NE DR

CLEVELAND AVE

CHINO AV

VIA ASTI

V AI ALBA

VIA PIEMONTE

VIA TURIN

VILLAGIO

IO CENTER PARKWAY

KETTERING DR

MERCE PARKWAY

COMMERCE PARKWAY

TOYOTA WY

CONCOURS ST

EDENGLEN AVE

AUBURN WY

DNI L CALLAWAY DR

ENWOOD DR

HERITAGE LN

GROVELAND DR

COTTAGE WY

EDENGLEN AVE

QU NI CY WY

EDENGLEN AVE

HAMPSHIRE DR BETHANY WY

EMORY LN

OAKWOOD DR

EDENGLEN AVE

TULANE WY

HAMPTON WY

BRADLEY LN

CLAREMONT DR

WESTMONT LNHAMILTON WY

CAMBRIDGE DR

HAMNER AVE HAMNER AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD

MILL CREEK AV
TNER

ALMOND BLOSSOM ST

CRISANTA PRIVADO PEONY PASEO

SAGE PASEO CLIFTON AV

HO LLYHOCK PASEO

HISBISCUSPASEO

CRISANTA PRIVADO

HEATHER PRIVADO

MILL CREEK AV

AMHERST AV

VENTURA AV

SUNSET ST

LA JOLLA ST

CATALINA ST
RIA

ENC NI TI AS AVE
AVILA

PRIVADO

CHATHAM ST

CLIFTON ST
2 2

E AIRPORT

S MILLIKEN S HAMNER

S ET WI ANDA

E PHILADELPHIA

E INLAND EMPIRE

S VINTAGE

N M LI L KI EN

N ETIWANDA

S WINEVILLE

E SANTA ANA

E JURUPA
ON
IT LU-01

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

CHARDONNAY CT
(private drainage road)

DRIFTWOOD PL

NORTHSHORES PL

ROCHESTER AVE

SEAGULL AVE

FAIRFIELD ST

CRYSTAL SPGS PL

ROCK SPGS PL

OAK SPRINGS PL

FOX GLEN LP

ACORNGLENN PL

GLENN PLBADGER

FO X GLEN LP LYTLE CREEK LP

BEAR CK

LYT LE C R EEK LOOP

H ONEYGLENN WY

ALISO CREEK
CREEK

OA K HILL DR PONY DR

PINTO PL

CRYSTAL
LK CT

PA R K GLENN WY
CT

COLD CK WY

TIARA AVE
CT

DIVERSA DR
ASK DR
KES LN

FIRECREST CT

WOODLARK DR

ARCADIAN SHORES RD

WALNUT ST

HAZELTINE ST

PEACHTREE PL
DR

PEACHTREE
PL

BROOKSIDE CT

COTTONWOOD TR

COTTONWOOD CT

ST ANDREWS DR

PEACHTREE

PL DUNES ST

MERION ST

PLA NI F EI LD
DR

PEACHTREEP
N
L
ORTH

SHORES DR
SHORES
NORTH
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

BRONCO DR

NORTH SHORE D

LONGHORN ST R

PEACHTREE PL

NORTH SHORE DR

PLAINFIELDDR

BLACK HORSE DR

TURNER AVE

PONY DR STA LLION WY

COLT WY

WRA N GLER PL

BLACK HORSE DR

CHAPARRAL ST

ROCKY PL

CLOVER WY

PEACHTREE
LN

OL D A RC HIBALD RANCH RD

G R EY F OX LN

HARBOUR TOWN TR

CANTERBURY

COLONIAL AVE CANTERBURY

RICHMOND ST

BROOKSIDE ST

O AK HILL DR

P NI E 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 R DI GE DUNES ST

DESERT FOREST AVE

CEDAR RIDGE
ST. ANDREWS ST

OAKMONT ST

T URNSTONE AVE

TAM O SHANTER

WALNUT ST

DUNLIN WY

BI G RANGE RD

WRANGLER PL WRANGLER PL

PALOMINO PL

MUSTANG DR

BLACK HORSE DR

CENTUR OI N WY

LAGO ST
WOOD

OAKLEAF
CT
RD

POPLAR DR

WOOD CT

MORNING
ST. TROPEZ DR

BISON WY

FAWN CT

BLUE FOX DR
WY

ANTELOPE

RE NI DEER LN
PL
DE
CRYS

ER CREEK LOOP TAL LK RD
WY

PINECONE

REDPINE PL

RIPPLING BROO K PL CARIB OU PL

CLEAR LA KE RD

ELSINORE WY

ANTLER RD
GINGER

GLENN RD
CEDAR
SHADOW
WARM

SODA SPRINGS
CT
CK WY

SPGS CT

ASH G ATE WY

MI L ANO ST
GENOA

ASHGATE PL

ASHGATE CT

S U MMER ISLAND

APPLEWOOD DR
NECTAR

CREEKSIDE DR

ALDER CREEK DR

OAK C REEK DR

O A K C R EEK

OAK CREEK

STRAWBERRY CREEK PL

ADLER CK

TUOLUMNE

CT CEDARGLEN

LAURELTREE DR GINGERWOOD RD

OAKLEAF RD
MORNINGWOOD CT

SCOUT CT

PEACHTREE PL

BURNING TREE DR MUSTANG PL

PALOMINO PL

PINTO PL

TUMBLEWEED ST

CHAPARR AL ST

COLD SPRINGS PL
WAY

RUSH CREEK SAN LORENZO RVR RD

YUBA RVR RD

B GI CREEK STRAWBERRY CREEK
SNOW

GRAEAGLE

TUOLUMNE PL

COUNTRY OA K S LOOP

MILL CREEK

M A D R VR RD

KINGS RVR LN

AMERICAN RIVER RD

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

WHITE ST A G RD AN TLER RD

EV E R GREEN DR

MOOSE DEER DR

ANTLER RD

ALDER DR

CANARY CT ACORN PL

CAPRI ST

DAY CREEK DR

HONEYBROOK WY

DEER CREE K L O OP

CLEAR LAKE RD

BUFFALO RD

BLACKPINE PL

CT SUGAR MAPLE

MONTE G O AVE

TURNER AVE

DOUBLEDAY AVE

GINGERWOOD RD

COUNTRY OAKS

OAK CR E EK DR

EAGLE CK PL

MOOSE CK LN

CARIBOU CK CT

GRIZZLEY CK CT CONDOR CK LN
BEAVER
CK LN

EL K CREEK DR

BIG CREEK RD

YUBA RIVER DR

MERCED RIVER RD
McCLOUD 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 R OI WYCEDAR ST

HELLMAN AVE

CARLOS AVE

COLORADO RVR RBD

UTTE CK PL
McCLOUD R VI ER RD

STONE CK

SILVERADO

CREEK PL

KLAMATH RIVER DR

FOX CK LN

ANTE L O PE CREEK DR
ST

LOCUST CT

MAPLE PRIVADO

CARLOS AVE

FRANCIS ST

AVION PL

TOWER DR

JURUPA ST

LINDSAY PRIVADO

JURUPA ST

TURNER AVE

DOUBLEDAY AVE

CARNEGIE AVE

LA SALLE ST

FRAN CIS ST M ETRO WAY

JURUPA ST JURUPA ST

ZINFANDEL CT

VANDERBILT ST

HUDSON AVE

FRANCIS ST FRANCIS ST

CHAMPAGNE AVE FRANCIS ST

CHABLIS AVE

CLARK ST

JURUPA ST

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

LOWELL ST

SANTA ANA ST

DUPONT AVE

DO UB LED AY AVE

SANTA ANA ST

ER WAYDEARBORN CT

GUASTI RD

AIRPORT DR

PEPPER TREE LN

SYCAMORE RDTURNER AVE

GUASTI RD

CENTRELAKE
DR

EBONY ST

SEQUOIA AVE

PONDEROSA AVE

AIRPORT DR

CLEVELAND AVE

GUASTI RD

BRICKELL ST

AIRPORT DR

BRICKELL ST

BRICKELL PRIVADO

WANAMAKER AVE

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

GIBRALTAR ST

AIRPORT DR

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

V NI TAGE AVE

FRANKLIN
AVE

ONTARIO
MILLS
DR

MILLS CIRCLE

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD

FERRARI L N

POR SCHE WY

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD

LOTUS AVE

SHELBY ST

TRIUMPH LN CORVETTE D

JAGURAR WY

TURNER AVE

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
ST

ISADORA WAY

HACIENDA DR

LAMANCHA WY

DEL RIO WY

LA DENEY ST

HELLMAN AVE

DEL R OI PL

CENTER AVE
MALL
DR

MILLS CIRCLE GURNEE
AVE

FR A N KLIN AVE

ONTARIO M IL LS DR ROCHESTER AVE

W NI EVILLE AVE

SIXTH ST

ARROYO DR
AVE

CARLO S
A

AMORE CT

HACIENDA DR
NE DR
R ST

ISADORA WAY
ST

RIVERSIDE DR

PHILADELPHIA ST

FOURTH ST

ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE

PHILADELPHIA ST

ARCHIBALD AVE

ARCAD AI N SHORES RD

OAK HILL DR

FAIRFIELD 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

W NI EVILLE AVE

BURGUNDY PL

PHILADELPHIA ST

ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE

FOURTH ST

BARR NI GTON AVE

EXCISE AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD
T

MERCEDES LN

CHINO AVE CHINO AVE
ONTAR OI FWY (I-15)
SAN BERNARDINO FWY (I-10)

SHEA DR

PONDEROSA AV

SEQUO AI AV

FRANCIS ST

PACIFIC

PRIVADO

SLATER CIR

GOLDEN TRAILS

SILVER SADDLE ST

PALOMINO CT

CENTURION PL

PLAINFIELD PL

OLD ARCHIBALD RANCH RD STALLION WY

ROAN ST

RODEO PL
SHORES
RD

ARCADIAN

JOSHUA TREE RD

CENTURION PL

JOSHUA TREE ST
AUTUMN
RIDGE
RD

ROCKY LN

GREENBRIAR
DR
PONY
WY

CLOVER PL

STALLION ST

SWEETWATER
DR

ROCKYWY

CLOVER LN

DUNES ST

LAUREL VLY LN

SEA SI LAND TR

LOCUST CT

MILL CK

GUASTI RD

CARRILLO PRIVADO

JOHN BANGS DR

MOTOR LN

EAR L STONE DR

AR A B IAN PL

CLYDESDALE ST

ARCADIAN SHORES AV

BURNING TREE DR

THOROUGHBRED ST

BIG RANGE RD

NORTH SHORES DR

CHINO AV

TURNER AV

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

ONTARIO AVE ONTARIO AVE

SMIDERLE LP

CHINO AV

VIA ASTI

V AI ALBA

VIA PIEMONTE

VIA TURIN

VIA VILLAGIO

ONTARIO CENTER PARKWAY

GOLDE N OA K RD
HOFER RANCH RD.

KETTERING DR

OLD GUASTI RD

GUASTI RD

COMMERCE PARKWAY

AIRPORT DR

TOYOTA WY

CONCOURS ST

CONCOURS ST
ION ST

TA H OE DR

AS H GAT E WAY

SEDONA CT

DUES E N BE RG DR

EDENGLEN AVE

AUBURN WY

DNI L CALLAWAY DR

ENWOOD DR

HERITAGE LN

GROVELAND DR

COTTAGE WY

EDENGLEN AVE

QU NI CY WY

EDENGLEN AVE

HAMPSHIRE DR BETHANY WY

EMORY LN

OAKWOOD DR

EDENGLEN AVE

TULANE WY

HAMPTON WY

BRADLEY LN

CLAREMONT DR

WESTMONT LNHAMILTON WY

CAMBRIDGE DR
ELM CT

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 WEST C ENTE N NIA L CI EAST

VICTORY LN

HE RI TAG E PASE O
CROWN
CT

PRIMROSE PL

SALISBURY WY

DEVONSHIRE LN

DISCOVERY ST

CELEBRATION AVE

PARKPLACE AVE PARKVIEW ST

HOPKINS ST

GROWER AVE

GREEN AVE

HYCHE AVE

DULISSE 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 WY

ALBRIGHT 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
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 N GI HT LN MASTERPIECE ST

OPHELIA LNPASTEL LN

SWALLOWTAIL LN

MONARCH PL

BUTTERFLY LN

LAVEND ER DR

LILAC LN OR CH ARD ST

SAGEW OOD LN

KINGS DR

CASTLE 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 PRIVADO

SON RISA PRIVADO

LUNA PRIVADO

AM HER ST PRIVADO

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 PRIVADO

PLAYA PR VI ADO

AMANECER PRIVADO

COLIBRI PRIVADO

CORAZON PRIVADO

MILL CR EEK AV

ALMENDAREZ

PRIVADO

MONETA PRIVADO

ARVADA PRIVADO

MONTROSE PRIVADO

SCOTT WY

ROGERS WY

WAYNE AV

KEN T W Y

DIAN A WY

BAN NER ST

MUR DOC K LN

PARKER LN

HOWLETT 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 ST

FLAGSTON E
AV

REFLEC TION LN

SU SSEX PR IVADO

JASMINE
LN

BAN TAMPASEO

BR AHM APASEO

BR ESSEPASEO

JAVAPASEO

CLEMENTINE
DR

AVOCADO
TR

STAR K LN
EC HO
C T

KENDALL LN TRELLIS WY

BODEGA 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

LOLA AV

STELLA 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

HAZELST

VIOLET LN

SUNR SI E 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

NELSON DR

POLLOCK ST

EAMES ST

WRIGHT AVE

TWINKLE AVE

GARRICK ST

PRINCE WY

GRAYSON WY

WILSON AVJORDAN AV

ANDERSON AV KANE DR
AUSTIN

CURRY ST
STEED

JACOBSON

LAUTNER

ALLSTON PASEO

PHEASANT
CRANE
KIWI
M

WREN EADOWLARK

TANAGER

ALMOND BLOSSOM ST

CRISANTA PRIVADO PEONY PASEO

SAGE PASEO CLIFTON AV

HO LLYHOCK PASEO

HISBISCUSPASEO

CRISANTA PRIVADO

HEATHER PRIVADO

MILL CREEK AV

BR IGH T PASEO

DELIGH T PASEO

HAPPY PASEO

SU NN Y PASEO

LAN TER N PASEO

OASIS PASEO

SPARKLEPASEO

JOLLYPASEO

RADIANT D R

AMHERST AV

VENTURA AV

SUNSET ST

LA JOLLA ST

CATALINA ST

CAMBRIA

PRIVADO

ENC NI TI AS 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 NSTONE ST
3 7
3 2 2
8j
7 7

E CHINO

E RIVERSIDE

S ARCH BI ALD

S HAVEN

E AIRPORT

N HAVEN

S MILLIKEN S HAMNER

S ET WI ANDA

E PHILADELPHIA

E INLAND EMPIRE

E JURUPA

S VINTAGE

N M LI L KI EN

N ETIWANDA

S WINEVILLE

N ARCH BI ALD

E SANTA ANA

S SUMNER

E JURUPA

E EUCALYPTUS

E INLAND EMPIRE

E EDISON E EDISON

E EDISON
± Approved by City Council on January 27, 2010
0 1 2
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.

1. Downtown

2. Airport Metro/Entertainment

3. Guasti

4. South Euclid

5. South Employment
Corridors

6. East Holt Blvd

CHARDONNAY CT

GREENWOOD AVE
(private drainage road)

OLIVE ST
PLACER
CT

CAROLINE

SAN D EI GO
AV

HARVARD PL
CT

DRIFTWOOD PL

NORTHSHORES PL

ROCHESTER AVE

SEAGULL AVE

FAIRFIELD ST

CRYSTAL SPGS PL

ROCK SPGS PL

OAK SPRINGS PL

FOX GLEN LP

ACORNGLENN PL

GLENN PLBADGER

FO X GLEN LP LYTLE CREEK LP

BEAR CK

LYT LE C R EEK LOOP

H ONEYGLENN WY

ALISO CREEK
CREEK

OA K HILL DR PONY DR

PINTO PL

CRYSTAL
LK CT

PA R K GLENN WY
CT

COLD CK WY

OAK HILL ST

TAM O' SHANTER CT

BON VIEW AVE

GOLDCREST AVE

GARF EI LD AVE

HOPE AVE

TAYLOR PL

CALDWELL
P
P
L
HOENIX

PL BANYAN ST

CALDWELL PL
GOLD

CREST PBLANYAN ST

GARFIELD
PL

RAYMOND PL

CHERRY HILL ST

HAZELTINE
CT

HAZELTINE
CT
GREEN

WOOD PL

CALAVER A S PL

TAM O SHANTER

PARKSIDE DR

V RI GIN AI WY

MARIGOLD WAY

ST ANDREWS ST

DEERFIELD ST

VIRGINIA PL

MERION S T MARIGOLD WY DORAL CT

MERION CT
AMADOR

CALDWELL AVE

PHOEN XI AVE

MERION ST

DORAL CT

MILDRED PL

PARCO AVE

COTTONWOOD ST COTTONWOO D ST

MERION CT

DORAL CT

SANDPIPER AV DEEERFIELD ST

MILDRED PL

DEL NORTE AVEMAIDSTONE ST

ST ANDREWS ST

IMPERIAL

LASSEN AVE

BERMUDA
DUNES
ST

WALKER AVE

BERMUDA DUNES ST

HARBOUR AVE

CASTLE MAIDSTONEST

COTTONWOOD ST

CA RNOUSTIE CT

PHOENIX PL

CALDWELL
PL

WISTERIA ST

TAYLOR PL SPRUCE ST

HOPE PL

BOXWOOD CT

WISTERIA CT

SANDERLING ST

HOPE PL HOPE PL

TAYLOR PL

SANDERLING ST
CEL LO

CEDAR ST

MONTI CEL LO

GREENWOOD

SKYLARK ST SKYLARK ST

PHOENIX AVE

CALDWELL AVE

GOLDCREST AVE

MONTICELLO ST

BON VIEW

SHEA RWATE R
ST

PHOENIX PL

TAYLOR PL

HOPE PL

GOLDCREST PL

GREENWOOD PL

GARF EI LD PLHOLMES PL

MARIGOLD PL

HOLMES PL

MILDRED PL BANYAN

DEL NORT E AVE

OAK HILL OAK HILL

SANDPIPER PL
MI PE

R AI L PL

BANYAN ST

LAKE AVE

BERMUDA DUNES ST

TAM O SHANTER

LASSEN AVE

SPYGLASS CT
DORAL
CT

COSTACT

INVERNESS
CT

MERION DR

CASTLE HARBOUR PL

MEADOW B ROOK PL

CASCADES CASCADES TR PINEHURST CT

AUGUSTA AVE

DORAL ST

MERION ST

RIVERSIDE DR

TAM O'SHANTER ST
T

FAIRFIELD ST

OAK HILL CT

BANYAN ST

CHERRY HILL ST

OAK HILL CT

P NI EHURST PL

BANYAN CT

TAM O SHANTER

HAZELTINE ST

AUGUSTA AVE

BROOKSIDE ST

ST ANDREWS PL
BANYAN

QUAKER RIDGE PL

OAK HILL CT

CHERRY HILL ST

PRAR EI DUNES PL

BANYAN ST

HILL ST

BOCA RATON CT

TIARA AVE

BALBOA AVE

VALENCIA AVE
CHERRY

SAN DIEGO PL

SACRAMENTO
PL
PEBBLE
BEACH
CT
BALBOA

WHISPERING
LAKES

NI VERNESS

BROOKSIDE DR

ST ANDREWS DR

BAKER AVE

DIVERSA DR

TAM A RASK DR W H ISPERING LAKES LN

SANDPIPER AVE HAZELTINE ST

DEL NORTE PL

ST ANDREWS CT MILDRED PL

AMADOR PL

OAKH I LL DR

CALAV ERAS
PL

DEL N ORTE PL

FIRECREST CT

WOODLARK DR

ARCADIAN SHORES RD

WALNUT ST

HAZELTINE ST

PEACHTREE PL
DR

PEACHTREE
PL

BROOKSIDE CT

COTTONWOOD TR

COTTONWOOD CT

ST ANDREWS DR

PEACHTREE

PL DUNES ST

MERION ST

PLA NI F EI LD
DR

PEACHTREEP
N
L
ORTH

SHORES DR

SHORES NORTH
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

BRONCO DR

NORTH SHORE D

LONGHORN ST R

PEACHTREE PL

NORTH SHORE DR

PLAINFIELDDR

BLACK HORSE DR

TURNER AVE

PONY DR STA LLION WY

COLT WY

WRA N GLER PL

BLACK HORSE DR

CHAPARRAL ST

ROCKY PL

CLOVER WY

PEACHTREE
LN

OL D A RC HIBALD RANCH RD

G R EY F OX LN

BERMUDA DUNES ST BERMUDA DUNES ST BERMUDA DUNES ST

VINEYARD AVE BERMUDA DUNES CT

HARBOUR TOWN TR

CANTERBURY

COLONIAL AVE CANTERBURY

RICHMOND ST

BROOKSIDE ST

O AK HILL DR

P NI E 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 R DI GE DUNES ST

DESERT FOREST AVE

CEDAR RIDGE
ST. ANDREWS ST

OAKMONT ST

T URNSTONE AVE

TAM O SHANTER

WALNUT ST

DUNLIN WY

BI G RANGE RD

WRANGLER PL WRANGLER PL

PALOMINO PL

MUSTANG DR

BLACK HORSE DR

CENTUR OI N WY

LAGO ST
WOOD

OAKLEAF
CT
RD

POPLAR DR

WOOD CT

MORNING
ST. TROPEZ DR

BISON WY

FAWN CT

BLUE FOX DR
WY

ANTELOPE

RE NI DEER LN
PL
DE
CRYS

ER CREEK LOOP TAL LK RD
WY

PINECONE

REDPINE PL

RIPPLING BROO K PL CARIB OU PL

CLEAR LA KE RD

ELSINORE WY

ANTLER RD
GINGER

GLENN RD
CEDAR
SHADOW
WARM

SODA SPRINGS
CT
CK WY

SPGS CT

ASH G ATE WY

MI L ANO ST
GENOA

ASHGATE PL

ASHGATE CT

S U MMER ISLAND

APPLEWOOD DR
NECTAR

CREEKSIDE DR

ALDER CREEK DR

OAK C REEK DR

O A K C R EEK

OAK CREEK

STRAWBERRY CREEK PL

ADLER CK

TUOLUMNE

CT CEDARGLEN

LAURELTREE DR GINGERWOOD RD

OAKLEAF RD
MORNINGWOOD CT

SCOUT CT

PEACHTREE PL

BURNING TREE DR MUSTANG PL

PALOMINO PL

PINTO PL

TUMBLEWEED ST

CHAPARR AL ST

COLD SPRINGS PL
WAY

RUSH CREEK SAN LORENZO RVR RD

YUBA RVR RD

B GI CREEK STRAWBERRY CREEK
SNOW

GRAEAGLE

TUOLUMNE PL

COUNTRY OA K S LOOP

MILL CREEK

M A D R VR RD

KINGS RVR LN

AMERICAN RIVER RD

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

WHITE ST A G RD AN TLER RD

EV E R GREEN DR

MOOSE DEER DR

ANTLER RD

ALDER DR

CANARY CT ACORN PL

CAPRI ST

DAY CREEK DR

HONEYBROOK WY

DEER CREE K L O OP

CLEAR LAKE RD

BUFFALO RD

BLACKPINE PL

CT SUGAR MAPLE

MONTE G O AVE

TURNER AVE

DOUBLEDAY AVE

GINGERWOOD RD

COUNTRY OAKS

OAK CR E EK DR

EAGLE CK PL

MOOSE CK LN

CARIBOU CK CT

GRIZZLEY CK CT CONDOR CK LN
BEAVER
CK LN

EL K CREEK DR

BIG CREEK RD

YUBA RIVER DR

MERCED RIVER RD
McCLOUD 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 R OI WYCEDAR ST

HELLMAN AVE

CARLOS AVE

LYNX PL

CEDAR ST

QUAKER R DI GE P

GREVILLEALCT

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
W

SKYLARK ST

ALKER AVE

AUGUSTA PL

FRANCIS ST

MONTICELLO ST

FRANCIS ST

CUCAMONGA AVE

TAYLOR PL

LOCUST ST

COLORADO RVR RBD

UTTE CK PL
McCLOUD R VI ER 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

MAITLAND ST

CALIFORNIA ST

CUCAMONGA AVE

JEFFERSON ST

WASHINGTON ST GARF EI LD AVE

STATE ST

BON VIEW AVE

HOPE AVE

BELMONT ST

TAYLOR AVE

ONTARIO BLVD

CALDWELL AVE

CAMPUS AVE

FRAN CIS 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

CLARK ST

JURUPA ST

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

LOWELL ST

SANTA ANA ST

DUPONT AVE

DO UB LED AY AVE

SANTA ANA ST

BON VIEW AVE

WOODLAWN ST

ACACIA ST

CUCAMONGA AVE

EMPORIA ST

WILLOW ST

NOCTA ST

ELMA ST

MUSCATEL AVE

MAIN ST

EMPORIA ST

IMPERIAL AVE

ELMA CT

LASSEN PL

ELMA CT

CORONA AVE

SACRAMENTO AVE

VINEYARD AVE

CONVENTION CENTER WAY

DEARBORN CT

V NI EYARD / TERM NI AL WAY

GUASTI RD

AIRPORT DR

PEPPER TREE LN

SYCAMORE RDTURNER AVE

GUASTI RD

CENTRELAKE
DR

EBONY ST

SEQUOIA AVE

PONDEROSA AVE

AIRPORT DR

CLEVELAND AVE

GUASTI RD

BRICKELL ST

AIRPORT DR

BRICKELL ST

BRICKELL PRIVADO

WANAMAKER AVE

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

GIBRALTAR ST

AIRPORT DR

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

V NI TAGE AVE

FRANKLIN
AVE

ONTARIO
MILLS
DR

MILLS CIRCLE

MARIN AVE

MADERA AVE

MADERA AV
H ST E

BAKER AVE

GRANADA CT

PLAZA SERENA

ORANGE AVE

PLACER AVE

SACAMENTO AVE

SAN D EI GO AVE

ROSEWOOD CT
N
JAY ST

APA AVE

MERCED AVE

ROSEWOOD 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

IMPERIAL AVE

HUMBOLDT CT

GLENN AVE

EL DORADO AVE

DEL NORTE AVE

CALAVERAS AVE CALAVERAS AVE
I ST
LASSEN
AVE

LAKE AVE

FRESNO ST

HUMBOLT

GLENN AVE

EL DORADO AVE

ROSEWOOD
CT

FLORA ST

AMADOR AVE

ALAMEDA AVE

PARKSIDE AVE

V RI G NI AI AVE
G ST

VIRGINIA AVE FLORA ST

PARKSIDE AVE
E ST

CUCAMONGA AVE

HOLMES AVE

CUCAMONGA AVE

LA PALOMA AVE

HOLMES AVE

LA PALOMA AVE
J S T
I ST
H ST

EL MORADO CT

GREENWOOD AVE

FLORENCE C

GRANATDA CT
F ST

FLORA ST

FLORENCE AVE

ALLYN AVE
F ST
E ST
D ST

BERLYN AVE

ALLYN AVE

ORCHARD LN
J ST

PLAZA SERENA
J ST

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD

FERRARI L N

POR SCHE WY

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD

LOTUS AVE

SHELBY ST

TRIUMPH LN CORVETTE D

JAGURAR WY

TURNER AVE

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
G ST

MAR PI OSA AVE

LAKE AVE

HAWTHORNE ST

EL DORADO AVE

HAWTHORNE ST

BONNIE BRAE CT

YALE ST

PRINCETON ST

MANDALAY ST

PRINCETON ST

YALE ST

FIFTH ST ORANGE AVE
PLACER
AV

HAWTHORNE ST

VINEYARD AVE

FIFTH ST

BRAE CT

M ULBERRY CT

BALBOA WAY
BONNIE

HAWTHORNE CT

CARLOS PL

ISADORA WAY

HACIENDA DR

LAMANCHA WY

DEL RIO WY

LA DENEY ST

HELLMAN AVE

DEL R OI PL

YALE ST

CENTER AVE
MALL
DR

MILLS CIRCLE GURNEE
AVE

FR A N KLIN AVE

ONTARIO M IL LS DR ROCHESTER AVE

W NI EVILLE 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
ST
ST

HARVARD PL

BERLYN AVE

PRINCETON ST

COUNCIL AVE

YALE ST

ROSEWOOD CT

ORCHARD LN

ALLYN AVE

ORCHARD LANECOUNCIL AVE

HOLMES CT

LA PALOMA
CT

HARVARD PL

V RI G NI AI AVE

PARKSIDE AVE

BONNIE BRAE CT

FIFTH ST

CAROLINE ST

VIRGINIA AVE

CAROLINE CT

V RI G NI AI AVE

HOLMES CT

SIXTH ST

DEODAR ST

HAWTHORNE ST
HOPE

LA DENEY
CT

MARCELLA CT
ST
ORANGE

PLACER AVE

SACRAMENTO AVE

SAN D EI GO AVE

T R NI ITY LOOP ALVARADO

LA PAZ AVE

SEVENTH ST

HIGHLAND CT

OLIVE ST

SYCAMORE ST

BARRANCA AVE

CAROLINE CT

HACIENDA

SYCAMORE CT

HACIENDA DR

CAR O LINE DR DEODAR ST

SOLANO AVE

RICHLAND ST

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
CT

EL 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

LA DENEY DR

LASSEN AVE

DEL NORTE CT

CALAVERAS CT

LA DENEY DR

AMADOR AVE

ALVARADO ST

PHILADELPHIA ST

HOLT BLVD
SAN BERNARDINO FWY (I-10)

GROVE AVE

BAKER AV

FOURTH ST FOURTH ST
ST

HOLT BLVD

GROVE AVE

MISSION 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

FAIRFIELD 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

W NI EVILLE AVE

BURGUNDY PL

PHILADELPHIA ST

ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE

FOURTH ST

BARR NI GTON AVE

EXCISE AVE

CHINO AVE CHINO AVE CHINO AVE CHINO AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD

EUCALYPTUS AVE

MERRILL AVE

BON VIEW AVE

CUCAMONGA AVE

DEODAR ST
CT

LA DENEY
DR

DEODAR ST
HOPE

HIGHLAND CT

LEEDS AVE

BAKER AVE

LASSEN AVE

LAKE AVE LAKE

HUMBOLT
AV
MADERA
AV
MARIN
AV

CORONA AVE

SOLANO AVE OLIVE CT

MERCEDES LN

MISSION BLVD

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 BON VIEW AVE

CAMPUS AVE
ONTAR OI FWY (I-15)
SAN BERNARDINO FWY (I-10)

SHEA DR

PONDEROSA AV

SEQUO AI AV

FRANCIS ST

PACIFIC

PRIVADO

SLATER CIR

GOLDEN TRAILS

SILVER SADDLE ST

PALOMINO CT

CENTURION PL

PLAINFIELD PL

OLD ARCHIBALD RANCH RD STALLION WY

ROAN ST

RODEO PL
SHORES
RD

ARCADIAN

JOSHUA TREE RD

CENTURION PL

JOSHUA TREE ST
AUTUMN
RIDGE
RD

ROCKY LN

GREENBRIAR
DR
PONY
WY

CLOVER PL

STALLION ST

SWEETWATER
DR

ROCKYWY

CLOVER LN

DUNES ST

LAUREL VLY LN

SEA SI LAND TR

EIGHTH ST

LOCUST CT

MILL CK

GUASTI RD

CARRILLO PRIVADO

MOORE WY

JOHN BANGS DR

MOTOR LN

EAR L STONE DR

COTTONWOOD ST

GOLDCREST PL DORAL CT

DEERFIELD ST

HOLMES AV HOLMES PL

GARFIELD AVE

DUNES ST

HOPE AVE

DEERFIELD ST

CUCAMONGA AVE

GREENWOOD ST

TAYLOR AVE

AR A B IAN PL

CLYDESDALE ST

ARCADIAN SHORES AV

BURNING TREE DR

THOROUGHBRED ST

BIG RANGE RD

NORTH 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

CEDAR ST

GREEN PRIVADO

PRIVADO
CHIEF

VIA ASTI

V AI ALBA

VIA PIEMONTE

VIA TURIN

VIA VILLAGIO

ONTARIO CENTER PARKWAY

GOLDE N OA K RD
HOFER RANCH RD.

KETTERING DR

OLD GUASTI RD

GREVILLEA CT

GUASTI RD

COMMERCE PARKWAY

AIRPORT DR

TOYOTA WY

CONCOURS ST

AVION ST

BAKER PRIVADO

MARIPOSA PRIVADO

ELMA PRIVADO
D ST

NOCTA PRIVADO

MARIN PRIVADO

NOCTA ST

MADERA PR VI ADO

COTTONWOOD CT

PARKSIDE AV

VIRGINIA PL

COTTONWOOD CT

TA H OE DR

AS H GAT E WAY

LAKE PL

DEODAR ST

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

ORANGE PR VI ADO

PLACER PR VI ADO

SOLANO PRIVADO

HARVARD PRIVADO

PLACER PRIVADO PLACER PR VI ADO

EDENGLEN AVE

AUBURN WY

DNI L CALLAWAY DR

ENWOOD DR

HERITAGE LN

GROVELAND DR

COTTAGE WY

EDENGLEN AVE

QU NI CY WY

EDENGLEN AVE

HAMPSHIRE DR BETHANY WY

EMORY LN

OAKWOOD DR

EDENGLEN AVE

TULANE WY

HAMPTON WY

BRADLEY LN

CLAREMONT DR

WESTMONT LNHAMILTON WY

CAMBRIDGE DR

RAYMOND
PL
ELM CT

WALNUT ST WALNUT ST

ELEVENTH AVE

SCHAEFER 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 WEST C ENTE N NIA L CI EAST

VICTORY LN

HE RI TAG E PASE O
CROWN
CT

PRIMROSE PL

SALISBURY WY

DEVONSHIRE LN

DISCOVERY ST

CELEBRATION AVE

PARKPLACE AVE PARKVIEW ST

HOPKINS ST

GROWER AVE

GREEN AVE

HYCHE AVE

DULISSE 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 WY

ALBRIGHT 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 N GI HT LN MASTERPIECE ST

OPHELIA LNPASTEL LN

SWALLOWTAIL LN

MONARCH PL

BUTTERFLY LN

LAVEND ER DR

LILAC LN OR CH ARD ST

SAGEW OOD LN

KINGS DR

CASTLE 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 PRIVADO

SON RISA PRIVADO

LUNA PRIVADO

AM HER ST PRIVADO

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 PRIVADO

PLAYA PR VI ADO

AMANECER PRIVADO

COLIBRI PRIVADO

CORAZON PRIVADO

MILL CR EEK AV

ALMENDAREZ

PRIVADO

MONETA PRIVADO

ARVADA PRIVADO

MONTROSE PRIVADO

SCOTT WY

ROGERS WY

WAYNE AV

KEN T W Y

DIAN A WY

BAN NER ST

MUR DOC K LN

PARKER LN

HOWLETT 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 ST

FLAGSTON E
AV

REFLEC TION LN

SU SSEX PR IVADO

JASMINE
LN

BAN TAMPASEO

BR AHM APASEO

BR ESSEPASEO

JAVAPASEO

CLEMENTINE
DR

AVOCADO
TR

STAR K LN
EC HO
C T

KENDALL LN TRELLIS WY

BODEGA 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

LOLA AV

STELLA 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

HAZELST

VIOLET LN

SUNR SI E 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

NELSON DR

POLLOCK ST

EAMES ST

WRIGHT AVE

TWINKLE AVE

GARRICK ST

PRINCE WY

GRAYSON WY

WILSON AVJORDAN AV

ANDERSON AV KANE DR
AUSTIN

CURRY ST
STEED

JACOBSON

LAUTNER

ALLSTON PASEO

PHEASANT
CRANE
KIWI
M

WREN EADOWLARK

TANAGER

ALMOND BLOSSOM ST

CRISANTA PRIVADO PEONY PASEO

SAGE PASEO CLIFTON AV

HO LLYHOCK PASEO

HISBISCUSPASEO

CRISANTA PRIVADO

HEATHER PRIVADO

MILL CREEK AV

BR IGH T PASEO

DELIGH T PASEO

HAPPY PASEO

SU NN Y PASEO

LAN TER N PASEO

OASIS PASEO

SPARKLEPASEO

JOLLYPASEO

RADIANT D R

AMHERST AV

VENTURA AV

SUNSET ST

LA JOLLA ST

CATALINA ST

CAMBRIA

PRIVADO

ENC NI TI AS 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 NSTONE ST
6 7
3 7
3 2 2
8j
8i
5 7 7
8h
8g

E FOURTH

S GROVE
E D
E G

E CHINO

E RIVERSIDE

S ARCH BI ALD

S HAVEN

E AIRPORT

E EDISON

N HAVEN

N GROVE

S MILLIKEN S HAMNER

S V NI EYARD

E EUCALYPTUS

S ET WI ANDA
E HOLT

E EIGHTH

E PHILADELPHIA

E INLAND EMPIRE

E JURUPA

S VINTAGE

N M LI L KI EN

N ETIWANDA

S WINEVILLE

N ARCH BI ALD

E SANTA ANA

S SUMNER

N V NI EYARD

E JURUPA

E EUCALYPTUS

E INLAND EMPIRE

E EDISON E EDISON

E EDISON

E PHILADELPHIA
± Approved by City Council on January 27, 2010
0 1 2
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.

1. Downtown

2. Airport Metro/Entertainment

3. Guasti

4. South Euclid

5. South Employment
Corridors

6. East Holt Blvd

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
3-1
existing conditions
SECTION 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section, Existing Conditions, describes the existing physical conditions within and surrounding the CenterPark Specific Plan.

3.1 PROPERTY OWNERSHIPS
The CenterPark Specific Plan area is comprised of approximately 246.1 adjusted gross acres, excluding additional dedications to expand current roadways to the ultimate master planned ROW and required neighborhood edges per the City of Ontario Master Plan of Streets. The Specific Plan area consists of twenty eight parcels under ten different ownerships. The recorded parcels within the CenterPark Specific Plan are shown on Exhibit 3-1, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers.

EXHIBIT 3-1 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS

GROVE AVE

CUCAMONGA AVE

PARCO AVE

WALKER AVE

BON VIEW AVE

CAMPUS AVE

SULTANA AVE

EDISON AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER 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
N
1491
3-2
EXHIBIT 3-2 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
AND WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT STATUS

3.2 WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACTS
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, enables local governments to enter into contract 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 Williamson Act Program is designed
as a mechanism for the preservation of
agricultural and open space lands in the
State of California. The 258 acres of the
Specific Plan area do not have active
Williamson Act Contracts. The current
property ownership and status of the
agricultural contracts are shown on
Exhibit 3-2, Property Ownership and
Williamson Act Contract Status.

Ontario City CouncilMarch 17, 2026

Ontario City Council
March 17, 2026