WHEREAS, the Project applies on a citywide basis to properties throughout the City of Ontario, California, to ensure consistency between zoning designations and the updated land use framework established by the Policy Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Project is not limited to a specific site, but applies to multiple properties across the City, with primary changes occurring within the Ontario Ranch area (south of Riverside Drive) and additional targeted changes in the northern portion of the City along East Holt Boulevard and South Grove Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City is concurrently processing a citywide amendment to TOP 2050 Policy Plan (General Plan), File No. PGPA25-002, and the proposed Zoning Map Amendment is intended to implement such amendment by ensuring consistency between zoning designations and the updated land use framework, and does not introduce new or separate environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2025110102); and WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the SEIR was issued, and a public scoping meeting was held on November 20, 2025, to introduce the Project and solicit input from responsible agencies, stakeholders, and the public regarding the scope and content of the environmental analysis; and
WHEREAS, copies of the NOP were made available for public review at the City of Ontario Planning Department, the City’s website, and were distributed through the State Clearinghouse and San Bernardino County Clerk’s office in accordance with CEQA requirements; and
WHEREAS, a SEIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines, incorporating input received during the NOP and scoping process; and WHEREAS, the SEIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period from March 5, 2026, through April 20, 2026; a Notice of Availability (NOA) was distributed to responsible and interested agencies, posted with the San Bernardino County Clerk’s office, and published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin; and WHEREAS, copies of the SEIR were made available for public review at the City of Ontario Planning Department, the Ovitt Family Community Library, and on the City’s website; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to CEQA, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.; and
1948
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC25-002
April 28, 2026
WHEREAS, a SEIR was prepared for the Project, which analyzes the environmental effects associated with implementation of the Project; and WHEREAS, the SEIR was made available to the public and to all interested agencies for review and comment pursuant to CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and make a recommendation to the City Council 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, 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
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 ONT 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, the 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 April 28, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project and SEIR, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Project and SEIR, were fully studied, and concluded said hearing on that date; and
1949
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC25-002
April 28, 2026
WHEREAS, as the first action on the Project, on April 28, 2026, the Planning Commission approved a Resolution making a recommendation that the City Council adopt the SEIR prepared pursuant to CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines, which indicated that all potential environmental impacts from the Project were less than significant or could be mitigated to a level of significance, and concluded said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the SEIR for the Project, and intends to take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR for the Project is on file in the Planning Department, located at 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764, are available for inspection by any interested person at that location and are, by this reference, incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein.
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario, as follows:
SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of the Project were analyzed in the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2025110102), prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(2) The SEIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; and
(3) The SEIR was completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and (4) The SEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Ontario as the lead agency.
SECTION 2: Planning Commission Action. Based on the entire record before the Planning Commission and all written and oral evidence presented, the 1950
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC25-002
April 28, 2026
Planning Commission recommends the City Council finds the SEIR complies with CEQA for the following reasons:
(1) The SEIR analyzes the environmental effects of the Project and finds that, with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, the following impacts will remain significant and unavoidable: air quality (including AQMP consistency and regional construction and operational emissions), cultural resources (historic resources), greenhouse gas emissions (consistency with applicable climate plans), noise (construction, traffic, and vibration impacts), and transportation (increase in vehicle miles traveled); and
(2) The Planning Commission further finds that the Statement of Overriding Considerations demonstrate that the benefits of the Project, including the Policy Plan Amendment and Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (EBPSP), outweigh its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, and that the City would be justified in approving the Project notwithstanding such impacts, including benefits related to facilitating employment-generating uses, supporting more efficient and intensified development along key corridors, improving land use compatibility, and ensuring consistency with applicable State law.
SECTION 3: Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission finds that, based upon the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, the Project maintains consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of TOP 2050.
The Planning Commission further finds that the Project includes corresponding updates to the Housing Element and land use framework to ensure continued compliance with applicable State housing law, including requirements related to maintaining adequate sites to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation and ensuring no net loss of residential development capacity.
Where modifications to land use designations result in changes to residential capacity, the Project provides for adjustments to the City’s housing inventory and site capacity to maintain compliance with State law. The Project also supports the City’s ability to accommodate its RHNA allocation across all income categories by maintaining an adequate supply of suitable residential sites.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission finds that the Project is consistent with the Housing Element and applicable State housing requirements at the time of Project implementation.
1951
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC25-002
April 28, 2026
SECTION 4: Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Compliance. The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670, et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) 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 ALUCP. (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 recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP; and (2) On August 2, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted a Development Code Amendment to establish the Chino Airport (CNO) Overlay Zoning District (OZD) and Reference I, Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CNO ALUCP). The CNO OZD and CNO ALUCP established the Airport Influence Area for Chino Airport, solely within the City of Ontario, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. The CNO ALUCP is consistent with policies and criteria set forth within the Caltrans 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The proposed Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Chino Airport and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the CNO ALUCP. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the CNO ALUCP compatibility factors, including Safety, Airspace Protection, Overflight. As a result, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the Chino ALUCP.
SECTION 5: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced hearing, 1952
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC25-002
April 28, 2026
and upon the specific findings set forth in the Sections above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed Zone Change 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 proposed project implements the updated land use designations established by the Policy Plan Amendment, supports a balanced mix of land uses, including employment-generating uses and housing opportunities, and advances the City’s long-term planning framework through improved land use consistency and coordination.
(2) The proposed Zone Change would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. The proposed project aligns zoning regulations with the adopted Policy Plan, supports orderly development patterns, facilitates infrastructure planning, and has been analyzed in the SEIR, which identifies no new or separate environmental impacts associated with the Zone Change.
(3) The proposed Zone Change will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses. The proposed project ensures consistency between zoning and land-use designations, incorporates targeted refinements to improve compatibility, and supports transitions among differing land-use intensities, consistent with the overall framework of TOP 2050. (4) 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 areas subject to the proposed Zone Change are physically suitable for the corresponding zoning designations, including considerations of parcel configuration, access, and availability of infrastructure, as the Zone Change implements the Policy Plan Amendment and is applied in a manner that supports efficient development patterns and infrastructure utilization consistent with the City’s long-range planning framework.
SECTION 6: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in the Sections above, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES the herein described Application.
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: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.
1953
1954
1955
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC25-002
April 28, 2026
ATTACHMENT A:
File No. PZC25-002
Proposed Zoning Map
1956
1500N
'"''""'
1100N ~ z
•
900N
700Nw '
' .,
FOUR' TH
~ 0
~ SAN BERNARD
l ! ~ ~MOUNTAIN VILLAGEh
(Sl04•SP)
I
Y (1-lOJ
' '
,cl j
w
8 rl
0 / /
" / /: / /
• r
--··
w
0 ~
' I
-,-+-j.-.,........- 1
• -!~:
' ' "~ l ~-r-~ ' '' ' . i ' ·-' IJ t
400N
........ I~ I•., .. " I . • ·=•1 ·•= I , -' ! ■
1·1 ••
II
!i
I
800S
1100S
1600S
I
2200S PHILADELP HIA
Revisions
Case No. Ord. Date
No.
PZC15-003 3044 02/16/2016
PZC16-001 3050 05/17/2016
PZC16-005 3069 03/07/2017
PZC16-004 3070 03/21/2017
PSP15-001 3080 10/03/2017
PSP15-002 3084 12/05/2017
PSPA16-005 RESO 02/20/2018
2018-
018
PZC16-003 3092 03/20/2018
PZC17-001 3093 03/20/2018
PZClB-001 3100 05/01/2018
PSP16-003 3097 06/01/2018
PSP16-002 3108 07/03/2018
PZC18-002 3122 12/18/2018
PZC18-003 3138 08/20/2019
PSP18-002 RESO 9/15/2020
2020-
160
PZC19-003 3169 10/27/2020
PSP18-001 3178 2/2/2021
PZC21-001 3203 2/1/2022
PZC21-002 3204 3/15/2022
PSP19-001 3206 3/15/2022
PZC22-001 3245 5/2/2023
PSPA22-008 RESO 5/16/2023
2023-
037
PZC23-001 3250 06/6/2023
PSPA21-005 RESO 11/21/2023
2023-
156
PZC23-003 3263 12/5/2023
PZC23-002 3268 1/16/2024
PZC23-004 3281 8/6/2024
PSP22-001 3283 9/3/2024
. . ti::5:1
1 •• . c:·:: I -■ ■ -}--ti
'"'" · =""· -
'
~ POMONA ~ Y(SR-60)
Rev.By
CVL
RDC
RDC
CVL
CVL
CVL
CVL
CVL
CVL
CVL
CVL
CVL
CVL
CVL
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
-
' l
2400S
2600S
' la: ; " /
I
J
w
0 8
-----
1 w
0 0
~
I
'
w
0 ~ rl
w w 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ rl ' rl
~ I '
' ~d~
' ' ' ' t ~'"'-""' er~ ,1. ' l
' "~"-"''"'
' ' ' ' ,' ~ j,.« ,,
t~ ' ' • I '
'""'"''" ~ •"'1
I i i
w
0 0
~
rl
I i ' ' . ' .•
'"''"
Jo, "'/"
'
' ~
w
0 g
N
MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL
CENTER (2265,.SP)
5200
5400
' I
w
0 g
N
Proposed Zoning M ap
w w 0 0 0 0 ~ ~
N N
MEREDITH
INTERNATIONAL
CENTER
(2265-SP)
w
0 0
~
N
TRANSPARK
271-SP)
GUASTI
(4413-SP)
w
0 0
rl
M
HOFER RANCH AIRPORT
BUS. PARK (PSPA04-001)
CALIFORNIA COMMERCE
CENTER SOUTH (3859 -SP)
w
0 0
M
M
UNITED
PARCEL
SERVICE
(3742-SP)
w
0 0
~
M
"'"''"''"' z
~
w w w 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ ~ rl
M M ~
' ~ \ !- • l ' '
ONTARIO CEJtTE'R(2254-sPJ
'
ONTARIO
GATEWAY
(PSP05·005)
l
w
0 0
fi
ONTARIO MILLS
(CALIFORNIA COMMERCE N.)
(4513-SP)
""'-l ,~~
"""'~.._,.-.,,~w,'---L '
"
!
i
I
w THE EXCHANGE 0
(PSP02-002) ~
~
CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER (259l•SP)
'
AVE~ GATEWAY ; ENTER (4127-SP
' ' i i BRIOGESTONE I
FIRESTONE (5084-SP)
Ml~!i~ l'OUSTRIAL
.PARK (3273-Sf!
I
'
'
L
/
,o"0 TOYOTA
(4621-SP)
PHILADELP HIA ST
2400S
3000S
3200S
3400S
3600S
3800S
!
I 4000S
4200S
4400S
4600S
'
' AU FOR NIA~
COMMERCI;,
CENTER ~
(259l•SP)
•
w
8 rl
~
CROSSROADS (4043-SPJ
l
I RANCON CENTER (3986-5P
SHEA BU51NE55 CENTER (4362-SPJ
N
»""'"""'
o'
w
0 ~ lfl 1100N
•
' 900N
<
0 ,
l
0 • 700N
400N
100N
400S
wBOOS
'
1600S
2400S
Mi les
2·0·5·0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
www.ontarioplan.org
LEGEND
Residential
AR-2, Reside ntial-Agricultural
- RE-2, Rural Estate
- RE-4, Residential Esta te
LDR-5, Low Density Resid ential
Mixed Use
Mixed Use
1. Downtow n
3. Centrelake West
6. East Holt
Retail/Service
- CS, Corner Store
- CN, Neighborhood Commercia l
- CC, Com munity Commercial
ml CR, Regiona l C ommercial
Employment
- BP, Business Park
- IP, Industria l Park
- IL , Light Ind ustrial
Other
- PUD, Pla nned Unit Develo pme nt
MHP, Mobile Home Park
- MDR-11, Low-Medium De nsity Reside ntia l
- MDR-l S, Medium Density Resid entia l
- MDR-25, Me dium-Hig h Density Residential
- HDR-45, Hig h De nsity Reside ntial
Sb . Mountain a nd Fourth
Sc. West Holt
Sd . Euclid a nd Fra ncis
Se. Euclid a nd Walnut
CCS, Conventio n Center Support Commercial
- OL, Low Inte nsity Office
- OH, Hig h Intensity Office
- IG, General Industrial
- IH , Heavy Industrial
- OS-C, O pe n Space-Cemetery
- UC, Utilities Corridor
ONT, Ontario Internatio na l Airport ml RC, Rail Corrid or - CIV, Civic
- OS-R, Open Space-Recreation
Overlays
AG, Ag ricultural
EA, Euclid Avenue
MTC, Multimod a l Transit Center ""*""*""'
+i- +i-+ ,
···••·
SP, Specific Plan
ICC, Interim Community Commercial
ES, Emergency Shelter
AH - Afford a ble Housing
CNO (Chino Airport) Overlay
Draft Zoning Map Revision, Public Review Draft, March 2026 1957
RESOLUTION NO. _________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO,
CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SEIR) (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2025110102), ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL
FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND
APPROVING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT, THE
EUCALYPTUS BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN, AND CITYWIDE
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FILE NOS. PGPA25-002 AND PZC25-002 AND — APNs: 0113-282-15, 0216-174-01, 0216-174-02, 0216-174-06, 0216-174-07, 216-174-08, 216-174-16, 216-174-17, 216-211-01, 216-211- 04, 0216-211-20, 0216-211-24, 0216-211-26, 0216-214-01, 0216-214-02, 0216-214-03, 0216-214-04, 0216-214-05, 0216-214-06, 0216-214-07 0216- 311-03, 0216-311-04, 0216-311-05, 0216-311-08, 0216-311-09, 0216-312- 02, 0216-312-03 0216-312-04, 0216-312-05, 0216-312-06, 0216-312-07, 0216-312-08, 0216-312-09, 0216-312-10, 0216-313-01, 0216-313-02, 0216- 313-03, 0216-313-04, 0216-313-05, 0216-313-06, 0216-313-07, 0216-313- 08, 0216-313-09, 0216-314-01, 0216-314-02, 0216-314-03, 0216-314-04, 0216-314-05, 0216-314-07, 0216-314-08, 0216-314-09, 0216-321-01, 0216- 321-02, 0216-321-03, 0216-321-06, 0216-321-07, 0216-322-01, 0216-322- 02, 0216-322-10, 0216-323-01, 0216-323-02, 0216-323-08, 0216-323-09, 0218-102-10, 0218-102-11, 0218-111-06, 0218-111-08, 0218-111-09, 0218- 111-11, 0218-111-12, 0218-111-49, 0218-111-50, 0218-121-01, 0218-121- 02, 0218-121-03, 0218-121-04, 0218-121-05, 0218-121-06, 0218-121-07, 0218-121-08, 0218-122-01, 0218-122-02, 0218-122-03, 00218-122-04, 218- 122-06, 0218-122-08, 0218-122-09, 0218-131-35, 0218-161-13, 0218-161- 14, 0218-181-01, 0218-181-02, 0218-181-11, 00218-181-12, 218-181-15, 0218-181-16, 0218-181-21, 0218-181-23, 0218-181-24, 0218-181-25, 0218- 181-26, 0218-191-19, 0218-191-24, 0218-241-43, 0218-241-45, 0218-402- 32, 1049-101-01, 1049-101-02, 1049-101-04, 1049-101-05, 1049-101-06, 1049-101-07, 1049-101-08, 1049-101-09, 1049-101-10, 1049-101-11, 1049- 101-12, 1049-101-13, 1049-101-14, 1049-101-15, 1049-101-16, 1049-101- 17, 1049-101-18, 1049-101-29, 1049-101-30, 1049-101-31, 1049-101-32, 1049-101-33, 1049-101-34, 1049-101-35, 1049-101-36, 1049-101-37, 1049- 101-38, 1049-101-39, 1049-131-40, 1049-131-01, 1049-131-02, 1049-131- 03, 1049-131-04, 1049-131-05, 1049-131-06, 1049-131-08, 1049-131-09, 1049-131-18, 1049-131-19, 1049-161-24, 1049-161-25, 1049-171-05, 1049- 171-06, 1049-171-07, 1052-151-02, 1052-151-05, 1052-151-09, 1052-151- 10, 1052-151-11, 1052-161-03, 1052-471-02, 1052-481-02, 1052-491-03, 1052-491-05, 1052-491-06, 1053-091-01, 1053-101-01, 1053-101-02, 1053- 111-01, 1053-111-03, 1053-111-04, 1053-111-08, 1053-151-04, 1053-151- 05, 1053-161-02, 1053-171-01, 1053-171-03, 1053-171-04, 1053-171-05, 1053-171-06, 1053-181-01, 1053-181-02, 1053-191-01, 1053-191-02, 1053- 201-01, 1053-301-01, 1053-301-02, 1053-311-01, 1053-311-02, 1053-321- 1958
02, 1053-321-03, 1053-331-04, 1053-341-01, 1053-341-02, 1053-351-02, 1053-391-01, 1053-411-01, 1053-421-01, 1053-421-02, 1053-511-01, 1053- 511-02, 1053-511-03, 1053-511-05, 1053-511-06, 1053-511-07, 1053-521- 01, 1053-521-02, 1053-531-01, 1053-531-02, 1053-531-04, 1053-541-01, 1053-541-02, 1053-551-01, 1053-571-01, 1053-571-02, 1053-581-03, 1053- 581-04, 1053-591-01, 1053-591-02, 1053-601-01, 1053-601-02, 1053-601- 03, AND 1053-601-04.
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario (hereinafter referred to as Applicant) has filed an application for the approval of a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment, File Nos. PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002, for which The Ontario Plan (TOP) Policy Plan Amendment Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2025110102) has been prepared, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as the Application or Project); and WHEREAS, the Application applies to approximately 1,300 acres of land located within the City of Ontario, including areas within the Ontario Ranch area (south of Riverside Drive) and portions of the northern part of the City along East Holt Boulevard and South Grove Avenue, within various zoning districts, and is presently improved with a mix of residential, agricultural, vacant, open space, and developed urban uses. The Project proposes to amend TOP 2050 Policy Plan, establish the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (EBPSP), and amend the Zoning Map to implement the proposed land use changes; and
WHEREAS, the Plan Policy Amendment SEIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the EBPSP, including sitespecific development, land use organization, circulation, and infrastructure within the Specific Plan area; and
WHEREAS, the Final SEIR also evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Zoning Map Amendment (File No. PZC25-002), which is intended to implement the approved land use framework, and does not result in separate environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in the Final SEIR; and WHEREAS, the project areas are located throughout the City of Ontario and are generally surrounded by a mix of existing and planned residential, commercial, industrial, and open space uses, as well as major transportation corridors and supporting infrastructure consistent with the City’s adopted land use framework; and WHEREAS, the SEIR for TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment and the EBPSP, in which the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Project were analyzed; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for TOP and associated Statement of Overriding Considerations, and issued Resolution No. 2010-003; and
1959
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario adopted the Policy Plan (General Plan) as part of the component framework for TOP on January 27, 2010, and issued Resolution No. 2010- 004; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario certified the SEIR, for the General Plan Amendment for TOP 2050 Update on August 16, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Final SEIR, Environmental Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for File Nos. PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002, the TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment, and the Zoning Map Amendment, have been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Guidelines for implementation of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Final SEIR has been prepared to address the environmental effects of the proposed Project described above; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft SEIR was issued on November 4, 2025, and circulated to responsible and interested agencies and the public; and
WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR was subsequently circulated for a 45-day public review period from March 5, 2026, through April 20, 2026. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft SEIR was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, filed with the San Bernardino County Clerk, and copies of the Draft SEIR were made available for public review at the City of Ontario Planning Department and on the City’s website; and WHEREAS, copies of the Final SEIR were made available for review at City Hall, the Ovitt Family Community Library, as well as on the City's website; and WHEREAS, the Final SEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2025110102) consists of the Draft SEIR and the comments and responses to comments made on the Draft SEIR; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the SEIR and concluded said hearing on that date, voting (7-0) to recommend certification of the SEIR and adoption of Environmental Findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a MMRP, to the City Council, issuing Resolution Nos. PC26-023 & PC26-024; and for File Nos. PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002, the TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment, and the Zoning Map Amendment; and
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2026, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Final SEIR at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Final SEIR was fully studied; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
1960
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:
SECTION 1. Certification of SEIR: The City Council hereby finds that it has independently reviewed and considered the SEIR, including the Draft SEIR, Final SEIR, all comments received during the public review process, the written responses to such comments, and all other information contained in the administrative record. The City Council further finds that the SEIR has been completed in full compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines, and that the SEIR constitutes an accurate, objective, and complete evaluation of the Project’s environmental effects. The City Council finds that the SEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City as Lead Agency.
The City Council further finds that no new information of “substantial importance” within the meaning of State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, has been received following circulation of the Draft SEIR that would require recirculation of the Draft SEIR.
The City Council has reviewed and considered all comments received on the Draft seir and the written responses thereto and finds that the Final SEIR adequately addresses the significant environmental issues raised during the public review process.
The City Council further finds that environmental issues raised during the public review process, including issues relating to housing capacity, regional housing needs allocation compliance, air quality, environmental justice, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation impacts, and cumulative impacts, were evaluated in the Final SEIR and considered by the City Council in reaching its decision on the Project. The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR have been adopted and that no additional feasible mitigation measures or alternatives would substantially lessen or avoid the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR.
Based on the entirety of the administrative record, the City Council hereby certifies the Final SEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2025110102).
SECTION 2. Adoption of CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations: The City Council hereby adopts the “CEQA Findings of Fact” which were prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and include a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” which were prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15093(a) and which are attached hereto as Attachment B and Attachment C, respectively, and incorporated herein by this reference.
The City Council further finds that the Project’s economic, social, planning, infrastructure, and housing-related benefits outweigh its significant and unavoidable impacts, including;
Maintaining compliance with State housing law;
Preserving adequate RHNA capacity;
1961
Facilitating employment-generating land uses;
Improving long-range land use planning;
Enhancing infrastructure efficiency;
Supporting economic development opportunities;
Implementing coordinated circulation and truck-routing improvements; and Promoting orderly growth consistent with The Ontario Plan.
SECTION 3. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program:
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the MMRP attached hereto as Attachment D and incorporated herein by this reference.
Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the MMRP is hereby made a condition of approval of the Project. The City Council directs City staff to implement monitor, and enforce mitigation measures identified in the MMRP throughout all phases of Project implementation. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures set forth in the SEIR or the Findings of Fact and the MMRP, the MMRP shall control.
SECTION 4. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings for the Project include, but are not limited to, the Draft SEIR, Final SEIR, technical appendices, staff reports, resolutions, public hearing materials, written comments, responses to comments, transcripts, exhibits, correspondence, and all other documents relied upon by the City in making its decision.
These documents 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 5. Notice of Determination: City staff shall cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five working days of the adoption of this Resolution.
The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of June 2026. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
1962
ATTEST:
____________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
CITY ATTORNEY
1963
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 June 16, 2026 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 June 16, 2026. _____________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
1964
ATTACHMENT A & B:
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2025110102)
is located on the City of Ontario Website.
https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/communitydevelopment/planning/environmental-documents 1965
ATTACHMENT C:
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1966
ATTACHMENT D:
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
1967
ATTACHMENT E:
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
1968
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment
Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2025110102 | March 2026
1969
1970
March 2026 | Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Ontario Policy Plan Amendment
Draft Supplemental EIR
Prepared for:
City of Ontario
Contact: Thomas Grahn, Principal Planner
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
909.395.2036
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
Contact: Nicole Vermilion, Principal
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
for the City of Ontario
State Clearinghouse No. 2025110102
2·0·5·0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
~ PLACEWORKS
1971
1972
M ARCH 2 026 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................................................ ES-1 ES.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ES-1 ES.2 Environmental Procedures..................................................................................ES-3 ES.3 Project Location ..................................................................................................ES-9 ES.4 Summary of the Proposed Project....................................................................ES-10 ES.5 Summary of Project Alternatives ......................................................................ES-21 ES.6 Issues to be Resolved........................................................................................ES-27 ES.7 Areas of Controversy.........................................................................................ES-28 ES.8 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................ES-29
1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Purpose of the EIR................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Environmental Review Process ............................................................................ 1-2
1.3 Mitigation Monitoring ........................................................................................ 1-11
1.4 Incorporation by Reference ............................................................................... 1-12
2. Project Description ......................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Project Location ................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Project Background.............................................................................................. 2-2
2.3 Statement of Project Objectives ........................................................................ 2-15
2.4 Project Characteristics ....................................................................................... 2-17
2.5 Intended Uses of the SEIR.................................................................................. 2-78
2.6 References.......................................................................................................... 2-81
3. Environmental Analysis .................................................................................. 3-1 Organization of Environmental Analysis .......................................................................... 3-1 Levels of Significance ....................................................................................................... 3-2 Evaluation Methodology.................................................................................................. 3-2
3.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................... 3.1-1
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................. 3.2-1
3.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................... 3.3-1
3.4 Biological Resources .......................................................................................... 3.4-1
3.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................ 3.5-1
3.6 Energy ............................................................................................................... 3.6-1
3.7 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................. 3.7-1
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................... 3.8-1
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials..................................................................... 3.9-1
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................... 3.10-1 1973
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
TABLE OF CONT ENTS
i i
3.11 Land Use and Planning.................................................................................... 3.11-1
3.12 Mineral Resources........................................................................................... 3.12-1
3.13 Noise ............................................................................................................... 3.13-1
3.14 Population and Housing.................................................................................. 3.14-1
3.15 Public Services................................................................................................. 3.15-1
3.16 Recreation ....................................................................................................... 3.16-1
3.17 Transportation................................................................................................. 3.17-1
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources................................................................................. 3.18-1
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................... 3.19-1
3.20 Wildfire............................................................................................................ 3.20-1
4. Alternatives to the Proposed Project .............................................................. 4-1
4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Factors Considered when Developing Alternatives ............................................. 4-2
4.3 Alternatives Considered but Rejected ................................................................. 4-4
4.4 Alternatives Selected for Analysis ........................................................................ 4-6
4.5 No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 ........................................................... 4-7
4.6 Truck Route Scenario 3 Alternative .................................................................... 4-20
4.7 Reduced Intensity Alternative ............................................................................ 4-29
4.8 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................................ 4-39
5. Other CEQA Considerations ............................................................................ 5-1
5.1 Effects Not Found to Be Significant ...................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.......................................................................... 5-1
5.3 Significant Irreversible Changes........................................................................... 5-3
5.4 Growth-Inducing Effects....................................................................................... 5-4
6. Report Preparers and Organizations Consulted ...............................................6-1 Lead Agency ..................................................................................................................... 6-1 Report Preparers.............................................................................................................. 6-1 Organizations Consulted .................................................................................................. 6-3 1974
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
TABLE OF CONT ENTS
M ARCH 2 026 iii
List of Figures
Figure ES-1 Regional Location........................................................................................ES-11 Figure ES-2 Citywide Aerial Map ....................................................................................ES-13 Figure ES-3 EBPSP Aerial Map ........................................................................................ES-15 Figure ES-4 Policy Plan Amendment Areas of Change ...................................................ES-17 Figure ES-5 Conceptual EBPSP Land Use Plan ...............................................................ES-23 Figure 2-1 Regional Location ........................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-2 Citywide Aerial Map ....................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-3 EBPSP Aerial Map ........................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2-4 Current TOP Land Use Plan .......................................................................... 2-13 Figure 2-5 Proposed Land Use Plan............................................................................... 2-21 Figure 2-6 Policy Plan Amendment Areas of Change .................................................... 2-35 Figure 2-7 Policy Plan Amendment Affordability Sites Inventory Changes................... 2-39 Figure 2-8 Current Truck Routes ................................................................................... 2-41 Figure 2-9 Proposed Truck Routes ................................................................................ 2-43 Figure 2-10 Proposed Zoning Map .................................................................................. 2-47 Figure 2-11 Conceptual EBPSP Land Use Plan ................................................................ 2-51 Figure 2-12 Conceptual EBPSP Site Plan ......................................................................... 2-55 Figure 2-13 Conceptual EBPSP Vehicular Circulation and Access Plan ........................... 2-57 Figure 2-14 Conceptual EBPSP Non-vehicular Circulation and Mobility Plan ................. 2-61 Figure 2-15 EBPSP Grading Plan ...................................................................................... 2-65 Figure 2-16a EBPSP Tentative Tract Map .......................................................................... 2-67 Figure 2-16b EBPSP Tentative Tract Map .......................................................................... 2-69 Figure 2-16c EBPSP Tentative Tract Map .......................................................................... 2-71 Figure 2-17 EBPSP Limits of Disturbance ........................................................................ 2-73 Figure 2-18 EBPSP Conceptual Phasing Plan ................................................................... 2-79 Figure 3.1-1 EBPSP Site Photos ....................................................................................... 3.1-5 Figure 3.1-2 EBPSP Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................... 3.1-9 Figure 3.2-1 Important Farmland .................................................................................... 3.2-7 Figure 3.2-2 Williamson Act Lands................................................................................ 3.2-11 Figure 3.2-3 EBPSP Farmland Map................................................................................ 3.2-13 Figure 3.3-1 South Coast AQMD MATES V Cancer Risk................................................. 3.3-23 Figure 3.3-2 South Coast AQMD Permitted Facilities ................................................... 3.3-27 Figure 3.3-3 Environmental Justice Communities......................................................... 3.3-31 Figure 3.3-4 CES4 Indicator: Pollution Burden .............................................................. 3.3-33 Figure 3.3-5 CES4 Indicator: Asthma Percentile............................................................ 3.3-35 Figure 3.3-6 EBPSP Sensitive Receptor Locations ......................................................... 3.3-77 Figure 3.3-7 Truck Route Net Increase in DPM Concentrations: Coarse Results .......... 3.3-89 Figure 3.3-8 Truck Route Net Increase in Cancer Risk per Million: Coarse Results ...... 3.3-91 1975
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
TABLE OF CONT ENTS
i v
Figure 3.3-9 Truck Route Net Increase in DPM Concentrations: Refined Results......... 3.3-93 Figure 3.3-10 Truck Route Net Increase in Cancer Risk per Million: Refined Results ..... 3.3-95 Figure 3.3-11 Truck Route Changes Net Decrease in Cancer Risk per Million: Coarse Results....................................................................................................... 3.3-99 Figure 3.4-1 Areas of Potential Occurrence of Sensitive Species .................................. 3.4-21 Figure 3.4-2 Vegetation and Land Cover ....................................................................... 3.4-37 Figure 3.4-3 EBPSP Vegetation Communities................................................................ 3.4-41 Figure 3.5-1 Historic Districts ........................................................................................ 3.5-15 Figure 3.5-2 EBPSP Historic-Age Resource Location Map ............................................. 3.5-31 Figure 3.7-1 Geologic Map .............................................................................................. 3.7-7 Figure 3.7-2 Regional Faults and Fault Zones ................................................................ 3.7-11 Figure 3.9-1 Hazardous Materials Cleanup Sites in Ontario (Open Cases) ................... 3.9-23 Figure 3.9-2 Airport Safety Zones .................................................................................. 3.9-27 Figure 3.9-3 Properties within the EBPSP Area ............................................................. 3.9-35 Figure 3.9-4 EBPSP Soil Sample Locations ..................................................................... 3.9-39 Figure 3.10-1 Subwatersheds ........................................................................................ 3.10-13 Figure 3.10-2 Flood Hazard Zones ................................................................................. 3.10-17 Figure 3.10-3 Dam Inundation Zones ............................................................................ 3.10-21 Figure 3.12-1 Areas of Mineral Resource Significance .................................................... 3.12-5 Figure 3.13-1 Existing Traffic Noise Contours ................................................................ 3.13-15 Figure 3.13-2 Airport Noise Contours ........................................................................... 3.13-17 Figure 3.13-3 EBPSP Noise Receiver Locations ............................................................. 3.13-29 Figure 3.13-4 EBPSP Construction Noise Source Locations .......................................... 3.13-37 Figure 3.13-5 Project-Related Traffic Noise Contours ................................................... 3.13-49 Figure 3.13-6 EBPSP Operational Noise Source Locations ............................................ 3.13-51 Figure 3.15-1 School Facilities and Districts .................................................................... 3.15-9 Figure 3.16-1 Existing and Proposed Park Facilities ........................................................ 3.16-9 Figure 3.17-1 Roadway Classifications ............................................................................ 3.17-9 Figure 3.17-2 Public Transit Plan ................................................................................... 3.17-13 Figure 3.17-3 Multipurpose Trails & Bikeway Corridor Plan ......................................... 3.17-25 Figure 3.19-1 Existing Storm Drain System ................................................................... 3.19-29 Figure 3.19-2 EBPSP Potable Water Infrastructure Plan ............................................... 3.19-43 Figure 3.19-3 EBPSP Recycled Water Infrastructure Plan ............................................. 3.19-45 Figure 3.19-4 EBPSP Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Plan .............................................. 3.19-53 Figure 3.19-5 EBPSP Storm Drainage Infrastructure Plan ............................................. 3.19-57 Figure 3.19-6 EBPSP Dry Utilities Infrastructure Plan ................................................... 3.19-63 Figure 3.19-7 EBPSP Fiber Optics Plan .......................................................................... 3.19-65 Figure 4-1 Truck Route Scenario 3 Alternative.............................................................. 4-23 1976
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
TABLE OF CONT ENTS
M ARCH 2 026 v
List of Tables
Table ES-1 Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment................ES-20 Table ES-2 EBPSP Land Use Statistical Summary ..........................................................ES-21 Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................ES-30 Table 1-1 NOP Comment Summary ............................................................................... 1-2 Table 2-1 Approved TOP 2050 Land Use Designations .................................................. 2-9 Table 2-2 Land Use Designations in the City of Ontario .............................................. 2-24 Table 2-3 TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Proposed Land Use Summary .............. 2-31 Table 2-4 Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment ................. 2-34 Table 2-5 Ontario’s 2021-2029 RHNA Requirements .................................................. 2-38 Table 2-6 EBPSP Proposed Policy Plan Land Use Designations ................................... 2-46 Table 2-7 EBPSP Land Use Statistical Summary ........................................................... 2-49 Table 2-8 EBPSP Current TOP 2050 Land Uses ............................................................ 2-50 Table 2-9 Construction Duration.................................................................................. 2-75 Table 2-10 EBPSP Anticipated Construction Equipment................................................ 2-75 Table 2-11 Project Approvals Needed ........................................................................... 2-78 Table 3.2-1 San Bernardino County 2016–2018 Farmland Conversion ......................... 3.2-5 Table 3.2-2 Existing Farmland in Ontario ....................................................................... 3.2-6 Table 3.2-3 Remaining Agricultural Preserves in Ontario ............................................ 3.2-10 Table 3.3-1 Criteria Air Pollutant Health Effects Summary ............................................ 3.3-6 Table 3.3-2 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants ................................ 3.3-8 Table 3.3-3 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin ..... 3.3-20 Table 3.3-4 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary ............................................... 3.3-22 Table 3.3-5 CARB Recommendations for Siting New Sensitive Land Uses .................. 3.3-26 Table 3.3-6 South Coast AQMD Regional Significance Thresholds .............................. 3.3-30 Table 3.3-7 South Coast AQMD Localized Significance Thresholds ............................. 3.3-39 Table 3.3-8 South Coast AQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds ................................................................................................. 3.3-41 Table 3.3-9 Current TOP Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Inventory ............................ 3.3-43 Table 3.3-10 Comparison of Population and Employment Forecast ............................. 3.3-50 Table 3.3-11 EBPSP Construction Emissions Summary: Phase 1 ................................... 3.3-55 Table 3.3-12 EBPSP Construction Emissions Summary: Phase 2 ................................... 3.3-56 Table 3.3-13 EBPSP Construction Emissions Summary: Phase 3 ................................... 3.3-56 Table 3.3-14 City of Ontario Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast ........... 3.3-60 Table 3.3-15 EBPSP Peak Operational Emissions Summary: Phase 1 ............................ 3.3-64 Table 3.3-16 EBPSP Peak Operational Emissions Summary: Phases 1 and 2 ................ 3.3-65 Table 3.3-17 EBPSP Peak Operational Emissions Summary: Phases 1, 2, and 3............ 3.3-65 Table 3.3-18 EBPSP Construction-Source LST Summary: Phase 1 ................................. 3.3-79 Table 3.3-19 EBPSP Construction-Source LST Summary: Phase 2 ................................. 3.3-80 1977
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
TABLE OF CONT ENTS
v i
Table 3.3-20 EBPSP Construction-Source LST Summary: Buildout................................ 3.3-80 Table 3.3-21 Summary of EBPSP Construction Health Risks ......................................... 3.3-81 Table 3.3-22 Ontario Ranch Truck Route Changes Operational Health Risk Summary . 3.3-88 Table 3.3-23 Unmitigated Cancer Burden Summary ..................................................... 3.3-97 Table 3.3-24 EBPSP Operational-Source LST Summary: Phase 1 ................................. 3.3-102 Table 3.3-25 EBPSP Operational-Source LST Summary: Phases 1 and 2 ..................... 3.3-102 Table 3.3-26 EBPSP Operational-Source LST Summary: Phases 1, 2, and 3 ................ 3.3-102 Table 3.3-27 Summary of EBPSP Operational Health Risks ......................................... 3.3-103 Table 3.3-28 Summary of EBPSP Construction and Operational Health Risks Combined ................................................................................................ 3.3-105 Table 3.4-1 Sensitive Plant Species Known or With Potential to Exist in the City of Ontario ...................................................................................................... 3.4-19 Table 3.4-2 Sensitive Wildlife Species Known or With Potential to Exist in the City of Ontario .................................................................................................. 3.4-23 Table 3.5-1 Designated Historic Landmarks in the City of Ontario .............................. 3.5-17 Table 3.5-2 Previously Surveyed Properties Determined Eligible by the City ............. 3.5-23 Table 3.5-3 Properties with Potentially Historic Resources and Tier II Historic Resources in Ontario Ranch ...................................................................... 3.5-24 Table 3.5-4 EBPSP Historic-Age Sites ........................................................................... 3.5-28 Table 3.6-1 State Energy Efficiency Regulations ............................................................ 3.6-8 Table 3.6-2 Year 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Forecast Electricity Consumption ..... 3.6-23 Table 3.6-3 Year 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Forecast Natural Gas Consumption .. 3.6-24 Table 3.6-4 Policy Plan Amendment Operation-Related Annual Fuel Usage .............. 3.6-25 Table 3.6-5 Policy Plan Amendment CCAP Consistency Analysis ................................ 3.6-32 Table 3.7-1 Selected Historical Earthquakes in and near the Upper Santa Ana River Valley ......................................................................................................... 3.7-14 Table 3.8-1 GHG Emissions and Their Relative Global Warming Potential .................... 3.8-3 Table 3.8-2 Summary of GHG Emissions Risks to California .......................................... 3.8-5 Table 3.8-3 Priority Strategies for Local Government Climate Action Plans ............... 3.8-11 Table 3.8-4 GHG Sector-Specific Regulations .............................................................. 3.8-14 Table 3.8-5 City of Ontario GHG Emissions Forecast ................................................... 3.8-25 Table 3.8-6 Amortized Annual EBPSP Construction Emissions – Phase I .................... 3.8-29 Table 3.8-7 Amortized Annual EBPSP Construction Emissions – Phase 2 ................... 3.8-29 Table 3.8-8 Amortized Annual EBPSP Construction Emissions – Phase 3 ................... 3.8-30 Table 3.8-9 EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phase 1 (Unmitigated) ....................................... 3.8-31 Table 3.8-10 EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phases 1 and 2 (Unmitigated)............................ 3.8-31 Table 3.8-11 EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phases 1, 2, and 3 (Unmitigated)....................... 3.8-32 Table 3.8-12 EBPSP CCAP Screening Table..................................................................... 3.8-36 Table 3.8-13 EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phase 1 (Mitigated)............................................ 3.8-38 1978
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
TABLE OF CONT ENTS
M ARCH 2 026 v ii
Table 3.8-14 EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phases 1 and 2 (Mitigated) ................................ 3.8-38 Table 3.8-15 EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phases 1, 2, and 3 (Mitigated) ........................... 3.8-39 Table 3.8-16 Policy Plan Amendment CCAP Consistency Analysis ................................ 3.8-40 Table 3.9-1 Hazardous Materials Sites in the City of Ontario ...................................... 3.9-19 Table 3.9-2 CNO Compatibility Criteria Matrix ............................................................ 3.9-57 Table 3.10-1 Listed Impaired Water Bodies ................................................................. 3.10-15 Table 3.10-2 Flow Rates for MDP Facilities to be Constructed by the Specific Plan ... 3.10-37 Table 3.11-1 Policy Plan Amendment Consistency with SCAG Connect SoCal ............ 3.11-11 Table 3.11-2 Land Use Designation: Affected Acreage ................................................ 3.11-14 Table 3.11-3 EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis .................................................. 3.11-15 Table 3.11-4 EBPSP Consistency with Connect SoCal .................................................. 3.11-35 Table 3.11-5 CNO Compatibility Criteria Matrix .......................................................... 3.11-37 Table 3.13-1 Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels ............................................. 3.13-5 Table 3.13-2 FTA Detailed Analysis Construction Noise Criteria .................................... 3.13-7 Table 3.13-3 FTA Construction Vibration Damage Criteria ............................................ 3.13-8 Table 3.13-4 Ontario Noise Level Exposure and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines .. 3.13-10 Table 3.13-5 Ontario Exterior Noise Standards ........................................................... 3.13-12 Table 3.13-6 Existing Railroad Noise Levels ................................................................. 3.13-19 Table 3.13-7 EBPSP Ambient Noise Levels ................................................................... 3.13-20 Table 3.13-8 Groundborne Vibration Damage Criteria ................................................ 3.13-23 Table 3.13-9 Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration and Noise ....................................................................................................... 3.13-23 Table 3.13-10 Construction Reference Noise Levels ...................................................... 3.13-25 Table 3.13-11 Operational Reference Noise Levels ....................................................... 3.13-26 Table 3.13-12 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ............................. 3.13-27 Table 3.13-13 Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels ..................................... 3.13-33 Table 3.13-14 Typical Construction Noise Levels at Receptors ...................................... 3.13-34 Table 3.13-15 EBPSP Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary .......................... 3.13-36 Table 3.13-16 EBPSP Construction Noise Compliance................................................... 3.13-36 Table 3.13-17 EBPSP Daytime Construction Noise Increases ........................................ 3.13-39 Table 3.13-18 EBPSP Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Compliance ............................... 3.13-40 Table 3.13-19 EBPSP Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Increases ................................... 3.13-40 Table 3.13-20 Off-site Improvements Noise Levels ....................................................... 3.13-41 Table 3.13-21 Project-Related Increase in Traffic Noise ................................................ 3.13-46 Table 3.13-22 EBPSP Daytime Operational Noise Levels............................................... 3.13-53 Table 3.13-23 EBPSP Nighttime Operational Noise Levels ............................................ 3.13-54 Table 3.13-24 EBPSP Operational Noise Level Compliance ........................................... 3.13-54 Table 3.13-25 EBPSP Daytime Operational Noise Increases.......................................... 3.13-55 Table 3.13-26 EBPSP Nighttime Operational Noise Increases ....................................... 3.13-55 1979
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
TABLE OF CONT ENTS
v i i i
Table 3.13-27 Existing with EBPSP (Phase I) Traffic Noise Increases ............................. 3.13-57 Table 3.13-28 Existing with EBPSP (Phase 2) Traffic Noise Increase.............................. 3.13-58 Table 3.13-29 Existing with EBPSP (Buildout) Traffic Noise Increases ........................... 3.13-60 Table 3.13-30 Opening Year (2031) with EBPSP Traffic Noise Increases ....................... 3.13-61 Table 3.13-31 Horizon Year (2050) with EBPSP Traffic Noise Increases......................... 3.13-62 Table 3.13-32 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ......................................... 3.13-66 Table 3.13-33 EBPSP Construction Vibration Levels ...................................................... 3.13-67 Table 3.14-1 Population Trends in the City of Ontario and San Bernardino County ..... 3.14-4 Table 3.14-2 Historical Housing Growth Trends in the City of Ontario and San Bernardino County .................................................................................... 3.14-4 Table 3.14-3 Housing Units by Type in the City of Ontario and County of San Bernardino ................................................................................................ 3.14-5 Table 3.14-4 City of Ontario and San Bernardino County Employment Trends ............ 3.14-5 Table 3.14-5 SCAG Projections, City of Ontario and County of San Bernardino............ 3.14-7 Table 3.14-6 City of Ontario 2021–2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment ............ 3.14-7 Table 3.14-7 Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 and Proposed Project to SCAG Forecasts ................................................................................................. 3.14-10 Table 3.15-1 Public Service Providers ............................................................................ 3.15-1 Table 3.15-2 Public Schools Serving the City of Ontario ................................................ 3.15-7 Table 3.15-3 School District (K-12) Enrollment .............................................................. 3.15-8 Table 3.15-4 Student Generation Rates ......................................................................... 3.15-8 Table 3.15-5 Proposed Project Student Generation .................................................... 3.15-20 Table 3.16-1 Recreational Facility Development Impact Fees ....................................... 3.16-3 Table 3.16-2 Park/Recreational Facilities in Ontario ...................................................... 3.16-5 Table 3.16-3 Proposed Project Parkland Demand ....................................................... 3.16-17 Table 3.17-1 Approved TOP 2050 VMT ........................................................................ 3.17-17 Table 3.17-2 Proposed Project VMT ............................................................................ 3.17-18 Table 3.17-3 EBPSP VMT .............................................................................................. 3.17-21 Table 3.17-4 VMT Comparison of Policy Plan Amendment to the TOP 2050 .............. 3.17-30 Table 3.17-5 VMT Comparison of EBPSP to TOP 2050 ................................................ 3.17-34 Table 3.19-1 Utility Providers......................................................................................... 3.19-1 Table 3.19-2 UWMP Existing and Projected Supply and Demand: Normal Year......... 3.19-25 Table 3.19-3 Recycled Water Demands ....................................................................... 3.19-26 Table 3.19-4 Landfills Serving the City of Ontario ....................................................... 3.19-33 Table 3.19-5 Projected Water Demand Rates .............................................................. 3.19-38 Table 3.19-6 EBPSP Water Demand ............................................................................. 3.19-41 Table 3.19-7 Projected Wastewater Flow Rates .......................................................... 3.19-48 Table 3.19-8 IEUA WWTP Flow Rates and Capacities .................................................. 3.19-49 Table 3.19-9 Projected Wastewater Flow Rates for Specific Plan Area ....................... 3.19-51 1980
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
TABLE OF CONT ENTS
M ARCH 2 026 ix
Table 3.19-10 Year 2050 Forecast Electricity Consumption .......................................... 3.19-59 Table 3.19-11 Year 2050 Forecast Natural Gas Consumption ....................................... 3.19-60 Table 3.19-12 Additional Solid Waste Generated by Policy Plan Amendment .............. 3.19-71 Table 3.20-1 Historic Wildfires in and Surrounding Ontario .......................................... 3.20-9 Table 4-1 No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 vs. Growth Projections at Buildout .......................................................................................................... 4-7 Table 4-2 EBPSP No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 Air Pollutant Emissions ...................................................................................................... 4-10 Table 4-3 EBPSP No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 GHG Emissions ............... 4-13 Table 4-4 EBPSP No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 Trip Generation ............. 4-18 Table 4-5 Reduced Intensity Alternative ...................................................................... 4-29 Table 4-6 Reduced Intensity Alternative Operational Emissions Comparison at Buildout ........................................................................................................ 4-31 Table 4-7 Comparison of Project Alternative Impacts ................................................. 4-40 Table 4-8 Ability to Meet Proposed Project Objectives ............................................... 4-42 1981
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
TABLE OF CONT ENTS
x
This page intentionally left blank.
1982
M ARCH 2 026 ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 INTRODUCTION
This executive summary has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15123. This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) addresses the environmental effects associated with the implementation of the proposed Policy Plan Amendment and the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (EBPSP or Specific Plan). CEQA requires that local government agencies consider the environmental consequences before acting on projects over which they have discretionary approval authority.
An SEIR analyzes potential environmental consequences to inform the public and support informed decisions by local and State governmental agency decision makers.
This SEIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and the City of Ontario’s CEQA procedures. The City of Ontario, as the lead agency, has reviewed and revised all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports as necessary to reflect its own independent judgment, including reliance on City of Ontario technical personnel from other departments and review of all technical subconsultant reports.
ES.1.1 TOP Certified EIR
The proposed project is an update to the approved project; therefore, this SEIR relies on the findings of the 2022 Draft SEIR and 2022 Final SEIR and, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, contains all the information necessary to ensure that the 2022 Certified EIR fully evaluates the proposed project. These documents, though discussed separately here, are collectively referred to in this SEIR as the 2022 Certified EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15148 and 15150, this SEIR incorporates the 2022 Certified EIR (and its constituent parts) by reference. A summary of the 2022 Certified EIR follows. All documents incorporated by reference are available for review at the City of Ontario Community Development Department at 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764.
2022 DRAFT SEIR AND FINAL EIR FOR THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 The City of Ontario circulated the 2022 Draft SEIR for a 45-day public review period beginning May 9, 2022, and ending June 23, 2022, and 20 topics were evaluated in detail in the 2022 SEIR.
The following impacts were considered less than significant without mitigation in the 2022 SEIR:
1983
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-2
Aesthetics
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Biological Resources
Energy
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildlife
The following impacts were identified as having potentially significant impacts that could be mitigated, avoided, or substantially lessened.
Cultural Resources (Archeological Resources)
Geology and Soils (Paleontological Resources)
Tribal Cultural Resources
The 2022 SEIR identified the following environmental categories as having significant and unavoidable impacts that could not be avoided by incorporating mitigation.
Air Quality (AQMP Consistency, Regional Construction Emissions, Regional Operation Emissions, and Cumulative Health Risk)
Cultural Resources (Historic Resources)
Noise (Construction Noise, Construction Vibration, and Airport Land Use Compatibility) Transportation (Vehicle Miles Traveled)
The City of Ontario approved The Ontario Plan 2050 and certified the TOP 2050 SEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) on August 16, 2022.
2009 DEIR AND RECIRCULATED DEIR
The 2022 SEIR tiered off the findings for TOP Final EIR certified in January 2010. The City of Ontario circulated the 2009 Draft EIR for public review in April 2009. Six environmental categories (agricultural resources, air quality, cultural resources, global climate change, noise, and traffic and transportation) had significant and unavoidable impacts that could not be avoided with mitigation. A Recirculated Draft EIR for The Ontario Plan was released in November 2009 to update and provide additional analysis concerning GHG emissions impacts associated with buildout of the Policy Plan. This analysis was based on verbal comments made by the California Attorney General’s Office after the end of the public review period and on ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
1984
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-3
recent rules and regulations about lowering GHG emissions. Only the following topic areas were analyzed in the 2009 Recirculated Draft EIR: Global Climate Change and Additional Project Alternative: 15 percent GHG Reduction Alternative. Remaining topics previously analyzed in the 2009 Draft EIR were determined to be adequately addressed. Analysis in the 2009 Recirculated Draft EIR found that significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the 2009 Draft EIR would remain significant and unavoidable. These determinations were reiterated in the 2010 Final EIR when it was certified on January 27, 2010.
ES.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
This SEIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines to assess the environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed project as well as anticipated future discretionary actions and approvals. CEQA established 6 main objectives for an EIR:
1. Disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed activities.
2. Identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage.
3. Prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures.
4. Disclose to the public reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental effects.
5. Foster interagency coordination in the review of projects.
6. Enhance public participation in the planning process.
An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; it is intended to provide an objective, factually supported analysis, and full disclosure of the environmental consequences of a proposed project with the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts.
An EIR is one of various decision-making tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Before approving a proposed project, the lead agency must consider the information in the EIR, determine whether the EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, determine that it reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency, adopt findings concerning the project’s significant environmental impacts and alternatives, and adopt a statement of overriding considerations if significant impacts cannot be avoided. 1985
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-4
ES.2.1 Draft EIR Organization
Executive Summary. Summarizes the background and description of the proposed project, the format of this SEIR, project alternatives, any critical issues that need to be resolved, and the potential environmental impacts and recommended mitigation measures identified for the project.
Chapter 1: Introduction. Describes the purpose of this SEIR, background on the project, the notice of preparation, the use of incorporation by reference, and Final SEIR certification.
Chapter 2: Project Description. Provides a detailed description of the project, including its objectives, its area and location, approvals anticipated to be required as part of the project, necessary environmental clearances, and the intended uses of this SEIR.
Chapter 3: Environmental Analysis. Each environmental topic is analyzed in a separate section that discusses: the applicable regulatory framework; existing conditions; the significance criteria used to determine if a significant impact would occur; the methodology to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of the project; the potential adverse and beneficial effects of the project; the level of impact significance with and without mitigation; and the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project and other existing, approved, and proposed projects in the area.
Chapter 4: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Describes the alternatives and compares their impacts to the impacts of the proposed project. Alternatives include the No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050, Truck Route Scenario 3 Alternative, and Reduced Intensity Alternative.
Chapter 5: Other CEQA Considerations. Provides a discussion of effects found not to be significant, significant and unavoidable impacts, significant irreversible changes to the environment, and growth-inducing effects.
Chapter 6: Report Preparers and Organizations Consulted. Includes a list of people and organizations that prepared or were contacted during the preparation of this Draft SEIR.
Appendices. The appendices for this document include the following supporting documents:
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation
Appendix B: TOP 2050 Policy Matrix
Appendix C1: TOP AQ, Energy, and GHG Modeling
Appendix C2: TOP Truck Route HRA
Appendix C3: EBPSP AQ Study
Appendix C4: EBPSP HRA
■
■
■
■
■
■
1986
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-5
Appendix C5: EBPSP Energy Study
Appendix C6: EBPSP GHG Study
Appendix D: EBPSP Biological Resources Report
Appendix E1: SCICC Records Search
Appendix E2: Ontario Ranch Historic Surveys
Appendix E3: EBPSP Cultural Resources
Appendix F1: EBPSP Geotechnical Study – NWC
Appendix F2: EBPSP Geotechnical Study – NEC
Appendix F3: EBPSP Paleontological Resources
Appendix G1: EBPSP Phase I
Appendix G2: EBPSP Phase II (1A)
Appendix G3: EBPSP Phase II (1B)
Appendix G4: EBPSP Phase II (2A)
Appendix G5: EBPSP Phase II (2B)
Appendix G6: ALUCP Consistency Determination
Appendix H1: EBPSP Preliminary Hydrology
Appendix H2: EBPSP WQMP
Appendix I1: TOP Noise
Appendix I2: EBPSP Noise
Appendix J: Public Service Responses
Appendix K1: TOP VMT Memo
Appendix K2: EBPSP VMT Memo
Appendix K3: EBPSP LOS Study
Appendix L1: TOP Water Supply Evaluation
Appendix L2: EBPSP Water Supply Assessment
Appendix L3: EBPSP Sewer and Water Infrastructure
Appendix M1: NAHC Records Request
Appendix M2: Tribal Consultation Letters
Appendix N: EBPSP Alternatives Analysis
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
1987
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-6
ES.2.2 Type and Purpose of this Draft SEIR
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CEQA dictates when a supplemental or subsequent EIR is required for changes to a project that was previously analyzed under CEQA. Once a project has been approved based on a CEQA analysis in an EIR or negative declaration, and the EIR or negative declaration is no longer subject to challenge, CEQA Section 21166 provides that “no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or any responsible agency” unless one of three circumstances apply: 1) substantial changes to the approved project will require major revisions to the certified EIR, 2) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the approved project is being undertaken will require major revisions to the certified EIR, or 3) new information, that was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR for the approved project was certified becomes available (CEQA Section 21166).
In this case, in-depth review has already occurred and the time for challenging the sufficiency of the 2022 TOP EIR has expired (CEQA Section 21167, subd. (c)). Moreover, as discussed below, no circumstances have changed enough to justify repeating a substantial portion of the process.
The factors used to evaluate whether a Subsequent or a Supplemental EIR should be prepared are in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, and relate to whether "major changes" to the EIR are required. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 clarifies what constitute major changes to the EIR. According to that section, major changes to the EIR are those that are required either:
"Due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a)(1), (a)(2); see also subd. (a)(3)(A), (a)(3)(B)) Where "[m]itigation 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" (subd. (a)(3)(C))
Where "[m]itigation 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." (subd. (a)(3)(D))
As disclosed in this Executive Summary, the analysis prepared for this SEIR substantiates that the Policy Plan Amendment would result in one or more new significant environmental effects in comparison to the Current TOP 2050 as adopted.
■
■
■
1988
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-7
This Draft SEIR is a program-level document that supplements the analyses in the Certified 2022 EIR. Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that:
(a) The lead or responsible agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if:
1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and
2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. (b) The supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. (c) A supplement to an EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and public review as is given to a draft EIR under Section 15087.
(d) A supplement to an EIR may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous draft or final EIR.
(e) When the agency decides whether to approve the project, the decisionmaking body shall consider the previous EIR as revised by the supplemental EIR.
A finding under Section 15091 shall be made for each significant effect shown in the previous EIR as revised.
In accordance with Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines, this document:
Incorporates the 2022 Certified EIR by reference, as discussed in Section 2.2, Project Background. Contains information necessary to make the 2022 Certified EIR adequate for the proposed project.
Evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the changes to the Current TOP 2050 that are a result of changed circumstances and new information.
Evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed changes to the Current TOP 2050, i.e., the proposed land use designation and development capacity changes.
Updates where necessary the discussion of cumulative impacts, growth-inducing impacts, and other required sections of this Draft SEIR.
■
■
■
■
■
1989
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-8
The proposed project is summarized in Section ES.4, Summary of the Proposed Project, and more fully described in Chapter 2 of this Draft SEIR. The analysis in this SEIR confirms that the 2022 Certified EIR is adequate for the proposed project with the updated information contained herein.
Approach/Definition of Baseline
As described above, a Supplement to an EIR need only contain the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the proposed project, as revised. The 2022 Certified EIR therefore serves as the logical “baseline” to assess potential impacts associated with the proposed project. The environmental impacts associated with the proposed project for this SEIR are defined as the incremental impacts between the Current TOP 2050 and the proposed project. To accurately assess the incremental impact, this SEIR analyzes the difference between the buildout of the Current TOP 2050 to buildout of the Policy Plan Amendment (i.e., compares “buildout” to “buildout”). Impacts are assessed for the net land use changes under the proposed project, as described in Section 1.4.3.1, Areas of Change. The environmental setting of each topical section provides an update of existing conditions and changes in circumstances since certification of the 2022 Certified EIR.
PROGRAM EIR
This SEIR fulfills the requirements for a Program EIR. Although the legally required contents of a Program EIR are the same as for a Project EIR, Program EIRs are typically more conceptual than Project EIRs, with a more general discussion of impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures.
According to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. Use of a Program EIR gives the lead agency an opportunity to consider broad policy alternatives and programwide mitigation measures, with greater flexibility to address project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts on a comprehensive scale.
Agencies prepare Program EIRs for programs or a series of related actions that are linked geographically; logical parts of a chain of contemplated events, rules, regulations, or plans that govern the conduct of a continuing program; or individual activities carried out under the same authority and having generally similar environmental effects that can be mitigated in similar ways.
Once a Program EIR has been prepared, subsequent activities within the program must be evaluated to determine whether an additional CEQA document is necessary. If the Program EIR addresses the program’s effects as specifically and comprehensively as possible, many subsequent activities may be within the Program SEIR’s scope, and additional environmental documents may not be required (CEQA Guidelines sec. 15168[c]). When a lead agency relies on a Program EIR for a subsequent activity, it must incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives from the Program EIR into the subsequent activities (CEQA Guidelines 1990
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-9
sec. 15168[c][3]). If a subsequent activity would have effects outside the scope of the Program EIR, the lead agency must prepare a new Initial Study leading to a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR. Even in this case, the Program SEIR still serves a valuable purpose as the first-tier environmental analysis. The CEQA Guidelines encourage the use of Program EIRs, citing five advantages:
Provide a more exhaustive consideration of impacts and alternatives than would be practical in an individual EIR;
Focus on cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis; Avoid continual reconsideration of recurring policy issues; Consider broad policy alternatives and programmatic mitigation measures at an early stage when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with them; Reduce paperwork by encouraging the reuse of data (through tiering). (CEQA Guidelines sec. 15168[h])
This EBPSP portion of the Draft SEIR has been prepared as a “Project SEIR,” defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15161 (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3). This type of EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project and should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The SEIR shall examine all phases of the project, including planning, construction, and operation.
ES.3 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Ontario is in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County and is surrounded by the cities of Chino and Montclair and unincorporated San Bernardino County to the west; the cities of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga to the north; the city of Fontana and unincorporated San Bernardino County to the east; and the cities of Eastvale and Jurupa Valley to the south (see Figures ES-1, Regional Location, and ES-2, Citywide Aerial Map). The City is in the central part of the Upper Santa Ana River Valley. The primary tributary that flows through Ontario is the Cucamonga Creek, which originates, together with subtributaries, in the San Gabriel Mountains and flows into the Prado Dam, where it joins the Santa Ana River, eventually terminating in the Pacific Ocean.
The City comprises approximately 50 square miles (32,022 acres), including the 8,200-acre Ontario Ranch in the southern part of the City—formerly known as the New Model Colony (NMC) and formerly the City’s sphere of influence (SOI). The northern, more urbanized part of the City is known as the Original Model Colony (OMC) in reference to the City’s founding as a model colony for cities in terms of layout and infrastructure. Generally, the City is bounded by Benson Avenue and Euclid Avenue on the west; Interstate 10 (I-10), 8th Street, and 4th Street on the north; Etiwanda Avenue and Hamner Avenue on the east; and Merrill Avenue and the ■
■
■
■
■
1991
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-10
San Bernardino County/Riverside County boundary on the south (see Figure ES-1). Regional circulation to and through the City is provided by I-10 and State Route (SR) 60, east to west, and by I-15 and SR-83 (Euclid Avenue), north to south. The City is also home to the Ontario International Airport (ONT) and proximate to Chino Airport.
Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan
The 189-acre Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (EBPSP or Specific Plan) project site is bounded to the south by Eucalyptus Avenue, the east by Walker Avenue, and the west by Campus Avenue. Figure ES-3, EBPSP Aerial Map, illustrates the general location of the EBPSP.
The project site includes the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 0216-322-01, 0216-322-02, 0216-321-06, 0216-321-07, 0126-322-10, 0216-321-01, 0216-321-02, 1053-551-01, 1053-541- 02, 1053-541-01, 1053-571-01, 1053-571-02, 1053-531-01, 1053-531-02, 1053-531-03, 1053- 531-04, 1053-581-04, and 1053-581-03.
ES.4 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT
Policy Plan Amendment
The Policy Plan Amendment project component primarily involves modifying the currently permitted and planned TOP land use pattern across more than 1,300 acres in southern Ontario.
These proposed changes to TOP are driven by requests from property owners and developers who seek to alter the allowable type or intensity of land use on their properties as well as land use changes required to improve land use compatibility, maintain compliance with state laws, uphold long-term planning goals, and plan for a cohesive land use pattern that repositions the southwest portion of the City as a central business center.
The proposed land use changes necessitate updates and modifications across the Land Use Element and various other elements of TOP 2050 Policy Plan.
Land Use Element. Proposed changes to the TOP Land Use Plan are shown on Figure ES-4, Policy Plan Amendment Areas of Change. Additional figures in the Land Use Element will be updated to maintain consistency, including TOP Figures LU-02, LU-03, and LU-04. Land Use Plan changes are primarily located within the Ontario Ranch (south of Riverside Drive), with a handful of changes in the northern part of the city along East Holt Avenue and South Grove Avenue, as further discussed below..
Housing Element. To comply with state law, the Housing Element requires updates to TOP housing sites inventory to reflect changes in the list of sites suitable to fulfill the City’s RHNA requirement.
■
■
1992
Q ....
,¼,.
KERN
LOS ANGELES
.. .
r
NGELES COUNTY
.,_I FU
,-
-
SAN BERNARDINO
RIVERSIDE
SAN DIEGO
Covina
• bLERTON •
- !~~:~---:_.:--------il..._~1~ -------'
lr.
.
d
[a Verne
®
BRACKETT
IEtRT
.
_ UPLAND II f •
\
,,I.
Clf,fOF
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
CABLE AIRPORT . I
I
I
~ I
•
' \ ·
ONTARIO
I [TJBNATIONAL
,;:======~ ~h:==:C:-::ITY==n_ ~,~r:om: so
OF ONTARIO
..J. I ----
l !
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
.,.
CITY OF
FONTANA
•
JURUPA VALLEY
CITY OF
CHINO
HILLS
241
I
UNINCORPORATED
c::::::::::::::
~
© • '
CORONA
MIJNlGPAt
AIRPORT
CORONA
~ ~
•
;
,. ~
-
•
,:;\_
"
_I ,. c,;,,, - fl '- ..
r
✓
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-1
Regional Location
D EBPSP Boundary
(±) Airports
~ J Ontario City Limit
Parks and Open Space
L City Boundary
c::::J County Boundary
Unincorporated County
2·0·5·0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
@ 0 10,000 20,000
Feet
40,000
Dale: 2/10/2026
1993
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-12
This page intentionally left blank.
1994
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-2
Citywide Aerial Map
83J Airport
I.. "I Ontario City Boundary
! i Adjacent City Boundary
I.. "l County Boundary
Unincorporated County
c::::J EBPSP Boundary
2 · 0 · 5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 0 2,500 5,000
Source: The City of Ontario 2025
FT
10,000
Date: 2/19/2026
1995
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-14
This page intentionally left blank.
1996
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-3
EBPSP Aerial Map
D EBPSP Boundary
2·0·5·0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
~ ~ Ft
,..,. 0 275 550
Source: T&B 2026. Date: 03/03/2026
1997
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-16
This page intentionally left blank.
1998
=+ 1 .. :-. , , , , , . , , , , , , , . , , ½--,.._ I ~ ............ -+-+---+----+-+--+-+-+-+--+---+--+-+--+--+-~--+-+ l I Afi:f==M-;;;;;;;;;;m,,i;iiiiiiiiiiili'l'l==---i-~r_A~-6-~~-----J•--;-.. E-e<G•T-a->T"7•~\ ''' ''' '' ''' '' '' ''' •Gl~~::;~~~Q• '' '' ~~ ~ •• J _ l
> 1
z CITY OF ~ z MONTCLAIR ~ J
z ' I~
~
w
> <(
Q
z
0 w ~
~ <(
z z iw G ST:;;
z z =>
~ W DST
·· J W MISSION BLVQ
I 7 1
_ .. r.L-- i-
~ 11.l
.. J f ■
W PH
. ·r ,I
CITY OF CHINO
z
<(
V')
\ w I l
L . -,.-,£-fOW .. -•-··-----·--·L ·---.. ,
I
z
Cl
....,
u . ~
UJ
~
<(
z
<(
t::;
::>
V"l
z
<(
z
<(
b
::>
V')
UJ
~
V,
::>
Q.
~
<(
u
z
L..;' q,;,::::......:::;;:::;;;;;;;;
I
I
I- -------
I ......_,___
w
>
0 0::
l:J
E RI ... SIOE o~
-<:: "'
I..)
"'
w
> <(
"1 Cl C: ....,
Cl <(
E: c::,
"' ::c
""""!I::= ~ +>~ ~ ~
"'
IF L---t ' t ========~ L_ • E• lfllJe'/ll~Y·P'l'l9S-AV[D l L---··-·••ME"'ll'-AV ... ••---··1
L .. --·
L
0::
UJ
z
0::
::,
f--
V"l
D
I
~
~ ll ' ~ ~ 0
g E 1Nej~PIRE BLVD I _
~'---.7 .......... ·F ·~.~'.-, __ ~--~~-..._,...-
- ! +--!-----l--1-----+-+---+--+--t---+-<1 r RPORT o, • 11 \
1 .
L E SANTA ANA ST -
~ CITY OF
..
UJ
~
z
w
::.:
::i
=-•JI
z
~
.t:
:i;:
I
'1'
I
.. J
,~ EASTVALE
~ FONTANA <{
~ w ~
~ a.,
UJ "'
~ i I
~ ~ l~ounty of : San Bernardino ··-•1------.A, ___ ___. · · - ·· County of Riverside
JURUPA VALLEY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-4
Policy Plan Amendment
Areas of Change
c::J EBPSP Boundary
[::::::J Proposed TOP Areas of Change
c::J Ontario City Boundary
c::J County Boundary
~ Rail Network
Overlay Zones
Y°'h Business Park
Y°'h Industrial
Landfill Impact Area
Residential
RR Rural Residential
LDR Low Density Residential
LMDR Low Medium Density Residential
- MDR Medium Density Residential
- HDR High Density Residential
Mixed-Use
- MU Mixed Use
Commercial
- NC Neighborhood Commercial
- GC General Commercial
- OC Office Commercial
HOS Hospitality
Employment
BP Business Park
- IND Industrial
Other
OS-NR Open Space - Non-Rec
- OS-R Open Space - Recreation
:/\.\:( OS-W Open Space - Water
PF Public Facility
ROW; ROW-bp
- PS Public School
ARPT Airport
LF Landfill
~ Rail
*Areas where no land use
change is proposed are
shown at 40% opacity
2·0·5·0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
@ I
0 2,500 5,000
Source: The City of Ontario 2026
FT
10,000
Date: 2/26/2026
1999
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-18
This page intentionally left blank.
2000
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-19
Mobility Element. The City’s network of truck routes will be updated in compliance with AB 98, and consistent with proposed land use changes. Minor updates to the City’s Roadway System (M-01), and multipurpose trails and bikeways, identified on TOP Figure M-02, are also proposed to reflect the City’s long term plan for roadways, and align future bike improvements with the proposed changes in the land use pattern and truck routes in southwestern Ontario. New Mobility policies and implementation actions addressing priority safety corridors consistent with Senate Bill 932 are proposed, as well as a new policy promoting lower speed limits for trucks in areas adjacent to noise-and-vibration-sensitive land uses. Finaly, Policies M-3.1 and M-4.1 will be updated. Policy M-3.1 will be expanded to note that the city will prioritize coordinating access to transit in areas near sites identified in the housing element as suitable for lower-income (in addition to EJ areas), while Policy M4.1 will clarify that noise-sensitive land uses is intended to include both noise and vibration sensitive land uses.
Community Design Element. Mixed-use place types, identified in the Community Design Element, will be updated to reflect proposed land use changes. Revisions include changes to existing mixed-use areas, and the establishment of new mixed-use areas, including creating a new district-level place type for the Ontario Sports Empire, revising the South Euclid District place type, and removing the South Employment District place type. TOP Figures CD01, CD-02, CD-06, CD-07, CD-08, and CD-09.2 are to be updated. The approved TOP Figure CD-07 will be removed and replaced with a new TOP Figure CD-07, establishing the Ontario Sports Empire as “District Place Type.”
Parks and Recreation. Revisions to the location of planned park facilities in TOP Figure PR-01 to maintain consistency with approved projects and the proposed land use plan.
Safety. Revisions to the Traffic Noise Contours Map (S-06a) will be updated consistent with proposed changes in land use and circulation. In addition minor changes to the base maps used in the map of Critical Facilities (S-08), Evacuation Constrained Properties (S-09), and Evacuation Routes (S-10) will be processed to show updates to the city’s park network or remove parks from the base maps, as the location of parks in no way alters the intent of the map.
Environmental Resources. Policy ER-5.4 will be updated to state that the City does not require replacement farmland or require the dedication or preservation of agricultural land outside of the City if a property owner elects to transition from agricultural to urban uses.
Finally, the City’s Development Code will be updated to maintain consistency with the proposed Land Use Plan.
Development Code Consistency. The zoning map and Development Code will be updated to implement the Policy Plan Amendment.
■
■
■
■
■
■
2001
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-20
Table ES-1, Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment, provides a statistical summary of the buildout potential of TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment compared to the buildout potential under the currently approved TOP 2050. As shown in this table, the Policy Plan Amendment would increase population, dwelling units, nonresidential building square footage, and employment compared to the approved TOP 2050.
Table ES-1 Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment Scenario Units Population
Nonresidential
Square Feet Employment
Approved TOP 2050 129,951 411,268 263,828,479 299,204
Policy Plan Amendment 137,177 427,741 268,162,895 301,035 Net Difference
(Proposed Project –
Approved Project)
7,225 16,473 4,334,416 1,831
Zoning
In addition to changes to TOP 2050, the proposed project includes amendments to the City’s development code to implement the land-use changes, including updates to the zoning map and the affordable housing overlay. There are no separate environmental impacts associated with the Zoning update since these changes reflect the changes to the Policy Plan associated with the proposed Policy Plan Amendment.
EUCALYPTUS BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
The Specific Plan would function as the regulatory document for implementing zoning for the entire site, ensuring the orderly and systematic implementation of the City’s Policy Plan. The Specific Plan establishes the necessary land use plan, development standards, design guidelines, infrastructure systems, and implementation strategies on which subsequent, related development activities would be founded. Upon adoption of the Specific Plan, subsequent subdivision maps, plot plans, conditional use permits, grading and building permits, or any other actions requiring either ministerial or discretionary approvals would be required to demonstrate consistency with the Specific Plan.
As illustrated in Figure ES-5, Conceptual EBPSP Land Use Plan, the EBPSP would establish 9 planning areas that would provide for development of the site with approximately 2,939,000 SF of Business Park uses on 137.9 acres and 36.15 acres of Open Space–Parkland. The remaining
14.97 acres would be utilized for roadway improvements. Table ES-2, EBPSP Land Use Statistical 2002
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-21
Summary, provides a breakdown of acreages by planning area. The EBPSP would result in estimated 1,590 employees within the project site.
Table ES-2 EBPSP Land Use Statistical Summary
Planning Area
(PA) Land Use Designation Acres Target Buildout SF
1 Business Park 7.70 162,600
2 Business Park 18.33 273,700
3 Business Park 18.21 340,700
4 Business Park 18.19 423,200
5 Business Park 37.76 859,300
6 Business Park 37.71 879,500
7 Open Space – Parkland 8.05 —
8 Open Space – Parkland 14.10 — 9 Open Space – Parkland 14.00 — - Roadway 14.97 —
TOTAL 189.0 2,939,000
Notes: SF = square feet
1. A maximum of 10,000 SF of Commercial uses may be provided within Business Park planning areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. This square footage is included within the total listed above.
2. A publicly operated animal resource center may be provided within any of the Business Park planning areas. The animal resource center shall not exceed 35,000 SF.
3. The EBPSP allows the transfer of development square footage (15 percent or less) within the same land use designation, provided that the shift in square footage would not exceed the maximum allowable overall square footage (2,939,000) and the maximum building FAR (0.55).
4. Total acreage of 189.0 is rounded to the nearest one-tenth of an acre.
ES.5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) states that an EIR must address “a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” The alternatives in this Draft SEIR were based, in part, on their potential to reduce or eliminate the impacts determined to be potentially significant for implementation of the proposed project (see Table ES-1, Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures). The project alternatives were not reviewed for financial feasibility. Project alternatives are assessed in further detail in Chapter 4, Alternatives to the Proposed Project. 2003
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-22
ES.5.1 No Project Alternative/ Current TOP 2050
POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
In the No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050, the Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP project would not be implemented by the City. The current TOP 2050 would remain in effect and would apply to land uses within the City and land uses within the EBPSP project site.
Impacts of the No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would be similar for aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, population and housing, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. This alternative would reduce the proposed project’s air quality, energy, GHG, land use and planning, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems impacts. The No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would not meet some of the objectives of the proposed project.
SPECIFIC PLAN
The current TOP 2050 designates the Specific Plan area for Medium Density Residential (MDR), Mixed-Use (Eucalyptus/Chino Airport) (MU-BC); and Open Space Parkland (OS-C). Buildout under these designations would allow for up to 2,195 residential units and 1,632,143 square feet of non-residential land uses within the Specific Plan area. As discussed in Chapter 4, Alternatives, the no project alternative would result in an increase in population, units, and employment but a decrease in non-residential square feet.
The No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would result in greater impacts to energy, construction noise, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems. This alternative would exacerbate significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, GHG, off-site trafficrelated noise, and transportation. Impacts related to aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, construction air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, onsite noise operation, population and housing, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire would be similar compared to the EBPSP. Additionally, impacts to land use and planning would decrease under this alternative.
2004
PA 1
*
PA2
BUSINESS PARK BUSINESS PARK
7.70AC. ~ 18.33 AC.
!!: I ~ < < I .,, <
i• PA4 ~ PAS
~· BUSINESS PARK s BUSINESS PARK I 18.19AC. ~ 37.76AC. Ill '----------------------------------------- - EUCALYPTUS AVE PA Land Use Acres Target Buildout (S.F.)
1 Business Park 7.70 162,600
2 Business Park 18.33 273,700
3 Business Park 18.21 340,700
4 Business Park 18.19 423,200
5 Business Park 37.76 859,300
37.71 879,500
e - Parkland 8.05
e - Parkland 14.10
14.00 * Potential Publicly Operated Animal Resource Center Notes:
1. A maximum of 10,000 s.t tatal of Commercial uses may be provided within the Business Park Planning Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, S, and 6.
2. A publicly operated animal resource center may be provided within the Business Pork and Open Space - Parkland Planning Areas. The animal resource center shall not exceed 35,000 s.f
3. Depending on market conditions, bui/dout square footage within the Business Park Planning Areas is transferrable, as long os the totol buildout square footage within the Business Pork Planning Areas does not exceed 2,939,000 sJ
PA3
BUSINESS PARK
18.21 AC.
I
~
PA6 ~
BUSINESS PARK :1
37.71 AC.
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-5
Conceptual EBPSP Land Use Plan
··-·· L .. J EBPSP Boundary
2 · 0 · 5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPP L EMENTAL EIR
·8 0 ~ 27 5 550 Feet
Source: T&B 2025 Date: 02/17/2026
2005
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-24
This page intentionally left blank.
2006
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-25
As compared with the EBPSP, this alternative would not meet the following objectives to the same extent due to the change in the proposed land uses from business park to residential and mixed-use:
To provide a land use plan that implements The Ontario Plan’s vision and appropriately positions business park and public parkland uses north of Eucalyptus Avenue, between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue.
To facilitate the development of a variety of employment-generating uses in a business park setting.
To provide business park uses that are compatible with surrounding land uses.
ES.5.2 Truck Route Scenario 3 Alternative
In summer 2025, the City conducted outreach and initiated an evaluation of its existing truck routes, which resulted in changes to truck routes in northern Ontario, including within the Original Model Colony (OMC). The purpose of the proposed project is to remove trucks from residential areas, such as Ontario Ranch Road. Truck Route Scenario 3 Alternative would not remove Archibald Avenue as a designated truck route, as proposed under the project, and would add additional truck routes along Eucalyptus Avenue, Walker Avenue, and Hellman Avenue. These additional routes would disperse truck traffic throughout the Ontario Ranch area to a greater extent. While the total number of trucks within the City and the Ontario Ranch area would remain the same, impacts would be spread across a broader area rather than concentrated along two specific routes. This alternative would increase impacts along Archibald Avenue and Edison Avenue while decreasing impacts along Ontario Ranch Road.
This alternative would not affect the land uses proposed for the EBPSP. Therefore, a separate analysis of this alternative for the Specific Plan component was not conducted as it would be the same as that of the Policy Plan Amendment.
This alternative would be similar for aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, GHG, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and system services, and wildfire. This alternative would reduce the proposed project’s air quality and noise impacts.
This alternative would meet all the objectives of the Policy Plan Amendment with the exception of objectives on truck routes and circulation changes. As compared with the proposed project, this alternative would not meet the following objectives:
■
■
■
2007
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-26
Update the City’s truck routes based on proposed land use changes to ensure the City continues to comply with state law and ensures a safe and efficient goods movement network while minimizing the exposure of existing and future sensitive receptors to noise, vibration, and air pollution generated by heavy trucks.
Update the Policy Plan component of TOP 2050 for internal consistency with proposed land use and circulation changes.
ES.5.3 Reduced Intensity Alternative
POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
The proposed land use plan would result in a net increase of 6,370,304 square feet of industrial land use compared to the Current TOP 2050. The EBPSP represents 2,939,000 square feet of the growth in industrial land uses under the proposed project (46 percent); therefore, this alternative considers a reduced intensity alternative for the EBPSP area.
This alternative would be similar for aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, mineral resources, population and housing, recreation, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. This alternative would reduce the proposed project’s air quality, energy, GHG, noise, public services, transportation, and utilities and system services impacts. This alternative would meet all the objectives of the Policy Plan Amendment.
SPECIFIC PLAN
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in a 30 percent reduction in building area on the EBPSP project site. The buildout intensity of the remaining portions of the proposed project would remain the same; however, overall, the buildout of the proposed project would be reduced. Under this alternative, a total of 2,057,300 square feet of non-residential square feet would be developed, a reduction of 881,700 square feet. The total development impact area would remain the same as the EBPSP. Park areas are assumed to remain as proposed. Access to the site would be similar to the EBPSP, with a proportional reduction in the number of parking spaces.
This alternative would be similar for aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, mineral resources, population and housing, recreation, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. This alternative would reduce the proposed project’s air quality, energy, GHG, noise, public services, transportation, and utilities and system services impacts. ■
■
2008
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-27
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would meet most of the EBPSP objectives; however, this alternative would not meet the following objectives to the same extent as the EBPSP due to the reduced square footage and proportional reduction in employees.
To provide a land use plan that implements The Ontario Plan’s vision and appropriately positions business park and public parkland uses north of Eucalyptus Avenue, between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue.
To facilitate the development of a variety of employment-generating uses in a business park setting.
To provide opportunities for positive economic benefit to the City, including new net revenues to the General Fund that can be used for vital City services.
Use of the Specific Plan area would not be maximized under the Reduced Intensity Alternative.
Additionally, the 30 percent reduction would reduce the amount of potential employment opportunities for community residents; therefore, the alternative would not be fully maximizing the economic benefit to the City.
The Reduced Intensity Alternative has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative because it would either lessen or result in similar impacts as the proposed project; however, it would not avoid any significant and unavoidable impacts. The Reduced Intensity Alternative lessens impacts to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, noise, public services, transportation, and utilities and system services while partially achieving the benefits of the project objectives.
ES.6 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. For the proposed project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the lead agency as to:
1. Whether this EIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the project.
2. Whether the benefits of the project override those environmental impacts which cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance.
3. Whether the proposed land use changes are compatible with the character of the existing area.
4. Whether the identified goals, policies, or mitigation measures should be adopted or modified.
■
■
■
2009
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-28
5. Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the project besides the mitigation measures identified in the EIR.
6. Whether there are any alternatives to the project that would substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed project and achieve most of the basic project objectives.
ES.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
In accordance with Section 15123(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR summary must identify areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public. Prior to preparation of the Draft SEIR, the City of Ontario issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on November 4, 2025. The CEQA-mandated public period for this SEIR was between November 4 to December 5, 2025, during which interested agencies and the public could submit comments about the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. A scoping meeting was held on November 20, 2025. During this time, the City of Ontario received comment letters from a variety of State and local agencies as well as several organizations and members of the public. Appendix A, Notice of Preparation, of this Draft SEIR contains the NOP as well as the comments received by the City of Ontario in response to the NOP. In addition, NOP comment letters received during the review period are summarized in Chapter 2, Introduction (see Table 1-1, NOP Comment Summary).
The following list includes issues that are likely to be of particular concern to agencies and interested members of the public during the environmental review process. Though every concern applicable to the CEQA process is addressed in this Draft SEIR, this list is not necessarily exhaustive; rather, it attempts to capture concerns that are likely to generate the greatest interest based on the input received during the scoping process.
Agricultural Resources
Air Quality and GHG
Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Transportation
■
■
■
■
■
2010
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-29
ES.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES
Table ES-3, Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analysis in this SEIR.
Impacts are identified as potentially significant, less than significant or no impact, and mitigation measures are identified for all significant impacts. The level of significance after imposing the mitigation measures is also presented.
Table Terminology:
PPA: Policy Plan Amendment
EBPSP: Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan
PS: Potentially Significant
SU: Significant and Unavoidable
LTS: Less than Significant
NI: No Impact
2011
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-30
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
AESTHETICS
Impact AES-1: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
substantially alter scenic vistas in
Ontario.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact AES-2: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
alter scenic resources within a
State scenic highway.
PPA: NI
EBPSP: NI
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: NI
EBPSP: NI
Impact AES-3: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
conflict with zoning or other
regulations governing scenic
quality.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact AES-4: Buildout of the
proposed project would generate
additional light and glare, which
would be minimized through
adherence to the City of Ontario
Development Code.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Impact AGF-1: The proposed
project would not convert Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance in Ontario to
nonagricultural use.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
The City of Ontario’s land use plan no longer designates agricultural land uses in the City. No mitigation measures are required.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
2012
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-31
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Impact AGF-2: The proposed
project would not result in
conflicts with existing zoning for
agricultural use or a Williamson
Act contract.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
The City of Ontario’s land use plan no longer designates agricultural land uses in the City. No mitigation measures are required.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact AGF-3: The proposed
project would not conflict with
existing zoning for forest land,
timberland, or timberland zoned
Timberland Production.
PPA: NI
EBPSP: NI
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: NI
EBPSP: NI
Impact AGF-4: No forest land
would be affected by the
proposed project.
PPA: NI
EBPSP: NI
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: NI
EBPSP: NI
AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-1: The additional
population growth forecast for
the Policy Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan and the associated
emissions would exceed the
assumptions of the South Coast
AQMD’s AQMP.
PPA: PS
EBPSP: PS
Mitigation measures applied to the operational phases would reduce air quality impacts. However, no additional mitigation measures have been identified.
PPA: SU
EBPSP: SU
Impact AQ-2: Construction
activities associated with future
development that would be
accommodated under the Policy
Plan Amendment could generate
short-term emissions in
PPA: PS
EBPSP: LTS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure AIR-1-PPA [Former 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 PPA: SU
EBPSP: LTS
2013
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-32
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
exceedance of the South Coast
AQMD’s threshold criteria.
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 4 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 5 consecutive
minutes.
■
■
■
■
2014
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-33
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of
architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of
Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures
can be found on the South Coast Air Quality
Management District’s website at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/SuperCompliant_AIM.pdf. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rulescompliance/compliance/vocs/architecturalcoatings/super-compliant-coatings.
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.
Specific Plan
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact AQ-3: Implementation of
the proposed project would
generate additional, long-term
emissions in exceedance of South
Coast AQMD’s threshold criteria
and cumulatively contribute to
the South Coast Air Basin’s
nonattainment designations.
PPA: PS
EBPSP: PS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure AIR-2-PPA [Former 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).
Mitigation Measure AIR-3-PPA [Former 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 PPA: SU
EBPSP: SU
■
2015
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-34
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted
thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Planning Department shall require that applicants for new
development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities.
The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate
an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of
refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.
Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses
shall consider energy storage and combined heat and
power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
Site-specific developments with truck delivery and
loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include
signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with
California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 sec. 2485).
Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary
Measures).
■
■
■
■
2016
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-35
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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 A4.106.8 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.
Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure AIR-1-SP: To facilitate the future installation of infrastructure that would charge the batteries that power the motors of electric-powered trucks, the following shall be installed: 1) prior to the shell building permit approval, an electrical room(s) and/or exterior area(s) of the site shall be designated where future electrical panels would be located for the purpose of supplying power to on-site charging
facilities for electric powered trucks. Conduit shall be installed from this designated area where the panel would be located to the onsite location where the charging facilities would be located and where electric-powered trucks would park and connect to charging facilities to charge the batteries that power the motors of the electric-powered trucks; 2) prior to ■
■
■
■
2017
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-36
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
issuance of a building permit for tenant improvements,
tenants that plan to operate electric trucks would be required to construct electrical charging infrastructure in addition to the required conduits.
Mitigation Measure AIR-2-SP: In order to promote alternative fuels, and help support “clean” truck fleets, the
developer/successor-in-interest shall provide building
occupants with information related to South Coast AQMD’s Carl Moyer Program, or other such programs that promote truck retrofits or “clean” vehicles and information including, but not limited to, the health effect of diesel particulates, benefits of reduced idling time, and CARB regulations.
Tenants shall be notified about the availability of: 1) alternatively fueled cargo handling equipment; 2) grant programs for diesel-fueled vehicle engine retrofit and/or replacement; 3) access to alternative fueling stations
proximate to the site that supply compressed natural gas; and 4) the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s
SmartWay program.
Mitigation Measure AIR-3-SP: Idling Regulations. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be installed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas that identify applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) anti-idling regulations. At a
minimum, each sign shall include the following instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use.
a) Instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than 5 minutes once the vehicle is stopped, the 2018
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-37
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
transmission is set to “neutral” or “park” and the parking brake is engaged.
b) Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report violations.
Mitigation Measure AIR-4-SP: All future operations shall adhere to the following:
a) Sites shall clearly mark entry and exit points for trucks and service vehicles.
b) Facility operators shall maintain records of their fleet equipment owned by the facility and ensure that all
diesel-fueled Medium-Heavy Duty Trucks (MHDT) and
Heavy-Heavy Duty Trucks (HHD) use year CARB 2010 or
newer engines. The records should be maintained on-site and be made available for inspection by the lead agency. c) Facility operators shall train their managers and
employees on efficient scheduling and load management
to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks.
d) Signs should be posted in the appropriate locations
and/or handouts should be provided that show the
locations of nearest food options, fueling, truck
maintenance services, and other similar convenience
services.
e) Each Facility shall designate a Compliance Officer
responsible for implementing the measures described
herein and/or in the project conditions of approval and mitigation measures. Contact information shall be
provided to the City and updated annually, and signs shall be posted in visible locations providing the contact
information for the Compliance Officer to the
surrounding community. The Compliance Officer also
2019
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-38
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
shall coordinate with CARB and South Coast AQMD to
obtain the latest information about regional air quality concentrations, health risks, and trucking regulations. f) Signs shall be posted in the appropriate locations heavy truck drivers to park and perform any self-maintenance of trucks in designated on-site areas and not within the
surrounding community or on public streets.
g) Development plans and specifications shall include signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional
information to the truck route.
Mitigation Measure AIR-5-SP: Electric Vehicle Charging and Future Truck Charging Capability. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following features shall be demonstrated on the EBPSP’s building plans to the extent feasible over minimum California Code of Regulations Title 24 requirements.
Installation shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
a) For use by employees and visitors conducting business at the building, install automobile electric vehicle (EV)
charging stations at the minimum number required by
the California Code of Regulations Title 24. All charging stations shall be equipped with Level 2 or faster chargers.
Signs shall be posted indicating that the charging stations are for exclusive use by the building’s employees and by visitors conducting business at the building.
b) Install appropriate electrical infrastructure sufficiently sized to accommodate the potential installation of
additional auto and truck EV charging stations in the
future.
2020
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-39
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
c) Install raceways for conduit to tractor trailer parking areas in logical, gated locations determined by the Applicant during construction document plan check, for the
purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV
truck charging stations at such time this technology
becomes commercially available. The charging station
location(s) are to be located inside the gated and secured truck courts.
Mitigation Measure AIR-6-SP: Water Efficient Fixtures. All water fixtures shall be water efficient (toilets/urinals (1.5 gallons per minute [gpm] or less), showerheads (2.0 gpm or less), and faucets (1.28 gpm or less).
Mitigation Measure AIR-7-SP: City Review of Construction Documents. Prior to issuance of building permits, the
following features shall be demonstrated on building and landscape plans to the extent feasible. Installation shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
a) Install Energy Star-rated heating, cooling, lighting, and appliances
b) Structures shall be equipped with outdoor electric outlets in the front and rear to facilitate use of electrical lawn and garden equipment.
c) Install rooftop solar energy systems which generate
enough electricity to meet 45% of the annual warehouse
electricity demand.
Mitigation Measure AIR-8-SP: Tenant Lease Agreement. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the following language shall be included within tenant lease agreements in order to 2021
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-40
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
reduce operational air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible:
a) Information about energy efficiency, energy-efficient lighting and lighting control systems, energy
management, and existing energy incentive programs.
b) Information about funding opportunities, such as the Carl Moyer Program, that provide incentives for using cleanerthan-required engines and equipment. c) Requirements to use the cleanest technologies available and to provide the necessary infrastructure to support
zero-emission vehicles, equipment, and appliances that
would be operating on site at such time this technology becomes commercially available. This requirement shall
apply to equipment such as forklifts, handheld
landscaping equipment, yard trucks, office appliances,
etc.
d) Requirements to exclusively use zero-emission light and medium-duty delivery trucks and vans, when
economically feasible.
e) Requirements to operate in compliance with, and to
monitor compliance with, all current and applicable air quality regulations for on-road trucks including the
California Air Resources Board’s Heavy-Duty (TractorTrailer) Greenhouse Gas Regulation, Periodic Smoke Inspection Program, and the Statewide Truck and Bus
Regulation.
f) Requirements and identification of the responsible party to maintain, replace, and upgrade rooftop solar panels
per the manufacturer’s recommendations for the life of
the lease. The EBPSP would comply with existing solar
2022
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-41
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
requirements per the California Energy Code in effect
during permitting (at the time of Construction Drawing
Plan Check Submittal). In the case that the tenant
requires additional solar capacity, this shall be addressed during the tenant improvement process. The EBPSP
would be required to meet the CCR Title 24 energy
efficiency standards in effect at the time building permit applications are submitted.
g) Requirements and identification of the responsible party to maintain, replace, and repair the legible, durable,
weather-proof signs that were installed at initial building occupancy placed at truck access gates, loading docks,
and truck parking areas that identify applicable CARB
anti-idling regulations.
h) The tenant agreement shall include notification that the tenant shall comply with CARB Truck and Bus regulation, including requirements that only haul trucks meeting
model year 2010 engine emission standards shall be used for the on-road transport of materials to and from the
site.
i) Requirements for the building owner to provide a Green Cleaning Products and Paint Education Program available to the building tenant, to keep at the building’s office, break room, leasing space, or on an accessible website.
Impact AQ-4: Construction
activities associated with the
Policy Plan Amendment could
expose sensitive receptors to
substantial air pollutant
concentrations.
PPA: PS
EBPSP: LTS
Policy Plan Amendment
No additional mitigation measures have been identified.
Specific Plan
No mitigation measures are required.
PPA: SU
EBPSP: LTS
2023
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-42
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Impact AQ-5: Operation of
industrial and warehousing land
uses accommodated under the
Policy Plan Amendment would
cumulative contribute to elevated
levels of toxic air contaminants in
the South Coast AQMD region.
PPA: PS
EBPSP: LTS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measures AIR-2-PPA and AIR-3-PPA are applicable to the proposed project. TOP 2050 Policy ER-4.9, New Localized Air Pollution Sources Near Existing Sensitive Receptors, would require an operational health risk assessment for projects that have the potential to generate a substantial number of diesel truck trips to reduce individual projects to less than significant. However, no additional mitigation measures were identified to reduce cumulative impacts.
Policy ER-4.9: New Localized Air Pollution Sources Near Existing Sensitive Receptors. We require new developments to
conduct a Health Risk Assessment for land uses that generate more than 100 trucks per day or 40 trucks per day by trucks operating transportation refrigeration units (TRU's) within 1,000 feet from sensitive land use (California Health and Safety Code Section 42505.5(a)(5)). If the health risk
assessment determines the new development poses health
hazards that increase the incremental cancer risk above the threshold established by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (AQMD), we will only approve permits upon the condition that adequate mitigation measures are proposed and implemented for potential impacts on the
sensitive uses around the site and along the route within Ontario taken by the trucks to and from freeways. We require new developments that must perform a health risk
assessment to conduct additional public outreach by sending notifications in multiple languages to all residents living within 500 feet, and encourage hosting a public meeting.
PPA: SU (cumulative)
EBPSP: LTS
2024
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-43
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Specific Plan
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact AQ-6: Operation of land
uses accommodated under the
proposed project would not result
in other emissions, such as those
leading to odors, that would
adversely affect a substantial
number of people.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-1: Implementation of
the proposed project could
impact special-status species, as
well as nesting birds, burrowing
owls, and roosting bat species.
PPA: PS
EBPSP: PS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure BIO-1-PPA: Biological Resources Assessment. Applicants for future development projects on non-infill sites with suitable natural habitat shall conduct a biological resources assessment of the proposed project footprint
(including proposed access roads, proposed staging and
laydown areas, and a suitable buffer surrounding the project footprint). The biological resources assessment shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and summarized in a
biological resources letter report or biological resources technical report that will be submitted to the Ontario
Planning Department for review and approval prior to being issued a grading permit. Biological resources assessments for infill redevelopment projects may be required, subject to the discretion of the Executive Director Community
Development.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2-PPA: Biological Reconnaissance-Level Survey. The biological reconnaissance-level survey shall include, but not be limited to:
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
2025
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-44
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
An analysis of available literature and biological
databases including but not limited to: California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); California
Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB); California Native
Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered
Plants of California, National Wetland Inventory Database (NWI); USGS National Hydrographic Dataset (NHD);
EcoAtlas; and database searches of the US Fish and
Wildlife Service Critical Habitat, Environmental
Conservation Online System (ECOS), and Information,
Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC). The literature review shall be performed prior to the field survey to
identify sensitive biological resources that were reported previously from the proposed development project
vicinity and to help determine the type of sensitive
biological resources that may be in the survey area.
A review of current land use and land ownership within
the proposed development project vicinity.
A field assessment survey that includes mapping
vegetation communities in the proposed development
project (including but not limited to project footprint, proposed access roads, staging and laydown areas, and a suitable buffer) utilizing the Manual of California
Vegetation, 2nd edition (MCV) and the National
Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) or the currently accepted standard for vegetation mapping and
classification. An evaluation of each mapped vegetation community’s State and Global rarity ranks shall be
determined using CDFW’s Vegetation Classification and
Mapping Program (VegCAMP).
■
■
■
2026
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-45
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
An evaluation of the proposed development project’s
potential to support special status plant and wildlife
species.
An evaluation of nesting habitat for migratory and special status bird species.
An evaluation of potential impacts to bats and roosts
from ground-disturbing activities.
A general assessment of potential jurisdictional areas, including wetlands and riparian habitats.
An evaluation of potential local and regional wildlife
movement corridors.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3-PPA: Focused Species Surveys. If one or more special status plant or animal species has the potential to occur within the proposed development project area
(including but not limited to project footprint, proposed access roads, staging and laydown areas, and a suitable buffer), a qualified biologist shall conduct additional focused surveys for said species using the most recently updated protocols recommended by natural resource agencies or, if not available, standards accepted in the professional
biological community to survey that taxonomic group,
community, or species. If an established protocol is not available for a special status species, the qualified biologist will consult with the City and CDFW or USFWS to determine the appropriate survey protocol. The focused species
survey(s) will be at a level to determine the
presence/absence of these species and to adequately
evaluate potential direct and/or indirect impacts to these species. Adjoining properties shall also be surveyed (as access permits) where direct or indirect project effects, such as ■
■
■
■
■
2027
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-46
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
those from fuel modification or herbicide application, could potentially extend off-site. To the extent possible, the focused species surveys shall be conducted during nondrought years at the time of year when species are both evident and
identifiable. The focused survey shall record the location and boundary of special status species by use of global
positioning system (GPS). The number of individuals shall be counted (if population is small) or estimated (if population is large). If applicable, information about the percentage of individuals in each life stage shall be provided (seedlings, reproductive individuals, adults, nestlings, juveniles, transients or migrant individuals, etc.). Images of the target species and/or representative habitats shall be included to support information and descriptions. Results of focused species surveys shall be summarized in the proposed
development project’s Biological Technical Report.
Mitigation Measure BIO-4-PPA: Biological Resources Report. The results of the biological survey for proposed development projects with no significant impacts may be presented in a biological survey letter report. For proposed development projects with significant impacts that require mitigation to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance, and/or agency consultation and permitting, the results of the
biological survey shall be presented in a biological technical report. The impact analysis shall consider impacts from areas subject to fuel modification and grading to accommodate the development.
Mitigation Measure BIO-5-PPA: Special-Status Species, Sensitive Habitats, Wetlands, Other Non-wetland Waters, Native
Wildlife Nursery Sites, and Wildlife Corridors. If a sensitive 2028
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-47
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
biological resource is identified during field surveys (see Mitigation Measures BIO-2-PPA and BIO-3-PPA), the City shall require implementation of mitigation measures at the project level that fully account for the adversely affected resource.
Mitigation measures shall adhere to the following order of priority to reduce adverse impacts of a proposed project to the resource: avoid impacts, minimize impacts, and
compensate for impacts. Mitigation measures shall be used on a project-level basis and be tailored to on-site conditions and sensitive biological resources present.
Priority 1, Avoidance of Impacts. Proposed development
shall avoid impacts to the maximum extent feasible, as
determined by a qualified biologist, by not taking certain actions or parts of an action. Projects shall be sited to avoid direct or indirect impacts on the resource and
include measures such as implementing no-disturbance
buffers (e.g., nesting bird buffer areas during
construction, siting staging areas outside buffer area) or implementing project-specific design features (e.g.,
wildlife-friendly fencing and lighting in a wildlife corridor), such that indirect adverse effects of project development are avoided. This shall include flagging all plants and/or perimeter of populations; stop-work buffers around
plants and/or populations (e.g., flagged perimeter plus 50 feet); restrictions on ground-disturbing activities within protected areas; relocation of staging and other material piling areas away from protected areas; restrictions on herbicide use and/or type of herbicide and/or application method within 100 feet of sensitive plants; and worker
education and training.
■
2029
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-48
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Priority 2, Minimize Impacts. Proposed development
shall be conditioned to minimize adverse impacts by
limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation to less than significant. Other mitigation measures may include reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations
during the life of the action.
Measures to mitigate the spread of invasive plant species and invasive wildlife species (e.g., New Zealand mudsnail) shall include but will not be limited to: cleaning of
equipment, footwear, and clothing before entering a
construction site and the identification and treatment of significant infestations of invasive plant species within a project site.
Priority 3, Offset Impacts. Offsetting impacts can be done by replacing or providing substitute resources or by
rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or
restoring the impacted environment.
Offset mitigation ratios for protected sensitive resources will be established based on the rarity of the resource, quality of affected habitat associated with the resource, temporary and permanent losses to habitat function, the type of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement,
preservation, establishment), and other requirements
associated with state or federal permits. Mitigation ratios will be determined at the project level in consultation with the City, the qualified biologist, and, where
applicable, federal or state agencies with jurisdiction over the resource (e.g., CDFW, USACE, USFWS).
■
■
2030
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-49
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
If impacts on a protected sensitive biological resource are unavoidable, then the project proponent shall mitigate for the type of resource as follows:
Endangered, Rare, Threatened, or Candidate Species. The applicant shall obtain incidental take authorization from USFWS (16 US Code Section 1531 et seq.) or CDFW
(California Fish and Game Code Sections 2050–2115.5)
prior to commencing development of the project site;
apply minimization measures or other conditions
required under the incidental take authorization; and
provide equivalent compensation for the unavoidable
losses of these resources. Compensation may include
purchasing credits from a USFWS- or CDFW-approved
mitigation bank or restoring or enhancing habitat within the project site or outside of the project site.
Special Status Species (not listed). The applicant shall provide equivalent compensation for impacts on special
status species by restoring or significantly enhancing
existing habitat where the species occurs or by acquiring or protecting land that provides habitat function for
affected species and is at least equivalent to the habitat function removed or degraded as a result of project
implementation.
If impacts on sensitive habitats, wetlands, other nonwetland waters, riparian habitats, native wildlife nursery sites, and wildlife corridors cannot be avoided, the project applicant shall:
Federal- or State-Protected Sensitive Habitats. Obtain the required regulatory authorization (e.g., Section 404
permits for impacts on waters of the United States, 401 ■
■
■
2031
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-50
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
water quality certification from the Regional Water
Quality Control Board, a Streambed Alteration Agreement for impacts on aquatic or riparian habitats within CDFW jurisdiction under Fish and Game Code Section 1600),
and provide equivalent compensation for the
unavoidable losses of the above-mentioned resources
such that there is no net loss.
Mitigation Measure BIO-6-PPA: Demarcate Work Area Boundary. The proposed development proponent shall prevent impacts to unprotected common and sensitive vegetation
communities in areas adjacent to the project area. Prior to the initial vegetation clearing activities or ground disturbance in new areas, the approved project grading limits shall be marked with stakes or other highly visible materials that will be clearly visible to equipment operators and biological monitors during all vegetation clearing or ground disturbing activities. All equipment operators and project personnel shall be instructed about the restrictions the boundary markers represent and that vegetation removal or other
disturbance outside of the boundary markers shall be
avoided.
Mitigation Measure BIO-7-PPA: Preconstruction Special Status Species Surveys. If sensitive biological resources are
identified as having potential to occur within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development project area, a
preconstruction special status species survey shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to ground disturbing activities to ensure unsubstantiated impacts are avoided or minimized. In addition, for species with potential to occur within or adjacent to the proposed 2032
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-51
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
development project area and having species-specific
preconstruction or take avoidance survey guidelines (e.g. burrowing owl), surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the most recent survey guidelines by a qualified biologist for that species.
Mitigation Measure BIO-8-PPA: Pre-disturbance Nesting Bird Surveys. The City of Ontario shall require applicants for future development projects with suitable natural habitat, to
contract with a qualified biologist with experience in
conducting breeding bird surveys to conduct a
preconstruction general nesting bird survey within all suitable nesting habitats that may be directly (active nest destruction, direct mortality) or indirectly (nest abandonment, exposure) impacted by active construction during the general avian breeding season (February 1 through August 31). The predisturbance surveys shall be conducted no more than 5 days prior to initiation of construction inclusive of staking and fencing of project limits, demolition activities, staging of equipment, and all vegetation trimming and removal
activities (regardless of stage of construction). Results of predisturbance nesting bird surveys are typically valid for a period of 3 to 5 days. Additional pre-disturbance nesting bird surveys and/or nest monitoring may be required at the
discretion of the qualified biologist based on observations of breeding behavior, phased removal of breeding bird habitat during the breeding season, establishment of nest buffers, delays in construction activities that could allow for breeding birds to establish a nest, or if the project is
cleared/demolished/constructed over the course of multiple breeding seasons. Results will be summarized in a pre2033
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-52
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
disturbance survey report that describes the dates of the surveys, methods, results of the surveys, and any nest
protection measures that will need to be employed. The predisturbance nesting bird survey report will be submitted to the City within 30 days of completion of the initial predisturbance nesting bird survey.
Mitigation Measure BIO-9-PPA: Active Nest Avoidance and No-Work Buffers. If active nests of avian species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code are
detected within the proposed development project area or within a 300-foot buffer (500-foot buffer for raptors and listed species) of the proposed development project area, a nowork buffer will be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors and listed species) and construction shall be restricted in the area until the young have fledged; there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting if the nest attempt has failed, as determined by the qualified biologist; or until appropriate protection measures (installation of noise and/or visual barriers, intermittent halting or rerouting of high noise-producing construction activities to other portions of the project area, biological monitoring, and/or noise monitoring to ensure effectiveness of no-work buffers and/or noise reduction measures, etc.) that respond to the specific situation have been developed and implemented in consultation with the City and regulatory agencies. A figure showing the locations of no work buffers established during the preclearance nesting survey shall be included in the predisturbance survey report (see Mitigation Measure BIO-8-PPA)
2034
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-53
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Mitigation Measure BIO-10-PPA: Nest Monitoring. Periodic nest monitoring will be conducted at the discretion of the
qualified biologist to ensure compliance with established nowork buffers and document progression of the nest. The qualified biologist will monitor the nest from a distance and determine active/inactive status based on direct observations or evidence of breeding behavior (nest exchanges, food
carries, fecal sac removal, nestling vocalizations, etc.). The qualified biologist will keep the nest monitoring as brief as possible to avoid causing undue stress to the adult(s) and young. For nests where contents are difficult to determine (e.g., gourd nests, cavity nests) or nests that seem inactive prior to the estimated fledge date, the nest will be considered inactive once nesting activity is no longer observed at the nest site during two consecutive monitoring visits by the qualified biologist. Two consecutive monitoring visits may not be necessary if strong evidence (e.g., nest is on the ground or evidence of predation on young) indicates the nest is no longer active or if the nest is unlikely to be affected by immediate project activities. Once a nest is deemed inactive by the qualified biologist and there is no evidence of a second nest attempt or other active nests in the same area, the biologist will deactivate the nest buffer and construction activities may resume in that area. CDFW will not need to concur with the nest “deactivation” determination prior to work resuming in the area. Project-related activities that result in loss of a nest (“take”) will be immediately reported to the City and appropriate agencies (CDFW, USFWS). A
summary of all nest monitoring activities (if any) will be 2035
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-54
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
submitted to the City in a brief memo at the completion of each breeding season.
Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure BIO-1-SP: Pre-disturbance Nesting Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Monitoring. If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds shall be conducted within 3 days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the preconstruction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside of a no-disturbance buffer, which is typically 50 to 100 feet for songbird nests and 100 to 300 feet for raptors; however, the ultimate size of the no-disturbance buffer will be determined by the wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of construction noise and/or surrounding
anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between the nest and the construction activity, type and duration of
construction activity, species habituation, and topographical barriers. These factors will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis when developing buffer distances. Limits of
construction to avoid an active nest will be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel will be instructed about the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor shall be present to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not
2036
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-55
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction activities within the buffer area can occur.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2-SP: Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Surveys. To ensure burrowing owl are still absent from the Specific Plan area, a pre-construction burrowing owl
clearance survey shall be conducted in accordance with
CDFW’s 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Two surveys shall be conducted, the first 14 to 30 days prior to ground-disturbing activities, and the second within 24 hours before ground-disturbing activities. If no burrowing owls are observed within the Specific Plan area, no further review will be required.
If burrowing owls are found within the Specific Plan area during the pre-construction clearance surveys, coordination with the CDFW will be required to determine if avoidance and minimization measures can be implemented to avoid any
direct or indirect impacts to burrowing owl, or if an Incidental Take Permit under Section 2081 of the CESA will need to be prepared and approved by CDFW.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3-SP: Pre-disturbance Roosting Site Survey and Bat Management Plan. If on-site clearing or grading will take place between late spring and late summer and/or in the fall (generally mid-March through late October), a qualified biologist shall be retained to determine whether potential roosting sites for bats may be affected. For large ornamental trees and palms suitable for bat roosting/nursery, exit counts and acoustic surveys shall be performed prior to initial ground disturbance or vegetation or structure removal to 2037
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-56
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
determine whether the Specific Plan area (and a 300-foot buffer) supports a nursery or roost. Any bat species present shall also be identified.
If the results of the bat survey find 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 Specific Plan area (i.e., hoary bat, western yellow 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 shall 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 shall be reviewed and approved by CDFW prior to disturbance of the roosts.
Impact BIO-2: Compliance with
existing regulations would ensure
that implementation of the
proposed project would not have
an adverse impact on riparian or
sensitive habitats.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact BIO-3: Compliance with
existing regulations would ensure
that implementation of the
proposed project would not have
an adverse impact on
jurisdictional waters.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
2038
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-57
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Impact BIO-4: Implementation of
the proposed project could affect
wildlife movement.
PPA: PS
EBPSP: PS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure BIO-11-PPA: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO8-PPA (Pre-disturbance Nesting Bird Surveys).
Mitigation Measure BIO-12-PPA: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO9-PPA (Active Nest Avoidance and No-Work Buffers).
Mitigation Measure BIO-13-PPA: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO10-PPA (Nest Monitoring).
Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure BIO-4-SP: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1- SP (Pre-disturbance Nesting Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Monitoring).
Mitigation Measure BIO-5-SP: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-3- SP (Pre-disturbance Roosting Site Survey and Bat
Management Plan).
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact BIO-5: Compliance with
the City’s Biological Resources
Habitat Mitigation Fee would
ensure that implementation of
the proposed project would not
conflict with local policies and
ordinances protecting biological
resources in the city.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact BIO-6: The proposed
project would not conflict with a
Habitat Conservation Plan or
Natural Communities
Conservation Plan.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
2039
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-58
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CUL-1: Implementation of
the Policy Plan Amendment could
impact historical resources.
PPA: PS
EBPSP: LTS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure CUL-1-PPA [Former MM 5-1]: Historic or potentially historic resources in the City shall be evaluated for historic significance through the City’s tier system prior to the issuance of plan or development approvals. Pursuant to the City’s Development Code (Chapter 4, Permits, Actions, and Decisions, and Chapter 7, Historic Preservation), mitigation measures for all Tier III Historic Resources citywide, Tier II historic resources in Ontario Ranch, or potentially significant historic resources in Ontario Ranch 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 and deposited into the Historic Preservation Trust Fund prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for Tier III historic resources, Tier II Historic Resources located in Ontario Ranch, or a potentially significant historic
resource in Ontario Ranch. Fees for Tier III Historic
PPA: SU
EBPSP: LTS
2040
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-59
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Resources citywide shall be 10 percent and fees for Tier II historic resources in Ontario Ranch and potentially
significant historic properties in Ontario Ranch shall be 30 percent of the price per square foot construction cost, as established in the most current ICC Building Valuation
Data. Fees for Tier I citywide and II historic resources outside of Ontario Ranch 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) Issuance of a A Certificate of Appropriateness shall be required not be issued for the demolition of an Tier III historic resource citywide or a Tier II historic resource in Ontario Ranch, either in whole or in part, However, it
shall not be issued until such time that a demolition
permit application and a replacement structure has been approved by the City, and appropriate permits have been issued for its construction, unless: [i] a waiver is granted pursuant to Subsection H (Replacement Structure Waiver
for Historic Resources Located within Industrial Zoning Districts) of Section 4.02.050; [ii] a deferral of the
replacement structure requirement is granted pursuant
to Subsection G (Replacement Structure Deferral) of
Section 4.02.050; or [iii] demolition is required pursuant to Section 7.01.050 (Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions) of this Development Code.
d) In an effort to preserve features and artifacts from historic resources, a determination whether items within or on the resource should be salvaged must be made by
the Planning Department and may include the local
2041
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-60
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2-PPA: Project applicants for development projects that contain Tier II Historic Resources in Ontario Ranch pursuant to the City’s historic resource evaluation system (i.e., 8314 Edison Avenue, 8484 Schaefer Avenue, 8185 Edison Avenue, 14251 Euclid Avenue, and 13948 S.
Walker Avenue) and all other potentially historic properties in Ontario Ranch shall be subject to the following additional mitigation requirements prior to the issuance of any grading, demolition, or development approvals:
a) Documentation. A complete chain of title with copies of recorded deeds / documents for each parcel within the
eligible property boundaries shall be provided to the
Planning Department by the project applicant to ensure
that all ethnic groups associated with each significant parcel / property are identified. The information shall be integrated into the HABS-Like Local Documentation
Package prepared for each property. For properties with Basque or Portugues Associations, the following
additional measures are required:
Basque Associations. For properties with Basque
associations, the project applicant shall contact the
■
2042
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-61
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Chino Basque Club to inquire if the organization
possesses any historic materials relating to the
property or the owners identified in the complete
chain of title. New materials resulting in this effort
shall be integrated with HABS-like documentation;
and
Portuguese Associations. For properties with
Portuguese associations, the project applicant shall
contact the Chino Valley Divino Espirito Santo (DEA)
Club to inquire if the organization possesses any
historic materials relating to the property or the
owners identified in the complete chain of title. New
materials resulting in this effort shall be integrated
with HABS-like documentation.
b) Avoidance. All efforts to avoid demolition of historic resources shall be made by the project applicant.
Alternatives to demolition that shall include:
Adaptive Reuse Study. Prior to approval of
demolition, an adaptive reuse study shall be prepared
by a qualified professional meeting the minimum
qualifications standards of the Secretary of the
interior Professional Qualifications (Code of Federal
Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61). The adaptive reuse
study shall make recommendations on the possible
reuse of the historic resource into the proposed
project. If feasible and determined appropriate, the
historic resource shall be integrated into the project, thereby avoiding demolition.
Structural Analysis for Relocation and/or
Reconstruction. Prior to approval of demolition, a
■
■
■
2043
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-62
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
structural analysis shall be prepared by a California
licensed engineer meeting the minimum
qualifications standards of the Secretary of the
interior Professional Qualifications (Code of Federal
Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61). The analysis shall
identify the building components and materials and
determine the feasibility of relocation and
reconstruction.
o If determined that relocation is feasible and a
receiver site is available, the project applicant
shall facilitate the relocation, affixing the building
or structure to a permanent foundation, with
approved relocation plans and required permit
issuance.
o If a receiver site is not available, the historic
resource shall be advertised and 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 applicant’s
website or on a local non-profit heritage site,
including a dedicated web page with the
structure’s information (description, square
footage, photographs) and contact information
2044
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-63
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
should be incorporated into the relocation
advertisement.
c) Interpretive Plan. An interpretative plan highlighting the history, architectural styles, businesses, or individuals that have historic significance and have contributed to the development of the dairy industry shall be prepared by a qualified historian to further educate and increase community awareness of the local dairy history. The
interpretive plan may be developed and constructed at a site-specific location, as determined by the City, or
development in an on-line format.
Specific Plan
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact CUL-2: Implementation of
the proposed project could
impact archeological resources in
the City.
PPA: PS
EBPSP: PS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure CUL-3-PPA [Former MM 5-2]: In areas of documented or inferred from evident archaeological and/or paleontological resource presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the presence/absence of such resources. On
properties where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements:
Archaeologists and/or paleontologist shall be retained for the project and will be on call during grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
■
2045
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-64
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Should any archaeological resources cultural resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director or designee is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources.
Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for
significance by a San Bernardino County Certified
Professional Archaeologist/Paleontologist. If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification,
radiocarbon dates, and other special studies; submit
materials to a museum for permanent curation; and
provide a comprehensive final report including a catalog with museum numbers.
Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure CUL-1-SP: An archaeological monitor shall be present full-time during all soil-disturbing and
grading/excavation/trenching activities. In the event that cultural resources are discovered by the archaeological (or Native American monitor), all work shall be suspended 50 feet around the resource(s) and a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (principal investigator (PI)) shall assess the discovery. Work on the overall project may continue during this period if the
following activities are initiated:
If the discovery is a prehistoric resource, initiate
consultation between the qualified archaeologist, the
appropriate Native American tribal entity, and the
City/Applicant;
■
■
■
2046
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-65
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Include the appropriate Native American entity (as
determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards) in the cultural
resources investigations as soon as possible; and
If the qualified archaeologist determines the resource(s) to be a “unique archaeological resource” consistent with PRC Section 21083.2 or a “tribal cultural resource”
consistent with PRC Section 21074, a Cultural Resources Management Plan shall be prepared by the project
archaeologist and submitted to the City Planning Division for approval and subsequent implementation.
During Construction
A. Monitor(s) Shall be Present During
Grading/Excavation/Trenching
The archaeological monitor shall be present full-time
during all soil-disturbing and
grading/excavation/trenching activities of native soil
that could result in impacts to archaeological
resources.
The PI may submit a detailed letter to the lead agency
during construction requesting a modification to the
monitoring program when a field condition such as
modern disturbance post-dating the previous
grading/trenching activities, presence of fossil
formations, or when native soils are encountered that
may reduce or increase the potential for resources to
be present.
B. Discovery Notification Process
■
■
■
■
2047
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-66
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
In the event of an archaeological discovery, either
historic or prehistoric, the archaeological monitor
shall direct the contractor to temporarily divert all
soil-disturbing activities, including but not limited to, digging, trenching, excavating, or grading activities in the area of discovery and in the area reasonably
suspected to overlay adjacent resources and
immediately notify the Native American monitor and
client, as appropriate.
The monitor shall immediately notify the PI (unless
the monitor is the PI) of the discovery.
C. Determination of Significance
The PI shall evaluate the significance of the resource.
If human remains are involved, the protocol provided
in Section D, below, shall be followed.
o The PI shall immediately notify the City of
Ontario to discuss the significance
determination and shall also submit a letter
indicating whether additional mitigation is
required.
o If the resource is significant, the PI shall
submit an Archaeological Data Recovery
Program (ADRP) and obtain written approval
from the City of Ontario to implement that
program. In the event that prehistoric
deposits are discovered, the ADRP should
also be reviewed by the Native American
consultant/monitor. Impacts to significant
resources must be mitigated before ground-
■
■
■
2048
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-67
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
disturbing activities in the area of discovery
will be allowed to resume.
o If the resource is not significant, the PI shall
submit a letter to the City of Ontario
indicating that artifacts will be collected,
curated, and documented in the final
monitoring report. The letter shall also
indicate that that no further work is required.
D. Discovery of Human Remains
If human remains are discovered, work shall halt in
that area until a determination can be made
regarding the provenance of the human remains; and
the following procedures as set forth in CEQA Section
15064.5(e), the California PRC (Section 5097.98), and
the State Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5)
shall be undertaken:
Notification
o The archaeological monitor shall notify the PI
if the monitor is not qualified as a PI.
o The PI shall notify the Coroner’s Division of
the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s
Department after consultation with the City
of Ontario, either in person or via telephone.
Isolate discovery site
o Work shall be directed away from the
location of the discovery and any nearby area
reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent
human remains until a determination can be
made by the sheriff-coroner in consultation
■
■
■
2049
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-68
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
with the PI concerning the provenance of the
remains.
o The sheriff-coroner, in consultation with the
PI, will determine the need for a field
examination to determine the provenance.
o If a field examination is not warranted, the
sheriff-coroner will determine, with input
from the PI, if the remains are or are most
likely to be of Native American origin.
If Human Remains are determined to be Native
American
o The medical examiner will notify the NAHC
within 24 hours. By law, only the medical
examiner can make this call.
o The NAHC will immediately identify the
person or persons determined to be the Most
Likely Descendent (MLD) and provide contact
information.
o The MLD will contact the PI within 24 hours
or sooner after the sheriff/coroner has
completed coordination to begin the
consultation process in accordance with
CEQA Section 15064.5(e), the California PRC,
and the State Health and Safety Code.
o The MLD will have 48 hours to make
recommendations to the property owner or
representative for the treatment or
disposition with proper dignity of the human
remains and associated grave goods.
■
2050
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-69
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
o Disposition of Native American human
remains will be determined between the
MLD and the PI, and, if:
The NAHC is unable to identify the
MLD; or
The MLD failed to make a
recommendation within 48 hours
after being notified by the NAHC; or
The landowner or authorized
representative rejects the
recommendation of the MLD and
mediation in accordance with PRC
5097.94(k) by the NAHC fails to
provide measures acceptable to the
landowner; then
Upon the discovery of multiple
Native American human remains
during a ground-disturbing land
development activity, the landowner
may agree that additional conferral
with descendants is necessary to
consider culturally appropriate
treatment of multiple Native
American human remains. Culturally
appropriate treatment of such a
discovery may be ascertained from
review of the site utilizing cultural
and archaeological standards. Where
the parties are unable to agree upon
the appropriate treatment measures,
■
■
■
■
2051
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-70
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
the human remains and grave goods
buried with the Native American
human remains shall be reinterred
with appropriate dignity.
If Human Remains are not Native American
o The PI shall contact the sheriff-coroner and
notify them of the historic era context of the
burial.
o The sheriff-coroner will determine the
appropriate course of action with the PI and
City staff (PRC 5097.98).
o If the remains are of historic origin, they shall
be appropriately removed and conveyed to
the City of Ontario. The decision for
internment of the human remains shall be
made in consultation with City, the
applicant/landowner, and any known
descendant group.
Post-Construction
A. Preparation and Submittal of Draft Monitoring Report The PI shall submit to the City of Ontario a draft
monitoring report (even if negative) prepared in
accordance with the agency guidelines, which
describes the results, analysis, and conclusions of all phases of the archaeological monitoring program
(with appropriate graphics).
o For significant archaeological resources
encountered during monitoring, the ADRP
■
■
2052
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-71
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
shall be included in the draft monitoring
report.
o Recording sites with the State of California
DPR shall be the responsibility of the PI,
including the recording (on the appropriate
forms-DPR 523 A/B) any significant or
potentially significant resources encountered
during the archaeological monitoring
program.
The PI shall submit a revised draft monitoring report
to the City of Ontario for approval, including any
changes or clarifications requested by the City.
B. Handling of Artifacts
The PI shall be responsible for ensuring that all
cultural remains collected are cleaned and cataloged.
The PI shall be responsible for ensuring that all
artifacts are analyzed to identify function and
chronology as they relate to the history of the area;
that faunal material is identified as to species; and
that specialty studies are completed, as appropriate.
The cost for curation is the responsibility of the
property owner.
C. Curation of Artifacts
Cultural materials shall be offered to a local museum
for permanent curation. If the local museum chooses
not to curate the item, it shall be offered to another
curation facility that meets the California State
Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation
Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological
Resources, as chosen by the City. The PI shall provide
■
■
■
■
■
2053
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-72
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
a comprehensive final report including a catalog with
museum numbers.
D. Final Monitoring Report(s)
The PI shall submit the approved final monitoring
report to the City of Ontario and any interested
parties.
Impact CUL-3: The proposed
project could result in the
discovery of human remains;
however, compliance with
existing law would ensure that
significant impacts to human
remains would not occur.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
ENERGY
Impact ENE-1: The proposed
project would not result in
significant impacts due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during
construction.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact ENE-2: The proposed
project would not result in
significant impacts due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during
operation.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
■
2054
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-73
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Impact ENE-3: The proposed
project would not conflict with or
obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact GEO-1: Development of
proposed project would adhere to
the California Building Code to
ensure residents, employees, or
visitors in Ontario would not be
adversely affected by potential
seismic-related hazards.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact GEO-2: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact GEO-3 The City of Ontario
would not exacerbate geologic
hazards in the City, such as on- or
off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact GEO-4: Development
associated with proposed project
would not be located on
expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1B of the Uniform building
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
2055
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-74
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or
property.
Impact GEO-5: Implementation of
proposed project would not result
in use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems that would not be
supported by soils in the City.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: NI
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: NI
Impact GEO-6: Implementation of
TOP 2050 could directly or
indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource.
PPA: PS
EBPSP: PS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure GEO-1-PPA [Former MM 5-2]: In areas of documented or inferred from evident archaeological and/or paleontological resource presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the presence/absence of such resources. On
properties where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements:
Archaeologists and/or pPaleontologist shall be retained for the project and will be on call during grading and
other significant ground-disturbing activities.
Should any cultural resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director or designee is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources.
PP: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
■
■
2056
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-75
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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.
Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure GEO-1-SP: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation
Program (PRIMP) shall be approved by the City of Ontario Planning department, as follows
1. All mitigation programs shall be performed by a qualified professional paleontologist, defined as an individual
with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who
has proven experience and who is knowledgeable in
professional paleontological procedures and techniques.
Fieldwork may be conducted by a qualified
paleontological monitor, defined as an individual who
has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil
materials. The paleontological monitor shall always work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist.
2. Monitoring of mass grading and excavation activities shall be performed by a qualified paleontologist or
paleontological monitor. Starting at a depth of four feet below existing grade, monitoring will be conducted fulltime in areas of grading or excavation in undisturbed sediments. Monitoring of artificial fill is not required. ■
2057
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-76
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
3. If a fossil(s) is found at a shallower depth, earth
disturbance activities should be halted within a radius of 50 feet from the location of the fossil, and the
paleontologist shall be consulted to determine the
significance of the fossilized remains. If the fossil is deemed significant by the paleontologist, fulltime
monitoring should be initiated at the site.
4. Paleontological monitors will be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction
delays. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily
halt or divert equipment from the affected area to allow removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely
manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially
fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface or, if present, are determined upon exposure and
examination by qualified paleontological personnel to
have low potential to contain fossil resources. The
monitor shall notify the paleontologist, who will then
notify the concerned parties of the discovery.
5. Paleontological salvage during trenching and boring
activities is typically from the generated spoils and does not delay the trenching or drilling activities. Fossils will be collected and placed in cardboard flats or plastic
buckets and identified by field number, collector, and
date collected. Notes will be taken on the map location and stratigraphy of the site, which will be photographed before it is vacated, and the fossils are removed to a safe place. On mass grading projects, discovered fossil sites will be protected by flagging to prevent them from being overrun by earthmovers (scrapers) before salvage
2058
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-77
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
begins. Fossils will be collected in a similar manner, with notes and photographs being taken before removing the
fossils. The precise location of the site is determined with the use of electronic handheld devices. If the site involves remains from a large terrestrial vertebrate, such as large bone(s) or a mammoth tusk, that is/are too
large to be easily removed by a single monitor, a fossil recovery crew shall excavate around the find, encase the find within a plaster and burlap jacket, and remove it
after the plaster is set. For large fossils, use of the contractor’s construction equipment may be solicited to help move the jacket to a safe location.
6. Isolated fossils will be collected by hand, wrapped in protective materials, and placed in temporary collecting flats or five-gallon buckets. Notes will be taken on the map location and stratigraphy of the site, which will be photographed before it is vacated, and the fossils are
moved to a safe place.
7. Particularly small invertebrate fossils typically represent multiple specimens of a limited number of organisms,
and a scientifically suitable sample can be obtained from one to several five5-gallon buckets of fossiliferous
sediment. If it is possible to dry screen the sediment in the field, a concentrated sample may consist of one or
two buckets of material.
8. In accordance with the “Microfossil Salvage” section of the SVP guidelines (2010:7), bulk sampling and
screening of fine-grained sedimentary deposits
(including carbonate-rich paleosols) must be performed
if the deposits are identified to possess indications of 2059
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-78
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
producing fossil “microvertebrates” to test the feasibility of the deposit to yield fossil bones and teeth. If
indicators of potential microvertebrate fossils are found, screening of a test sample (approximately 600 pounds) is recommended, according to the SVP guidelines. If
feasible, wet screening shall be conducted on the site. If screening yields significant fossils, then removing and processing a “standard sample” of 6,000 pounds shall be performed. If the test sample screening does not yield
significant fossils, the standard sample screening is not performed.
9. In the laboratory, individual fossils will be cleaned of extraneous matrix, any breaks will be repaired, and the specimen, if needed, will be stabilized by soaking in an archivally approved acrylic hardener (e.g., a solution of acetone and Paraloid B-72).
10. Recovered specimens will be prepared to a point of
identification and permanent preservation (not display), including screen-washing sediments to recover small
invertebrates and vertebrates. Preparation of individual vertebrate fossils is often more time-consuming than for accumulations of invertebrate fossils.
11. Recovered specimens will be identified and curated into a professional, accredited public museum repository
with a commitment to archival conservation and
permanent retrievable storage (e.g., the San Bernardino County Museum). The paleontological program should
include a written repository agreement prior to the
initiation of mitigation activities. Prior to curation, the 2060
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-79
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
lead agency (the City of Ontario) will be consulted on the repository/museum to receive the fossil material.
12. A final report of findings and significance will be prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered and
necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their
original location(s). The report, when submitted to and accepted by the City of Ontario, will signify satisfactory completion of the program to mitigate impacts to any
potential nonrenewable paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) that might have been lost or otherwise adversely affected without such a program in place.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact GHG-1: Implementation
of the proposed project would
result in an increase in GHG
emissions compared to the
approved project and would not
achieve the carbon neutrality
threshold of AB 1279.
PPA: PS
EBPSP: PS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure GHG-1-PPA: The City of Ontario shall prepare an update to the Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) to align GHG emissions targets in the City with the GHG reduction targets of Assembly Bill (AB) 1279. The CCAP update shall be completed within 48 months of certification of the Ontario Policy Amendment SEIR. Following the initial update within 48 months, the CCAP shall be updated at a frequency of no less than every 5 years to ensure the City is monitoring the plan’s progress toward achieving the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target. The initial and subsequent updates shall consider a trajectory consistent with the GHG emissions reduction goal established under AB 1279 for year 2045, and the latest applicable statewide legislative GHG emissions reduction that may be in effect at the time of the update. If it is determined that the CCAP is not achieving the GHG
emissions reduction targets established therein, the plan shall be amended as appropriate to ensure the established GHG PPA: SU
EBPSP: SU
2061
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-80
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
emissions reduction target is achieved by 2045 or other benchmark year(s) identified by the latest statewide GHG emissions reduction legislation. The CCAP shall include the following:
GHG inventories of existing- and forecast-year GHG levels.
Tools and strategies for reducing GHG emissions to
ensure a trajectory with the long-term GHG reduction
target and carbon neutrality goal for year 2045 in
Assembly Bill 1279 or subsequent GHG emissions
reduction legislation in effect at the time of the CCAP update. These measures may include but are not limited
to:
o Encouraging electric vehicle adoption through
incentives or education programs.
o Adopting local ordinances or policies that require
greater energy efficiency, waste reduction, and water
conservation in new construction, additions, and/or
alterations.
o Encouraging the construction of solar arrays above
parking lots and the integration of solar and other
renewable energy generation technologies in new
construction, additions, and/or alterations.
o Encouraging the incorporation of energy storage and
other grid-harmonizing infrastructure in new
construction, additions, and/or alterations.
o Collaborating with Southern California Edison to
encourage existing developments to upgrade natural
gas equipment (e.g., furnaces) with electric
equipment (e.g., heat pumps), to the extent feasible.
■
■
2062
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-81
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Plan implementation guidance that includes, at
minimum, the following components:
o Administration and Staffing
o Finance and Budgeting
o Timelines for Measure Implementation
o Community Outreach and Education
o Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management
o Tracking Tools
Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure GHG-1-SP: Project development proposals pursuant to the EBPSP shall implement CCAP Screening Table Measures that achieve at least 100 points per the Screening Tables. The City shall verify that Screening Table Measures achieving the 100-point performance standard are
incorporated in development plans prior to the issuance of building permit(s) and/or site plans (as applicable). The City shall verify implementation of the selected Screening Table Measures prior to the issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy.
At the discretion of the City, measures that provide GHG reductions equivalent to GHG emissions reductions achieved via the Screening Table Measures may be implemented.
Multiple development proposals may, at the discretion of the City, be allowed to collectively demonstrate achievement of at least 100 points per the Screening Tables. Measures that shall be considered include:
Reduction Measure 1: Building Electrification
Reduction Measure 2: Solar Energy Systems for New
Warehouse Development only
Reduction Measure 7: Vehicle Electrification
■
■
■
■
2063
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-82
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Reduction Measure 8: Active Transportation
Reduction Measure 11: Waste diversion
Reduction Measure 12: Water conservation
Reduction Measure AR-1: Charging stations for large
trucks.
Reduction Measure AR-3: Installation of EV charging
stations for employee vehicle parking spaces.
Reduction Measure AR-4 Recycled Water.
Reduction Measure AR-5 Reflective Paving.
Reduction Measure AR-6 Zero Emission Cargo Equipment.
Mitigation Measure GHG-2-SP: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1- SP through AIR-8-SP.
Impact GHG-2: The proposed
project would be inconsistent
with the Community Climate
Action Plan’s objective of
reducing citywide GHG emissions
and the State’s carbon neutrality
goals.
PPA: PS
EBPSP: PS
Policy Plan Amendment
Implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1-PPA would reduce emissions.
Specific Plan
Implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1-SP would reduce emissions.
PPA: SU
EBPSP: SU
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact HAZ-1: Compliance with
existing regulations and policies
would ensure that
implementation of the proposed
project would not adversely affect
the environment through
transport, use, and/or disposal of
hazardous materials
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2064
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-83
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Impact HAZ-2: Existing
regulations and policies of TOP
2050 would ensure that
development associated with
Policy Plan Amendment would
not exacerbate the potential
release of hazardous materials
into the environment. However,
development of the EBPSP, as
well as existing site conditions,
may reveal unknown soil or soil
vapor contamination or unknown
subsurface structures.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: PS
Policy Plan Amendment
No mitigation measures are required.
Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1-SP: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to address potentially unknown soil/soil vapor
contamination or unknown subsurface structures (e.g.,
clarifiers, underground storage tanks [USTs], asbestos
containing pipelines [ACPs], etc.) that may be encountered during redevelopment activities. The SMP shall include
explicit instructions for the appropriate handling, storage, and disposal of any known or potentially impacted soil during soil moving activities. The general contractor shall follow the requirements of the SMP and stop work to make notification to the environmental team if any potential impacts are
observed at any time the environmental team is not already on-site. The SMP shall also require air monitoring activities to monitor the air downwind of the Specific Plan area and
appropriate Health and Safety Plans that will be employed by site workers. The SMP shall identify specific requirements intended to protect human health when soil in certain areas of known or suspected impacts are disturbed for any reason, including, without limitation, as a result of demolition, utility installation/repair, soil excavation, drilling, grading/filling activities, stockpile generation, soil management, loading, and transportation.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact HAZ-3: Existing
regulations and policies identified
in the Policy Plan Amendment
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
2065
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-84
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
would ensure that the proposed
project would have no adverse
impacts to schools from facilities
that handle hazardous materials.
Impact HAZ-4: Existing
regulations and policies of the
Policy Plan Amendment would
ensure that development
associated with the proposed
project would not exacerbate
existing hazards.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact HAZ-5: The proposed
project is within the airport
influence area of the Ontario
International Airport and Chino
Airport; however, land uses are
consistent with the airport safety
zones.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact HAZ-6: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact HAZ-7: The proposed
project would not exacerbate
wildfire risks in Ontario.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
2066
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-85
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact HYD-1: Compliance with
existing regulations, City policies,
and RWQCB standards would
prevent violations of water
quality objectives or substantial
degradation of water resources
associated with the proposed
project.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact HYD-2: Buildout of the
proposed project would not
interfere with sustainable
management of the groundwater
basin.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact HYD-3: Implementation of
BMPs outlined in project SWPPPs,
erosion and sediment control
plans, WQMPs, and adherence to
TOP policies would address
hydrology and water quality
impacts related to erosion and
flooding.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact HYD-4: With continued
implementation of applicable City
policies, FEMA regulations, and
emergency management
procedures, impacts related to
the release of pollutants due to
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PP: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
2067
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-86
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
project inundation would be less
than significant.
Impact HYD-5: Compliance with
applicable regulatory
requirements and TOP 2050
policies would ensure that the
proposed project would not
conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the Basin Plan
or any groundwater management
plan.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impact LUP-1: Project
implementation would not divide
an established community.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact LUP-2: Project
implementation would not
conflict with applicable plans
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
MINERAL RESOURCES
Impact MIN-1: The proposed
project would not result in the
loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the
residents of the state.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: NI
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: NI
2068
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-87
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Impact MIN-2: The proposed
project would not result in the
loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource area.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: NI
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: NI
NOISE
Impact NOI-1: Construction
activities associated with buildout
of the Policy Plan Amendment
would result in intermittent,
temporary increases in noise
levels at sensitive receptors due
to construction activities.
PPA: PS
EBPSP: LTS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure NOI-1-PPA [Former 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 conducted in the City of Ontario. Construction plans submitted to the City shall identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City. 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
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 (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re-design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating
shields or shrouds), wherever feasible.
PPA: SU
EBPSP: LTS
■
■
2069
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-88
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible.
Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an
exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be
used along with external noise jackets on the tools.
Stationary equipment, such as generators and air
compressors shall be located as far as feasible from
nearby noise-sensitive uses.
Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent
feasible, to approved haul routes established by the City Planning and Building Departments.
At least 10 days prior to the start of construction
activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes
permitted construction days and hours, as well as the
telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s
authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the
authorized contractor’s representative receives a
complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate
corrective action, and report the action to the City.
Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise-producing signals,
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2070
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-89
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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 may be lined on the construction side with an acoustical blanket, curtain, or equivalent absorptive material.
Specific Plan
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact NOI-2: Implementation of
the Policy Plan Amendment and
EBPSP would expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
permanent traffic noise increases.
PPA: PS
EBPSP: PS
No mitigation measures are available. PPA: SU
EBPSP: SU
Impact NOI-3: Construction
activities associated with buildout
of the Policy Plan Amendment
may expose sensitive uses to
excessive levels of groundborne
PPA: PS
EBPSP: LTS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure NOI-2-PPA [Former MM 12-2]: Prior to issuance of a building permit for individual projects that involve vibration-intensive construction activities, such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers occurring near sensitive PPA: SU
EBPSP: LTS
■
2071
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-90
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
vibration. Construction of the
EBPSP would not exceed
applicable thresholds or
significantly increase ambient
noise levels.
receptors shall be evaluated for potential vibration impacts.
Construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, 100 feet of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded.
Specific Plan
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact NOI-4: Heavy truck traffic
annoyance along City haul routes
associated with buildout of the
Policy Plan Amendment may
expose sensitive uses to excessive
levels of groundborne vibration
annoyance.
PPA: PS
EBPSP: LTS
Policy Plan Amendment
TOP 2050 policies would reduce potential impacts. However, no additional mitigation measures are available.
Specific Plan
No mitigation measures are required.
PPA: SU
EBPSP: LTS
2072
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-91
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Impact NOI-5: Implementation of
the Policy Plan Amendment could
expose noise sensitive uses to
excessive noise levels from the
Ontario International Airport
(ONT).
PPA: PS
EBPSP: LTS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure NOI-3-PPA [Former MM 12-1]: Prior to the issuance of building permits for any project that involves a noise-sensitive use within the 65 dBA CNEL contour of the Ontario International Airport, the project property
owner/developers shall retain an acoustical engineer to conduct an 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).
Specific Plan
No mitigation measures are required.
PPA: SU
EBPSP: LTS
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impact POP-1: The Policy Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan
would directly result in
population growth in the City of
Ontario. [Threshold P-1]
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact POP-2: Buildout of Policy
Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan would not displace people or
housing and would not
necessitate the construction of
replacement housing. [Threshold
P-2].
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
2073
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-92
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
PUBLIC SERVICES
Impact PUB-1: The proposed
project would not result in
significant environmental impacts
due to the provision of new or
expanded fire protection services.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact PUB-2: The proposed
project would not result in
significant environmental impacts
due to the provision of new or
expanded police facilities.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact PUB-3: Payment of Senate
Bill 50 fees would result in full
and complete mitigation of
impacts for the provision or
expansion of school facilities.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact PUB-4: The proposed
project would not result in
significant impacts associated
with the provision or expansion of
parks and recreation facilities.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact PUB-5: The proposed
project would not result in
significant environmental impacts
due to the provision of new or
expanded library services.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
2074
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-93
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
RECREATION
Impact REC-1: The proposed
project would not result in
substantial physical deterioration
of recreational facilities.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact REC-2: The proposed
project would not result in
adverse impacts associated with
new or expanded recreational
facilities within the City.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
TRANSPORTATION
Impact TRA-1: The proposed
project would not conflict with a
program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact TRA-2: The proposed
project would generate a
substantial increase in VMT per
service population and total VMT
compared to the approved
project resulting in significant
project-level and cumulative VMT
impacts.
PPA: PS
EBPSP: PS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure TRA-1-PPA [Former MM T-1]: Prior to approval of discretionary projects subject to VMT reduction analysis, applicants shall demonstrate compliance with the City’s VMT Guidelines for CEQA assessment of VMT impacts. For projects with VMT per Service Population exceeding the County’s
significance threshold, a mitigation plan shall be developed and implemented. Mitigation should consist of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures analyzed under a
VMT-reduction methodology consistent with the California PPA: SU
EBPSP: SU
2075
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-94
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Final Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission
Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (2021) and approved by the City of Ontario (if applicable). Examples of measures include but are not limited to:
Pedestrian Network Improvements: constructing new
sidewalks and/or improving damaged or substandard
sidewalks that connect to a larger pedestrian network.
Construct or Improve Bike Facilities: constructing new or enhancing a single existing Class I, II or IV bike facility that connects to a larger bike network.
Construct or Improve Bike Boulevards: implementing a
Class III bike boulevard on a local or collector street that is one travel lane in each direction, has a design speed of 25 mph or less and a design volume of 5,000 ADT or less.
Expand Bikeway Networks: constructing a network of
interconnected new Class I, II, or IV bike facilities.
Provide End of Trip Bicycle Facilities: constructing facilities that support cyclists such as bike parking, lockers, and showers.
Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments:
funding infrastructure improvements such as traffic signal modifications and roadway signing and striping that are dedicated to improving transit travel times and reliability.
Transit Passes: proving discounted or free transit fare to a specific geographic area, population group, or to the
general public.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2076
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-95
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Vanpool Program: providing groups of 5 to 15 people with direct shuttle service between their workplace and
residence.
Carshare Program (conventional or EV): providing access to a shared fleet of on-demand vehicles for short-term
use/rental. Best practice is to discount carshare
membership and provide priority parking for carshare
vehicles to encourage use of the service.
Bikeshare Program (conventional or EV): providing access to a shared fleet of on-demand bicycles for short-term
use/rental. Best practice is to discount bikeshare
membership and dedicate bikeshare parking to
encourage use of the service.
Rideshare Program: providing access to and encouraging
the use of a ridesharing platform or service. This could be an app, website, or other service that provides ridematching coordination services.
Community-Based Travel Planning (CBTP): CBTP is a
residential based approach to outreach, performed by
trained advisors, that provides households within a
targeted geographic area with customized information,
incentives, and support to encourage the use of
transportation alternatives in place of single occupancy vehicles.
Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program: CTR programs
can be mandatory or voluntary, and involve providing
information, coordination, services, infrastructure, and/or incentives for alternative modes such as ridesharing,
vanpool, transit passes, and cycling
■
■
■
■
■
■
2077
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-96
Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure TRA-1-SP: Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each tenant, the operator or tenant shall: 1) prepare and submit a Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) Program to the City for review, detailing strategies for reducing the use of single occupant vehicles by employees; and 2) provide written documentation to the satisfaction of the City that the TDM Program requirement is incorporated into any lease agreement for the site to ensure enforceability.
The TDM Program shall include the following transportation measures recommended by California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and analyzed in the VMT
Mitigation Strategy Assessment (see SEIR Appendix K2) as calculated pursuant to the CAPCOA Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate
Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity or other substantial evidence:
T-5 Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program.
Employers within the EBPSP shall develop CTR
programs to discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips
and encourage alternative modes of transportation
such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT.
T-7 Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Marketing.
Materials shall educate employees about their travel
choices to the employment location beyond driving
such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT, including:
o Onsite or online commuter information
services.
o Employee transportation coordinators.
o Onsite or online transit pass sales.
o Guaranteed ride home service.
■
■
2078
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-97
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
T-8 Ridesharing Program.
o Designating a certain percentage of desirable
parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles.
o Designating adequate passenger loading and
unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing
vehicles.
o Providing an app or website for coordinating
rides.
T-10 End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities. EBPSP land uses
shall install and maintain end-of-trip facilities for
employee use. End-of-trip facilities may include bike
parking, bike lockers, showers, and personal lockers.
Impact TRA-3: The proposed
project adequately addresses
potentially hazardous conditions
(sharp curves, etc.) and potential
conflicting uses.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact TRA-4: The proposed
project adequately addresses
potentially inadequate emergency
access.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact TCR-1: Tribal cultural
resources could be adversely
impacted by grading activities
associated with the Proposed
Project.
PPA: PS
EBPSP: PS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure TCR-1-PPA [Former 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 PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
■
■
2079
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-98
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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 TCR-2-PPA shall be followed.
Mitigation Measure TCR-2-PPA [Former 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 grounddisturbing 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.
Mitigation Measure TCR-3-PPA [Former 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 2080
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-99
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
of archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. Details in the AMP shall include:
1. Project-related ground disturbance (including, but
not limited to, brush clearing, grading, trenching,
etc.) and development scheduling;
2. The development of a rotating or simultaneous
schedule in coordination with the developer and the
project archeologist for designated Native American
Tribal Monitors from the consulting tribes during
grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities
on the site: including the scheduling, safety
requirements, duties, scope of work, and Native
American Tribal Monitors’ authority to stop and
redirect grading activities in coordination with all
project archaeologists (if the tribes cannot come to
an agreement on the rotating or simultaneous
schedule of tribal monitoring, the Native American
Heritage Commission shall designate the schedule for
the onsite Native American Tribal Monitor for the
proposed project);
3. The protocols and stipulations that the developer,
City, Tribes, and project archaeologist will follow in
the event of inadvertent cultural resources
discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural
resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural
resources evaluation.
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 ground2081
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-100
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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.
Mitigation Measure TCR-4-PPA [Former 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 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:
2082
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-101
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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
2083
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-102
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
materials, materials shall be curated at the
San Bernardino County Museum by default;
d. At the completion of grading, excavation, and
ground-disturbing activities on the site, a
Phase IV Monitoring Report shall be
submitted to the City documenting
monitoring activities conducted by the
project archaeologist and Native Tribal
Monitors within 60 days of completion of
grading. This report shall document the
impacts to the known resources on the
property; describe how each mitigation
measure was fulfilled; document the type of
cultural resources recovered and the
disposition of such resources; provide
evidence of the required cultural sensitivity
training for the construction staff held during
the required pregrade meeting; and, in a
confidential appendix, include the
daily/weekly monitoring notes from the
archaeologist. All reports produced will be
submitted to the City, County Museum, and
consulting tribes.
Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure TCR-1-SP: The EBPSP shall implement MM TCR2-PPA, MM TCR-3-PPA, MM TCR-4-PPA. 2084
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-103
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Impact USS-1: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water facilities which would cause
a significant impact.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact USS-2: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
wastewater facilities which would
cause a significant impact.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact USS-3: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
storm drainage facilities which
would cause a significant impact.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact USS-4: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
electric power or natural gas
facilities which would cause a
significant impact.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
2085
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-104
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Impact USS-5: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
telecommunication facilities
which would cause a significant
impact.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact USS-6: The City has
sufficient water supplies to serve
the proposed project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry,
and multiple dry years.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact USS-7: The wastewater
treatment provider has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact USS-8: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
generate solid waste in excess of
state or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, and would not
impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
2086
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-105
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Impact USS-9: The proposed
project would comply with
federal, state, and local
management and reduction
statutes and regulations related
to solid waste.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
WILDFIRE
Impact WIL-1: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
impair or otherwise interfere with
the City’s adopted emergency
response or evacuation plans.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact WIL-2: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
exacerbate wildfire risk, require
infrastructure that could increase
fire hazards, or expose people or
structures to secondary post-fire
hazards such as flooding,
landslides, or drainage changes.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact WIL-3: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environments.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
2087
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-106
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Impact WIL-4: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result
of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes.
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
PPA = Policy Plan Amendment;
EBPSP = Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan
PS = Potentially Significant
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
LTS = Less than Significant
NI = No Impact
2088
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 1- 1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE EIR
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on those projects. This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been prepared to satisfy CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, as set forth in the Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et seq. The environmental impact report (EIR) is the public document designed to provide decision makers and the public with an analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid environmental damage and to identify alternatives to the project. The EIR must also disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided; growth inducing impacts; effects not found to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.
As discussed in Section 2.2, Project Background, of this SEIR, on August 16, 2022, the Ontario City Council adopted a comprehensive update of the City’s general plan, The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050, and certified SEIR No. 2021070364 as the environmental documentation for the approved project. TOP is a guiding document that reflects the City’s view of its future and is a blueprint for the City’s growth and development. The City Council and the Planning Commission use TOP to help guide their land use decisions. The 2022 Certified EIR is incorporated by reference in this SEIR. A summary of 2022 Certified SEIR is provided in Section 2.2.2, TOP Certified EIR, of this SEIR. This SEIR contains information necessary to make the previous 2022 Certified EIR adequate for Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP (proposed project).
The proposed project requires discretionary actions by one or more public agencies. The lead agency means “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment” (CEQA Section 21067). The City of Ontario has the principal responsibility for approval of project. For this reason, the City of Ontario is the CEQA lead agency for this project.
The intent of the SEIR is to provide sufficient information on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project to allow the City of Ontario to make an informed decision regarding approval of the proposed project. Specific discretionary actions to be reviewed by the City are described in Section 2.5, Intended Uses of the EIR. 2089
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
1 . INT RO DUCTI O N
1 -2
This SEIR has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the:
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.)
State Guidelines for the Implementation of the CEQA of 1970 (CEQA Guidelines), as amended (California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et seq.) The overall purpose of this SEIR is to inform the lead agency, responsible agencies, decision makers, and the general public about the environmental effects of the development and operation of the proposed project. This SEIR addresses effects that may be significant and adverse; evaluates alternatives to the proposed project; and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid adverse effects.
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
1.2.1 Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting
The City of Ontario has determined that a Supplemental EIR would be required for this project and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on November 4, 2025. The NOP and comments received during the NOP’s public review period, from November 4 to December 5, 2025, are in Appendix A, Notice of Preparation. The NOP process is used to help determine the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft SEIR. Thirty agencies/interested parties responded to the NOP. This SEIR has taken those responses into consideration. Table 1-1, NOP Comment Summary, summarizes the issues identified by the commenting agencies, along with a reference to the section(s) of this SEIR where the issues are addressed.
Table 1-1 NOP Comment Summary
Commenting Agency
/ Person Date Comment Summary Issue Addressed In:
Agua Caliente Band
of Cahuilla Indians
11/4/2025 Not located in the Tribe’s
Traditional Use Area and
they defer to other tribes.
Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural
Resources
Endangered Habitats
League
11/4/2025 Requests that the project
incorporate mitigation
fees applicable to the
Annexation Area 163 via
the Settlement and
General Use Agreement.
Requests for advancement
of Livable Communities
Policies as set forth under
Section 3.4, Biological
Resources, and Section 3.11,
Land Use and Planning
■
■
■
■
■
2090
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
1 . INT RO DUCTI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 1- 3
Table 1-1 NOP Comment Summary
Commenting Agency
/ Person Date Comment Summary Issue Addressed In:
the Settlement and
General Use Agreement.
NAHC 11/4/2025 Requests that the EIR
evaluate whether there
are historic resources that
could be impacted by the
project.
Recommend tribal
consultation under
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52)
and Senate Bill 18 (SB 18)
pursuant to NAHC’s
recommendation for
conducting cultural
resources assessments.
Section 3.5, Cultural
Resources, and Section 3.18,
Tribal Cultural Resources
Yuma Quechan Tribe 11/4/2025 The Tribe does not wish to comment on the project
and defers to other local
Tribes.
Section 3.18, Tribal, Cultural
Resources SoCalGas 11/6/2025 Identified numerous
medium- and highpressure facilities in the
project area and requests
that 811 be contacted
prior to any demolition
and/or excavation
activities.
Request to review any
available plans to review
for possible conflicts with
existing facilities.
Section 3.9, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials Micaella Mosley 11/6/2025 Identified constant flow of large trucks traveling
along Ontario Ranch Road
and which results in
“significant vibration”
Requests that the City
review the Truck Route
along Ontario Ranch Road
and consider possible
solutions to reduce
Section 3.13, Noise, and
Section 3.17, Transportation
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2091
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
1 . INT RO DUCTI O N
1 -4
Table 1-1 NOP Comment Summary
Commenting Agency
/ Person Date Comment Summary Issue Addressed In:
vibrations to nearby
homes.
Tiffany Johnson 11/13/2025 Requests no more
warehouse in the City
Request development of
more parks, stores,
improved schools, and
family homes.
Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning, Section 3.14,
Population and Housing, Section 3.15, Public Services, and Section 3.16, Recreation Jason Alonzo 11/17/2025 Identifies their “strong
dissatisfaction” with the
land use changes of the
Ontario Ranch land from
Mixed-Use to Business
Park.
Requests more
thoughtfully planned
spaces that align with the
identity and culture of the
community.
Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning
Southern California
Agricultural Land
Foundation (SCALF)
11/20/2025 Concerned about loss of
Farmland to development
within the City, specifically
the proposed EBPSP.
Concerned for Prop 70
lands.
Requests consolidation of
the EBPSP.
Section 3.2, Agricultural and
Forestry Resources, and
Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning Raymond Smith 11/20/2025 Identifies opposition to Warehouses within the
City as it increases air
pollution and traffic
within the City.
Request consolidation of
EBPSP to provide a buffer
between Grand Park and
Warehousing to the
south.
Request clarification on
how Edison Avenue as a
Section 3.3, Air Quality, Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Section 3.11, Land
Use and Planning, Section
3.14, Population and
Housing, and Section 3.17,
Transportation
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2092
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
1 . INT RO DUCTI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 1- 5
Table 1-1 NOP Comment Summary
Commenting Agency
/ Person Date Comment Summary Issue Addressed In:
truck route meets AB 98
requirements.
Requests clarification on
how job estimates are
derived.
Requests clarification on
mitigation measure for Air
Quality and Greenhouse
Gas Emission impacts.
San Bernardino
County Public Works
11/20/2025 Identifies a parcel owned
in fee by San Bernardino
County Flood Control
District and that
development cannot
proceed at this parcel.
Requests to be included
on the mailing list.
Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning
Aida Cuamari 11/20/2025 Requests concerns with
Land Use Plan on impacts
to chemicals and
population.
Raised concerns about
traffic, pollution, safety,
population, hazards, and
noise.
Section 3.3, Air Quality, Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Section 3.11, Land
Use and Planning, Section
3.14, Population and
Housing, and Section 3.17,
Transportation
Paul Hammes 11/20/2025 Supports removal of Truck
Route on Archibald
Avenue
Requests for improvement
of bicycle infrastructure.
Section 3.17, Transportation
Ran Cheng 11/21/2025 Concerned regarding
increased density and no
increase in schools and
public parks in the City.
Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning, Section 3.14,
Population and Housing, and
Section 3.16, Recreation
SCAG 11/21/2025 Requests review of the
goals and policies of the
project with the
applicable policies of the
Regional Transportation
Plan/ Sustainable
Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning, and Section 3.14,
Population and Housing
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2093
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
1 . INT RO DUCTI O N
1 -6
Table 1-1 NOP Comment Summary
Commenting Agency
/ Person Date Comment Summary Issue Addressed In:
Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS) or Connect
SoCal.
Catherine Cho 11/24/2025 Concerned regarding
rezoning of parkland/open
space on Haven and Chino
in Ontario Ranch.
Requests to leave as
parkland/open space.
Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning, and Section 3.16,
Recreation
Paul Cho 11/25/2025 Concerned regarding
rezoning of parkland/open
space on Haven and Chino
in Ontario Ranch.
Requests leaving as
parkland/open space.
Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning, and Section 3.16,
Recreation
Philip Guevara 11/25/2025 Concerned regarding
rezoning of parkland/open
space on Haven and Chino
in Ontario Ranch to
medium density.
Requests leaving as
parkland/open space.
Concerned with impacts
on traffic on Haven
Avenue and strain on
schools as a result of
rezoning to medium
density
Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning, Section 3.15, Public
Services, Section 3.16,
Recreation, and Section 3.17,
Transportation
John Anker 12/1/2025 Request less housing
density in the City.
Requests improved truck
routes in the City.
Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning, Section 3.14,
Population and Housing, and
Section 3.17, Transportation
Asa Lu 12/2/2025 Concerned regarding
rezoning of parkland/open
space on Haven and Chino
in Ontario Ranch.
Section 3.16, Recreation
City of Chino Hills 12/2/2025 Requests the SEIR
examines potential
increase in vehicular
traffic, particularly truck
Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning, and Section 3.17,
Transportation
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2094
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
1 . INT RO DUCTI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 1- 7
Table 1-1 NOP Comment Summary
Commenting Agency
/ Person Date Comment Summary Issue Addressed In:
traffic, that may have
cumulative impacts on
City of Chino Hills.
Henry Kim 12/2/2025 Requests that the
property owner’s parcels
are rezoned from
industrial park back to
multiuse zoning.
Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning
Jodi Ruiz 12/2/2025 Requests that the OS-R on
Haven Avenue and Chino
Avenue not be rezoned.
Section 3.16, Recreation
Zuleika Wang 12/2/2025 Requests that the OS-R on
Haven Avenue and Chino
Avenue not be rezoned.
Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning, and Section 3.16,
Recreation
Tina Silva 12/4/2025 EBPSP impacts from
increased truck activity
and resultant air quality,
roadway safety, and
neighborhood viability
impacts.
Section 3.3, Air Quality, Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Section 3.11, Land
Use and Planning, Section
3.14, Population and
Housing, and Section 3.17,
Transportation
Craig Cristina 12/4/2025 Concerned that the
minimum density
requirements will deter
projects and slow down
housing development
within the City.
Recommends retaining
high density residential
designations but remove
minimum density
requirements or include a
high-density residential
overlay.
Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning, and Section 3.14,
Population and Housing
Center for
Community Action
and Environmental
Justice (CCAEJ)
12/5/2025 Concerned about
agricultural impacts,
specifically Prop 70 lands
in Ontario Ranch.
Requests cumulative
impacts of warehouses
Section 3.1, Agricultural and
Forestry Resources, Section
3.3, Air Quality, Section 3.8,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning, Section 3.14,
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2095
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
1 . INT RO DUCTI O N
1 -8
Table 1-1 NOP Comment Summary
Commenting Agency
/ Person Date Comment Summary Issue Addressed In:
are evaluated for health
studies, GHG, and air
quality.
Requests zero-emission
equipment for
construction.
Requests that high-injury
streets and intersections
be identified in the
mobility element pursuant
to SB 932.
Population and Housing, and
Section 3.17, Transportation
Sierra Club 12/5/2025 Requests that the project
fully disclose GHG and
VMT impacts.
Requests that the project
evaluate consistency with
regional planning
documents, including
SCAG’s RTP/SCS.
Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Section 3.11, Land
Use and Planning, and
Section 3.17, Transportation
Edison Ranch 12/5/2025 Recommend fiscal and
infrastructure justification
for increased industrial
and commercial uses.
Recommends evaluation
of truck traffic and goods
movement circulation.
Recommends phased
transition plan for
agricultural resources.
Requests an evaluation of
air quality, health risk, and
hydrology and water
quality impacts of the
EBPSP.
Section 3.1, Agricultural and
Forestry Resources, Section
3.3, Air Quality, Section 3.8,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 3.10, Hydrology and
Water Quality, Section 3.11,
Land Use and Planning, Section 3.14, Population and
Housing, Section 3.17,
Transportation, and Section
3.19, Utilities and Service
Systems
Parveena Mendes 12/5/2025 Requests that the OS-R on
Haven Avenue and Chino
Avenue not be rezoned.
Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning, and Section 3.16,
Recreation
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2096
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
1 . INT RO DUCTI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 1- 9
SCOPING MEETING
Prior to preparation of the SEIR, the City of Ontario hosted a public scoping meeting on November 20, 2025, to determine the concerns of responsible and trustee agencies and the community regarding the proposed project. The scoping meeting identified concerns related to truck routes, warehousing, and associated air quality, noise, and vibration impacts; loss of agricultural resources; and increased housing density.
1.2.2 Scope of this Draft SEIR
The scope of the Draft SEIR was determined based on the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist and comments received in response to the NOP and Scoping Meeting. Pursuant to Sections 15126.2 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft SEIR should identify any potentially significant adverse impacts and recommend mitigation that would reduce or eliminate these impacts to levels of insignificance.
The information in Chapter 2, Project Description, establishes the basis for analyzing future, project-related environmental impacts. However, further environmental review by the City may be required as more detailed information and plans are submitted on a project-by-project basis.
IMPACTS CONSIDERED LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The SEIR identified the following impacts as less than significant or no impact.
Aesthetics (PPA + EBPSP)
Agricultural and Forestry Resources (PPA + EBPSP)
Cultural Resources (Historic Resources: EBPSP)
Energy (PPA + EBPSP)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (PPA)
Hydrology and Water Quality (PPA + EBPSP)
Land Use and Planning (PPA + EBPSP)
Mineral Resources (PPA + EBPSP)
Noise (Construction Noise and Vibration, EBPSP)
Population and Housing (PPA + EBPSP)
Public Services (PPA + EBPSP)
Recreation (PPA + EBPSP)
Utilities and Service Systems (PPA + EBPSP)
Wildfire (PPA + EBPSP)
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2097
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
1 . INT RO DUCTI O N
1 -1 0
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS
The SEIR determined that the following environmental factors have potentially significant impacts if the proposed project is implemented but would be reduce to less than significant levels with mitigation.
Biological Resources (PPA + EBPSP)
Cultural Resources (Archeological Resources: PPA + EBPSP) Geology and Soils (Paleontological Resources: PPA + EBPSP) Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Soils Management Plan: EBPSP) Tribal Cultural Resources (PPA + EBPSP)
UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS
This SEIR identifies 5 significant and unavoidable adverse impacts, as defined by CEQA, that would result from implementation of the proposed project. Unavoidable adverse impacts may be considered significant on a project-specific basis, cumulatively significant, and/or potentially significant. The City must prepare a “statement of overriding considerations” before it can approve the project, attesting that the decision-making body has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable significant environmental effects and has determined that the benefits outweigh the adverse effects, and therefore the adverse effects are considered acceptable.
The impacts that were found in the SEIR to be significant and unavoidable are:
Air Quality AQMP Consistency (PPA + EBPSP), Regional Construction Emissions (PPA), Regional Operation Emissions (PPA + EBPSP), Localized Construction Emissions (PPA), and Cumulative Health Risk (PPA);
Cultural Resources Historic Resources (PPA);
Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG emissions (PPA + EBPSP) Consistency with the City’s Community Climate Action Plan (PPA + EBPSP);
Noise Construction Noise (PPA), Traffic Noise (PPA + EBPSP), Construction Vibration Annoyance (PPA), Heavy Truck Vibration Annoyance (PPA) and Exterior Airport Noise Exposure (PPA); and
Transportation Vehicle Miles Traveled (PPA + EBPSP).
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2098
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
1 . INT RO DUCTI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 1 - 11
1.2.3 Final EIR Certification
This SEIR is being circulated for public review for 45 days. Interested agencies and members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the SEIR to the City address shown on the title page of this document. Upon completion of the 45-day review period, the City of Ontario will review all written comments received and prepare written responses for each. A Final Supplemental EIR (Final SEIR) will incorporate the received comments, responses to the comments, and any changes to the SEIR that result from comments. The Final SEIR will be presented to the City of Ontario for potential certification as the environmental document for the project. All persons who comment on the SEIR will be notified of the availability of the Final SEIR and the date of the public hearing before the City.
The SEIR is available to the general public for review at various locations:
City of Ontario, City Hall, Planning Department, 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764 Ovitt Family Community Library, 215 East C Street, Ontario, CA 91764 Lewis Family Branch, 3850 East Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA 91761 Online at: https://www.ontarioca.gov/Planning/Reports/EnvironmentalImpact All comments received from agencies and individuals on the SEIR will be accepted during the 45-day public review period. All comments on the SEIR should be sent to:
Thomas Grahn, Principal Planner
City of Ontario
City Hall, Planning Department
303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764
Or emailed to [email protected]
Public agencies that submit comments during the 45-day public review period on the SEIR will receive written responses to their comments at least 10 days prior to final action on the proposed project. If the City Council decides to certify the Final SEIR, it will make the necessary findings required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines regarding the extent and nature of the impacts presented in the Final SEIR. The Final SEIR must be certified by the City prior to making a decision to approve the proposed project. Public input is encouraged at all public hearings and meetings before the Planning Commission and City Council concerning the proposed project.
1.3 MITIGATION MONITORING
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires that agencies adopt a monitoring or reporting program for any project for which it has made findings pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 or adopted a Negative Declaration pursuant to 21080(c). Such a program is ■
■
■
■
2099
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
1 . INT RO DUCTI O N
1 -1 2
intended to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the preparation of an EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for Policy Plan Amendment and Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan will be completed prior to consideration of the project by the City of Ontario City Council.
1.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
Some documents are incorporated by reference into this Draft EIR, consistent with section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, and they are available for review at the City of Ontario.
City of Ontario Municipal Code
The Ontario Plan 2050 prepared by City of Ontario
The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) The Ontario Plan Recirculated Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140) The Ontario Plan Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140) Ontario Municipal Water District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan In each instance where a document is incorporated by reference for purposes of this report, the SEIR will briefly summarize the incorporated document or briefly summarize the incorporated data if the document cannot be summarized. In addition, the SEIR will explain the relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the SEIR.
This SEIR also relies on previously adopted regional and statewide plans and programs, agency standards, and background studies in its analyses, such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (South Coast AQMD) Air Quality Management Plan. Each section provides a complete list of references utilized in preparing the SEIR. Documents that are not published that are incorporated by reference are available for review at:
City of Ontario
City Hall, Planning Department
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
■
■
■
■
■
■
2100
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2- 1
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Ontario is in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County and is surrounded by the cities of Chino and Montclair and unincorporated San Bernardino County to the west; the cities of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga to the north; the city of Fontana and unincorporated San Bernardino County to the east; and the cities of Eastvale and Jurupa Valley to the south (see Figures 2-1, Regional Location, and 2-2, Citywide Aerial Map). The City is in the central part of the Upper Santa Ana River Valley. The primary tributary that flows through Ontario is the Cucamonga Creek, which originates, together with sub tributaries, in the San Gabriel Mountains and flows into the Prado Dam, where it joins the Santa Ana River, eventually terminating in the Pacific Ocean.
The City comprises approximately 50 square miles (32,022 acres), including the 8,200-acre Ontario Ranch in the southern part of the City—formerly known as the New Model Colony (NMC) and formerly the City’s sphere of influence (SOI). The northern, more urbanized part of the City is known as the Original Model Colony (OMC) in reference to the City’s founding as a model colony for cities in terms of layout and infrastructure. Generally, the City is bounded by Benson Avenue and Euclid Avenue on the west; Interstate 10 (I-10), 8th Street, and 4th Street on the north; Etiwanda Avenue and Hamner Avenue on the east; and Merrill Avenue and the San Bernardino County/Riverside County boundary on the south (see Figure 2-1). Regional circulation to and through the City is provided by I-10 and State Route (SR) 60, east to west, and by I-15 and SR-83 (Euclid Avenue), north to south. The City is also home to the Ontario International Airport (ONT) and proximate to Chino Airport.
2.1.1 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan
The 189-acre Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (EBPSP or Specific Plan) project site is bounded to the south by Eucalyptus Avenue, the east by Walker Avenue, and the west by Campus Avenue. Figure 2-3, EBPSP Aerial Map, illustrates the general location of the EBPSP. The project site includes the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 0216-322-01, 0216-322-02, 0216- 321-06, 0216-321-07, 0126-322-10, 0216-321-01, 0216-321-02, 1053-551-01, 1053-541-02, 1053-541-01, 1053-571-01, 1053-571-02, 1053-531-01, 1053-531-02, 1053-531-03, 1053-531- 04, 1053-581-04, and 1053-581-03.
The Specific Plan area is within the City’s Ontario Ranch area, which comprises a portion of the former San Bernardino County Agricultural Preserve annexed by the City of Ontario in 1999. The 2101
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -2
majority of the Specific Plan area is currently utilized by active dairy facilities, including dry lots, milking parlors, feed storage facilities, and associated residential uses. Other land uses include storage and minor maintenance of semitrailer trucks, storage and distribution of krill oil and soy sauce, tire storage, and small animal keeping.
2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND
2.2.1 The Ontario Plan 2050 (Approved Project)
The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050 or approved project) is the City’s policy and implementation framework that guides the long-term growth and improvement of the Ontario community through six interrelated components of city governance:
A Vision that provides a sense of purpose and mission for city governance and sets the tone for the other components of TOP. The Vision’s central theme is a sustained, community-wide prosperity that continuously adds value and yields benefits.
A Governance Manual that establishes a set of goals and policies to promote consistent City leadership based on the principles of regional leadership, transparency, long-term value, accountability, and inclusivity.
A Policy Plan that serves as the City’s legally required general plan and that states long-term goals, principles, and policies to achieve Ontario’s Vision through 9 elements: land use, housing, mobility, safety, environmental resources, parks and recreation, community economics, community design, and social resources.
A list of City Council Priorities that shape the City’s ongoing annual budgeting process, with a focus on a variety of short- and long-term goals and objectives.
An Implementation Plan that identifies the actions needed to carry out TOP’s policies. This includes initiatives by the City such establishing consistent land use zoning and creating objective development and design standards, as well as decisions on public and private development projects and City activity programs.
A Tracking and Feedback system that charts the City’s progress toward achieving the Policy Plan goals, providing data and analysis that enable decision makers to make strategic course corrections in response to changing circumstances and monitor ongoing operational effectiveness.
2102
Q ....
,¼,.
KERN
LOS ANGELES
.. .
r
NGELES COUNTY
J.. 1 FU
,-
- • bLERTON •
- l:JNIGU¾
AIRPOR
SAN BERNARDINO
RIVERSIDE
SAN DIEGO
Covina
d
[a Verne
•
Clf,fOF
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
..J. I --
ONTARIO
I [ TJBNATIONAL
:::::========~ ~3)::::=:C:-::ITY ~-~,~r:om: so
l !
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
OF ONTARIO
.,.
CITY OF
FONTANA
•
JURUPA VALLEY
CITY OF
CHINO
HILLS
241
. UNINCORPORATED
~ -I , ChmQM,p«t fl -----""....__ ___ _L__
~ ,¼,. • '
R Nl __ _
IRP
CORONA
"
..
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-1
Regional Location
D EBPSP Boundary
(±) Airports
~ J Ontario City Limit
Parks and Open Space
L City Boundary
c::::J County Boundary
Unincorporated County
2·0·5·0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
@ 0 10,000 20,000
Feet
40,000
Dale: 2/10/2026
2103
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -4
This page intentionally left blank.
2104
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-2
Citywide Aerial Map
83J Airport
I.. "I Ontario City Boundary
! i Adjacent City Boundary
I.. "l County Boundary
Unincorporated County
c::::J EBPSP Boundary
2 · 0 · 5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 0 2,500 5,000
Source: The City of Ontario 2025
FT
10,000
Date: 2/19/2026
2105
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -6
This page intentionally left blank.
2106
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-3
EBPSP Aerial Map
D EBPSP Boundary
2·0·5·0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
~ ~ Ft
,..,. 0 275 550
Source: T&B 2026. Date: 03/03/2026
2107
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -8
This page intentionally left blank.
2108
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2- 9
Figure 2-4, Current TOP Land Use Plan, shows the existing land use designations. Table 2-1, Approved TOP 2050 Land Use Designations, presents a breakdown of the land use buildout in the City under the approved project.
Table 2-1 Approved TOP 2050 Land Use Designations
TOP 2050 Land Use Acres
Housing
Capacity
(DU)
Households (HH)
Population
(Pop)
Nonresident
Bldg.
Capacity
(Sq. Ft.) Jobs
Residential
Rural Residential (RR) 528.7 1,057 1,015 3,863
Low Density Residential (LDR) 6,273.9 34,848 33,454 127,326 Low-Medium Density
Residential (MLDR)
888.7 7,518 7,218 26,471
Medium Density Residential
(MDR)1
2,299.1 47,206 45,317 152,855
High Density Residential (HDR) 198.0 5,089 4,885 13,038 Subtotal 10,188.4 95,718 91,889 323,553
Mixed-Use (MU) Subareas
Downtown2
131.5 2,762 2,651 7,077 1,833,291 4,097
Ontario Center
(not including Piemonte Area)
186.4 3,729 3,579 9,553 3,329,507 7,327
Ontario Center Arena
(Piemonte Area only)
169.2 5,076 4,873 13,006 1,621,435 3,417
Ontario Mills 249.4 3,990 3,830 10,223 3,394,666 3,971
Guasti 86.3 777 746 1,991 2,012,077 3,848
Multimodal 72.6 653 627 1,673 2,449,557 5,993
Grand Park2
299.7 7,342 7,049 18,813 2,741,373 4,846
Eucalyptus/Chino Airport2100.9 1,471 1,412 3,769 2,059,760 4,008 East Holt275.2 1,692 1,625 4,336 655,222 546
Meredith 90.8 1,815 1,743 4,651 691,939 577
Inland Empire 36.6 300 288 769 100,455 84
Mountain & 6th St 7.8 137 131 350 136,070 340
Mountain & West Holt 1.5 33 31 84 12,678 11
Euclid & Francis 12.7 190 183 487 220,912 552
Euclid & Walnut 16.4 369 354 945 142,840 357
2109
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -1 0
Table 2-1 Approved TOP 2050 Land Use Designations
TOP 2050 Land Use Acres
Housing
Capacity
(DU)
Households (HH)
Population
(Pop)
Nonresident
Bldg.
Capacity
(Sq. Ft.) Jobs
Mountain & 4th St 7.2 251 241 643 75,008 188
Rich-Haven 153.7 2,380 2,285 6,097 287,946 371
Grove & Chino2 36.1 821 788 2,104 385,285 630
Euclid & Riverside2
15.0 394 378 1,009 130,662 327
Parkside 3.0 52 50 132 51,440 129
Subtotal 1,752 34,234 32,864 87,712 22,332,123 41,619
Retail / Service
Neighborhood Commercial 245.8 3,212,553 8,762
General Commercial 385.2 5,033,395 5,605
Office / Commercial 309.2 10,101,733 28,239
Hospitality 194.2 8,458,978 11,412
Subtotal 1,134.4 26,806,659 54,018
Employment
Business Park 1,056.3 23,373,049 39,732
Business Park Overlay Areas 89.6 1,951,398 3,814
Industrial 7,591.3 181,873,225 147,096
Industrial Overlay Areas 60.2 1,441,256 1,197
Subtotal 8,797.4 208,638,928 191,839
Other
Open Space Non-Recreation 1,200.2 285,160 242
Open Space Parkland 1,041.3 193,455 82
Open Space - Water 17.3 1
Public Facility 89.7 495,688 1,806
Public School 603.4 2,666,341 3,102
Ontario International Airport 1,422.7 2,401,641 6,400
Landfill 136.6 6,528 34
Railroad 249.6 1,956 62
2110
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 11
Table 2-1 Approved TOP 2050 Land Use Designations
TOP 2050 Land Use Acres
Housing
Capacity
(DU)
Households (HH)
Population
(Pop)
Nonresident
Bldg.
Capacity
(Sq. Ft.) Jobs
Roadways 5,389.3
Subtotal 10,150.1 6,050,769 11,729
Total 32,022 129,951 124,753 411,268 263,828,479 299,204 Notes: Totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
1. Lower-Income Housing in Medium Density Residential (MDR). The MDR category will allow up to 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) (rather than 25 du/ac) if the site is within the Affordable Housing zoning overlay. Sites within the overlay may also be exempted from specific plan requirements if there is no existing specific plan or PUD, and the minimum density allowed on any site within the Affordable Housing overlay zone shall be 20 du/ac.
2. Lower-Income Housing in a Mixed-Use (MU) area. Mixed use sites within the affordable housing overlay may be exempted from specific plan and PUD requirements if there is no existing specific plan, and the minimum density allowed on any site within the Affordable Housing overlay zone shall be 20 du/ac.
2.2.2 TOP Certified EIR
The proposed project is an update to the approved project; therefore, this SEIR relies on the findings of the 2022 Draft SEIR and 2022 Final SEIR and, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, contains all the information necessary to ensure that the 2022 Certified EIR fully evaluates the proposed project. These documents, though discussed separately here, are collectively referred to in this SEIR as the 2022 Certified EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15148 and 15150, this SEIR incorporates the 2022 Certified EIR (and its constituent parts) by reference. A summary of the 2022 Certified EIR follows. All documents incorporated by reference are available for review at the City of Ontario Community Development Department at 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764.
2022 DRAFT SEIR AND FINAL EIR FOR THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 The City of Ontario circulated the 2022 Draft SEIR for a 45-day public review period beginning May 9, 2022, and ending June 23, 2022, and 20 topics were evaluated in detail in the 2022 SEIR.
The following impacts were considered less than significant without mitigation in the 2022 SEIR:
Aesthetics
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Biological Resources
Energy
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
■
■
■
■
■
2111
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -1 2
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildlife
The following impacts were identified as having potentially significant impacts that could be mitigated, avoided, or substantially lessened.
Cultural Resources (Archeological Resources)
Geology and Soils (Paleontological Resources)
Tribal Cultural Resources
The 2022 SEIR identified the following environmental categories as having significant and unavoidable impacts that could not be avoided by incorporating mitigation.
Air Quality (AQMP Consistency, Regional Construction Emissions, Regional Operation Emissions, and Cumulative Health Risk)
Cultural Resources (Historic Resources)
Noise (Construction Noise, Construction Vibration, and Airport Land Use Compatibility) Transportation (Vehicle Miles Traveled)
The City of Ontario approved The Ontario Plan 2050 and certified the TOP 2050 SEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) on August 16, 2022.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2112
THIS figure is out of date
~ ~ ___,~,...,..._~,+-+-+--+-;:-'~r:=t-GITVrOF~RANCHO
r<
I CITY OF
I MONTCLAIR
<(
W I~+.-·-- ~
V'l
z
LJ.J 1~ t
_:
I====={ 60 \=-====-=&~ ~~::=---&.~ ::t!:~rt:=-
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF CHINO
~ _J_____.... ~·
~ ~------------
CUCAMONGA ........,...J
JURUPA VALLEY
STVALE
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-4
Current TOP Land Use Plan
I I Ontario City Boundary
I I County Boundary
--+-+-+- Rail Network
Overlay Zones
~ Commercial
~ Business Park
~ Industrial
,, Landfill Impact Area
Current Land Use
Residential
RR Rural Residential
LDR Low Density Residential
LMDR Low Medium Density Residential
1111 MDR Medium Density Residential
1111 HDR High Density Residential
Mixed-Use
1111 MU Mixed Use
Commercial
1111 NC Neighborhood Commercial
1111 GC General Commercial
1111 OC Office Commercial
HOS Hospitality
Employment
BP Business Park
1111 IND Industrial
Other
1111 OS-NR Open Space - Non-Rec
1111 OS-R Open Space - Recreation
)?-:\\) OS-W Open Space - Water
1111 PF Public Facility
1111 PS Public School
ARPT Airport
LF Landfill
Rail
2 · 0 · 5·0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
~
• .. 0 2,500 5,000
Source: The City of Ontario 2025
FT
10,000
Date: 10/15/2025
2113
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -1 4
This page intentionally left blank.
2114
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 15
2009 DEIR AND RECIRCULATED DEIR
The 2022 SEIR tiered off the findings for TOP Final EIR certified in January 2010. The City of Ontario circulated the 2009 Draft EIR for public review in April 2009. Six environmental categories (agricultural resources, air quality, cultural resources, global climate change, noise, and traffic and transportation) had significant and unavoidable impacts that could not be avoided with mitigation. A Recirculated Draft EIR for The Ontario Plan was released in November 2009 to update and provide additional analysis concerning GHG emissions impacts associated with buildout of the Policy Plan. This analysis was based on verbal comments made by the California Attorney General’s Office after the end of the public review period and on recent rules and regulations about lowering GHG emissions. Only the following topic areas were analyzed in the 2009 Recirculated Draft EIR: Global Climate Change and Additional Project Alternative: 15 percent GHG Reduction Alternative. Remaining topics previously analyzed in the 2009 Draft EIR were determined to be adequately addressed. Analysis in the 2009 Recirculated Draft EIR found that significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the 2009 Draft EIR would remain significant and unavoidable. These determinations were reiterated in the 2010 Final EIR when it was certified on January 27, 2010.
2.3 STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Objectives for the Policy Plan Amendment and the EBPSP will aid decision makers in their review of the project and associated environmental impacts.
2.3.1 Policy Plan Amendment
Comprehensively plan for and assess land use changes requested by property owners while ensuring compliance with state laws and maintaining the vision and objectives of current TOP 2050.
Reposition the planned employment center in southwest Ontario from a mix of office, retail, and residential uses to a concentration of business park uses.
Ensure there is no net loss in overall housing capacity within the City, consistent with the requirements of state law.
Plan for adequate housing capacity to ensure the City continues to meet the requirements of the City’s sixth-cycle RHNA obligation.
Update the City’s truck routes based on proposed land use changes to ensure the City continues to comply with state law and ensures a safe and efficient goods movement network while minimizing the exposure of existing and future sensitive receptors to noise, vibration, and air pollution generated by heavy trucks. ■
■
■
■
■
2115
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -1 6
Update the Policy Plan component of TOP 2050 for internal consistency with proposed land use and circulation changes.
2.3.2 Specific Plan
To provide a land use plan that implements The Ontario Plan’s vision and appropriately positions business park and public parkland uses north of Eucalyptus Avenue, between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue.
To facilitate the development of a variety of employment-generating uses in a business park setting.
To provide business park uses that are compatible with surrounding land uses.
To provide opportunities for positive economic benefit to the City, including new net revenues to the General Fund that can be used for vital City services.
To provide opportunities for the development of passive use parks consistent with the City of Ontario’s Grand Park Master Plan.
To provide landscaped open space within the Specific Plan area, including pedestrian trails adjacent to public arterial and collector streets.
To improve connectivity in the area by providing pedestrian paths, bicycle routes, and comfort amenities such as bike racks that encourage circulation by means not dependent on a motorized vehicle.
To identify and construct capital improvements for water, recycled water, sewer, storm drain, and circulation facilities that serve planned land uses within and adjacent to the Specific Plan area.
To set forth a development phasing sequence that allows for logical development and aligns with installation of on-site and off-site infrastructure.
To define guidelines and standards that provide a cohesive design for architecture, landscaping, streetscapes, entry monuments, corner treatments, walls and fencing, lighting, and signage within the Specific Plan area.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2116
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 17
2.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
“Project,” as defined by the CEQA Guidelines, means:
... the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that is any of the following: (1)…enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100–65700. (14 Cal. Code of Reg. sec. 15378[a])
2.4.1 Policy Plan Amendment Project
POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
The Policy Plan Amendment project component primarily involves modifying the currently permitted and planned TOP land use pattern across more than 1,300 acres in southern Ontario.
These proposed changes to TOP are driven by requests from property owners and developers who seek to alter the allowable type or intensity of land use on their properties as well as land use changes required to improve land use compatibility, maintain compliance with state laws, uphold long-term planning goals, and plan for a cohesive land use pattern that repositions the southwest portion of the City as a regional employment and logistics center. A critical aspect of these proposed Policy Plan Amendments is to ensure compliance with state laws, including requirements enacted by the following Senate and Assembly Bills (SB/AB).
No-Net-Loss Provisions (SB 330): If any proposed rezonings convert land from uses that allow housing to uses that do not allow housing, the City must offset this by concurrently upzoning another property elsewhere to prevent a net loss of housing capacity. Since some of the requested changes would reduce potential housing buildout, the overall amendments include additional land use changes specifically for this offset.
SB 166 (Affordable Housing Sites): The City must maintain enough appropriately zoned sites to accommodate its fair share of lower- and moderate-income units according to the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA). If properties currently used to meet the City’s lower-income RHNA requirement are rezoned, new suitable sites must be identified on the land use plan. These changes would only be to the Policy Plan; no individual housing projects are being proposed through this process.
SB 1000 (Environmental Justice): The City is required to evaluate its environmental justice policies to comply with SB 1000, which is triggered when 2 or more elements of the General Plan (such as Land Use, Housing, Mobility, Community Design) are updated. The City ■
■
■
2117
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -1 8
reviewed its environmental justice goals, policies, and actions as part of the proposed changes to multiple elements of the Policy Plan. Beyond incremental additions of residential and commercial capacity along Holt Avenue and Riverside Avenue, no land use changes are proposed within or adjacent to areas mapped in TOP 2050 Figure ER-01 as Environmental Justice Areas. All of the proposed Business Park land use changes are nearly 2 miles south of the nearest mapped Environmental Justice Area. Accordingly, no changes to the City's environmental justice goals, policies, or actions were deemed necessary. Therefore, the review found the current policies and objectives adequate to meet the requirements of state law and no changes are proposed as part of the project.
AB 98 (Truck Routes). The City’s network of truck routes that would be impacted by the proposed land use changes would be evaluated for opportunities to minimize impacts to sensitive receptors and ensure direct access and compliance with AB 98.
Assessor Parcels Numbers
The following Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) would be affected by the Policy Plan Amendment:
0113-282-15
216-174-01
216-174-02
216-174-06
216-174-07
216-174-08
216-174-16
216-174-17
216-211-01
216-211-04
216-211-20
216-211-24
216-211-26
216-214-01
216-214-02
216-214-03
216-214-04
216-214-05
216-214-06
216-214-07
216-311-03
216-311-04
216-311-05
216-311-08
216-311-09
216-312-02
216-312-03
216-312-04
216-312-05
216-312-06
216-312-07
216-312-08
216-312-09
216-312-10
216-313-01
216-313-02
216-313-03
216-313-04
216-313-05
216-313-06
216-313-07
216-313-08
216-313-09
216-314-01
216-314-02
216-314-03
216-314-04
216-314-05
216-314-07
216-314-08
216-314-09
216-321-01
216-321-02
216-321-03
216-321-06
216-321-07
216-322-01
216-322-02
216-322-10
216-323-01
216-323-02
216-323-08
216-323-09
218-102-10
218-102-11
218-111-06
218-111-08
218-111-09
218-111-11
218-111-12
218-111-49
218-111-50
218-121-01
218-121-02
218-121-03
218-121-04
■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
2118
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 19
218-121-05
218-121-06
218-121-07
218-121-08
218-122-01
218-122-02
218-122-03
218-122-04
218-122-06
218-122-08
218-122-09
218-122-10
218-131-35
218-161-13
218-161-14
218-181-01
218-181-02
218-181-11
218-181-12
218-181-15
218-181-16
218-181-21
218-181-22
218-181-23
218-181-24
218-181-25
218-181-26
218-191-19
218-191-24
218-241-43
218-241-45
218-402-32
1049-101-01
1049-101-02
1049-101-04
1049-101-05
1049-101-06
1049-101-07
1049-101-08
1049-101-09
1049-101-10
1049-101-11
1049-101-12
1049-101-13
1049-101-14
1049-101-15
1049-101-16
1049-101-17
1049-101-18
1049-101-29
1049-101-30
1049-101-31
1049-101-32
1049-101-33
1049-101-34
1049-101-35
1049-101-36
1049-101-37
1049-101-38
1049-101-39
1049-101-40
1049-131-01
1049-131-02
1049-131-03
1049-131-04
1049-131-05
1049-131-06
1049-131-08
1049-131-09
1049-131-18
1049-131-19
1049-161-24
1049-161-25
1049-171-05
1049-171-06
1049-171-07
1052-151-02
1052-151-05
1052-151-09
1052-151-10
1052-151-11
1052-161-03
1052-471-02
1052-481-02
1052-491-03
1052-491-05
1052-491-06
1053-091-01
1053-101-01
1053-101-02
1053-111-01
1053-111-03
1053-111-04
1053-111-08
1053-151-04
1053-151-05
1053-161-02
1053-171-01
1053-171-03
1053-171-04
1053-171-05
1053-171-06
1053-181-01
1053-181-02
1053-191-01
1053-191-02
1053-201-01
1053-301-01
1053-301-02
1053-311-01
1053-311-02
1053-321-02
1053-321-03
1053-331-04
1053-341-01
1053-341-02
1053-351-02
1053-391-01
1053-411-01
1053-421-01
1053-421-02
1053-511-01
1053-511-02
1053-511-03
1053-511-05
1053-511-06
1053-511-07
1053-521-01
1053-521-02
1053-531-01
1053-531-02
1053-531-04
1053-541-01
1053-541-02
1053-551-01
1053-571-01
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
2119
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -2 0
1053-571-02
1053-581-03
1053-581-04
1053-591-01
1053-591-02
1053-601-01
1053-601-02
1053-601-03
1053-601-04.
Policy Plan Elements
The proposed land use changes necessitate updates and modifications across the Land Use Element and various other elements of TOP 2050 Policy Plan.
Land Use Element. The City’s current TOP Land Use Plan is shown on Figure 2-4. Proposed changes to the TOP Land Use Plan are shown on Figure 2-5, Proposed Land Use Plan. Additional figures in the Land Use Element would be updated to maintain consistency, including TOP Figures LU-02, LU-03, and LU-04. Land Use Plan changes are primarily located within the Ontario Ranch (south of Riverside Drive), with a handful of changes in the northern part of the City along East Holt Avenue and South Grove Avenue, as further discussed below.
Housing Element. To comply with state law, the Housing Element requires updates to TOP housing sites inventory to reflect changes in the list of sites suitable to fulfill the City’s RHNA requirement.
Mobility Element. The City’s network of truck routes would be updated in compliance with AB 98, and consistent with proposed land use changes. Minor updates to the City’s Roadway System (M-01), and multipurpose trails and bikeways, identified on TOP Figure M-02, are also proposed to reflect the City’s long term plan for roadways, and align future bike improvements with the proposed changes in the land use pattern and truck routes in southwestern Ontario. New Mobility policies and implementation actions addressing priority safety corridors consistent with Senate Bill 932 are proposed, as well as a new policy promoting lower speed limits for trucks in areas adjacent to noise-and-vibration-sensitive land uses. Finaly Policies M-3.1 and M-4.1 would be updated. Policy M-3.1 would be expanded to note that the City would prioritize coordinating access to transit in areas near sites identified in the housing element as suitable for lower-income (in addition to Environmental Justice areas), while policy M-4.1 would clarify that noise-sensitive land uses is intended to include both noise and vibration sensitive land uses. ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2120
I
r<
I CITY OF
I MONTCLAIR
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF CHINO
~ ~ ~------------_J__........
County of Riverside
JURUPA VALLEY
STVALE
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-5
Proposed Land Use Plan
I I Ontario City Boundary
I I County Boundary
-+-+-+- Rail Network
Overlay Zones
~ Business Park
~ Industrial
,,. Landfill Impact Area
Land Use Designations
Residential
RR Rural Residential
LDR Low Density Residential
LMDR Low Medium Density Residential
1111 MDR Medium Density Residential
1111 HDR High Density Residential
Mixed-Use
1111 MU Mixed Use
Commercial
1111 NC Neighborhood Commercial
1111 GC General Commercial
1111 OC Office Commercial
HOS Hospitality
Employment
BP Business Park
1111 IND Industrial
Other
1111 OS-NR Open Space - Non-Rec
1111 OS-R Open Space - Recreation
/:·-:\-!::-./; OS-W Open Space - Water
1111 PF Public Facility
ROW; ROW-bp
1111 PS Public School
ARPT Airport
LF Landfill
~ Rail 2 · 0 · 5·0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 0 2,500
Source: The City of Ontario 2025
5,000
FT
10,000
Date: 10/15/2025
2121
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -2 2
This page intentionally left blank.
2122
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 23
Community Design Element. Mixed-use place types, identified in the Community Design Element, would be updated to reflect proposed land use changes. Revisions include changes to existing mixed-use areas, and the establishment of new mixed-use areas, including creating a new district-level place type for the Ontario Sports Empire, revising the South Euclid District place type, and removing the South Employment District place type. TOP Figures CD-01, CD-02, CD-06, CD-07, CD-08, and CD-09.2 are anticipated to be updated. The approved TOP Figure CD-07 would be removed and replaced with a new TOP Figure CD-07, establishing the Ontario Sports Empire as “District Place Type.” Parks and Recreation. Revisions to the location of planned park facilities in TOP Figure PR-01 to maintain consistency with approved projects and the proposed land use plan.
Safety. Revisions to the Traffic Noise Contours Map (S-06a) would be updated consistent with proposed changes in land use and circulation. In addition, minor changes to the base maps used in the map of Critical Facilities (S-08), Evacuation Constrained Properties (S-09), and Evacuation Routes (S-10) would be processed to show updates to the City’s park network or remove parks from the base maps, as the location of parks in no way alters the intent of the map.
Environmental Resources. Policy ER-5.4 would be updated to state that the City does not require replacement farmland or require the dedication or preservation of agricultural land outside of the City if a property owner elects to transition from agricultural to urban uses.
Finally, the City’s Development Code would be updated to maintain consistency with the proposed Land Use Plan.
Development Code Consistency. The zoning map and Development Code would be updated to implement the Policy Plan Amendment.
Land Use Designations and Zoning
The land use designations for the proposed project are the same as those in the approved project with the exception of the addition of a new Sport Park (MU-SP) land use designation, the removal of the Mixed Use-Eucalyptus / Chino Airport Overlay, changing the Great Park mixed use designation to the Grand Park Mixed Use designation, raising the minimum allowable density for the Meredith Mixed Use designation, and the addition of footnotes to clarify that the minimum density shall be 20 du/ac on all sites identified as suitable for lower-income housing in the Sites Inventory of the Housing Element and subject to rezoning to accommodate that housing since 2021. Table 2-2, Land Use Designations in the City of Ontario, includes the existing land use designations, their density or intensity, and intention. ■
■
■
■
■
2123
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -2 4
Table 2-2 Land Use Designations in the City of Ontario
General Plan Land
Use Designations
Residential Density
and Nonresidential
Intensity Permitted Uses (General Description)
Residential
Rural 0 to 2.0 du/ac Single-family detached residences, typically in an estate setting.
Low Density 2.1 to 5.0 du/ac Single-family detached residences.
Low-Medium
Density
5.1 to 11.0 du/ac Single/multifamily attached and detached residences, including small lot subdivisions, townhouses, and
courtyard homes.
Medium Density 11.1 to 25.0
du/ac1,2,3
Single/multifamily attached and detached residences,
including townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard homes,
stacked flats, and small-lot single-family subdivisions.
High Density 25.1 to 45.0 du/ac Multifamily dwellings, including stacked flats and midrise and high-rise residential complexes.
Retail/Service
Neighborhood
Commercial
0.40 FAR Local serving retail, personal service, office, and dining uses, typically located within a predominantly residential neighborhood.
General
Commercial
0.40 FAR Local and regional serving retail, personal service, entertainment, dining, office, tourist-serving, and related commercial uses.
Office/Commercial 0.75 FAR An intense mixture of professional office, supported by regional serving retail, service, tourist-serving,
entertainment, dining, and supporting service uses that capitalize on strategic locations in Ontario. This
designation also allows for professional offices such as financial, legal, insurance, medical, and other similar uses in a neighborhood setting and/or as adaptive reuse.
Hospitality 1.00 FAR Regional serving tourist-serving, retail, entertainment, and service uses such as convention centers, hotels/motels, and restaurants.
Employment
Business Park 0.60 FAR Employee-intensive office uses including corporate offices, technology centers, research and development,
“clean” industry, light manufacturing, and supporting
retail within a business park setting.
I I
I I
I I
2124
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 25
Table 2-2 Land Use Designations in the City of Ontario
General Plan Land
Use Designations
Residential Density
and Nonresidential
Intensity Permitted Uses (General Description)
Industrial 0.55 FAR Variety of light industrial uses, including warehousing/distribution, assembly, light manufacturing, research and development, storage, repair facilities, and supporting retail and professional office uses. This
designation also accommodates activities that could
potentially generate impacts, such as noise, dust, and
other nuisances.
If office uses and/or multiple tenant uses are developed on parcels fronting on the Milliken, Haven, and Archibald corridors, a FAR of 0.60 may be used.
Other
Open Space – NonrecreationNot applicable Open space that includes utility easements, and drainage channels. We desire to realize multiple uses from these open spaces, such as trails, greenways, joint-use
recreational amenities, landscaped parkways/medians,
parking lots, and nurseries.
Open Space –
Parkland
Not applicable Recreational facilities, such as tot-lots, parks, golf courses, and sports complexes and joint-use facilities with schools, utilities, and drainage facilities.
Public Facility Not applicable Public facilities including civic centers, governmental institutions, police and fire stations, transportation
facilities, museums, and public libraries.
Public School Not applicable Public schools (K-12) and universities.
Airport Not applicable Airport, including terminals, parking, service commercial, distribution, hangers, repair, and warehousing.
Landfill Not applicable Allows for the use, operation, and reclamation of the Milliken Landfill. If the site is reclaimed, the City will consider a host of uses including a transit station and multimodal transfer station.
Rail road Not applicable —
Roadways Not applicable —
Mixed Use1 Mixed UseDowntown
(MU-Downtown)
25.0 to 75.0
dwelling units per
acre
2.0 FAR for retail
and office uses
Envisioned as an intensive vertical and horizontal mixture of retail, office, civic, and residential uses in a pedestrian friendly atmosphere. The historic character is enhanced.
The most intensive uses are envisioned along Euclid and Holt Avenues.
I I
2125
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -2 6
Table 2-2 Land Use Designations in the City of Ontario
General Plan Land
Use Designations
Residential Density
and Nonresidential
Intensity Permitted Uses (General Description)
Mixed UseHolt Blvd
(MU-Holt)
14.0 to 40.0
dwelling units per
acre2
2.0 FAR for office
uses
1.0 FAR for retail
uses
This area is envisioned as a low-rise (3-5 stories)
intensification of the Holt Corridor. The intent is to create identity and place along the Holt Corridor, connect the corridor to Downtown, and connect the Downtown to the
Ontario Airport Metro Center.
Mixed UseMeredith
(MU-Meredith)
25.0 to 125.0
dwelling units per
acre
3.0 FAR for office
and retail uses
This area is envisioned as a mixture of mid-rise buildings, regional-serving retail and office centers, and stand-alone high density residential projects.
Mixed UseMultimodal
(MU-Multimodal)
20.0 to 80.0
dwelling units per
acre
1.0 FAR for office
and retail uses
The Multimodal Mixed Use Area is under consideration
for our future multi-modal transit station that links rail, regional, local, and Airport transit. Intensive office, retail, and residential uses are envisioned to be integrated with the transit station, which is expected to be within the area or in close proximity. The transit center is envisioned as an iconic, convenient, and intuitively-designed multimodal transportation center that serves the City of Ontario and the region at-large.
Mixed UseInland Empire
Corridor
(MU-Inland
Empire)
14.0 to 30.0
dwelling units per
acre
2.0 FAR for office
uses
1.0 FAR for retail
uses
Located along Inland Empire Boulevard, this area is
primarily residential with a retail center at the corner of Inland Empire Boulevard and Archibald. The small amount of remaining vacant land is envisioned for retail uses that relate to the regional park.
Mixed UseGuasti
(MU-Guasti)
25.0 to 65.0
dwelling units per
acre
1.0 FAR for office
and retail uses
This site includes the Guasti Winery, which is on the
National Register of Historic Places. This area is envisioned as a mixture of high quality office, lodging, retail and residential uses that incorporate the Guasti Winery. More intensive office and commercial uses are envisioned along I-10 while office, commercial, and lodging uses are
envisioned in and around the historic structures; the
southern portion of the area is being considered as
potential site for the multimodal transit center. There is an approved Specific Plan on this site that may require
amendment to align with TOP.
2126
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 27
Table 2-2 Land Use Designations in the City of Ontario
General Plan Land
Use Designations
Residential Density
and Nonresidential
Intensity Permitted Uses (General Description)
Mixed UseOntario Center
(MU- Ontario
Center)
20.0 to 125.0
dwelling units per
acre
2.0 FAR for office
uses
1.0 FAR for retail
uses
This area is one of the most intensive developments in
Ontario and is characterized by low-rise (3-5 stories) and mid-rise (5-10 stories), mixed-use buildings, iconic
architecture, and regionally significant uses, such as the Toyota Arena, and other cultural and entertainment uses.
This area accommodates a vertical and horizontal mixture of entertainment, retail, office, and residential uses in an active, pedestrian oriented atmosphere. In this area, The Haven Corridor is envisioned as an elegant, landscaped
boulevard lined multi-story office uses near the I-10 and mixed and residential uses closer to the City's northern boundary along 4th Street. There is an approved Specific Plan on this site that may require amendment to align
with TOP.
Mixed UseOntario Mills
(MU-Ontario Mills)
25.0 to 85.0
dwelling units per
acre
1.5 FAR for office
uses
1.0 FAR for retail
uses
This area will continue to be our regional retail center. We envision intensification of the area to include additional retail and entertainment, office, and multi-family (3-5 story) residential uses. New development is envisioned to occur along the interior loop road and the perimeter of the area. There is an approved Specific Plan on this site that may require amendment to align with TOP.
Mixed UseRich Haven
(MU-Rich Haven)
14.0 to 50.0
dwelling units per
acre
0.7 FAR for office
and retail uses
Subject to
approved Specific
Plan
The Rich-Haven Mixed Use Area is within the Rich-Haven
Specific Plan. This area is envisioned as a low-rise (3-5 stories), primarily horizontal mixture of retail, office, medical, and residential uses. The greatest level of
intensity is envisioned along Ontario Ranch Road and
Hamner Avenue.
2127
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -2 8
Table 2-2 Land Use Designations in the City of Ontario
General Plan Land
Use Designations
Residential Density
and Nonresidential
Intensity Permitted Uses (General Description)
Mixed UseGrand Park
(MU-Grand Park)
14.02 to 65.0
dwelling units per
acre
1.5 FAR for office
uses
1.0 FAR for retail
uses
Subject to Specific
Plan3
The Grand Park Mixed Use Areas are envisioned as the
southwestern activity centers for citizens of Ontario.
These areas accommodate a vertical and horizontal
mixture of commercial, office, entertainment, and
residential uses all connecting to the Great Park with a pedestrian oriented atmosphere. It is envisioned that the major roads through these Mixed Use areas are couplets, which are a series of one-way streets that disperse traffic and allow reduced street widths, maximize the sense of
community, and emphasize pedestrian accessibility. These Mixed Use areas are envisioned as low-rise (3-5 stories) with some mid-rise (5-10 stories) near the intersection of Euclid and Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road.
Mixed UseGrove
(MU-Grove)
14.02 to 65.0
dwelling units per
acre
1.5 FAR for office
uses
1.0 FAR for retail
uses
Subject to Specific
Plan3
Envisioned as a low-rise (3-5 stories), mixture of retail and residential uses that will create identity and place along the corridor and serve the surrounding residents.
Mixed Use -
Parkside
(MU-PS)
25.0-45.0 dwelling
units per acre
1.0 FAR for retail
uses
Subject to
approved Specific
Plan
Envisioned as a low-rise (3-5 stories), mixture of retail and residential uses that will create identity and place and serve the surrounding residents.
Mixed Use
Sports Park
(MU-SP)
25.0 to 65.0
dwelling units per
acre
1.00 FAR for
hospitality and/or
retail uses
1.5 FAR for office
uses
Subject to PUD or
Specific Plan3
The Sports Park Mixed Use Areas are envisioned as a
mixed use recreation and entertainment hub,
accommodating a vertical and horizontal mixture of
commercial, office, entertainment, hospitality, and
residential uses all in proximity to the Sports Park. This Mixed Use area is envisioned as low-rise (3-5 stories)
mixture of hospitality, commercial, residential, and office uses that will create identity and place along the corridor and serve the surrounding residents.
2128
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 29
Table 2-2 Land Use Designations in the City of Ontario
General Plan Land
Use Designations
Residential Density
and Nonresidential
Intensity Permitted Uses (General Description)
Mixed Use
Neighborhood
Activity Hubs
(MU-NH)
6th and Mountain
4th and Mountain
Francis and Euclid
Walnut and Euclid
Riverside and
Euclid
20.0 to 75.0
dwelling units per
acre
1.0 FAR for retail
and office
Subject to Specific
Plan3
Projects located
outside of Ontario
Ranch will be
subject to PUD at
City’s Discretion
Envisioned as a low-rise (3 to 5 stories), mixture of retail and residential uses that will create identity and place along the corridor and serve the surrounding residents.
Overlays
Business Park
Transitional Areas
Per the
underlying
designation
unless a nonresidential use is
developed in
which case the
density and use
requirements of
the Business Park
land use
designations shall
apply.
This area is within existing and future noise and
safety impact zones of LA/Ontario International
Airport. This overlay allows residential uses to
transition to a Business Park land use if an entire
block can be recycled to a Business Park use and the
block is contiguous to another non-residential block.
In these cases, the City shall be responsible for the
necessary amendments to the Policy Plan Map and
Development Code.
Industrial
Transitional Areas
Per the underlying
designation unless
a non-residential
use is developed in
which case the
density and use
requirements of
the Industrial land
use
designations shall
apply.
This area is within existing and future noise and safety impact zones of LA/Ontario International Airport. This
overlay allows residential uses to transition to an
industrial land use if an entire block can be recycled to an Industrial use and the block is contiguous to another nonresidential block. In these cases, the City shall be responsible for the necessary amendments to the Policy
Plan Map and Development Code.
2129
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -3 0
Table 2-2 Land Use Designations in the City of Ontario
General Plan Land
Use Designations
Residential Density
and Nonresidential
Intensity Permitted Uses (General Description)
ONT Airport
Influence Area
Varies 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 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Ontario International Airport.
Chino Airport
Influence Area
Varies 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 Development Code for
Chino Airport land use policies and criteria for
development.
Landfill Impact
Area
Varies Lands immediately surrounding the Milliken Landfill may be contaminated or present other landfill-related hazards that could limit allowable uses and site design.
Development in this area requires the submission of a
detailed environmental analysis.
Plan Required Overlays
Ontario Airport
Metro Center
Per approved
individual specific
plans3
Envisioned as the most intensive area outside of
downtown Los Angeles with a vertical and horizontal
mixture of regional-serving retail, office, restaurant, entertainment, cultural, and residential uses in low
to mid-rise buildings (3-10 stories). See the Ontario
Airport Metro Center Area Plan or adopted specific
plans for more detail.
Ontario Ranch Per approved
individual specific
plans3
Envisioned as a mixture of residential neighborhoods
integrated with areas of high intensity (3-10 stories)
employment, retail, service, entertainment, cultural, and residential uses united by a network of greenways/trails, open spaces, amenities, and infrastructure. All
development to be oriented toward or designed to
leverage the “Grand Park,” a linear open space amenity
containing active and passive recreational features,
gardens, water features, and cultural facilities. Additional direction may be provided through the application of
place types and specific plans.
I
2130
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 31
Table 2-2 Land Use Designations in the City of Ontario
General Plan Land
Use Designations
Residential Density
and Nonresidential
Intensity Permitted Uses (General Description)
Downtown Per approved
planned unit
development (PUD
may be waived at
City’s discretion)3
Envisioned as an intensive vertical and horizontal mixture of retail, office, civic, and residential uses in a pedestrian friendly atmosphere. The historic character is enhanced.
The most intensive uses are envisioned along Euclid and Holt Avenues. See the Downtown Area Plan for more
detail.
1. Some parcels with this designation may fall within a Place Type, which characterizes the vision and urban design intent within a specified area. If any portion of a parcel is within a Place Type boundary, as shown in Figure CD-01, Place Types, in the Community Design Element, that parcel is subject to Goal CD-3, and related policies. Projects must demonstrate that they are consistent with the vision and policy intent for the applicable Place Type as defined in Exhibits CD-02 through CD-09.
2. Parcels designated as MDR within the affordable housing overlay zoning district allow a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre if the project includes 25 percent of units affordable to lower incomes, consistent with Tier 2 requirements of the overlay zone.
3. All parcels within the affordable housing overlay zoning district have a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. All parcels within the affordable housing overlay zoning district are exempt from the specific plan requirement if there is no existing specific plan and the project includes 20 percent of units affordable to lower incomes, consistent with Tier 1 requirements of the overlay zone.
Land Use Summary
Table 2-3, TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Proposed Land Use Summary, details the projected population, employment, dwelling units, acreage, assumed density/intensity, and nonresidential square footage of development by land use in the City planned for under TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment. Figure 2-5, Proposed Land Use Plan, shows the proposed project land use map for the City.
Table 2-3 TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Proposed Land Use Summary TOP 2050 Land Use Acres
Housing
Capacity
(DU)
Househol
ds (HH)
Populatio
n (Pop)
Nonresident
Bldg.
Capacity
(Sq. Ft.) Jobs
Residential
Rural Residential (RR) 528.7 1,057 1,015 3,863
Low Density Residential (LDR) 5,809.6 32,753 31,443 119,671 Low-Medium Density
Residential (LMDR)
929.5 7,865 7,550 27,737
2131
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -3 2
Table 2-3 TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Proposed Land Use Summary TOP 2050 Land Use Acres
Housing
Capacity
(DU)
Househol
ds (HH)
Populatio
n (Pop)
Nonresident
Bldg.
Capacity
(Sq. Ft.) Jobs
Medium Density Residential
(MDR)1
2,292.3 47,010 45,130 152,223
High Density Residential (HDR) 535.7 16,902 16,226 43,308 Subtotal 10,095.8 105,587 101,364 346,802
Mixed-Use (MU) Subareas
Downtown1
131.5 2,783 2,672 7,131 1,833,291 4,097
Ontario Center (not including
Piemonte Area)
186.4 3,729 3,579 9,553 3,329,507 7,327
Ontario Center Arena
(Piemonte Area only)
169.2 5,076 4,873 13,006 1,621,435 3,417
Ontario Mills 249.4 3,990 3,830 10,223 3,394,666 3,971
Guasti 86.3 777 746 1,991 2,012,077 3,848
Multimodal 72.6 653 627 1,673 2,449,557 5,993
Grand Park1187.5 4,595 4,411 11,772 1,715,486 3,032
East Holt192.2 2,074 1,991 5,313 802,882 669
Meredith 90.8 1,815 1,743 4,651 691,939 577
Inland Empire 36.6 300 288 769 100,455 84
Mountain & 6th St 7.8 137 131 350 136,070 340
Mountain & West Holt 1.5 33 31 84 12,678 11
Euclid & Francis 12.7 190 183 487 220,912 552
Euclid & Walnut 16.4 369 354 945 142,840 357
Mountain & 4th St 7.2 251 241 643 75,008 188
Rich-Haven 153.7 2,380 2,285 6,097 287,946 371
Grove & Chino1 45.1 1,025 984 2,627 481,025 786
Euclid & Riverside1 15.0 394 378 1,009 130,662 327
Parkside 3.0 52 50 132 51,440 129
Vineyard & Riverside136.7 331 317 847 856,025 1,368
Sports Park1
70.8 637 612 1,632 1,649,650 2,637
Subtotal 1,672.4 31,591 30,326 80,935 21,995,551 40,081 Retail / Service
Neighborhood Commercial 237.3 3,100,519 8,456
General Commercial 356.7 4,661,303 5,191
Office / Commercial 309.2 10,101,733 28,239
2132
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 33
Table 2-3 TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Proposed Land Use Summary TOP 2050 Land Use Acres
Housing
Capacity
(DU)
Househol
ds (HH)
Populatio
n (Pop)
Nonresident
Bldg.
Capacity
(Sq. Ft.) Jobs
Hospitality 167.0 7,273,232 9,812
Subtotal 1,070.2 25,136,787 51,698
Employment
Business Park (not including
EBPSP)
1,197.5 26,449,295 43,550
Business Park (EBPSP only) 138.0 2,939,000 1,583
Business Park Overlay Areas 89.6 1,951,398 3,814
Industrial 7,606.2 182,228,282 147,391
Industrial Overlay Areas 60.2 1,441,256 1,197
Subtotal 9,091.5 215,009,231 197,535
Other
Open Space Non-Recreation 1,200.2 285,160 242
Open Space Parkland (not
including EBPSP)
961.8 164,012 69
Open Space Parkland (EBPSP
only)
36.4 7
Open Space – Water 17.3 1
Public Facility 89.7 495,688 1,806
Public School 603.7 2,666,341 3,102
Ontario International Airport 1,407.9 2,401,641 6,400
Landfill 136.6 6,528 34
Rail road 249.6 1,956 62
Roadways 5,389.3
Subtotal 10,092.5 6,021,326 11,723
Total 32,022 137,177 131,690 427,741 268,162,895 301,035 Notes: Totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
1. Affordable Housing Overlay. As part of this project, the affordable housing overlay will be applied to all sites where rezoning was required by Program 13 of the Housing Element to accommodate the City’s lower-income 6th cycle RHNA where the assigned TOP category includes either 1) a minimum density less than 20 du/ac, and/or 2) the site would otherwise require a specific plan or PUD. The affordable housing overlay requires all development projects on the site to have a minimum density of 20 du/ac regardless of affordability level and superseding requirements of the base zone (if any). The overlay also exempts projects meeting Tier 1 or Tier 2 requirements (those containing at least 20 (Tier 1) or 25 (Tier 2) percent of units for lower-Income households) from the specific plan or PUD requirement. In these cases, the traditional zoning category consistent with TOP land use designation, or a comparable existing zoning implementation tool that aligns with the density and intensity of the proposed 2133
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -3 4
project, would regulate development. Finally, the affordable housing overlay increases the maximum density for any Tier 2 project to 30 du/ac on lots designates at Medium Density Residential (MDR) in TOP, increasing the base density allowed from 25 to 30 du/ac.
Buildout Summary
Table 2-4, Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment, provides a statistical summary of the buildout potential of TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment compared to the buildout potential under the currently approved TOP 2050. As shown in this table, the Policy Plan Amendment would increase population, dwelling units, nonresidential building square footage, and employment compared to the approved TOP 2050.
Table 2-4 Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment Scenario Units Population
Nonresidential
Square Feet Employment
Approved TOP 2050 129,951 411,268 263,828,479 299,204
Policy Plan Amendment 137,177 427,741 268,162,895 301,035 Net Difference
(Proposed Project –
Approved Project)
7,225 16,473 4,334,416 1,831
Summary of Changes to the Approved Project
The proposed changes to TOP are driven by requests from property owners and developers who seek to alter the allowable type or intensity of land use on their properties as well as land use changes required to maintain land use compatibility with requested changes, maintain compliance with state laws, uphold long-term planning goals, and plan for a cohesive land use pattern that continues to position the southwest portion of the City as a regional employment and logistics center. A critical aspect of these proposed Policy Plan Amendments is to ensure compliance with state laws (SB 330, SB 166, SB 1000, and AB 98).
Land Use Changes
Figure 2-6, Policy Plan Amendment Areas of Change, shows the changes in land use between the Current TOP and proposed project that will be evaluated in this SEIR. The proposed project has approximately 1,300 acres of land use changes that affect the buildout projections throughout the City; however, the majority of changes are concentrated in Ontario Ranch. 2134
- ,J
J ,
-rL- i 0 "' z
w
j f
J
I
■
-, ,_,
CITY OF CHINO
w w w > > <( < ~
0 <( V)
z ::> :::; g 0..
u ::i: ::> ::> <( w
"' u
z z z
. •
E G ST
E D ST
E HOLT AVE
E P.HILADELPHIA ST
w
>
0 a::
\.!I
w
~
0 ""
~ w
z
5 V)
' ...
.. _1 E RIME.RSIOE D
E CHIN • A
lp=x=t===:~~
1 '----=-----E• HH:'~l:YP.Pl!JS• A>;IE- -..J
L .. _,,_,,.MERRl<L-AVl-••-··-"l
L ..
--
w
>
<
0 ..J
<(
~
:r:
• u
a:;
<(
"'
w
~.
a::
w
z "' ::>
I-
"'
- -
D
CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
□
2 w
~
z
w "" :::;
::-.. ~
1 w
~
w
.....
...,
> w
z
3 V,
I
_,,J
I
,,_, __ ,,,
w
E SANTA ANA ST
w
~
w
C)
~ z
>
.,,
~
~ e
z
<(
:::_ I
~ I
z
r
I
l
~ CITY OF
i FONTANA z
<(
3 ~
~
I I County of = San Bernardino ,,_,, ___ ,,___..,
County ol Riverside
~
60~--------
JURUPA VALLEY
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-6
Policy Plan Amendment
Areas of Change
t::l EBPSP Boundary
Cl Proposed TOP Areas of Change
~ Ontario City Boundary
c::J County Boundary
Rail Network
Overlay Zones
Business Park
W ./4 Industrial
Landfill Impact Area
Residential
RR Rural Residential
LOR Low Density Residential
LMDR Low Medium Density Residential
MOR Medium Density Residential
- HOR High Density Residential
Mixed-Use
- MU Mixed Use
Commercial
- NC Neighborhood Commercial
- GC General Commercial
OC Office Commercial
HOS Hospitality
Employment
BP Business Park
IND Industrial
Other
OS-NR Open Space - Non-Rec
- OS-R Open Space - Recreation
(:f·_·.-· , OS-W Open Space - Water
PF Public Facility
ROW; ROW-bp
- PS Public School
ARPT Airport
LF Landfill
2 Rail
* Areas where no land use
change is proposed are
shown al 40% opacity
2·0·5·0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
fi 0 2,500 5,000
Source: The City of Ontario 2026
FT
10,000
Date: 2/26/2026
2135
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -3 6
This page intentionally left blank.
2136
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 37
Senate Bill 330 Compliance. Because the changes to the land use plan would replace areas planned for residential use with nonresidential uses, the loss in residential capacity must be offset by increasing the residential capacity by an equal amount elsewhere in the City to comply with SB 330, which mandates no net loss of residential capacity citywide. The proposed land use changes result in a net gain in housing capacity, increasing the estimated number of allowed units from 129,951 units under TOP 2050, to 137,177 units under the proposed project, an increase of 5.6 percent, meeting the requirements of SB 330. The reason the City must plan for an increase in housing units rather than net replacement of units is due to more stringent requirements related to Senate Bill 166, as described below.
Senate Bill 166 Compliance. SB 166 mandates that a jurisdiction maintain an inventory of sites suitable to fulfill its low and very low Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)1 obligation at all times. To comply with State Housing Law, codified as SB 166, the City must remove sites identified in its inventory as suitable for low and very-low income households when land use or zoning changes render them no longer suitable for affordable housing, and the City must identify additional adequate sites to meet its RHNA requirements. California housing law establishes general criteria for sites to be considered suitable for low and very low income RHNA:
Minimum Density. 30 dwelling units per acre or more.
Infrastructure and Realistic Development Potential by 2029. Sites must have available or planned infrastructure and demonstrate realistic development potential within the planning period. Where infrastructure is planned jurisdictions must account for development time and uncertainty by counting only a percentage of the total units that could develop towards its low and very-low (lower) income requirements.
Vacant or Underutilized Property. All properties identified in the inventory must be vacant or underutilized.
Lot Size. Properties smaller than 0.5 acre or larger than 10 acres must provide additional documentation to show that development of lower-income units is feasible.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). Sites for lower-income households must not be concentrated in lower resource areas but dispersed throughout the community, including in areas with access to greater resources, amenities, and opportunities. 1 RHNA is California’s process for determining how much housing each jurisdiction must plan for during an 8-year cycle. The state allocates housing needs to regional agencies, which then distribute specific unit targets to each city and county across four income categories: lower (including very low and low), moderate, and above moderate income.
■
■
■
■
■
2137
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -3 8
Several properties identified as suitable for lower-income housing must be removed from the current sites inventory due to changes that are part of the proposed project as well changes to zoning or entitlement status that are outside the scope of the proposed project but render sites no longer suitable for lower-income units. Because the loss of sites cannot be absorbed within the current inventory and there are not enough sites that meet the criteria above to offset the loss of sites, the proposed project includes upzoning several sites to meet the City’s RHNA obligation (see Figure 2-7, Policy Plan Amendment Affordability Sites Inventory Changes).
Table 2-5, Ontario’s 2021-2029 RHNA Requirements, identifies the City’s current RHNA requirements for the 2021-2029 Housing Element cycle.
Table 2-5 Ontario’s 2021-2029 RHNA Requirements
Income Category Units
Lower Income 8,926
Moderate Income 3,329
Above Moderate Income 8,599
Total 20,854
Transportation Updates
The proposed project would also result in changes to the truck routes map to address the requirements of AB 98. The intent of AB 98 is to improve community health and the environment by strategizing how and where heavy-duty trucks travel to and from logistics and warehousing facilities. The primary direction of state law is to prioritize routes that maximize the use of freeways or state highways followed by larger local roads (arterial and collector roadways). Changes to the City’s truck routes are to avoid, when possible, routing trucks through residential areas and near concentrations of other sensitive uses (such as schools, hospitals, and parks).
In summer 2025, the City conducted outreach and initiated evaluation of its existing truck routes, which resulted in changes to the truck routes in northern Ontario, in the Original Model Colony (OMC). Figure 2-8, Current Truck Routes, shows the current truck routes map. Changes in southern Ontario are being evaluated as part of the Policy Plan Amendment concurrent with land use changes. The City received comments regarding heavy truck traffic passing by residential areas, especially along Ontario Ranch Road and Archibald Avenue. Specific issues identified by the public from truck travel include noise, vibration, and air quality impacts on homes and schools; safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists; road damage from heavy vehicles; and the need for better enforcement of truck routes. Based on feedback from the public, the City identified four truck routes concepts for Ontario Ranch. Figure 2-9, Proposed Truck Routes, identifies the proposed truck routes selected by the City to move forward for the Policy Plan Amendment and to address the requirements of AB 98. 2138
~ I (.._ __ ,•• 1...-+-~--+-+';+-+-+-+---+-+---;;; C,'n'ITY'j""r'iO.=-' F ~~-:--'_,__, / ' =
~
I
~-
I
z CITY OF ~ z
MONTCLAIR f
z
!
===9 60
·I l;J I l I h..+ + +-
CITY OF CHINO
UPLAND
w
>
tl
0 ::;
u . =>
w
~
~ ... - w
>
0 c::
\!)
□
CJ ~f rnff tvµ ILJ
ffi=nEFlTrrl
+-+-+---.---+_._...-,..-,--,.
E RIVERSIDE DR
l l .. _.,_,,_M, RRICL-AVS-••-·•-"l
L ..
w
> <(
0 ...J
<(
a:,
:I:
u
c::
<(
I
"'
l
> <(
c::
w
z
c::
=> I-
"'
E EUCALYPTUS AVE
z
LiJ
> <(
:I:
"'
~~,
I,
L,i:,
I
::,
j
"" z
:?:
ONTARIO RANCH= RD- ~
I
l l
.. J
-~"
~ .. ~ EASTVALE
JURUPA VALLEY
...
1 CITY OF
FONTANA
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-7
Policy Plan Amendment
Affordability Sites Inventory Changes
c::::J EBPSP Boundary
I.. "I Ontario City Boundary
I., "I County Boundary
-+ Rail Network
Proposed Changes to the Housing Element Sites Inventory i. Retain with no Changes
Retain: Affordable Project Entitled
1111 Retain with no Changes/ zoning not in place
Upzone existing site (MOR to HOR or Mixed Use)
New Site (add to Housing Sites inventory)
~ Remove Site
2·0·5·0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 0 2,500
Source: City of Ontario, 2026
5,000
FT
10,000
Dale: 3/2/2026
2139
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -4 0
This page intentionally left blank.
2140
W FOURTH ST
w
> <t
w
> <t
0 z
0 1-
z
<t
z ~ =~=---~ W G ST v,
z
=>
~ W DST
z
u.J
>
z
j T z W PHILLIPS 5
- ._ __ _J _, __ IIIIIIIIR:_ - - ......... ._~ ~
I f
: CITY OF CHINO
I I ·---r---------J-------
'
... r-----1
w
> <t
Cl
:::;
u
::)
w
z
w
~
<t
z
~ ....I
::,
V>
z
w
~
<t
z
~ ::,
V,
V>
w
> <t
V>
::,
Cl..
~
<t
u
z
V,
•
E EIGH'TH ST
w
> <t
w
>
0 l a:; > (.:, <t
z Cl
a::
<t
>,-
w
z
~
z
E G ST
'•\
'\
\ w
~
Cl
.a,
<t
co
€1TY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
I
I
E D ST ----=::=:::::::;:,; .. ~---=====---~w~ -----===- -==~~ilf!ll!Sii•----= E HOL<r AVE
E Pf.ll~Al:>E'l!PHIA SiP
..,
> 0
a:;
(.:,
• ' V: E RIVERSIO.E;:DR
E= CHINO AV~- ~
<t ~
z z
w
> <t
::c
2 z
E SANTA ANA ST
~ CITY OF I
1£ FONTANA ,_ _____ -f__,===....c~====---,i;;---6-JW.R, P.A-s;r,------- z , - - - ----i---
LU
~
a:; I~ I.LI
z
a:;
:::::)
IVl
w
> <t
Cl
.;;.J
<{
a:,
::c
<!)
w
> <{
z
> ""
<t
::c
"'
w
;:,
1 w
w
...I
~ z
3:
V>
L.L.J ~
~ .:U
LU
(.:,
j;E
z
>
V>
--------
County of
San Bernardino
I County of Riverside
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r=-=-------==~- E=SCHAEFER AVE a:;
<{
a:;
vi ~ , ' - - - -JURUPAVALLEY
0Nf ARl0 RANGH RD- ~ p - - - J.,
,...._-■----8 E0150N AVE
-~·· ......
MERRl!il.! AV~-,==-=toiiiiiiiiipiiio..,...~---------~~~~--- ,,,,,, •• ..,,,, EASTVALE I I : I ~ ~- :,
I I I : ~
~ - .. - J. - L-.-7"'
I : _,.., ~----------------L--- 1 I
I
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-8
Current Truck Routes
[-] Ontario City Boundary
[ ] County Boundary
Truck Route
Adjacent Agency Truck Route
- State DOT Network
2·0·5·0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
8 0 2,500
Source: City of Ontario, 2022
5,000
FT
10,000
Dale: 12/8/2025
2141
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -4 2
This page intentionally left blank.
2142
I
CITY Of ii
MONTCLAIR !I
~ I -
-
1:---u.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
- --
I
. -
.a CITY OF
I UPLAND
I w
~
Q
z
0 Iz
<
z < Ill
z
... 1
~ . W PHILLIPS 5T ~z
, z
51 !1
W FRt CIS ST
w PHILAl ELPHIA ST ;
VI
---- -
CITY OF CHINO
-
w
> <
0 3
u
:,
w
z
w
> <
I
I
I
w w
> < ~
< Ill
z :,
< 11.
~ ::E :, ct
"' u
z z
E EIGHTH ST
I
GITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
I
-
--- -- --.- -
I I
: ~\. ~I .\
~1 '
--~~-. --L E FOURTH ST ,_.,..,.,______ - ~I
I E GI ST
----
I I
_,.J
-- --- ~I I ~I
E INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
-
--
-
\
E D 51 I
_,,
~I I §/
---===:::::::::~ i !!:: I ====--==~-- ---1----=~:'=====!!!9~~-----==~t=• ,=.:i:=Sii;iiiali: ~ I zl L E HOLT AVE .L _ ,' 1 ---- z "'>L -t f. AIRPORT DR - • ---- < ~ --- ----- ii '(- I z
f ~I I I
I I I
I I I
E SANTA ANA ST
w
> < CITY OF
< 0 .L J E IURUPA ST r---- - --~-~~~~---......
I ~
FONTANA z < 3
w
> <
w
> 0
a:
\!l
V't
E CHINO AVE
E SCHAEFER AVE
E RIVERSIDE DR
0 ...,
< c::,
:i:
u a::
<
..,,
w
~
a:
w
z
a:
2 ..,,
E [DISON AVE ,'
.----------
I
I
~ <
z
uJ
~ J:
..,,
J
;1
ONTARIO RANCH RO ~ ---------:i; ,, .,,
w
_,
....J > w
z
3 j:::
w
Vl
--- Ill County ol
San Bernardino
County of R1vers1de
JURUPA VALLEY
__ L ..1 .lliflll:l'~m:!1 ____ _ I
I /
I I
I I
....
I
.L
.. /"''
_.,,,,,,,..,. •• _...,,.,-, EASlV ALE
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-9
Proposed Truck Routes
D County Boundary
c:J Ontario City Boundary
Railroad
Truck Routes
- State DOT Network
- Truck Route
Adjacent Agency Truck Route
c:J EBPSP Boundary
2·0·5·0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
0 0 2,500 5,000
Source: The City of Ontario 2025
FT
10,000
Dale: 12/20/25
2143
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -4 4
This page intentionally left blank.
2144
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 45
Recommended changes to the truck routes map in TOP 2050 identified in Figure 2-9 include:
Removal of Archibald Avenue between SR-60 and Merrill Avenue.
Removal of Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road between Euclid Avenue and Walker Avenue.
Add Eucalyptus Avenue between Euclid Avenue and South Hellman Avenue.
Add Walker Avenue between Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road and Merrill Avenue.
Add South Hellman Avenue between Eucalyptus Avenue and Merrill Avenue.
As described above, the changes to the truck route map are to minimize the number of existing and proposed sensitive receptors adjacent to the truck routes. Factors that were considered included:
Direct access to a freeway interchange.
Connection to truck routes in other jurisdictions.
Direct service to Industrial and Business Park land uses.
Larger roads (generally 4-6 lanes).
The presence of soundwalls and vegetation.
The proximity of a parallel truck route.
Existing and future estimated truck volumes.
Fewer gaps in truck routes.
Presence of existing and planned sensitive uses (e.g., residential areas, Grand Park, and schools).
Roadway operations.
In addition to the truck routes update, the proposed project also includes updates to multipurpose trails and bikeways within the City as a result of the proposed land use and truck route changes described above.
EBPSP Land Use Changes
As part of the Policy Plan Amendment being processed in conjunction with the EBPSP, the land use designations for the site would be changed as shown in Table 2-6, EBPSP Proposed Land Use Designations, and Figure 2-6. The City of Ontario’s Zoning Map designates the Specific Plan area’s zoning as Specific Plan (SP) with an Agricultural Overlay and an Affordable Housing Overlay. Upon approval of the Specific Plan, the site’s zoning would become Specific Plan– EBPSP.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2145
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -4 6
Table 2-6 EBPSP Proposed Policy Plan Land Use Designations Current Land Use Designation New Land Use Designation Acreage Affected Medium Density Residential
(with Affordable Housing Overlay) Business Park 47.74
Mixed-Use
(with Chino Airport Overlay and
Affordable Housing Overlay)
Business Park 81.70
Open Space – Parkland Business Park 19.18
Total 148.62
1. The remaining Specific Plan acreage is either designated as Open Space–Parkland or being utilized for within the EBPSP for the roadway and would be unaffected by the Policy Plan Amendment.
ZONING
In addition to changes to TOP 2050, the proposed project includes amendments to the City’s development code to implement the land-use changes, including updates to the zoning map and the affordable housing overlay, see Figure 2-10, Proposed Zoning Map. There are no separate environmental impacts associated with the Zoning update since these changes reflect the changes to the Policy Plan associated with the proposed Policy Plan Amendment.
2.4.2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan Project
The Specific Plan would function as the regulatory document for implementing zoning for the entire site, ensuring the orderly and systematic implementation of the City’s Policy Plan. The Specific Plan establishes the necessary land use plan, development standards, design guidelines, infrastructure systems, and implementation strategies on which subsequent, related development activities would be founded. Upon adoption of the Specific Plan, subsequent subdivision maps, plot plans, conditional use permits, grading and building permits, or any other actions requiring either ministerial or discretionary approvals would be required to demonstrate consistency with the Specific Plan.
2146
3000S
3200S
3400S
3600S
3800S
4000S
4200S
4400S
4600S
2600S
2400S
4700E
5100E
5500E
5800E
2400S
3900E
4100E
3700E
3500E
2900E
2700E
2500E
4300E
900N
700N
400N
100N
400S
800S
1100S
1500N
1100N
900N
700N
400N
100N
400S
800S
1100S
1600S
1600W
1100W
3000S
3200S
3400S
3600S
3800S
4000S
4200S
4400S
4600S
5000S
4800S
1100E
1200E
1400E
1500E
1700E
900E
500E
700E
1900E
5200S
5400S
2100E
2300E
2500E
2700E
2900E
1600W
3500E
3700E
3900E
4100E
4300E
5800E
4700E
5100E
5500E
1100N
2200S
700W
2400S
2600S
1600S
400W
1100E
900E
500E
700E
1200E
1400E
1900E
1700E
1500E
2300E
2100E
1100W
700W
400W
COUNTRYSIDE
(PSP04-001)
THE EXCHANGE (PSP02-002)
MILLIKEN INDUSTRIAL
PARK (3273-SP)
GUASTI (4413-SP) PACIFIC GATE / EASTGATE (3937-SP) PACIFIC GATE / EASTGATE (3937-SP)
MEREDITH
INTERNATIONAL CENTER (2265-SP)
SUBAREA 29 (PSP03-003)
S MILLIKEN PSP03-004
ONTARIO CENTER (2254-SP)
KAISER PERMANENTE
(4550-SP)
PARKSIDE ( PSP03-002)
CROSSROADS (4043-SP)
BORBA
VILLAGE
(PSP03-001)
RANCON CENTER (3986-SP) CORSAIRE (4009-SP)
MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTER (2265-SP) ONTARIO MILLS
(CALIFORNIA COMMERCE N.)
(4513-SP) PACIFIC GATE / EASTGATE (3937-SP) EDENGLEN (PSP03-005) ONTARIO FESTIVAL (PSPA03-004)
ESPERANZA (PSP05-002)
CENTERLAKE BUSINESS
PARK (2550-SP) CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER (2591-SP)
MOUNTAIN VILLAGE
(5104-SP)
BRIDGESTONE / FIRESTONE (5084-SP) TOYOTA
(4621-SP) GROVE AVENUE (4388-SP)
CALIFORNIA
COMMERCE CENTER
(2591-SP) CREEKSIDE (1811-SP)
ONTARIO GATEWAY (PSP05-005) CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SOUTH (3859-SP) ENTRATTER INDUSTRIAL (5173-SP) WEST HAVEN (PSP03-006)
SHEA BUSINESS CENTER (4362-SP) UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
(3742-SP)
TRANSPARK
(2271-SP)
THE AVENUE (PSP05-003)
WAGNER (2299-SP)
HAVEN GATEWAY CENTER (4127-SP) ARCHIBALD BUSINESS CENTER (3933-SP) HOFER RANCH AIRPORT BUS. PARK (PSPA04-001) ONTARIO CENTER (2254-SP) WAGNER (2299-SP)
ARCHIBALD
CENTER
(4296-SP) RICH-HAVEN (PSP05-004) GRAND PARK (PSP12-001) WEST ONTARIO
COMMERCE CENTER
(PSP16-002) COLONY COMMERCE CENTER WEST
(PSP15-001) COLONY COMMERCE CENTER
EAST
(PSP16-003) MERRILL COMMERCE CENTER
(PSP18-001) ONTARIO RANCH
BUSINESS PARK
(PSP18-002) SOUTH ONTARIO LOGISTIC CENTER
(PSP19-001) EUCLID MIXED USE
(PSP22-001)
CHARDONNAY CT
J ST PINYON CT C O N E
LOWER LN
B ST ALPINE CT PARK ST
CT D STBRIAR PRIVADO
BOULDER PR VI CALIFOR NIA PRIVADO
GRAN TI E PRIV CARLT O N P R IVADO MAITLAND
PRIVADO COPPER. ... ...PRIVADO
PINE AVE
SONOMA CT DE ANZA
SPRUCE
ST SULTANA AVE CONTEMPO
CT PHILLIPS ST GREENWOOD AVE (private drainage road)
SKYLARK ST
OLIVE ST PLACER
CT CAROLINE
SAN DIEGO
AV HARVARD PL CT
NDRIFTWOOD PL ORTHSHORES PL SEAGULL AVE
FAIRFIELD ST CRYSTALSPGS PL ROCK SPGS PLOAK SPRINGS PL FOX GLEN LP
ACORNGLEN PL GLENN
PL BADGER
FOX LEN LP
LYT E CREEK LP
LYT LE CREEK LOOP H O EYGLENN WY
ALISO
CREEK
MALCOLM ST
O K HILL DR
PONY DR
PINTO PL C YSTAL
LK CT PAR KGLENN WY CT COLD CK WY
OAK HILL ST
TAM O' SHANT ER
CT BON VIEW AVE GOLDCREST AVE GARFIELD AVE HOPE AVE
TAYLOR PL CALDWELL PPHOENIX PLL BANYAN ST CALDWELL PL GOLD
CREST PBLANYAN ST MALCOLM AVE GARFIELD PL RAYMOND PL CHERRY HILL ST HAZELTINE CT HAZELTINE CT GREEN WOOD PL C AV RA PL TAM O SHANTER
PARKSIDE DR
VIRGIN AI W
MAR OLD WAY
ST ANDREWS ST DEERFIELD ST VIRG NI IA PL MERION ST DORAL CT MERION CT AMADOR
CALDWELL AVE
PHOENIX AVE MERION ST DORAL CT MILDRED PL COTTONWOOD ST COTTONWOO D ST MERION CT DORAL CT SANDPIPER AV DEEERFIELD ST DEL NORTE A EMAIDSTONE ST ST ANDREWS ST IMPE RIAL
LASSEN VE
BERMUDA DUNES
ST WALKER AVE
BERMUDA DUNES STHARBOUR AVE CASTLE MAIDSTONE
ST COTTONWOOD ST CA RNOUSTIE CT PALM AVE FERN AV MONTI- CELLO
ST GREVILLEA ST BOXWOOD CT BIRCH CT PLUM AVE CONCORDAVE CHERRY AVE
SPWRUCE ST
I TERIA CT MONTEREY AVE PHOENIX PL CALDWELL PL WISTERIA ST
TAYLOR PL SPRUCE ST BOXWOOD CT WISTERIA CT SANDERLING ST MIRAMONTE PLSANDERLING ST HOPE PL SANDERLING ST MO NT ICELL O
ST CEDAR ST MO NT ICELL O
GREENWOOD
SKYLARK ST SKYLARK ST MPHOENIX AVE CALDWELL AVE ALCOLM AVE GOLDCREST AVE MONTICEL LO STBON VIEW SHEA RW ATER
ST PHOENIX PL GOLDCREST PL GREENWOOD PL GARFIELD PL HOLMES PL MARIGOLD HOLMES PL
L BANYAN
D L NORTE AVEOAK HILL OAK HILL SANDPIPER PL
IMPE RIAL PL BANYAN ST
LAKE AVE
BERMUDA DUNES ST
TAM O SHANTER
LASS N AVE
SPYGLASS CT DOR AL CT NICOSTA CTVE RNE SS CT MERION DR CASTLE HARBOUR PL EADOW BROOK PL CASCADES CASCADES TR
P NI EHURST CT DORAL ST MERION ST RIVERSIDE DR
IRA ONT VE OAKHILL ST BANYAN
CT MA OLM AV SULTANA AVE
FAIRFIELD ST
TAM O'SHANTER ST MON TEREY PL TAM O'SHANTER ST BERMUDA D UNES ST MONTERECHERRY HILL Y
ST DORAL ST DUNES CTMERION ST MALCOLM AVE
FAIRFIELD ST OAK HILL CT BANYAN ST CHERRY HILL ST OAK HILL CT EH RST PL BANYAN CT
TAM O SHANTER
HAZELTINE ST AUGUSTA AVE
BROOKSIDE STST ANDREWS PL BANYANQUAKER RIDGE PLOAK HILL CT CHERRY HILL ST PRARIE DUNES PLBANYAN ST HILL ST BOCA RATON CT
T AI RA V BALBOA AVE VALENCIA AVECHERRY
SAN DIE O PL SACRAMENTO PL WHISPERING BALBOA PEBBLE BEACH CT LAKES INVERNESS
BROOKSIDE DR
STANDREWS DR BAKER AVE DIVERSA DR
TAMA RASK DR W HISPERING LAKES LN
SANDPIP R
HAZELTINE ST DEL NORTE PL ST ANDREWS C MILDRED PL AMADOR PL OAKH I LL DR
CA AV E
PL DEL N ORTE PL
FIRECREST CTWOODLA RK DR
ARCADIAN SHORES RD WALNUT ST HAZELTINE ST DPEACHTREE PL R
BROOKSIDE CT COTTONWOOD TR
COT TONWOOD CT STANDREWS DR PEACHTREE PL DUNES ST MERION STPLAINFIELD
DR PEACHTREE
P N
L ORTH
SHORES DR NOR TH SHORES
SHORES RD
ARCADIANTURNER AVE
PLAINFIELD DR
COLON AI COG H ILL 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
PEACH TREE PL NORTH SH ORE DR PLAINFIELD
DR
BLACK HORSE DR TURNER AVE
PONY DR STA L LION WY COLT WY WRA NGLER PL BLACK HORSE DR
CHAPARRAL ST ROCKY PL C R Y PEACHTREE LN OLD ARCHIBALD RANCH RDGR EY FOX LN
LEMON AVE
PLUM AVE CHERRY PL CHERRY AVECHERRY HILL CT WY DOR AL ST PLU M LN
COT TONWOOD ST CHERRY
PLUM LN
BANYAN ST CHERRY PL OAKHILL ST FERN AV
E R
CT ERM UDA DUNES CT CORMORANT DR
BLUE JAY WAY
LAUREL ST BERMUDA D UNES ST BERMUDA D UNES ST BERMUDA D UNES ST VINEYARD AVE
BERMUDA DUNES CT HARBO R T WN TR
CANTERBURY CO AI L AVE CANTERBURY RICHMOND ST BROOKSIDE ST O AK ILL DR
PINE VALLEY WALNUT ST WI LM I G
COLONIA AV
SEA ISLAND PL DOVER PL LEXINGTO N PL TAM O' SHANTER
HAZELTINE ST COGHILL ST DUNES ST PINE VALLEY AVE CEDAR R DI GE DUNES ST DESERT FOREST AVE CEDAR R DI GE ST. ANDREWS ST OAKMONT ST
TURN
TAM O SHANTER WALN UT ST DUNLIN WY
BIG RANGE RD WRANGLER PL WRANGLER PLPALOMINO PL MUSTANG DR
BLACK HORSE DR
CEN TUR OI N WY
LAGO ST WOOD OAKLEAF CTRDWOOD CT MOR NING
ST. TROPEZ DR
BISON WY
FAWN CT BLUE X DRWY
ANTELOPE RE NI DEER LN
PL DE CRYST ER CREEK LOOP AL LK RD WY
PIN ECONE REDPINE PL RIPPL NI G BROOK PL C ARIB O U PL CLEAR L A KE RD
ELSINORE WY
ANT LER RD GINGER GLEN RD
CEDAR
SHADOW
WARM
SODA
SPRINGS CT CK WY
SPGS CT ASHG ATE WYMI L ANO ST GENOA
ASHGATE PL ASHGATE CT S U MMER ISLAND
APPLEWOOD DR
NECTAR
CREEKSIDE DR
A DER CR OAK CR E K DR O A K C REEK OA K CRE K
STRAWBERRY CREEK PL ADLER CK CT C EDARGLEN
LAURELTREE DR GINGERWOOD RD OAKLEAF RD MORNING- WOOD CT SCOU T CT PEACHTRE PL BURN I G TREE DR USTANG
PALOMINO PL PINTO PLTUMBLEWEED ST CHAPAR RAL ST SPR WAY RUSH CREEK
SAN LORENZO RVR RD
YUBA RVR RD
B GI RE K
STRAWBERRY CR EEK
S NOW
GRAEAGLE
TUOLUMNE PL COUNTRY OAK
SLOOPMILL C EEK M A D R VR RD
KI NGS RVR LN
AMERICAN RIVER RD
SAN LORENZO RVR RD GREYSTONE DR
BRENTSTONE ST MO
HARTFORD ST NO CK
SHERW N CK PL WY
SALMO N RI VER DR OWENS
LN McGE CK LN
YUBA RIVER
DR WY CK PL
LIVEOAK CK CT SANTIAG O CRK WAY
EL R VER PL B RU S H CK P L SALT CK WY McCLOUD RVR LN
RUS IAN RV
YUBA RIV DR
BOISE CK PL WHITE S TAG RD
ANTL ER RD
EV ER GREEN D R MO SE DE R D R
ANTLER RD
AL ER DR
CANARY CT CAPRI ST DAY CREEK DR
HO EYBROOK WY DEER CRE K L O OP
LEAR LAKE RD
BUFFALO RD
BLAC KP NI E PL CT SU GAR MAPLE ON EGO AVE TURNER AVE DOUBLEDAY AVE GINGERWOOD RD
COUNTRY OAKS OAK CRE EK DR
EAGLE C PL MOOSE CK LN
CARIBOU CK CT GRIZ ZLEY CK CT ONDO CK LN BEAVER CK LN
EL K CREEK DR
BIG CREEK RD
YUBA RIVER DR MER CED RIVER R D
UC K E RV MILLIKEN AVE DUPONT AVE EXCISE AVE
P NTE AVE
SPRUCE ST CEDAR ST STERL NI G ST P NTE AVE TURNER AVE
OAKLAND AVE
BON TI A AVE
SPRUCE CT HOLL AVE HOLLY PL REDWOOD PL TIFFANY PL HICKORY PL MONTICELLO ST HICKO Y AVE
E D WOOD AVE DAMSON
CT
LARODA CT SPRUCE ST CEDAR ST MANZANITA CT GREVILLEA ST
LARODA CT CYPRESS AVE DEL RANCHO CT PALMETTO AVE
FRANCIS ST
LARODA CT POMONA FWY (SR-60) TE AVE
BU INES PARKWAY CEDAR ST
FRANCIS ST PROFORMA AVE DE SOTO PL SPRUCE CT DEL RIO WYCEDAR STHELLMAN AVE CARLOS AVE LYNX PL CEDAR ST GREVILLEA CT VINEYARD AVE MONTICELLO CT CASTLE HARBOUR PL SHEARWATER ST
FREMONT CT CEDAR ST AUGUSTA CT WALKER AVE PINEHURST AVE
SPRUCE ST CEDAR ST PA AVE WALKER AVE AUGUSTA PL SKYLARK ST
FRANCIS ST MONTIC ELLO ST
FRANCIS ST CUCAMONGA AVE TAYLOR PL CAMPUS AVE LOCUST ST MIRAMONTE AVE MONTEREY AV CEDAR ST SPRUCE ST
LEMON AVE SULTANA AVE FERN AV
LARODA CT DAMSON CT CEDAR
ST FERN AV MANZANITA ST SAN ANTONIO AVE GREVILLEA ST BONITA AVE
COLORADO RVR RBD
UT TE CK PL McCLOUD RIVER RD
STONE CK
SILVERADO
C REEK PL KLAM AT RIVER DR OX CK LN
A NTE L O PE CREEK DR
ELM ST CHESTNUT ST CT COPPER GOLD CT CONTEMPO CT TIFFANY PLMAPLE STSIERRA DAWN NOCTURNE CT MEDALLION CT REDWOOD AVECADENZA CT AQUARIUS CT
ZENIA CT
LOCUST ST BUCCANEER CT CAMELOT CTYUCCA ST VALENTINE CT
TROPICANA CT QUINCE CT
LANTANA AVEMONTEZUMA CT MISTY CT CONTEMPO ST PLATI UM CT MAPLE ST
LOCUST ST ELM ST BONITA AVE
SONOMA CT BEVERLY ND PL BONITA PL VINE P FERN AV
BUDD ST
LOCUST PALM AVE MAPLE ST AMBER PL MONTEZUMA ST
LAUREL AVE ST AVE
ACACIA AVE
BUDD ST DE AN A CIRCLE
LOCUST ST MAPLE ST
FRANCIS ST
LOCUST ST
IN CTSPRUCE CT MAGNOLIA AVE TR EETOPS LN
SMOKE
TR EE
LN LO GGERS LN
PINE WOOD LN WHITTLERS LN
ELDERBERRY CT MONTICELLO ST
FUCHSIA AVE OAKS AVE CEDAR ST HELEN AVE ALMOND AV
SPRUCE
ST
FRANCIS ST
JUNIPER ST HELEN AVE OAKS AVE MAPLE CT EUCALYPTUS CT
TROPICANA ST MAGNOLIA AVE
LOCUST ST
JACARANDA ST AZALEA AVEDAHLIA AVE
TROPICANA CT QUINCE CT
TROPICANA ST
TRO ICANA CT EUCALYPTUS QUINCE
ST QUINCE CT PALMETTO AVE
EUC ALYPTUS ST BRI VE
BOULDER AVE MAPLE CT PINE PL BRIAR AV MAPLE ST E
BOULDER AVE ASHLAND ST MAPLE
ST
LINDEN AVE
JUNIPER STMAPLE
ST AN E AVE
JACARANDA ST
LOCUST ST BOULDER AVE GRAN TI E AVE MARIGOLD PL
LOCUST ST ACACIA CT WOODLAWN ST PARKSIDE PL ACACIA ST MILDRED AVE
LOCUST STELM ST ACACIA ST SACRAMENTO AVE VINEYARD AVEVALENCIA 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 A E CARNEGIE AVE
LA SALLE ST VINEYARD AV
AIRPORT DR WALKER ST AIRPORT DR
KERN ST PEACH AVE ONTARIO BLVD GROVE PLMAIN ST CUCAMONGA AVE MAITLAND ST CALIFORNIA ST CUCAMONGA AVE JEF FERSON ST WASHINGTON ST STATE ST HBON VIEW AVE OPE AVE
BELMONT ST
TAYLOR AVE ONTARIO BLVD CALDWELL AVE PARK ST SUNKIST ST CALDWELL AVE CAMPUS AVE RALSTON ST MONTEREY AVE MONTEREY AVE NEVADA ST CALIFORNIA ST SULTANA AVE LEMON AVE PLUM AVE CHERRY AVE
FRANCIS S M ET O WAY
JURUPA ST JURUPA ST
ZINFANDEL CT VANDERBILT ST
FRANCIS ST FRANCIS ST CHAMPAGNE AVE FRANCIS ST H SI AVE CLARK ST
JURUPA ST VINTAGE AVE
SANTA ANA ST MALAGA PL SARAH PL SARAH PL
JURUPA ST UTO CE TER McNAMARA ST WINEVILLE AVE
AUTO ENTER DR
ROCHESTER AVE WAN MAKER
AVE WALL ST WO RU FF AY ROCKEFELLER AVE
LOWELL ST SANTA ANA ST DUPONT AVE DOU E AY VE
SANTA ANA ST PLEASANT AVE MONTEREY AV
PLEASANT AVE
ACACIAAVE
ELM ST DE ANZA AVE MAPLE ST BON VIEW AVE WOODLAWN ST ACACIA ST CUCAMONGA AVE
PLEASA T AVE MELROSE AVE MALCOLM AVE N E AVE NOCTA ST
LYNN HAVEN
D ST CHERRY AVE SIERRA CT EMPORIA ST WILLOW ST NOCTA ST ELMA ST MUSCATELAVE MAIN ST EMPORIA ST IMPERIAL AVE ELMA CT
LASSEN PL ELMA CT CORONA AVE SACRAMENTO AVE
VINEYARD AVE CONVENTION CENTER WAY DEARBORN CT GUASTI RD
AIRPORT DR
PEPPER TREE LN
SYCAMORE RD
TURNER AVEGUASTI RD
CENTRELAKE DR
EBONYST SEQUO AI AVE
PONDEROSA AVE
AIRPORT DR
CLEVELAND AVE HOLT BL BRICKELL ST AIRPORT DR
BRICKELL ST BRICKELL PRIVADO WANAMAKER AVE ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY GIBRALTAR ST AIRPORT DR ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY
VINTAGE AVE
FRANKLIN
AVEONTARIO MILLS DR MILLS CIRCLE
BELMONT ST STATE ST MAIN ST CARLTON ST PALM AVE LAUREL AVE VINE AVE FERN AVE
SIL SAN ANTONIO AVE CARLTON ST CALIFORNIA ST NEVADA ST CYPRESS AVE PALMET TO AVE RALSTON ST SUNSONG CT SEASHELL CT ECLIPSE CT PINE AVE WOODLAWN ST BAHIA CTAZALEA AVE
SUNKIST ST PHILLIPS ST RAL TON ST MAGNOLIA AVE
ELDERBERRY AVE OAKS AVE
ALMONDAVE CLAIR ST STATE ST OAKS AVE BROOKS ST VESTA ST EL ERBERRY AVE CAMELLIA ST PALMETTO AVEHOLLOWELL ST VESTA STB ST GRAN TI E AVE
BROOKS ST CYPRESS AVE
SAN ANTONIO AVE
EMPORIA ST MAIN ST BROOKS ST BEVERLY CT BONITA CT VINE AVE
TRANSIT ST EMPORIA ST
LAUR
TRANSIT ST B ST B ST C ST
FERN AVE
PALM AVE LAUREL AVE
PLUM AVE
EMPORIA ST MAR NI AVE MADERA AVE MADERA AVH ST E BAKER AVE GRANADA CT PLAZA SERENA ORANGE PLACER AVE
SAN DIEGO AVE ROSEWOOD CT N
JAY ST APAAV MERCED AVEROSEWOOD CT MARIPOSA AVE GRANADA CT
LASSEN AVE HUMBOLDT PL
J ST SULTANA AVE CHERRY AVE
EL MORADO CT
F ST G ST E ST V NI E AVE
BONITA CT
F ST
FLORA ST D ST EL MORADO ST GRANADA CT BERKELEY CT
I ST VINE AVE E
LAUREL AVE GRANITE ST FLORA ST E ST BOULDER AVE G ST EL MORADO CT H ST GRANADA CT BERKELEY CT BOULDER AVE GRANITE AVE CYPRES AVE
F ST E ST PALMETTO AVE PALMETTO AVE PALMET TO AVE
GLENN PL D ST
FLORA ST HUMBOLDT CT F ST EL DORADO CT EL MORADO CT
LAKE AVE
EGLENN AVE HUMBOLDT CT IMPERIAL AVE L DORADO AVE DEL NORTE AVE CALAVERAS AVE CALAVERAS AVE I ST
LASSEN
AVE
LAKE AVE
FRESNO ST HUMBOLT GLENN AVE EL DORADO AVEROSEWOOD
CT
FLORA ST AMADOR AVE
ALAMEDA AVE
ALAMEDAAVE PARKSIDE AVE V RI G NI AI AVE G ST VIRGINIA AVE FLORA ST PARKS DI E AVE
E ST HOLMES AVE CUCAMONGA AVE
LACUCAMONGA AVE PALOMA AVE HOLMES AVE
LA PALOMA AVE
J S T
I ST H ST EL MORADO CT GREENWOOD AVE FLORENCE CTGRANADA CT F ST
FLORA STFLORENCE AVE
F ST E ST D ST BERLYN AVE ORCHARD LN
J ST PLAZA SERENA
J ST CAMPUS AVE MONTEREY AVE E STG ST EL MORADO CT H ST GRANADA CT
I ST PLAZA SERENA MONTEREY AVE ROSE WOOD CT ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY
INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
FERRA I L N
POR SCH WY
INLAND EMPIRE BLVD LOTUS A E
SHELBY ST
TRIUMPH LN CORVETTE DRJAGUAR WY
TURNER AVE
INLAND EMPIRE BLVD G ST MARIPOSA AVE
LAKE AVEHAWTHORNE 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 MULBERRY CT BALBOA WAY
BONNIE HAWTHORNE CT CARLOS PL A WA HACIENDA DR LAM NCHA WYDEL RIO WY
LA DENEY ST HELLMAN AVE DEL RIO PL YALE ST CENTER
AVE MALL DR MILLS CIRCLE GURNEE AVE F ANK N AVE ONTARIO M IL DR ROCHESTER AVEWINEVILLE AVE CORONA AVE
LA DENEY CT SIXTH ST ALONDRA AVE C R OS
SOLANO PL ALONDRA CT DEODAR ST SA DIEGO
PL SACRAM NTO
PL RANGE PL
BERKELEY CT
J ST
F ST AZALEA AVE
BEGONIA A E CAMELL AI AVE DAHL AI AVE G ST GARDENIA CT
F ST
FLORA ST
FAWN ST ELDERBERRY AVE FUCHSIA AVE D ST HOLLOWELL ST E ST OAKS AVE HYACINTH CT
IRIS CT H ST GRANADA CT
I ST GFUCHSA AVE ELDERBERRY AVE ARDENIA AVE OAKS AVE
BERKELEY CT ASMIN CT
JASM NI E AVE
J ST BEGONIA AVE HARVARD PL PRINCETON ST YALE ST
FIFTH ST ROSEWOOD CT
J ST HARVARD PL PALM AVE BO NIE B RAE CT BONNIE BRAE CT PRINCETON ST SULTANA AVE PLEASANT AVE
FIFTH ST YALE ST CAMPUS AVE HARVARD PL BERLYN AVE
PRINCETON ST COUNCIL AVE
YALE ST ROSEWOOD CT ORCHARD LN
ALLYN AVE ORCHARD LANE UNCI AVE HOLMES CT
LA PALOMA CT HARVARD PL V RI G NI AI AVE
BONNIE BRAE CT
FIFTH ST C ROLINE ST VIRGINIA AVE CAROLINE CT VIRGINIA AVE HOLMES CT SIXTH ST DEODAR ST HAWTHORNE ST HOPE LA DENEY CT MARCELLA CT HAWTHORNE ST M RI AMONTE AVE MONTEREY AVE
PLEASANT AVE
LA DENEY
SIXTH ST COLUMBIA AVE ORANGE
PLACER AVE
SACRAMENTO AVE
SAN DIEGO AVE
T R NI
ITY LOOP
ALVARADO
LA PAZAVE
SEVENTH ST HIGHLAND CT OLIVE ST SYCAMORE ST CAROLINE CT HACIENDA
SYC AMORE CT HACIENDA DR
CARO LINE DR
DEODAR ST SOLANOAVE
HAWTHORNE DR
LA DEN EY CT ALVARADO ST CHARMORE HAWTHORNE ST
LA DENEY DR OAKLAND
ARMSLEY SQ
BONITA CHAFFEY
AMBER CT BEVERLY CT OAKL AND AVE CAROLINE CT RICHLAND ST ALVARADO CT SYCAMORE CT SEVENTH ST VIRGINIA AVE HIGHLAND CT OLIVE CT RAYMOND ST RAYMOND CT PARKSIDE
EIGHTH ST AMADOR E CALAVERAS AVE RAYMOND ST HIGHLAND
CT DEL NORTE AVE EL DORADO AVE OLIVE CTEL DORADO AVE GLENN AVE HUMBOLT AVE EL DORADO AV
SYCAMORE ST SYCAMORE HUMBOLDT AVE LAKE AVMADERA AV CORONA E
SEVENTH ST MADERAMAR NI AVE ORANGE CT PLACER PL CARLOS AV
LA DENEY DR LASSEN AVE DEL NORTE CT CALAVERAS CT
LA DENEY DR
AMADOR AVE
AMADOR AVE
ALVARADO ST MOUNTAIN AVE
POMONA FWY (SR-60) PHILADELPHIA ST PHILADELPHIA ST EUCLID AVE RIVERSIDE DR
PHILADELPHIA ST EUCLID AVE
BELMONT ST RALSTON ST MAITLAND ST OAKLAND AVE
BONITA CT VINE AVE PALM AVE CYPRESS AVE MAITLAND ST EUCLID AVE EUCLID AVE HOLT BLVD EUCLID AVE GROVE AVE BAKER AV
FOURTH ST FOURTH ST FOURTH ST FOURTH ST HOLT BLVD GROVE AVE GROVE AVE MISSION BLVD GROVE AVE GROVE AVE RIVERSIDE DR
PHILADELPHIA ST
FOURTH ST ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE
PHILADELPHIA ST ARCHIBALD AVE OAK HILL DR
FAIRFIELD ST TURNSTONE ARCHIBALD AVE RIVERSIDE DR MISSION BLVD HAVEN AVE MISSION BLVD
DUPONT AVE HAVEN AVE
FOURTH ST HAVEN AVE
LLIKEN
A E ONTARIO FWY (I-15) MILLIKEN AVE MILLIKEN AVE ONTARIO FWY (I-15) PHILADELPHIA ST WINEVILLE AVE BU GUN
PHILADELPHIA ST ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE
FOURTH ST BARRINGTON AVE LEMON PL EXCISE AVE
CHINO AVE CHINO AVE CHINO AVE CHINOAVE CHINO AVE ONTARIO RANCH RD
EUCALYPTUS AVE MERRILL AVE MERRILL AVE BON VIEW AVE CUCAMONGA AVE
ROSEWOOD CT ROSEWOOD CT
JASMINE CT PALMETTO AVE
YALE ST
FIFTH ST YALE ST HELEN AVE IRIS CT PRINCETON ST HELEN CT OAKS CT DEODAR ST GARDENIA CT FUCHSIA AVE ELDERBERRY AVE
SIXTH STHELEN AVE GARDENIA AVE
ARMSLEY SQ
LA DENEY DR
ELDERBERRY CT BONNIE BRAE CT HAWTHORNE ST
LA DENEY DR
PALMETTO
AVE
BOULDER AVE
SIXTH ST GRANITE AVE CYPRESS AVE CYPRESS AVE
BOULDER AVE GRANITE AVE HARVARD PL SAN ANTONIO AVE OAKS AVE HARVARD PL PRINCETON ST HAWTHORNE ST
JASMINE AVE
BONNIE
BRAE CT KENMO R
E AVE
KENMORE VINE AVE DEODAR ST DEODAR ST BONNIE BRAE BONNIE BRAE CT CTHAWTHORNE ST
LA DENEY DR
YALE ST COLUMBIA AVE
LA DENEY DR
DEODAR ST HOPE HIGHLAND CT LEEDS AVE BAKER AVE
L KE AVE
LAKE MADERA AVMARIN AVCORONA AVE
SOLANO AVE OLIVE CT MERCEDES LN MISSION BLVD
B MOUNTAIN AVE ENSON AVE
SAN BERNARDINO FWY (I-10) BMOUNTAIN AVE ENSON AVE HOLT BLVD HOLT BLVD MISSION BLVD MISSION BLVD
BMOUNTAIN AVE ENSON AVE CONTEM O CT
CHINO AVE CHINO AVE CHINO AVE BAKER AVE CHINO AVE GROVE AVE GROVE AVE GROVE AVE GROVE AVE BON VIEW AVE
EDISON AVE BON VIEW AVE BON VIEW AVE CAMPUS AVE BON VIEW AVE
EDISON AVE
EUCALYPTUS AVE EUCLID AVE EUCLID AVE EUCLID AVE EUCLID AVE EUCLID AVE DEERFIELD ST CHE R AVE ONTAR OI FWY (I-15) SAN BERNARDINO FWY (I-10) SHEA DR PONDEROSA AV SEQUOIAAV
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 SHORES RD
ARCADIAN
JOSHUA TREE R D
CENTU RION PL
JOSHUA T REE ST AUTUMN
RIDGE RD
ROCKY LN GREENBRIAR
DR
PONY WY CLOVER PL STALLION ST SWEETWATER
DR ROC KY WY CLOVER LN
DUNES ST
LAUREL VLY LN
SEA ISLAND TR
CEDAR CT
EIGHTH ST
LOCUST CT GUASTI RD
CARRILLO PRIVADO MOORE WY
JOHN BANGS DR MANZANITA CT PALM L
LAUREL PL
MOTOR LN
EAR LSTONE DR
CON CORD AVE MER ION ST PLUM LNDEERFIELD CT ST. ANDREWS ST DOR AL ST MON TEREY AVE DEERFIELD ST TAM O'SHANTER ST ST.AND REWS ST PLEA ANT AVE HAZELT INE ST BLUE JAY WAY HAZELTINE ST WINDSOR ST CON CORD AVE CHERRY AVE COTTONWOOD ST DORAL CT DEERFIELD ST HOLMES AV HOLMES PL GARF ELD AVE DUNES ST HOPE AVE DEERFIELD ST CUCAMONGA AVE GREENWOOD ST
TA LOR AVE CAMELLIA AVE
FOURTH ST
ARA B IAN PL CLYDESDALE ST ARCADIAN SHORES AV BURNING TREE DR THOROU GHBRED ST G RANGE RD O TH 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
SMID ERL E LP
CHINO AV
CEDAR ST GREEN PRIVADO
PRIVADO
CHIEF
VIA ASTI V AI ALBA
V AI PIEMONTE
VIA VILLAGIO VIA TURIN ON ARIO C NTER PARKWAY GO LD EN OAK RD HOFER RANCH RD.
KET E ING DR
OLD GUASTI RD GREVILLEA CT
GUASTI RD
COMM RCE PARKWAY COMMERCE PARKWAY
AIRPORT DR
TOYOTA WY CONCOURS ST CONCOURS ST CONCOURS ST CONCOURS ST AVION ST AVION ST
JASMINE CT ALMOND AV BENSON AVE
BAKER PRIVADO MARIPOSA PRIVADO ELMA PRIVADO
D ST NOCTA PRIVADOMAR NI PR VI ADO
NOCTA ST MADERA PRIVADO
MONTEZUMA ST CON TEMPO CT BRIAR WY
COTTONWOOD CT PARKSIDE AV VIRGINIA PL COTTONWOOD CT
STONERIDGE CT
TA H OE DR
ASH
AT WAY LAKE PL LAKE PL DEODAR ST MARIPOSA AV MARIN AV MADERA AV HIGHLAND CT OLIVE ST RAYMOND ST MARIN AVMAR PI OSA AV ST. ANDREWS ST
FLORA ST SEDONA CT DUESE N BERG DR
O RANGE PRIVA DO
PL AC ER PRIVA DO SOLANO PRIVADO HARVARD PR IVADO
PLACER PRIVADO
EDE NGL EN AV E
A UBURN W Y DNI L CALLAWAY D R
NWOO D DR
HER ITAGE L N G ROV E LA ND D R
COTTA GE WY
EDE NGL EN AV E QU IN CY WY
EDENGLEN AVE HAMPSH RI E DR BE TH ANY WY
EMO RY LNOA KWOOD D R
EDE NGLEN AV E
TU LAN E WYHAMPT ON WY
BR ADLEY LN
C LAR EMON T DR WES TMON T LN
HAMILTON WY CAM BRI DGE D R RAYMOND PL
LOCUST ST ELM CT WALNUT ST WALNUT ST WALNUT ST ELEVENTH AVE
ELDERBERRY CT EUCALYPTUS CT LEMON AVE
SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE HAMNER AVE HAMNER AVE
VIA RUA RIO
VIA RUA FLORES
VIA TERRANO VIA CORVINA
VIA FIANO VIA MOLINARA VIA DOLCETTO VIA BAROLO
ARBOR LN ARBOR LN MERRIL AVE MERRIL AVE KENSINGTON AVE ROSE PETAL WY WICKFORD ST OXFO D LN
CC L VE WY WEST MC CLE E W YEA T CE NT NNIAL I WEST CE N ENNIA L CI E T VICTORY LN
HE RIT AG E PASEO
CROWN
CT PRIMROSE PL AL SI BURY WY D EVONSHIRE L N
DISCOVERY ST AT OI N AVERKPLACE AVE
PARKVIEW ST
HOPKINS ST GROWER AVE GREEN AVE HYCHE AVE DUL SI SE AVE WING ST KLASSEN ST CEL BRAT OI N PARKPLACE AVE TURNER AV NEW HAVEN DR ONTARIO RANCH RD ONTARIO RANCH RD ONTARIO RANCH RD
SCHAEFER AVE RUTHERFORD DR
LA AVENIDA DR
ALEXANDERAVE
YOUNTVILLE DR OAK V ILLE AVE
EDISON AVE
LA AVENIDA DR
SCHAEFER AVE CHIP SMITH WY
ALBRIGHT LN
VIC TORIA ST COT AGE 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 ROSEMARYWY 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 TRAILROCKY MOUNTAIN ST TURNER AVE OLYMPIC DRIVE DERBY LN WILLIAMSBURG LN BARNVELDER WYANDOTTE ORP NI GTON TANGERINE WAY APRICO T W A
AGRARIAN ST Y
PAI NTED CR ES CENT ST PERENN IAL DR MASTER PIECE ST OPHELIA LN PASTEL LN SWALLOWTAIL LN MON ARC H PL BU TTERFLY LN
LAVE ND ER DR LIL AC L N OR CHA RD S T SA GE WOOD L N
KI NGS DRCA ST LE L N GARDE N GAT E N MO N TE P RIVA DO
BEL LA PR IVA DO
SA L ID A PR IV AD O EST RE LLA PRIVAD O PE R D I DO PR IVAD O
A F TO N P RI V A DO
C IE LO P R VI A D O
SO N
R ISA P R
I VAD O LUN A PRIVA DO AM HERST P RI VA DO
BORDEAUX DR BOWERY PL WILSHIRE RD
PENNY LN
BOURBON ST ABBEY RD GRAFTON ST BROADWAY AV BEALE WY OCEAN WY CANAL WY
AM IGO S PR IVA DO T ES OR O PR IVADO PE RD IDO P RIVAD O
PLAYA P RIVA DO
AM A NECE R P R IV AD O
COL IB R I P R IV A D O
CORA Z ON P R I VA D O MIL L CREEK AV ALM E ND A RE Z P RIVA D O MO NET A PR IVA DO ARVAD A P RIVADOMO NT RO SE PR IVA DO SC OT T W Y RO GERS WY WA YNE AV KE NT WY DIA NA WY BA NN ER ST MURDOCK L N
PARK ER L N
HO WLETT LN DRYDEN AV KINGSTON AV MANITOBA PL OTTAWA AV CORNWALL ST EDMONTON ST ALBERTA ST SARNIA ST CALGARY ST WINNIPEG AV WELLAND AV
SI LVE R SKY DR
CO PP ERH IL L STFL AG STONE AV REFLECTION L N
SU SS EX P RI VA DO
JASM INE
LN BA NTAM PASE O BR ES SE PASE O BR AH MA PASE O JAVA PASE O
CLEMENTINE DR AVOCADO TR
STARK LN
EC HO
CT BODEGA WY KENDALL LN TRELLIS WYCELLARS WY MIDSUMMER
PRIVADO WILD HORSE PRIVADO
PARADUXX
PRIVADO
QUINTESSA
PRIVADO HAVEN AVE
HELLMAN AVE
EUCALYPTUS AVE OL IVIA W Y BLA IR E W Y CH ARL OT TE AV STE LL A AV LO L A A V ELL IE AV CO RA W Y
SCA RL ET T L N SCA RL ET T L N MA BEL L N MA BEL L N
CLA RA LN CLA RA LN
HAR PER ST HAR PER ST PEN EL O PE L N PEN EL O PE L N
PAR KV IEW ST REE SE W YANS LEY A V AVE RY AV
TAT UM LN
HAR LO W LN MA E W Y
EM BRY L N IVY AV IVY AV PIP ER W Y HAZ EL ST VIO LE T L N SUNRISE AV DAYLIGHT AVMOONLIGHT ST ROSY PKWY
SUNSET DR
CHEERFUL PASEO MIL CRE K AV
TREE BLOSSOM ST ASPEN ST HEARTWOOD ST SUMAC ST C ALE R A S T AT TALA S T
F IN CAST L E ST CAL IS T OG A AV M E N DO C I N O AV
AM H E R ST AV
AN I S TON AV N EL SO N D R
PO LLO CK ST EAM ES ST WR IGH T AVE T WINK LE AV E GARRICK ST PRINC E WY GRAYSON WY AN DERSON AV WILSON AV JORDAN AV
KANE DR
AU STIN
CURRY ST
JA C OB SO N
LA UT NE R ALL ST ON PA SE O
PHEASANT CRANE
KIWI WREN MEADOWLARK
TANAGER
CALIFORNIA ST
AL M O ND BL OS SO M ST CR IS ANT A PR IVA D O PEO NY PASEO
SAG E PAS EO CLIF T O N AV HOL L YH O CK PAS EO HISB ISCU S PAS EO MIL L C REEK AV HEAT HER P R IVA DO CRIS AN T A PR IVA DO
BR IGHT PASEO
DE LI GHT PASE O
HA PP Y PA SEO
SU NNY PA SEO
LANT ERN PASEO OASIS PASEO SPAR KL E PASE O JOLL Y PASE O
RA DIANT DR
AM H E R ST AV
VE N TUR A AV
SU NS ET ST
LA JOL L A ST C ATA L INA S T C AM B RI A
P RI VA D O
EN CIN IT AS AVE
AVILA
PR IVA D O
HALTON PRIVADO
BASAN TI EAV
SHALE AV DOLOMITE ST BROCKRAM DR KINGLET AV
MAD ELEINE PRIVADO
JOSEPH
PRIVADO
LENA
PRIVADO SCHMIDT PRIVADO
C H AT H AM S T CLIF T ON S T CANTONA PASEO
FERGUSON PRIVADO
KANE DR
SU NS TONE ST
LO YALTY PL PA RK V ISTA D R
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E
E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E E E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E
E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E E E
E E E
E
E
E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E
E
E
E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
E E E
E E E
E
E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E
E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E E E E E 1 6
8c
3 8b
Approved by City Council on December 1, 2015
Effective Date January 1, 2016
0 1 2Miles
Proposed Zoning Map
Revisions Case No. Ord. No. Date Rev.By PZC15-003 3044 02/16/2016 CVL PZC16-001 3050 05/17/2016 RDC PZC16-005 3069 03/07/2017 RDC PZC16-004 3070 03/21/2017 CVL PSP15-001 3080 10/03/2017 CVL PSP15-002 3084 12/05/2017 CVL PSPA16-005 RESO 2018- 018 02/20/2018 CVL PZC16-003 3092 03/20/2018 CVL PZC17-001 3093 03/20/2018 CVL PZC18-001 3100 05/01/2018 CVL PSP16-003 3097 06/01/2018 CVL PSP16-002 3108 07/03/2018 CVL PZC18-002 3122 12/18/2018 CVL PZC18-003 3138 08/20/2019 CVL PSP18-002 RESO 2020- 160 9/15/2020 RM PZC19-003 3169 10/27/2020 RM PSP18-001 3178 2/2/2021 RM PZC21-001 3203 2/1/2022 RM PZC21-002 3204 3/15/2022 RM PSP19-001 3206 3/15/2022 RM PZC22-001 3245 5/2/2023 RM PSPA22-008 RESO 2023- 037 5/16/2023 RM PZC23-001 3250 06/6/2023 RM PSPA21-005 RESO 2023- 156 11/21/2023 RM PZC23-003 3263 12/5/2023 RM PZC23-002 3268 1/16/2024 RM PZC23-004 3281 8/6/2024 RM PSP22-001 3283 9/3/2024 RM 8d
8e Employment
BP, Business Park
IP, Industrial Park
IL, Light Industrial
IG, General Industrial
IH, Heavy Industrial
OS-R, Open Space-Recreation
OS-C, Open Space-Cemetery
Other
PUD, Planned Unit Development
MHP, Mobile Home Park
ONT, Ontario International Airport
CIV, Civic
UC, Utilities Corridor
RC, Rail Corridor
SP, Specific Plan
Residential
MDR-11, Low-Medium Density Residential
MDR-18, Medium Density Residential
MDR-25, Medium-High Density Residential
HDR-45, High Density Residential
RE-2, Rural Estate
RE-4, Residential Estate
LDR-5, Low Density Residential
AR-2, Residential-Agricultural
Mixed Use
Mixed Use
1. Downtown
3. Centrelake West 6. East Holt 8b. Mountain and Fourth 8c. West Holt 8d. Euclid and Francis 8e. Euclid and Walnut CS, Corner Store CN, Neighborhood Commercial
CC, Community Commercial
CR, Regional Commercial
CCS, Convention Center Support Commercial
OL, Low Intensity Office
OH, High Intensity Office
Retail/Service
Overlays
AG, Agricultural
EA, Euclid Avenue
MTC, Multimodal Transit Center
ICC, Interim Community Commercial
ES, Emergency Shelter û û û û û û
û û û û û û
û û û û û û AH - Affordable Housing
CNO (Chino Airport) Overlay
EBPSP Boundary
•
ii
ll i :
L . , l • ~ E] s i i • • - . ~
.. ...
,-•
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-~
-
-
D
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-10
Proposed Zoning Map
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
. ' I• ■••
2·0·5·0
THEO TARIQ PLAN
2,500
Source: The City of Ontario 2026
5,000
FT
10,000
Date: 2/10/2026
2147
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -4 8
This page intentionally left blank.
2148
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 49
EBPSP LAND USE PLAN
As illustrated in Figure 2-11, Conceptual EBPSP Land Use Plan, the EBPSP would establish 9 planning areas that would provide for development of the site with approximately 2,939,000 SF of Business Park uses on 137.9 acres and 36.15 acres of Open Space–Parkland. The remaining
14.97 acres would be utilized for roadway improvements. Table 2-7, EBPSP Land Use Statistical Summary, provides a breakdown of acreages by planning area. The EBPSP would result in 1,590 employees within the project site.
Table 2-7 EBPSP Land Use Statistical Summary
Planning Area
(PA) Land Use Designation Acres Target Buildout SF
1 Business Park 7.70 162,600
2 Business Park 18.33 273,700
3 Business Park 18.21 340,700
4 Business Park 18.19 423,200
5 Business Park 37.76 859,300
6 Business Park 37.71 879,500
7 Open Space – Parkland 8.05 —
8 Open Space – Parkland 14.10 —
9 Open Space – Parkland 14.00 —
- Roadway 14.97 —
TOTAL 189.0 2,939,000
Notes: SF = square feet
A maximum of 10,000 SF of Commercial uses may be provided within Business Park planning areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or
6. This square footage is included within the total listed above.
A publicly operated animal resource center may be provided within any of the Business Park planning areas. The animal resource center shall not exceed 35,000 SF.
The EBPSP allows the transfer of development square footage (15 percent or less) within the same land use designation, provided that the shift in square footage would not exceed the maximum allowable overall square footage (2,939,000) and the maximum building FAR (0.55).
Total acreage of 189.0 is rounded to the nearest one-tenth of an acre.
EBPSP CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The approved TOP 2050 designates the EBPSP project site for Medium Density Residential (MDR), Mixed-Use (Eucalyptus/Chino Airport) (MU-BC); and Open Space Parkland (OS-R).
Buildout of the approved TOP 2050 for the EBPSP site would allow for up to 2,195 residential units and 1,632,143 square feet (SF) of non-residential land uses within the 189-acre project site (see Table 2-8, EBPSP Current TOP 2050 Land Uses).
2149
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -5 0
Table 2-8 EBPSP Current TOP 2050 Land Uses
Land Use
Designation
TOP 2050 Approved Land Uses
Acres
Dwelling
Units Population
Nonresidential SF Employment
MDR 47.74 1,051 3,403 — — MU-BC 81.70 1,144 2,931 1,601,747 3,117 OS-R 58.22 — — 30,396 10
Roadways 1.75 - - - - TOTAL 189.41 2,195 6,335 1,632,143 3,126 Notes: SF = square feet; MDR = Medium Density Residential; MU-BC = Mixed-Use (Eucalyptus/ Chino Airport); OS-R = Open Space Parkland
BUSINESS PARK
Encompassing 137.9 acres in the southerly portion of the Specific Plan area along its frontage with Eucalyptus Avenue, Planning Areas 1 through 6 would be designated for Business Park uses. Up to 2,939,000 SF of building space are permitted across Planning Areas 1 through 6.
The Business Park land use designation is intended to provide for uses such as employeeintensive office spaces, technology centers, research and development facilities, warehouse and distribution, and light manufacturing. No cold storage would be permitted. The Specific Plan would also allow a maximum of 10,000 SF of commercial uses within the Business Park planning areas to support the Business Park operations and a 35,000 SF publicly operated animal resource center if the City of Ontario decides to locate an animal resource center in the Specific Plan.
2150
PA 1 * PA2
BUSINESS PARK BUSINESS PARK
7.70AC. ~ 18.33 AC.
!!: I ~ < < I .,, <
i• PA4 ~ PAS ~· BUSINESS PARK s BUSINESS PARK I 18.19AC. ~ 37.76AC. Ill '---------------------------------------- - EUCALYPTUS AVE PA Land Use Acres Target Buildout (S.F.)
1 Business Park 7.70 162,600
2 Business Park 18.33 273,700
3 Business Park 18.21 340,700
4 Business Park 18.19 423,200
5 Business Park 37.76 859,300
37.71 879,500
e - Parkland 8.05
e - Parkland 14.10
14.00 * Potential Publicly Operated Animal Resource Center Notes:
1. A maximum of 10,000 s.t tatal of Commercial uses may be provided within the Business Park Planning Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, S, and 6.
2. A publicly operated animal resource center may be provided within the Business Pork and Open Space - Parkland Planning Areas. The animal resource center shall not exceed 35,000 s.f
3. Depending on market conditions, bui/dout square footage within the Business Park Planning Areas is tronsferroble, as long os the tatol buildout square footage within the Business Pork Planning Areas does not exceed 2,939,000 sJ
PA3
BUSINESS PARK
18.21 AC.
I
~
PA6 ~
BUSINESS PARK :1
37.71 AC.
I
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-11
Conceptual EBPSP Land Use Plan
··-·· L .. J EBPSP Boundary
2 · 0 · 5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPP L EMENTAL EIR
·8 0 ~ 27 5 550 Feet
Source: T&B 2026 Date: 02/03/2026
2151
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -5 2
This page intentionally left blank.
2152
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 53
OPEN SPACE–PARKLAND
Situated between the northern boundary of the Specific Plan and new Public Street ‘A’, Planning Areas 7, 8, and 9 would be designated Open Space–Parkland. This 36.15-acre area would implement a segment of the City’s public “Grand Park.” Grand Park is planned as a 3.7-mile, 340-acre greenbelt between Haven Avenue and Campus Avenue. The Specific Plan would implement the southern half of a 1.25-mile stretch of the park. The northern half of this segment of Grand Park would be installed by the Center Park Specific Plan, which is currently proposed to the north of the EBPSP.2 Passive recreational opportunities for future employees, visitors, and City residents would be provided through features such as pedestrian paths, gathering areas, turf areas, and botanical gardens. The park would be landscaped, including forested areas, meadow areas, and open space lawn areas, consistent with the City’s Grand Park Landscape Master Plan. It is noted that the previously referenced 35,000 SF publicly operated animal resource center is also an allowed use within these planning areas, should the City of Ontario elect to locate the facility in the park.
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
A conceptual site plan for the EBPSP is presented as Figure 2-12, Conceptual EBPSP Site Plan. As illustrated, the Specific Plan intends to provide a range of building sizes in an effort to house a diverse range of businesses. The larger buildings would be along the Eucalyptus Avenue frontage as a transition from the larger industrial buildings to the south across Eucalyptus Avenue. Buildings in excess of 560,000 square feet would not be permitted. Smaller buildings would be along Street ‘A’ to the north, further transitioning the size and scale of the buildings to the Open Space–Parkland along the northern frontage of the EBPSP.
It is noted that the plan illustrated in Figure 2-12 is preliminary and conceptual. The EBPSP allows the transfer of development square footage (15 percent or less) within the same land use designation, provided that the shift in square footage would not exceed the maximum allowable overall square footage (2,939,000) and the maximum FAR (0.55).
The precise location and layout of the potential commercial uses and public animal shelter have not yet been developed. If necessary, the arrangement of the business park uses would be revised to accommodate these uses. 2
It is noted that although only the southern half of the Grand Park is included in the EBPSP, development of the entire park area has been assumed and analyzed within the EBPSP’s technical studies in case the northern development does not occur.
2153
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -5 4
ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Regional Access
State Route 60 (SR-60) is approximately 2.2 miles north of the Specific Plan area and is accessible via the Grove Avenue ramps. State Route 83 (SR-83) is approximately 0.5 mile west of the Specific Plan area and is accessible via Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road and Eucalyptus Avenue. Interstate 15 (I-15) is approximately 4.5 miles east of the Specific Plan area and is accessible via the Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road ramps or the Limonite Avenue ramps.
Local Access
As illustrated in Figure 2-13, Conceptual EBPSP Vehicular Circulation and Access Plan, direct access to the EBPSP area is provided by Campus Avenue to the west, Eucalyptus Avenue to the south, and Walker Avenue to the east. Additionally, Bon View Avenue and Grove Avenue provide north-south access through the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan would provide an internal east-west Public Street ‘A’ to connect Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue. Public Street ‘A’ would separate Business Park and Open Space–Parkland uses. The developer(s) of the Specific Plan would be responsible for the construction of certain roadway improvements, including segments of Campus Avenue, Bon View Avenue, Grove Avenue, Walker Avenue, and Eucalyptus Avenue and the full width of Street ‘A’. Please refer to Chapter 4, Infrastructure Plan, of the EBPSP for detailed descriptions of all circulation improvements to be implemented by the Specific Plan.
Truck Routes
As part of the Policy Plan Amendment being processed in conjunction with the Specific Plan, truck routes within the City would be modified. The Policy Plan Amendment would remove the following roadway segments from the City’s officially designated truck routes:
Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road between Euclid Avenue and Walker Avenue.
Archibald Avenue from the SR-60 Freeway to Merrill Avenue.
The following roadway segments would be added to the City’s officially designated truck routes:
Eucalyptus Avenue between Euclid Avenue and South Hellman Avenue.
South Hellman Avenue from Eucalyptus Avenue to Merrill Avenue.
Walker Avenue from Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road to Merrill Avenue.
Truck traffic generated by the land uses implemented pursuant to the EBPSP would be required to utilize officially designated truck routes.
■
■
■
■
■
2154
BUILDING 10A
39,640 SF BUILDING 6
65,209 SF BUILDING 7
60,585 SF BUILDING 9
300,313 SF BUILDING 12
55,142 SF BUILDING 3
104,812 SF BUILDING 13
90,800 SF BUILDING 15
58,784 SF BUILDING 16
50,521 SF BUILDING 17
53,295 SF BUILDING 14
423,200 SF BUILDING 8
513,987 SF BUILDING 2
552,634 SF BUILDING 1
326,866 SF OPEN SPACE CONNECTION
TO EAST STREET OPEN SPACE CONNECTION
TO WEST STREET PHASE 1 E U C A L Y P T U S A V E N U E
EL EC TR ICA L VEH IC LE O NLY E U C A L Y P T U S A V E N U E E U C A L Y P T U S A V E N U E
P U B L I C S T R E E T 'A' S T O P S T O P
S T O P S T O P
S T O P S T O P
S T O P S T O P
S T O P S T O P
S T O P S T O P
P U B L I C S T R E E T 'A' P U B L I C S T R E E T 'A' PHASE 3 PHASE 2 OPEN SPACE - PARKLAND
P AR KI NG
N O
P AR KI NG
N O
EL EC TR ICA L VEH IC LE O NLYP AR KI NG
N O
VA N
P AR KI NG
N O
EL EC TR ICA L VEH IC LE O NLYP AR KI NG
N O
P AR KI NG
N O
P AR KI NG
N O
EL EC TR ICA L VEH IC LE O NLY
VA N
P AR KI NG
N O
BUILDING 5
65,209 SF BUILDING 4 BUILDING 10 44,885 SF
67,685 SF BUILDING 11
60,073 SF OPEN SPACE - PARKLAND OPEN SPACE - PARKLAND
NOT A PART NOT A PART NOT A PART
26' POTENTIAL 10,000 SF COMMERCIAL AREA
OPEN SPACE
CONNECTION
TO WEST STREET
u.J
:::::,
z
LLJ
~ (/)
:::::,
a...
~
<C
NOT A PART
OPEN SPACE - PARKLAND
BUILDING 14
423,200 SF
:::::,
z
LLJ
~
~ NITTAMITT LLJ
>
z
cc
OPEN SPACE - PARKLAND
BUILDING 8
513,987 SF
BUILDING 2
552,634 SF
NOT A PART
OPEN SPACE - PARKLAND
i
i
i
i
i
OPEN SPACE
CONNECTION
TO EAST STREET
t
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-12
Conceptual EBPSP Site Plan
[_-:-:_ J EBPSP Boundary
2 · 0 · 5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
G
0 ~ 350 700 Feet
Source: T&B 2026 Date: 02/03/2026
2155
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -5 6
This page intentionally left blank.
2156
r ................. .. .. - .. ---·- PA7
OPiENSPACE
S.15AC.
PAS
10:PENSPACE
1·4.1U.(.
Ml M2 M3
BU~fHESS ~IRK BUS NBS PARK Bd1S NIESS PARK
- ------='=·10=- A=.C.::.... - -----1:1:1---~- -----....;:.;:l:8.:::: J.:.: I ll:.:=..-----------1 ~ 18.21 AC, PA4
BUSINESS PARI
1.8,19A(.
PAS
B!USINESS PA'-IK
37~76AC.
I 2 PA6
t!> BIIJSINiESS PARK
37,11 A(~
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-13
Conceptual EBPSP Vehicular
Circulation and Access Plan
[__~J
a
l-J
EBPSP Boundary
Traffic Signal
Potential Signal Location
Grove Avenue
(124' ROW - Principal Arterial)
Eucalyptus Avenue
( l 08' ROW - Collector)
Campus Avenue
(108' ROW - Minor Arterial)
Walker Avenue
(88' ROW - Collector)
Bon View Avenue
(66' ROW - Collector)
Public Street 'A'
(64' ROW - Collector)
2 · 0 · 5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPP L EMENTAL EIR
·8 0 ~ 27 5 550 Feet
Source: T&B 2026 Date: 03/03/2026
2157
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -5 8
This page intentionally left blank.
2158
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 59
Non-vehicular Circulation
Pedestrian and bicycle circulation would be accommodated within the Specific Plan area through a network of sidewalks, multipurpose trails, and bike lanes, as illustrated on Figure 2- 14, Conceptual EBPSP Non-vehicular Circulation and Mobility Plan. Additional pedestrian and bicycle facilities would be designed on individual business park building sites at the time buildings are designed and positioned in each planning area as part of implementing development projects. Provisions for sidewalks, bicycle storage facilities, and employee and visitor gathering areas interior to the planning areas are described in Chapter 6, Design Guidelines, of the EBPSP. Additional pedestrian and bicycle facilities in Planning Areas 7, 8, and 9 would be designed consistent with the City of Ontario Grand Park Master Plan.
Transit Service
Transit services are currently provided to the Specific Plan area by Omnitrans. The following bus and transit facilities are near the Specific Plan area.
Omnitrans Bus Route 83, about 0.6 mile to the west along Euclid Avenue.
Omnitrans Bus Route 87, about 1.8 miles to the north along Riverside Drive.
In addition, the EBPSP would construct a bus turnout near the intersection of Grove Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue in anticipation of future Omnitrans service.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure is summarized in this section. Infrastructure plans are shown and analyzed in SEIR Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems. Potable Water The City of Ontario provides water service to the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan area lies within the 925 Pressure Zone (PZ). Existing potable water lines include a 16-inch potable water line within Eucalyptus Avenue between Campus Avenue and Grove Avenue; a 24-inch potable water line within Eucalyptus Avenue between Grove Avenue and Walker Avenue; and a 30-inch potable water line within Grove Avenue between Eucalyptus Avenue and Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road.
Potable water system improvements necessary to serve the Specific Plan area include: potable water lines along Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue from Eucalyptus Avenue to the northern boundary of the Specific Plan area; and a potable water line along Bon View Avenue from Eucalyptus Avenue to the northern boundary of the Specific Plan area and Public Street ‘A’ between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue. Final sizing of utility mains shall be dependent on hydraulic studies done at the time of development.
■
■
■
2159
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -6 0
Additional City of Ontario Water Master Plan improvements would be necessary to serve the Ontario Ranch area. These improvements are detailed in SEIR Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems.
Recycled Water
The City of Ontario/Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) and the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) supply recycled water to the Specific Plan area. Recycled water supplied by OMUC is produced by the IEUA from its 5 wastewater reclamation plants (IEUA 2026). Existing recycled water lines include an IEUA recycled water line within Eucalyptus Avenue between Campus Avenue and Bon View Avenue; and an IEUA recycled water line within Bon View Avenue between Eucalyptus Avenue and Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road.
Recycled water system improvements necessary to serve the Specific Plan area include recycled water lines within Grove Avenue and Walker Avenue. An additional recycled water line would be installed within Campus Avenue Walker Avenue, at the City’s discretion. Final sizing of utility mains shall be dependent on hydraulic studies done at the time of development.
Sewer
Sanitary sewer/wastewater collection for the Specific Plan area is provided by the City of Ontario/OMUC, which conveys wastewater to the IEUA for transmission and treatment. There is currently no sanitary sewer infrastructure within the Specific Plan area.
Sanitary sewer infrastructure improvements necessary to serve the Specific Plan area include new sewer lines in Campus Avenue, Bon View Avenue, Grove Avenue, Walker Avenue, and Public Street A between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue. Additional sewer improvements may also be required along Eucalyptus Avenue and ‘A’ Street within the EBPSP frontage where future development would not front an existing public master-planned main. Final sizing of utility mains shall be dependent on hydraulic studies done at the time of development.
Drainage and Water Quality
Existing storm drain infrastructure includes a storm drain line within Eucalyptus Avenue just east and west of Grove Avenue and a storm drain line within Eucalyptus Avenue west of Walker Avenue.
2160
r-----PA 7 ______ ,_ ----
: OPEN SPACE
--~------------1••-"'·---7 PA9
10PE:N SPACE Q 8.0SAC. 14.00AC .
. PA 1 PA2, PA3
~: BUSINESS PARK BUSINESS PARK BUSlNESS PARI<,
- 7.7'0 AC. L_ _ ______ ...:;. 18=3=3.:.:. A(==- . - - ---------1 1.1;1 18.:21 AC. ~t----~c_c___---~.~ ~ ----------------------
1·:
0 1
I
I
PA4
BUSINESS PARK
18.19AC.
i)-----·- __ ,_
PAS
BUSINESS PARK
37,76AC.
PA6
BUSINESS, PARK
37.71 AC
,----·-------------------~
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-14
Conceptual EBPSP Non-Vehicular
Circulation and Mobility Plan
[_ ~] EBPSP Boundary
~ Pedestrian Crosswalk
~ Potential Pedestrian Crosswalk
Sidewalk Only
-- Sidewalk Only and Multi-Purpose Trail
-- Sidewalk, Class II Bikeway,
and Multi-Purpose Trail
2 · 0 · 5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPP L EMENTAL EIR
,8
0 ~
27 5 550 Feet
Source: T&B 2026 Date: 03/03/2026
2161
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -6 2
This page intentionally left blank.
2162
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 63
Storm drain infrastructure improvements necessary to serve the Specific Plan area include: a 60-inch storm drain line within Campus Avenue between Eucalyptus Avenue and the northern boundary of the Specific Plan area; a 96-inch storm drain line within Bon View Avenue between Eucalyptus Avenue and the northern boundary of the Specific Plan area; a 108-inch storm drain line within Grove Avenue and Walker Avenue between Eucalyptus Avenue and the northern boundary of the Specific Plan area; 24-inch storm drain lines within Public Street ‘A’ between Campus Avenue and Bon View Avenue; and 36-inch storm drain lines within Public Street ‘A’ between Bon View Avenue and Walker Avenue.
During construction of future land uses implemented pursuant to the EBPSP, water quality would be managed through the preparation and implementation of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(s). Post-construction water quality would be managed through implementation of site-specific Water Quality Management Plan(s).
Dry Utilities
The Specific Plan area would also require electrical and telecommunications services. The following service providers are available to the Specific Plan area.
Electrical service is provided by Southern California Edison. Additional points of connection to existing facilities would be provided consistent with purveyor requirements.
Telecommunications services are available in the area from various private services, including OntarioNet Fiber and Frontier Communications.
Dry utilities internal to the Specific Plan area would be installed underground in conjunction with the development in accordance with applicable public utility standards and specifications.
GRADING PLAN
As part of site grading activities, the majority of the Specific Plan area would be subject to grading and disturbance. Specifically, grading activities on-site would require approximately 1,000,000 cubic yards (CY) of cut and approximately 1,150,000 CY of fill. Net fill (import) would be 150,000 CY. Within this earthwork operation, the site needs to export approximately 51,000 CY of organic materials. Maximum depth of ground disturbance is expected to be approximately 15 feet for grading, 15 feet for the building foundation, 10 feet for landscaping, 35 feet for utilities, and 25 feet for the storm water detention chamber. Disturbances would also occur in association with the off-site roadway improvements. See Figure 2-15, EBPSP Grading Plan. ■
■
2163
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -6 4
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
The EBPSP establishes development standards and design guidelines to guide development of the physical components of the area. The development standards provided in the Specific Plan are intended to work in concert with the architecture and landscape design guidelines.
Development regulations for each land use category are imposed for new development and provide the permitted, conditionally permitted, and ancillary uses for each land use category.
Additionally, the development regulations address lot size, floor area ratio, height, setbacks, landscaping, parking, and other requirements.
Future development accommodated by the Specific Plan would be required to comply with the Specific Plan’s design guidelines, which establish the desired quality and character of future land uses. While the design guidelines provide direction, they are meant to provide a certain level of flexibility to allow creative expression during the design of implementing development projects.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
As shown on Figure 2-16a, b, and c, EBPSP Tentative Tract Map, the Specific Plan would create the appropriate lots to facilitate the implementation of the proposed uses, as described above.
Additional subdivision maps (parcel and/or tract maps, including vesting maps) could be processed in conjunction with this Specific Plan to subdivide the site into smaller parcels and to regulate development of the physical components of the Specific Plan.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
A development agreement would be executed between the Applicant, Ontario Ranch Venture, LLC and Ontario Ranch Venture II, LLC, and the City of Ontario strictly in relation to the EBPSP.
California Government Code Sections 65864 to 65869.5 authorize the use of development agreements between any city, county, or city and county, with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of the property. The Development Agreement would detail the off-site improvements to be constructed as part of the EBPSP, as described within this section and analyzed throughout this SEIR.
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Construction Characteristics
Proposed physical disturbances necessary to implement the EBPSP are depicted on Figure 2-17, EBPSP Limits of Disturbance. As shown on this figure, proposed ground-disturbing activities would result in impacts to approximately 189 acres on-site, as well as off-site areas associated with roadway improvements to Campus Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue, Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road, and Walker Avenue.
2164
I I
'I ,- - - - -==-::;.,~,~ - - - __r=,..-~-:~ - --::- ~ - - --::-~- - - -::-,EX. It=-- - - --::-~- - - --::- - i so~ I ______ .,, " I
i 6 -...__ - .... ~ ~ - 6-r;i ..: 5;,s I
I '-"=cc-~-- I 878
--- -
FF=6 7 .80
I
I
BUILDING 14
;_____ -----
FG 1.97
I
FF=675. 70
N~ BUILDING 9 N~ - - - - - - - - - _I_ - -
BUILDING2
FF=678. 00
I
I
I
- ----~-----
FL-LP FL -
- - - - - - - -671.60 GB-
! ~~ BUILDING 1
X.R/
BUILDINGS
FF=676.20
I
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTIO
Figure 2-15
EBPSP Grading Plan
Construction Notes
(D PROPOSED 6" CURB .
(D PROPOSED 6" CURB 8c GUTTER .
(}) PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE .
8) PROPOSED RETAINING WALL.
@ PROPOSED 8" CURB 8c GUTTER .
2 · 0 · 5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
~ ~ Feet
'1111111111'" 0 165 330
Source: Michael Baker 2026 Date: 2/11/2026
2165
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -6 6
This page intentionally left blank.
2166
~ Ii i~(i :_1 - °T"/K 1: i
[ I I
~ c4lkr£ - l~m -~~
PROP. R/W < 1-
'6>~ 1 1 ~~,):, tr ~~tF~~~~ . o!o-~· ~ R/w & / ~ I -, - ,--~ - ++++-1-"'i'g~• ---, '1,1,$-11,,(-_ ~- - -(683) ~~~n-"'"'nc,._,_
~\(
PARCEL9
5.78 ACRES ~
iJ ~ ~ 1\ ~ ~:.
PARCEL2
23.21 ACRES
- ~
---~-- "EX. PO
POLE ------>---+-----
i
y
(681) 11 J,'.-' -
I: I J
I
£
/ PARCEL1 - j 14.50 ACRES
~r-1,. \. ~ , I I\ " -
1 , , I I -
(679)
(678)'
I
ti 1- ◊& --1
'1' .=--ZPROP R/W
C
I I ~
i ~PROP R/W
I ~1, 1---'----+----o;--~I ;~. -
________ __, .... ( ~ ~
- - ---- --- - --- - ~ - - :,c. - - ~ - - --- -
"" - ~ -- ' A r ,... r -----~ l ~ L "rf -~ _; D ' 7 I ~ • ~r ~; / / 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-16a
EBPSP Tentative Tract Map
Phase 1
PARCEL MAP BOUNDARY
PROPOSED R/W LINE
EXISTING R/W LINE
PROPOSED PROPERTY LI NE
------- EX I ST! NG PROPERTY LI NE
PROPOSED PARCEL BOUNDARY
CENTERLINE
EASEMENT LI NE
FLOOD ZONE LI NE
2 · 0 · 5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
~ ~ Feet
~.,. 0 125 250
Source: Michael Baker 2026 Date: 2/11/2026
2167
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -6 8
This page intentionally left blank.
2168
EX . POWER POLE
LIGHT
PARCEL3
2.64 ACRES '.(680)
~-~ ~-'--'~T"-----tt-1t-1~e•:_~,_Y-_,.~--,,--c1 "'"" llft•' ~=~-===='---J '9
"\ 'fly_i 6) 1' gY' 's;;~· Zw '
~ <o- ;i 111 ~1 -" , \ , -\\;
/ j L ,::;: 1 ::! 1 (- (' PARCEL2 ~ '+ · .. - ..., -J L , r: \o l <( I ( 'v 14.59 ACRES I - 1 _H _i . ~_-: -J 00z J -I - ·~ • 1: ..- t~ - ' , I - ~ I 1 •] .- I ~ I '(675)
16,.,, (~~ I x-L.. J. ~ r ~ I O I / ~ \}""~>:: -t.,· ::, (673)
PARCELS
5.82 ACRES
;:,
-r
\ -
j
i -i,- / ~~~~"l I • r U,,,.,c='l! ~ :C..S~ ~--ce,,,>- ...;.µ_'i,-r-=i!= EX. CUCAMONGA AVENUE
EX PO~ER ~~ ~~~~~~~;;::~~~~ - - ---
__POLE EX POWER - EXPOWER - - - - ~OWEi~ - EX. POWE_R __ - EX, POW~EU AVENUE 64L_54 ~ PO~°'
,. POLE POLE POLE POLE POLE ( PUBLIC) POLE w
7 r I'~- EX R/~ -- ---<- ----~ -~- - :;- .:- +:~- J'(';')j~--- ~ ~ 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-16b
EBPSP Tentative Tract Map
Phase 2
PARCEL MAP BOUNDARY
PROPOSED R/W LI NE
EXJSTING R/W LINE
PROPOSED PROPERTY LI NE
------- EX l ST! NG PROPERTY LI NE
PROPOSED PARCEL BOUNDARY
CENTERLINE
EASEMENT LI NE
FLOOD ZONE LI NE
2 · 0 · 5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
~ ~ Feet
~Ill" 0 125 250
Source: Michael Baker 2026 Date: 2/11/2026
2169
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -7 0
This page intentionally left blank.
2170
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-16c
EBPSP Tentative Tract Map
Phase 3
-------
PARCEL MAP BOUNDARY
PROPOSED R/W LI NE
EX I ST! NG R/W LI NE
PROPOSED PROPERTY LI NE
EX I ST! NG PROPERTY LI NE
PROPOSED PARCEL BOUNDARY
CENTERLINE
EASEMENT LI NE
THE" ()NTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
~ ~ Feet
•• 0 125 250
Source: Michael Baker 2026 Date: 2/11/2026
2171
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -7 2
This page intentionally left blank.
2172
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-17
EBPSP Limits of Disturbance
EBPSP Boundary- 190 AC
Overall Limits of Disturbance Boundary - 300 AC
Excluded from Overall Limits of Disturbance
Boundary
~ Business Park (within project limits)
~ "'~ Open Space (within project limits)
Open Space (north of project limits)
~ Excluded from Overall Limits of Disturbance
2 · 0 · 5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
G
0 ~ 315 630 Feet
Source: T&B 2025 Date: 12/13/2025
2173
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -7 4
This page intentionally left blank.
2174
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 75
For purposes of analysis in this EIR, construction is assumed to commence in January 2027 and would last through June 2031 (see Table 2-9, EBPSP Construction Duration). The construction schedule used in the analysis is a conservative analysis scenario because if construction occurs any time after the respective dates emission factors for construction would decrease as time passes due to emission regulations becoming more stringent. The construction equipment (see Table 2-10, EBPSP Anticipated Construction Equipment) is a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required by the CEQA Guidelines.
Table 2-9 Construction Duration
Phase Construction Activity Start Date End Date Days
1 Demolition 1/1/2027 2/18/2027 35
Site Preparation 2/19/2027 3/18/2027 20
Grading 3/19/2027 6/3/2027 55
Building Construction 6/4/2027 6/30/2028 281
Paving 1/8/2028 6/30/2028 125
Architectural Coating 1/8/2028 6/30/2028 125
2 Demolition 7/1/2028 8/18/2028 35
Site Preparation 8/19/2028 9/15/2028 20
Grading 9/16/2028 12/1/2028 55
Building Construction 12/2/2028 12/31/2029 281
Paving 7/10/2029 12/31/2029 125
Architectural Coating 7/10/2029 12/31/2029 125
3 Demolition 1/1/2030 2/18/2030 35
Site Preparation 2/19/2030 3/18/2030 20
Grading 3/19/2030 6/3/2030 55
Building Construction 6/4/2030 6/30/2031 280
Paving 2/11/2031 6/30/2031 100
Architectural Coating 2/11/2031 6/30/2031 100
Table 2-10 EBPSP Anticipated Construction Equipment
Construction Activity Equipment Quantity Hours
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 6 8
Excavators 2 8
Other Material Handling Equipment 2 8
Off-Highway Trucks 2 8
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8
Crawler Tractors 4 8
Grading Graders 4 8
Excavators 2 8
2175
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -7 6
Table 2-10 EBPSP Anticipated Construction Equipment
Construction Activity Equipment Quantity Hours
Rubber Tired Dozers 4 8
Off-Highway Trucks 2 8
Crawler Tractors 2 8
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8
Generator Sets 2 8
Cranes 2 8
Welders 2 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8
Paving Pavers 2 8
Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 2 8
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 3 8
Operational Characteristics
Land Uses
The future occupants of the EBPSP land uses are currently unknown; however, the Specific Plan would provide a business park development positioned to attract a variety of business types and sizes with varying uses. Examples of uses envisioned for the area include employeeintensive office spaces, technology centers, research and development facilities, warehouse and distribution, and light manufacturing, as well as supporting commercial opportunities. Please refer to Table 5-1 of the EBPSP for a full list of permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited uses.
The open space areas of the EBPSP would provide public passive recreational opportunities for future employees and visitors through features such as pedestrian paths, gathering areas, turf areas, and botanical gardens. The park would be heavily landscaped, including forested areas, meadow areas, and open space lawn areas, consistent with the City’s Grand Park Landscape Master Plan.
Estimated Traffic Generation, Water, and Energy Demand
Traffic Generation
During operations, employees, visitors, and vehicles hauling goods would travel to and from the Specific plan area on a daily basis. The EBPSP is anticipated to generate a net total of 9,596 twoway vehicle trip-ends per day with 848 AM peak hour trips and 1,096 PM peak hour trips (actual 2176
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 77
vehicles) at buildout. The EBPSP is anticipated to generate a total of 11,458 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) trip ends per day with 945 AM PCE peak vehicle hour trips and 1,198 PM PCE peak hour vehicle trips (see Appendix K3).3
Water Demand
Total water demand of the EBPSP would be 573.8 acre feet per year (AFY). Of that total, 286.3 AFY would be potable water demand and 287.6 AFY would be recycled water demand (see Appendix L2).
Energy Demand
Throughout construction, total electricity usage from EBPSP construction-related activities is estimated to be approximately 886,886 kWh; construction equipment would consume an estimated total of 311,914 gallons of diesel fuel; approximately 269,810 gallons of fuel would be consumed related to construction worker trips; and approximately 214,130 gallons of fuel would be consumed related to construction vendor and hauling trips (see Appendix C5).
EBPSP facility operational energy demands are estimated to be 15,807,558 kWh per year; annual vehicular trips and related VMT generated by the operation of the EBPSP would result in a fuel demand of 4,213,944 gallons; emergency engine operation for maintenance and testing purposes would consume an estimated 2,070 gallons of diesel fuel per year; and on-site operational cargo handling equipment is estimated to consume approximately 51,071 gallons of fuel per year (see Appendix C5).
As discussed further in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the EBPSP would implement various energy efficiency measures including a rooftop solar energy system which would generate enough electricity to meet 45 percent of annual electricity needs, EV charging stations, installation of non-vehicular circulation facilities, water conservation measures, and the use of zero emission cargo handling equipment for a minimum of 50 percent of all operations. Please refer to Section 3.8, Energy, for a complete listing of all energy conserving measures to be implemented by the EBPSP.
PHASING
Specific Plan development would occur in phases, as shown on Figure 2-18, EBPSP Conceptual Phasing Plan. Phase A would develop business park uses in Planning Areas 3 and 6. Phase B would develop Planning Areas 2 and 5. Phase C would include Planning Areas 1 and 4. Phases D, 3 PCE factors are applied to trip generation rates for heavy trucks (large 2-axles, 3-axles, 4+-axles). PCEs allow the typical “real-world” mix of vehicle types to be represented as a single, standardized unit, such as the passenger car, to be used for the purposes of capacity and level of service analyses. 2177
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -7 8
E, and F would include the open space areas located north of new Public Street ‘A’ (Planning Areas 7, 8, and 9).
2.5 INTENDED USES OF THE SEIR
This Draft SEIR examines the program-level environmental impacts of the proposed project. This Draft SEIR also addresses various actions by the City of Ontario to approve and implement the proposed project. The proposed project will require adoption by the Ontario City Council. The Planning Commission and other decision-making bodies will review the proposed project and make recommendations to City Council. Though other agencies may be consulted during the project process, their approval is not required for adoption of TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP. Subsequent development under the proposed project may require approval of state or federal responsible or trustee agencies that rely on the programmatic/supplemental EIR for decisions in their areas of expertise. The anticipated discretionary actions required for this project are listed in Table 2-11, Project Approvals Needed. Table 2-11 Project Approvals Needed Lead Agency Action
City of Ontario City Council Certification of the SEIR
Adoption of the Policy Plan Amendment
Adoption of the EBPSP
Approval of the Cancelation of Williamson Act
Contracts
Approval of the EBPSP Development Agreement
Approval of the EBPSP Tentative Parcel Map
Adoption of the Findings of Fact and Statement of
Overriding Considerations
Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program
Adoption of any ordinances, guidelines, programs,
actions, or other mechanisms that implement the
Policy Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
Responsible Agencies Action
Ontario International Airport–Inter Agency
Collaborative (ONT-IAC) Technical Advisory
Group
For review of local airport-related policies
California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (CAL FIRE)
Review of the Safety Element for policies in state
responsibility areas and very high fire hazard severity zones
California Department of Housing and
Community Development
For certification of the Housing Element
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2178
BUSINESS PARK
Z.75 AC.
PHASE C
PA4
BUSINESS PARK
18.17 AC.
BUSINESS PARK
18.45_A~,,_• _______ _
PHASE B
PAS
BUSINESS PARK
37.68AC.
·~ - ---- ----- UCALYPTUS AVE
PHASE A
6 BUSINESS PARK
37.64AC.
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-18
EBPSP Conceptual Phasing Plan
L J EBPSP Boundary
Phase A
Phase B
Phase C
Phase D
Phase E
Phase F
2 · 0 · 5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPP L EMENTAL EIR
·8 0 ~ 27 5 550 Feet
Source: T&B 2025 Date: 12/13/2025
2179
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -8 0
This page intentionally left blank.
2180
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 81
2.5.1 Related Review and Consultation Requirements
AB 52/SB 18 Tribal Consultation
Senate Bill 18. Government Code Sections 65352.3 and 65352.4 require local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places when creating or amending general plans, specific plans, and community plans.
The formal notification is required to include a brief description of the proposed project and its location, lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 90 days to request consultation regarding potential impacts to tribal cultural resources.
Assembly Bill 52. Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1(d), a lead agency is required to provide formal notification of intended development projects to Native American tribes that have requested to be on the lead agency’s list for receiving such notification. The formal notification is required to include a brief description of the proposed project and its location, lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation regarding potential impacts to tribal cultural resources.
The City of Ontario sent Tribal Consultation Request letters to the Native American contacts on August 19, 2025, in accordance with AB 52 and SB 18 (see Appendix M2).
2.6 REFERENCES
Ontario, City of. 2022, August. The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050) and Certified EIR. State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364.
Ontario, City of. 2010, January. The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140.
IEUA (Inland Empire Utilities Agency). 2026, January (accessed). Facilities. https://www.ieua.org/facilities/
2181
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -8 2
This page intentionally left blank.
2182
MA RC H 2026 3- 1
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This chapter examines the environmental setting of the proposed project, analyzes the effects of the proposed project and the significance of its impacts, and recommends mitigation measures to reduce or avoid impacts. This chapter has a separate section for each environmental topic.
The proposed project is analyzed for potential significant impacts in accordance with Appendix F, “Energy Conservation,” and Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Environmental topics and their corresponding sections and abbreviations are:
3.1 Aesthetics (AES)
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources (AGF)
3.3 Air Quality (AIR)
3.4 Biological Resources (BIO)
3.5 Cultural Resources (CUL)
3.6 Energy (ENE)
3.7 Geology and Soils (GEO)
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (HAZ)
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality (HYD)
3.11 Land Use and Planning (LUP)
3.12 Mineral Resources (MIN)
3.13 Noise (NOI)
3.14 Population and Housing (POP)
3.15 Public Services (PUB)
3.16 Recreation (REC)
3.17 Transportation (TRA)
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR)
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems (USS)
3.20 Wildfire (WIL)
ORGANIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
To assist the reader with comparing information between environmental issues, each section is organized under the same major headings.
Regulatory Framework offers an overview of applicable laws, regulations, plans, and policies relevant to each environmental topic.
Existing Conditions offers a description of the existing environmental conditions, providing a baseline against which the impacts of the proposed project can be compared.
Standards for Analysis refer to the quantitative or qualitative standards, performance levels, thresholds, or criteria used to evaluate whether an impact is significant. These standards are based primarily on the CEQA Guidelines unless otherwise noted. This section also provides an overview of key methods, assumptions, and considerations that inform the impact analysis.
■
■
■
2183
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. E N V I RO N M EN TA L A N A LY S I S
3- 2
Project Impact Analysis provides a detailed discussion of the potential direct and indirect impacts of the proposed project. Mitigation measures are included as necessary.
Cumulative Impact Analysis provides an overview of the geographic setting and cumulative projects considered in the cumulative impact assessment. Significant cumulative impacts are identified and mitigation measures are included as necessary.
References are provided for information sources used in the development of the discussion.
LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The level of significance is identified for each impact in this Draft SEIR. Although the criteria for determining significance are different for each topic area, the environmental analysis applies a uniform classification of the impacts based on definitions consistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines:
No impact. The project would result in no adverse effect on the environment.
Less than significant. The project would not exceed the established significance criteria.
Significant. The project would exceed the established significance criteria. For each significant impact, the SEIR identifies mitigation measures to reduce, eliminate, or avoid the adverse effect. If one or more mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level successfully, this is stated in the SEIR.
Significant and unavoidable. The project would exceed the established significance criteria, and no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level.
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Under CEQA, the decision as to whether an environmental effect should be considered significant is reserved to the discretion of the lead agency, based on substantial evidence in the record as a whole, including views held by members of the public. An ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary based on the setting. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), the analysis in this Draft SEIR is based on scientific and factual data that has been reviewed by the lead agency and represents the lead agency’s independent judgment and conclusions. ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2184
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. E N V I RO N M EN TA L A N A LY S I S
MA RC H 2026 3- 3
CEQA Baseline
This SEIR evaluates the impacts of the proposed project relative to the TOP 2050 for the Policy Plan Amendment and the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (EBPSP), as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and Section 15163.
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project is the cumulative impacts of the Policy Plan Amendment, which also includes the Zoning amendments, and the EBPSP.
Policy Plan Amendment
The baseline for the proposed project is the current general plan, TOP 2050. Section 2.2.1, The Ontario Plan 2050 (Approved Project), and Figure 3-4, Current TOP Land Use Plan, show the existing land use designations for the City.
Specific Plan
The baseline for the EBPSP is the approved TOP 2050 land uses for the project site, which are Medium Density Residential (MDR), Mixed-Use (Eucalyptus/Chino Airport) (MU-BC),; and Open Space Parkland (OS-C). Buildout of the approved TOP 2050 for the EBPSP site would allow for up to 2,195 residential units and 1,632,143 square feet of non-residential land uses within the 189- acre project site (see Table 2-8, EBPSP Current TOP 2050 Land Uses).
Organization and Terminology
Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, provides an impact discussion for each significance criteria in Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the CEQA Guidelines. For each of these significance criteria, the impacts discussions have a separate headings for the Policy Plan Amendment and the Specific Plan. The following terminology in these impact discussions is used to refer to impacts of the individual project components:
Proposed Project: The terminology “proposed project” is used throughout this SEIR to refer to the project as a whole, and includes the Policy Plan Amendment, the concurrent Zoning changes, and the EBPSP. The Policy Plan Amendment impact discussion uses this terminology because the land use changes of the Policy Plan Amendment are comprehensive and encompasses the land use changes associated with the EBPSP and the concurrent Zoning changes.
Policy Plan Amendment: This term refers to the Policy Plan Amendment and the concurrent Zoning changes that implements the land use changes of the Policy Plan. The SEIR uses the term “Policy Plan Amendment” when referring specifically to the Policy Plan Amendments. ■
■
2185
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. E N V I RO N M EN TA L A N A LY S I S
3- 4
There are no separate impacts of the Zoning update since they are implementing the Policy Plan Amendment.
EBPSP or Specific Plan: This term refers solely to components associated with the EBPSP.
Potential Effects of the Project on the Environment
The California Supreme Court concluded in California Building Industry Association vs. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 that “CEQA generally does not require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact a project’s future users or residents.” The CBIA vs. BAAQMD ruling provided for several exceptions to the general rule where an analysis is warranted:
1. If the project would exacerbate existing environmental hazards (such as exposing hazardous waste that is currently buried).
2. If the project qualifies for certain specified exemptions (certain housing projects and transportation priority projects pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 21159.21 (f),(h); 21159.22 (a),(b)(3); 21159.23 (a)(2)(A); 21159.24 (a)(1),(3); or 21155.1 (a)(4),(6)).
3. If the project is exposed to potential noise and safety impacts due to proximity to an airport (pursuant to PRC sec. 21096).
4. School projects require specific assessment of certain environmental hazards (pursuant to PRC sec. 21151.8).
Therefore, the evaluation of the significance of project impacts under CEQA focuses on the potential impacts of the proposed project on the environment, including whether the proposed project may exacerbate any existing environmental hazards. Existing environmental hazards in the City of Ontario include, but are not limited to, seismic hazards, hazardous materials, and wildfire. Therefore, while the effects of these hazards on the proposed project are generally not subject to CEQA review according to CBIA vs. BAAQMD, a discussion of the project’s potential to exacerbate these hazardous conditions is provided in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 3.20, Wildfire, of this Draft SEIR.
Assumptions Regarding Cumulative Impacts
A cumulative impact consists of an impact created as a result of the project evaluated in the SEIR combined with other reasonably foreseeable projects. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires an SEIR to discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is “cumulatively considerable.” Cumulative effects could occur when future development ■
2186
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. E N V I RO N M EN TA L A N A LY S I S
MA RC H 2026 3- 5
under the project is combined with development in the surrounding area or, in some instances, in the entire region.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(3), where a cumulative impact is significant compared to baseline conditions, the analysis must address whether the project’s contribution to the significant cumulative impact is “considerable.” If the contribution of the project is considerable, the EIR must identify potentially feasible measures that could avoid or reduce the magnitude of the project’s contribution to a less-than-considerable level. If the project’s contribution is not considerable, it is considered less than significant, and no mitigation for the project’s contribution is required.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1) states that the information used in the analysis of cumulative impacts should come from one or two sources:
A. A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or B. A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. Such plans may include: a general plan, regional transportation plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A summary of projections may also be contained in an adopted or certified prior environmental document for such a plan. Such projections may be supplemented with additional information such as a regional modeling program. Any such document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency.
The cumulative impact analysis in this SEIR uses method No. 2. Consistent with Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines, this SEIR analyzes the environmental impacts of development in accordance with proposed project land use plan and addresses the cumulative impacts of development in Ontario and the larger Inland Empire region, as appropriate. In most cases, the potential for cumulative impacts is contiguous with the City boundary, since the City is the service provider for various services and public utilities. The San Bernardino Traffic Analysis Model+ (SBTAM+) was utilized to estimate vehicle miles traveled for the proposed project. Therefore, potential cumulative impacts related to traffic, air quality, and noise, which have the potential for impacts beyond the City boundaries, have been addressed using the SBTAM+, which accounts for growth in the region. Please refer to subsections in this chapter for a discussion of the cumulative impacts associated with development and growth in the City and region.
2187
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. E N V I RO N M EN TA L A N A LY S I S
3- 6
This page intentionally left blank.
2188
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
MA RC H 2026 3. 1- 1
3.1 AESTHETICS
This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) discusses the potential impacts to the visual character of the City of Ontario from implementation of TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment and the EBPSP (proposed project) compared to TOP 2050 (approved project) and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. This section includes a discussion of the qualitative aesthetic characteristics of the existing environment that would potentially be altered by the project’s implementation and the consistency of the project with established relevant policies. Cumulative impacts related to aesthetics would be contiguous with the city boundaries.
3.1.1 Regulatory Framework
STATE
Caltrans Scenic Highway Program
In 1963, California's Scenic Highway Program was created to preserve and protect the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through special conservation treatment. The state laws governing this program are in the Streets and Highways Code, Sections 260 to 2684, and Caltrans oversees the program. Caltrans defines a scenic highway as any freeway, highway, road, or other public right-of-way that traverses an area of exceptional scenic quality. Suitability for designation as a State Scenic Highway is based on the following criteria described in Caltrans’s Guidelines for Official Designation of Scenic Highways (Caltrans 2008):
The State or county highway consists of a scenic corridor that is comprised of a memorable landscape that showcases the natural scenic beauty or agriculture of California; “vividness” is used to assess visual quality, and is the extent to which the landscape is memorable. This is associated with the distinctiveness, diversity and contrast of visual elements. A vivid landscape makes an immediate and lasting impression on the viewer.
Existing visual intrusions do not significantly impact the scenic corridor; this is based on intactness (the integrity of visual order in the landscape and the extent to which the natural landscape is free from visual intrusions) and unity (the extent to which visual intrusions are sensitive to and in visual harmony with the natural landscape).
Demonstration of strong local support for the proposed scenic highway designation.
The length of the proposed scenic highway is not less than a mile and is not segmented. ■
■
■
■
2189
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 1 A E S T H ETI C S
3. 1- 2
LOCAL
City of Ontario Municipal Code
The Ontario Municipal Code contains regulations regarding historical preservation and general design guidelines that address the aesthetic aspects of residential, commercial, and industrial development:
Development Code, Chapter 5, Zoning and Land Use, contains general development requirements and exceptions, standards related to development density, screening and setback requirements, signage, street lighting and tree planting, landscape and design, conformity with district regulations, mixed-use requirements, fences and walls, grading, height limitations, and lighting.
Development Code, Chapter 6, Development and Subdivision Regulations, contains regulations for walls, fences, landscaping, public art, and property appearance. Generally, lighting shall be such as to provide general security while minimizing adverse impacts of light spillover.
Development Code, Chapter 7, Historic Preservation, contains standards to safeguard the character and history of the City reflected in its unique culturally, historically, and architecturally significant structures and heritage; encourage the adaptive reuse of historic resources and enhance, perpetuate, and preserve architecturally and historically significant structures; and recognize historic resources and protect areas of historic structures from encroachment of incompatible designs.
3.1.2 Existing Conditions
POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
Visual Character
From a regional perspective, Ontario is in a highly developed, urban/suburban area. Developed land uses (residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, public, institutional, airport, and utility and transportation easements) are located throughout the City. The northern half of the City (north of Riverside Drive) is known as the Original Model Colony (OMC) and is a developed urbanized area. Undeveloped areas in the OMC are scattered small vacant parcels.
The Ontario Ranch, south of Riverside Drive, has historically been flat and open, with dairies, poultry farms, and row crops; however, the Ontario Ranch is rapidly suburbanizing.
Visually, Ontario is a linear city with predominantly right-angle streets. The northern portion of the City is highly developed, urban/suburban, with a wide array of residential densities. The northwest portion of the City contains older, maturing residential developments, and the ■
■
■
2190
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 1 A E S TH E TI C S
MA RC H 2026 3. 1- 3
northeast and eastern portion is dominated by planned industrial uses with commercial uses for support. The established neighborhoods are characterized by a mixture of traditional singlefamily residential uses with commercial land uses along major corridors and newer planned developments with subdivisions.
Bisecting the City from north to south is I-15, and I-10 and SR-60 traverse east to west. Also traversing the City from north to south is Ontario’s most visually important arterial, Euclid Avenue, which reflects the City’s historic past, extending to the historic homes and historically significant buildings in the downtown district of the City. Euclid Avenue between Philadelphia and I-10 is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historic Resources.
Landform
The City of Ontario is in the southwestern corner of San Bernardino County, south of the San Gabriel Mountains, in the upper Santa Ana Valley. The City is situated on a broad alluvial fan that extends from the southern flank of the San Gabriel Mountains and dips gradually southward to the confluence of San Antonio Channel, Cucamonga Channel/Mill Creek, and the Santa Ana River at the Prado Dam Flood Control Basin in Riverside County. Elevation ranges from 1,150 feet above mean sea level in the northwest portion to 650 feet above mean sea level in the south-central portion of the City.
Recent (quaternary) alluvium underlies the entire valley. The western portion of the City is underlain by young alluvial-fan deposits. The eastern portion is primarily underlain by young eolian (wind driven) deposits with small areas of young alluvial-fan deposits, artificial fill, and young alluvial-valley deposits. The City is bisected by very young alluvial fan and very young wash deposits associated with the Cucamonga Creek Channel.
Natural Features
Biological resources have been largely removed or modified throughout the City. The northern half of the City is developed and urbanized with a few vacant parcels. Native habitats and vegetation communities are virtually absent throughout the northern portion of Ontario. Turf, weeds, nonnative grasses, and nonnative trees and plants are present throughout developed areas of the City. The southern half of the City, known as the Ontario Ranch, has historically been agriculture and rural but is rapidly suburbanizing. The area had been extensively altered from natural conditions to primarily agricultural use. The area supports ruderal vegetation, including nonnative grasses and forbs.
The dominant scenic resource in Ontario is the San Gabriel Mountain range to the north, visible from the Upper Santa Ana River. Other prominent scenic resources are the Jurupa Mountains and the San Bernardino Mountains to the east, the Santa Ana Mountains to the south, and the Chino Hills to the southwest.
2191
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 1 A E S T H ETI C S
3. 1- 4
Scenic Vistas and Corridors
The City is served by three freeways: I-10, I-15, and SR-60. I-10 and SR-60 traverse the northern and central portion of the City, respectively, in an east-west direction. I-15 traverses the northeastern portion of the City in a north-south direction. These segments are not officially designated scenic highways by Caltrans, and there are no officially designated scenic highways in Ontario (Caltrans 2025); however, the Euclid Avenue corridor and the Mission Boulevard corridor are the primary scenic corridors in Ontario. Euclid Avenue is a grand boulevard with a wide landscaped median along its length. The median is used for public activities and civic events, such as festivals and music concerts. Visually, Euclid Avenue is the most defining corridor in the City and is designated on the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources. Mission Boulevard has a wide landscaped median and runs east-west immediately south of Ontario International Airport (ONT).
The City’s physical setting lends opportunities for many views of the community and surrounding natural features, including panoramic views of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains and stretches of open space and undeveloped land south of Riverside Drive. Scenic vistas can be viewed from an extensive system of formal and informal trails that afford recreational, commercial, and scenic opportunities for the community. The majority of planned trails are throughout the Ontario Ranch. Current trails in urbanized portions of the City are limited to flood control channels and other informal trails.
SPECIFIC PLAN
Site Character
The majority of the Specific Plan area is currently utilized as active dairy facilities including dry lots, milking parlors, feed storage facilities and associated residential uses. Other land uses include storage and minor maintenance of semi-trailer trucks, storage and distribution of krill oil and soy sauce, tire storage, and small animal keeping.
The site is relatively flat and generally slopes to the south with variable topography on-site in the form of berms, fill material stockpiles, and a water retention basin. The site has been subjected to roughly a century of anthropogenic disturbances associated with these historic and ongoing land uses (Appendix D). The natural vegetation and soil conditions that once occurred throughout the Specific Plan area have been significantly altered through agricultural uses, leaving little or no native vegetation. Figure 3.1-1, EBPSP Site Photos, provides representative visual depictions of the site’s visual characteristics. 2192
1 3.1 AESTHETICS
Figure 3.1-1
EBPSP Site Photos
□ EBPSP Boundary
cf Photo Location and Direction (5)
2 · 0 · 5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
Source: T&B 2025 Date: 12/12/2025
2193
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 1 A E S T H ETI C S
3. 1- 6
This page intentionally left blank.
2194
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 1 A E S TH E TI C S
MA RC H 2026 3. 1- 7
Surrounding Land Uses
As illustrated in Figure 3.1-2, EBPSP Surrounding Land Uses, land uses surrounding the Specific Plan area include:
North: Dairy farms and residences, similar to existing land uses within the Specific Plan area, are located northerly adjacent to the site.
South: Eucalyptus Avenue borders the Specific Plan area to the south, beyond which are industrial/business park uses, a fire station, and a dairy farm/residence.
East: Dairy farms and residences are located to the east of the site, across Walker Avenue.
West: Additional dairy/agricultural uses are located to the west of the site, across Campus Avenue.
Scenic Resources
The Specific Plan area is located within a relatively flat valley floor surrounded by rugged hills and mountains. The site does not contain any scenic resources, such as buildings or landscaping of aesthetic value, or any landforms of visual interest.
Major scenic resources in Ontario that contribute to scenic vistas include the San Gabriel Mountains to the north of the City. The San Gabriel Mountains are located approximately 12 miles north of the Specific Plan area. The lower elevations of the San Gabriel Mountains are partially obscured from public viewing areas abutting the Project site by existing buildings and agricultural operations. Views of the upper elevations of the San Gabriel Mountains can also sometimes be obscured from the Specific Plan area and its surroundings during hazy conditions that are common to the Inland Empire Area. Other prominent scenic resources in Ontario are the Jurupa Mountains and the San Bernardino Mountains to the east, the Santa Ana Mountains to the south, and the Chino Hills to the southwest.
There are no officially designated or eligible State scenic highways in Ontario. The nearest officially designated/eligible State scenic highway is State Route 142 located approximately 5.2 miles west of the Specific Plan area (Caltrans 2025). The Euclid Avenue corridor (located approximately one-half mile to the west of the Specific Plan area) and the Mission Boulevard corridor (located approximately 4 miles to the north of the Specific Plan area) are the primary scenic corridors in Ontario. Mission Boulevard has a wide landscaped median and runs eastwest immediately south of Ontario International Airport. Euclid Avenue is a grand boulevard with a wide landscaped median along its length. The median is used for public activities and civic events, such as festivals and music concerts.
2195
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 1 A E S T H ETI C S
3. 1- 8
Light and Glare
Artificial light is associated with the evening and nighttime hours, and sources may include streetlights, illuminated signage, and vehicle headlights. Glare is primarily a daytime occurrence caused by the reflection of sunlight or artificial light from highly polished surfaces, such as window glass or reflective materials, and, to a lesser degree, from broad expanses of lightcolored surfaces. Glare can also be produced during evening and nighttime hours by artificial light directed toward a light-sensitive land use.
Under existing conditions, the Specific Plan area contains sources of artificial, exterior lighting including building-mounted fixtures, streetlights, vehicle headlights, and lighting from surrounding developed properties.
3.1.3 Standards for Analysis
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that, “except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099,” the proposed project would result in a significant aesthetic impact if it would:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) In an urbanized area, if the project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
d) Expose people on- or off-site to substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
2196
3.1 AESTHETICS
Figure 3.1-2
EBPSP Surrounding Land Uses
□ EBPSP Boundary
2 · 0 · 5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPP L EMENTAL EIR
·8 0 ~ 300 700 Feet
Source: T&B 2025 Date: 02/24/2026
2197
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 1 A E S T H ETI C S
3. 1- 10
This page intentionally left blank.
2198
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 1 A E S TH E TI C S
MA RC H 2026 3. 1- 11
3.1.4 Relevant New and Modified General Plan Policies
The proposed project does not include new or modified policies relevant to Aesthetics.
3.1.5 Environmental Impacts
2022 CERTIFIED EIR
The Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would not substantially obstruct views of the San Gabriel Mountains, the City’s most prominent scenic resource. Ontario does not contain or adjoin a State-designated scenic highway. The closest is State Route 142, 5 miles west of the city limits; therefore, the approved project would have no impact on State scenic highways. The Certified EIR found that future development would be subject to the City’s Development Code, which would ensure less than significant impacts for visual quality and scenic quality. New development would introduce additional light sources, particularly in Ontario Ranch; however, impacts would be less than significant with adherence to the City’s lighting standards. In summary, the Certified EIR concluded that aesthetic impacts were less than significant or no impact.
PROPOSED PROJECT
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Scenic vistas generally provide visual access or panoramic views to a large geographic area.
Panoramic views are usually associated with vantage points over a section of urban or natural areas that provide a geographic orientation not commonly available. Examples of scenic or panoramic views might include an urban skyline, valley, mountain range, large open space, the ocean, or other bodies of water. As described in Section 3.1.2, Existing Conditions, the San Gabriel Mountains are the most prominent scenic vista in or around Ontario.
The Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would not substantially alter scenic vistas in the City, as proposed growth is primarily concentrated in undeveloped areas interspersed in existing residential areas.
Policy Plan Amendment
The City of Ontario does not designate scenic vistas. The proposed project would increase the number of housing units, non-residential square feet, employment, and population in comparison to the approved project, as shown in Table 2-4, Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment, in Chapter 2, Project Description. 2199
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 1 A E S T H ETI C S
3. 1- 12
Increased development under the policy plan amendment would occur within the City limits and already urbanized areas of the City. The proposed project would alter the allowable type or intensity of land use on their properties as well as land use changes required to improve land use compatibility, maintain compliance with state laws, uphold long-term planning goals, and plan for a cohesive land use pattern that repositions the southwest portion of the City as a central business center. Additionally, the proposed project would include alterations to the mixed-use areas to create new district “District Place Type” that would define a vision for new mixed-use areas, primarily near the Ontario Field (ONT Field); however, these changes would improve land use compatibility near the Ontario Sports Empire and would not affect scenic quality within the City.
Accordingly, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to scenic corridors.
Similarly, the scale and design of the City under the proposed project would not deter views of the San Gabriel Mountains. The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project and impacts identified in the Certified EIR.
Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Specific Plan
The City of Ontario does not designate scenic vistas; however, Policy CD-1.5 of the TOP 2050 Policy Plan requires all north-south streets be designed and developed to feature views of the San Gabriel Mountains. The Policy goes on to state that views should be free of visual clutter, such as billboards, and may be enhanced by framing with trees.
Four north-south streets would be improved as part of the Specific Plan. The segments of Campus Avenue, Bon View Avenue, Grove Avenue, Walker Avenue that abut the Specific Plan area would all be improved with landscaped parkways and sidewalks. Grove Avenue would also feature a landscaped median, which is a continuation of the median previously established as part of the existing development located to the south. Streetscape landscaping would include a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and groundcovers acting to reinforce views of the San Gabriel Mountains. Additionally, Chapter 6, Design Guidelines, of the EBPSP includes reference to Signage Guidelines to ensure aesthetically pleasing (and non-intrusive) signage within the site.
Based on the preceding, the Specific Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and would be implemented consistent with Policy CD-1.5 of TOP 2050. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. 2200
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 1 A E S TH E TI C S
MA RC H 2026 3. 1- 13
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact AES-1: Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially alter scenic vistas in Ontario.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant aesthetic impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
Impacts are less than significant and mitigation measures are not required. b) Would the project substantially degrade the view from a scenic highway, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings? The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would have no impact on State scenic highways.
Policy Plan Amendment
The Euclid Avenue corridor and the Mission Boulevard corridor are the primary scenic corridors in Ontario; however, these are not identified as State-designated scenic highways, and Ontario does not have any State scenic highways through or in the vicinity of the City (Caltrans 2025).
The closest designated State scenic highway is a portion of State Route 142 in Chino Hills, approximately 5 miles west of the Ontario City limit. Increased development under the policy plan amendment would occur within the city limits and already urbanized areas of the City. The proposed project would alter the allowable type or intensity of land use on their properties as well as land use changes required to improve land use compatibility, maintain compliance with state laws, uphold long-term planning goals, and plan for a cohesive land use pattern that repositions the southwest portion of the city as a central business center. As such, the proposed project would have no impact on State scenic highways.
The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: No impact. 2201
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 1 A E S T H ETI C S
3. 1- 14
Specific Plan
The City of Ontario is served by three freeways: I-10, I-15, and SR-60. I-10 and SR-60 traverse the northern and central portion of the City, respectively, in an east–west direction. I-15 traverses the northeastern portion of the City in a north–south direction. None of these segments are designated as scenic highways. The nearest officially designated State scenic highway is State Route 142 located approximately 5 miles west of the Specific Plan area (Caltrans 2025). The Specific Plan area is not visible from State Route 142 due to intervening topography and development. As such, the EBPSP would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. No impact would occur.
No impacts related to scenic resources within a State scenic highway were identified within the 2022 Certified EIR. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: No impact.
Impact AES-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not alter scenic resources within a State scenic highway.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant aesthetic impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
Impacts are less than significant and mitigation measures are not required. c) In nonurbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The Certified EIR concluded that while buildout in accordance with the approved project would alter the visual appearance of the City, it would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. An “urbanized area,” as defined by CEQA Section 21071, is an incorporated city that either has a population of at least 100,000 persons, 2202
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 1 A E S TH E TI C S
MA RC H 2026 3. 1- 15
or if the population of that city and not more than 2 contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR, the population of Ontario was approximately 184,404 as of 2025 (see also Table 3.14-1).
Therefore, this impact analysis addresses whether, for an urbanized area, the proposed project would conflict with zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality.
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project modifies the land-use pattern and updates related Policy Plan elements while maintaining the overall planning and regulatory framework established by the approved project.
The 2022 Certified EIR and TOP 2050 included goals and policies to ensure that new development would be compatible with the existing community (Policy LU-2.6) and would be of quality design (Policies CD-2.1 through CD-2.9). The Community Design Element includes policies to ensure that the urban environment is appealing (Policies CD 3.2, CD-3.3, and CD-3.5) and to preserve the historic neighborhood character (Policy CD-4.2). Adherence to the Land Use Element and Community Design Element policies described above would reduce visual impacts.
Additionally, the proposed project would not change any regulations for scenic quality, and future development under the proposed project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code, which, as described in Section 3.1.1, Regulatory Background, includes general development requirements for density, screening and setback, signage, landscaping, lighting, height limitations, and other aspects related to the aesthetics of the City.
The proposed project would alter the allowable type or intensity of land use on their properties as well as land use changes required to improve land use compatibility, maintain compliance with state laws, uphold long-term planning goals, and plan for a cohesive land use pattern that repositions the southwest portion of the City as a central business center. Additionally, the proposed project would include alterations to the mixed-use areas to create a new district— “District Place Type”—that would define a vision for new mixed-use areas, primarily near the ONT Field. These changes would improve land use compatibility near the Ontario Sports Empire and would not affect scenic quality within the City. Because the Policy Plan Amendment is an overriding planning document for the City, and because it is intended to improve consistency with existing regulations and conditions, the proposed project would not have a significant impact with respect to being inconsistent with policies or regulations governing scenic quality.
The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 2203
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 1 A E S T H ETI C S
3. 1- 16
Specific Plan
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15387, urban areas mean a central city or group of contiguous cities with a population of 50,000 or more, together with adjacent densely populated areas having a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile. The City encompasses 50 square miles and has a population of 184,404 (DOF 2025). As such, the potential impacts under this threshold are assessed based on whether the EBPSP would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
As part of the Policy Plan Amendment being processed in conjunction with the EBPSP, new designations would be processed for the Specific Plan area. The Policy Plan land use designation would be changed from Medium Density Residential (with an Affordable Housing Overlay) (MDR-AH), Mixed Use (with an Affordable Housing Overlay) (MU-BC-AH), and Open Space – Parkland (OS-R) to Business Park (BP) and Open Space – Parkland (OS-R). A Consistency Analysis of the Policy Plan’s Community Design Element policies was prepared and included as Table
3.11-3, EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis. As demonstrated, the Specific Plan would be consistent with the City’s policies governing scenic quality, including Policies CD1-4 and CD1-5 which require the enhancement of transportation and view corridors, Policies CD2-1, CD2-5, CD2-8, and CD2-9, which require safe and attractive architecture and design, and Policies CD5-1 and CD5-2 which address ongoing maintenance of facilities and infrastructure.
The City of Ontario’s Zoning Map designates the Specific Plan area’s zoning as Specific Plan (SP) with an Agricultural (AG) overlay and an Affordable Housing AH Overlay. Upon adoption of the EBPSP zoning of the site would become Specific Plan – EBPSP.
The Specific Plan establishes Development Regulations and Design Guidelines to guide future development within the site through regulations for architecture, lighting, signage, landscape, streetscape, and entries and monuments. The City would review and approve future development proposals for conformance with the Specific Plan and the City’s Development Code to ensure scenic quality and visually compatible development prior to issuance of building permit.
Conformance with EBPSP Development Regulations and Design Guidelines, as well as the City’s Development Code would minimize the potential for implementation of the Specific Plan to adversely affect scenic resources or result in development that would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is Less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 2204
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 1 A E S TH E TI C S
MA RC H 2026 3. 1- 17
Impact AES-3: Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant aesthetic impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
Impacts are less than significant and mitigation measures are not required. d) Would the project expose people on- or off-site to substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The Certified EIR concluded that development the approved project would result in new sources of light or glare, but with adherence to the design standards of the City of Ontario Development Code impacts were less than significant.
Sources of light and glare in the City include building lighting (interior and exterior), security lighting, sign illumination, ballfield lighting, and parking-area lighting. These sources are mostly associated with residential, commercial, and industrial uses and the larger community parks in the more developed areas of the City. Other sources of nighttime light and glare include streetlights, vehicular traffic along surrounding roadways, and ambient lighting from surrounding communities.
Policy Plan Amendment
New development would generate new sources of light and glare through increased urbanization and densification of the city, affecting day or nighttime views. Sources of light include nighttime street and building illumination, security lighting, nighttime traffic, and lighting associated with construction activities. Lighting introduced to undeveloped and open space areas has the potential to impact visual quality of the nighttime sky.
Like the approved project, the proposed project would result in additional sources of light or glare; however, the City of Ontario Development Code contains standards addressing lighting through its design policies. Adherence to the design standards of the City of Ontario Development Code would ensure that light and glare from new developments would be minimized and that significant impacts would not occur. Compared to the approved project, the proposed project does not introduce substantial new sources of light and glare, and impacts 2205
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 1 A E S T H ETI C S
3. 1- 18
would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project and this impact is less than significant. Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Specific Plan
Existing sources of artificial, exterior lighting associated with on-site uses include buildingmounted fixtures, streetlights, vehicle headlights, and lighting from surrounding developed properties.
New lighting introduced to the Specific Plan area would be subject to the requirements of the Specific Plan’s Development Regulations and Design Guidelines for lighting. In this regard, Section 6.7 of the EBPSP requires lighting to be shielded, diffused or indirect, to avoid glare to pedestrians or motorists. In addition, lighting fixtures are required to be selected and located to confine the area of illumination and minimize light spillage to surrounding properties. Lighting that could be mistaken for airport lighting in the eyes of pilots of aircraft using the nearby Chino Airport (CNO) or Ontario International Airport (ONT) would be prohibited.
Future development lighting plans would be subject to review and approval by the City’s Planning Department and Ontario Police Department (pursuant to the City’s Building Security Ordinance). Conformance with applicable glare provisions of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans for the nearby CNO and ONT would also be required prior to issuance of building permits.
With respect to glare, a majority of building materials within the Specific Plan would consist of tilt-up concrete panels. Secondary materials would include natural or fabricated stone, and fireresistant or synthetic wood siding, which are low reflective materials. Windows would be clear or lightly tinted with subtle reflectivity; highly reflective or silver-tinted glass would not be allowed. Glare effects would be further minimized by required setbacks and buffered by landscaping.
The EBPSP requires building roofs to be designed to accommodate solar photovoltaic (PV) systems. Rooftop PV panels are produced by numerous manufacturers with a variety of specifications and the exact configuration and specifications will be determined in conjunction with each building's architectural design in the future. Regardless, industry standard rooftop PV panels exhibit low reflectivity due to anti-reflective coatings and the industry objective of maximizing absorption rather than reflection. Because rooftop panels are mounted at shallow angles and generally face the sun’s path, any potential glare would be directed upward rather than horizontally toward roadways or sensitive viewers. Public vantage points are at-grade, substantially below the rooftop plane, limiting opportunities for direct reflection of glare towards sensitive receivers.
2206
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 1 A E S TH E TI C S
MA RC H 2026 3. 1- 19
Based on the preceding, implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in a significant source of light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views, and impacts would be less than significant.
The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact AES-4: Buildout of the proposed project would generate additional light and glare, which would be minimized through adherence to the City of Ontario Development Code.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant aesthetic impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
Impacts are less than significant and mitigation measures are not required.
3.1.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Proposed Project
The CEQA Guidelines define a “cumulative impact” as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). Cumulative impacts related to aesthetics would be contiguous with the City boundaries. Cumulative projects in Ontario would have the potential to result in a cumulative impact to aesthetic resources if, in combination, they would result in the removal or substantial adverse change of one or more features that contribute to the valued visual character or image of a neighborhood, community, State scenic highway, or localized area, such as a designated landmark, historic resource, trees, or rock outcropping. The land use changes of the Policy Plan Amendment are comprehensive and encompasses the land use changes associated with the EBPSP and the concurrent Zoning changes. Therefore, cumulative impacts for the proposed project are described below.
Scenic Vistas and Scenic Resources
The City of Ontario does not designate scenic vistas. Growth within the City of Ontario could affect scenic vistas and specific scenic resources. Policy CD-1.5 of TOP 2050 ensure that views of 2207
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 1 A E S T H ETI C S
3. 1- 20
the San Gabriel Mountains are preserved. Development under the proposed project would be subject to goals, policies, and regulations intended to minimize impacts associated with the proposed project to less than significant levels, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to scenic vistas and scenic resources would be less than significant.
Visual Character and Quality
Growth anticipated in Ontario would fundamentally alter the visual character and quality of certain areas. However, because development under the proposed project would be subject to goals, policies, and regulations intended to minimize visual impacts to less than significant levels, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to visual character and quality would be less than significant.
Light and Glare
The construction and operation of cumulative projects in Ontario could introduce new sources of light and glare from development and redevelopment requiring nighttime lighting—such as security lighting in commercial areas—or from buildings constructed with reflective materials like large expanses of glass. Glare impacts are typically localized and not cumulative in nature; therefore, a significant cumulative impact related to glare would not occur. Furthermore, development under the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Development Code, which includes standards to minimize lighting impacts. As a result, light and glare impacts associated with the proposed project would be reduced to less than significant levels, and the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Impacts of the proposed project would be less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Cumulative Impacts: The proposed project’s contribution to cumulative aesthetic impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
3.1.7 References
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2008. Scenic Highway Guidelines.
Caltrans. 2025, November 10 (accessed). California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057 116f1aacaa.
2208
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 1 A E S TH E TI C S
MA RC H 2026 3. 1- 21
DOF (California Department of Finance). 2025. E-5 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020–2025. https://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics /Estimates/e-5/.
ELMT Consulting. 2025. Biological Resources Assessment for the Proposed Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan Located in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. ELMT Consulting.
Ontario, City of. 2022. The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364. https://www.ontarioplan.org/environmental-impact-report/. 2209
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 1 A E S T H ETI C S
3. 1- 22
This page intentionally left blank.
2210
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .2 -1
3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Report (SEIR) discusses the potential impacts from the loss of agricultural resources associated with TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP (proposed project) compared to the TOP 2050 (approved project) and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
There were several comment letters received in response to the NOP related to Agricultural, Forestry Resources. The relevant issues raised in those comment letters are addressed throughout this section. For a summary of the comment letters, refer to Table 1-1 in Chapter 1, Introduction, or see Appendix A for the full comment letters.
3.2.1 Regulatory Framework
STATE
California General Plan Law
The California Government Code (Section 65302(d)) requires the general plan to include an open space and conservation element for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources—including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources. The conservation element must consider the effect of development on natural resources that are on public lands.
In October 2017, the state legislature passed SB 732, which authorizes a city to develop an agricultural land component of the open space element or a separate agricultural element in its general plan. For local governments that choose this option, the bill authorizes the Department of Conservation (DOC) to award grants, bond proceeds, and other assistance provided the element meets certain requirements.
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The California Natural Resources Agency is charged with restoring, protecting, and maintaining the State’s natural, cultural, and historical resources. Within it, the California DOC provides technical services and information to promote informed land use decisions and sound management of the State’s natural resources. DOC manages the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, which supports agriculture throughout California by developing maps and statistical data for analyzing land use impacts to farmland. About every 2 years, the program publishes a field report for each county in the state. The field report categorizes land by agricultural production potential and according to the following classifications:
2211
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 2
Prime Farmland has the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term agricultural production. Prime Farmland has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agriculture production at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date.
Farmland of Statewide Importance is similar to Prime Farmland, but with minor shortcomings, such as steeper slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date.
Unique Farmland consists of lesser quality soils used for the production of the State’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been farmed at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date.
Farmland of Local Importance includes all farmable land not meeting the definitions of “prime farmland,” “farmland of statewide importance,” and “unique farmland.” This includes land that is or has been used for irrigated pasture, dryland farming, confined livestock or dairy facilities, aquaculture, poultry facilities, and dry grazing. It also includes lands previously designated by soil characteristics as “prime farmland,” “farmland of statewide importance,” and “unique farmland” that has since become idle.
Grazing Land is the land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock.
Confined Animal Agriculture lands include poultry facilities, feedlots, dairy facilities, and fish farms. In some counties, confined animal agriculture is a component of the farmland of local importance category.
Nonagricultural and Natural Vegetation includes heavily wooded, rocky, or barren areas; riparian and wetland areas; grassland areas that do not qualify for grazing land due to their size or land management restrictions; small water bodies; and recreational water ski lakes.
Constructed wetlands are also included in this category.
Semi-Agricultural and Rural Commercial Land includes farmstead, agricultural storage and packing sheds, unpaved parking areas, composting facilities, equine facilities, firewood lots, and campgrounds.
Vacant or Disturbed Land includes open field areas that do not qualify for an agricultural category, mineral and oil extraction areas, off road vehicle areas, electrical substations, channelized canals, and rural freeway interchanges.
Rural Residential Land includes residential areas of one to five structures per 10 acres. ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2212
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .2 A GR IC ULT U RE A N D FO RE STRY RES O URCE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .2 -3
Urban and Built-Up Land is occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit per 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. Common examples include residential structures, industrial structures, commercial structures, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment structures, and water control structures.
Water is used to describe perennial water bodies with an extent of at least 40 acres.
California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act)
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, known as the Williamson Act, conserves agricultural and open space lands through property tax incentives and voluntary restrictive land use contracts administered by local governments under State regulations. Private landowners voluntarily restrict their land to agricultural and compatible open space uses under minimum 10-year rolling term contracts, with counties and cities also acting voluntarily. In return, restricted parcels are assessed for property tax purposes at a rate consistent with their actual use, rather than potential market value. Nonrenewal status is applied to Williamson Act contracts that are within the 9-year termination process, during which the annual tax assessment for the property gradually increases.
Forestland and Timberland Protection
State regulations such as the Forest Taxation Reform Act of 1976 and the Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 (California Forest Practice Act) provide for the preservation of forest lands from encroachment by other, incompatible land uses and for oversight of the management of forest practices and forest resources.
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) defines “forest land” for the purposes of CEQA.
According to the Code, “forest land” is land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, waterquality, recreation, and other public benefits.
Government Code Section 51104(g)
The California Timberland Productivity Act of 1982, like the Land Conservation Act, was passed to encourage the production of timber resources. Government Code Section 51104(g) defines “Timber,” “Timberland,” and “Timberland Production Zone” for the purposes of CEQA and “Timberland Preserve Zone,” which may be used in city and county general plans. ■
■
2213
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 4
“Timber” means trees of any species maintained for eventual harvest for forest production purposes, whether planted or of natural growth, standing or down, on privately or publicly owned land, including Christmas trees, but does not mean nursery stock. “Timberland” means privately owned land, or land acquired for State forest purposes, which is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses, and which is capable of growing an average annual volume of wood fiber of at least 15 cubic feet per acre. “Timberland Production Zone” or “TPZ” means an area which has been zoned pursuant to Section 51112 or 51113 and is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses, as defined in subdivision (h). With respect to the general plans of cities and counties, “Timberland Preserve Zone” means “Timberland Production Zone.”
County boards of supervisors may designate areas of timberland preserve, referred to as Timberland Production Zones, which restrict the land’s use to the production of timber for an initial 10-year term in return for lower property taxes.
REGIONAL
San Bernardino County Policy Plan
The San Bernardino Countywide Plan (Policy Plan) contains goals and policies to support agricultural uses. The Natural Resources Element includes policies to preserve important farmlands; encourage compatible agricultural uses; work with agencies to reduce soil erosion, improve soil quality, and address pest management; and encourage the conservation of forestlands and natural habitats in the county. Other policies encourage viable agricultural uses through land use regulation, Williamson Act contracts, tax incentive programs, and other land use programs (San Bernardino County 2020).
LOCAL
City of Ontario Municipal Code
The City of Ontario Municipal Code contains regulations pertaining to agricultural resources in the City, including:
Ontario Development Code, Chapter 5, Zoning and Land Use, Division 5.01.005, Establishment of Base Zoning Districts, Section F, Overlay Zoning Districts. The purpose of the AG (Agriculture) Overlay Zoning District is to accommodate the continuation of agricultural uses in 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. ■
■
■
■
2214
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .2 A GR IC ULT U RE A N D FO RE STRY RES O URCE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .2 -5
3.2.2 Existing Condition
POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
Regional Agriculture and Farmland
Table 3.2-1, San Bernardino County 2016–2018 Farmland Conversion, presents information from the 2018 California Farmland Conversion Report summarizing farmland conversion in San Bernardino County.
Table 3.2-1 San Bernardino County 2016–2018 Farmland Conversion Land Use Category
2016
Acreage
2018
Acreage
Acres
Lost
Acres
Gained
Net
Acreage
Changed
Prime Farmland 11,323 10,887 770 334 -436
Farmland of Statewide Importance 5,770 5,568 453 251 -202 Unique Farmland 2,738 2,700 67 29 -38
Farmland of Local Importance 561 546 12 0 -12
Important Farmland Subtotal 20,392 19,704 1,302 614 -688 Grazing Land 898,633 897,398 2,230 995 -1,235
Agricultural Land Subtotal 919,025 917,102 3,532 1,609 -1,923 DOC 2016.
Between 2016 and 2018, the latest data available from the California DOC, the County of San Bernardino experienced a net loss of 688 acres (20,392 acres to 19,704 acres) of Important Farmland and an increase of 2,027 acres of new Urban and Built-Up land (DOC 2018). Generally, agricultural land is in decline because more-stringent environmental regulations are causing dairies to relocate out of the region, resulting in a continued decline in the long-term viability of agricultural operations in southern Ontario. Land uses surrounding the City mostly support residential, commercial, and industrial uses, with minimal agricultural land parcels dispersed intermittently.
Local Agriculture and Farmland
Table 3.2-2, Existing Farmland in Ontario, presents information from the latest California DOC Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program for farmland in the City of Ontario. Existing 2215
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 6
farmland in Ontario is shown on Figure 3.2-1, Important Farmland. There are 7,513 acres of farmland remaining in Ontario.
Table 3.2-2 Existing Farmland in Ontario
Land Use Category Acres
Prime Farmland 1,688.36
Farmland of Statewide Importance 45.76
Unique Farmland 261.81
Farmland of Local Importance 0
Grazing Land 700.04
Other Land 4,816.88
Total Farmland in Ontario 7,512.85
Source: DOC 2020.
Original Model Colony
Historically, the northern portion of the City was farmed with grapes, citrus, olives, and other fruit tree crops; however, the Original Model Colony (OMC) has mostly replaced agricultural land uses with residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Limited agriculture land uses are currently permitted in areas zoned for Residential-Agricultural (AR), Residential Estate (RE), Public Facility (PF), Open Space (OS), Commercial (C-1 to C-4), and Industrial (M1 to M3) land uses, though these zoning designations are not intended for large-scale farming/agricultural operations. As shown in Figure 3.2-1, very little farmland remains in the OMC.
Ontario Ranch
The Ontario Ranch area covers 8,200 acres of the former 14,000-acre San Bernardino Agricultural Preserve, which was historically used for dairy or cattle farming. The Agricultural Preserve was divided and incorporated into the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, and Ontario in 1999, and the City of Ontario named its portion the “New Model Colony” (now Ontario Ranch). Until the mid-1990s, southern Ontario was part of the San Bernardino County Dairy Preserve.
The change of land use from agricultural to nonagricultural has mostly been due to increasing population, which has put pressure on cities in southern California to turn Important Farmland into uses that would support residential, economic, and employment needs. Dairies and farms in Ontario have also found that they are outcompeted by dairies and farms in the Central Valley, so they have either converted their land to more productive, nonagricultural uses or they have left Ontario for the Central Valley.
2216
L-.j
/ I =
w
l
~
z CITY OF ~ z MONTCLAIR ~
z
W FOURTH ST
CITY OF
UPLAND
w
> <
0 z
0 1-
z
<
i= z z
::i: W G ST ~ 1-
z z ::>
0 W DST ~
z
W MISSION BLVD
w
> <
z W PHILLIPS ST
<{
1-
z
::>
0 ~
V,
CITY OF CHINO
w
~
Q
z
0 1-
z
<
z
<
V,
w
> <
0 ..;
u
::>
UJ
z
l
I
■
I
I
w
> <
<
z
..;
~
::>
V,
z
w
~
<
z
13 ::>
V,
V,
w
> <
V,
::>
Cl.
~
< u
z
w
> <
V,
::> "'
~
<
u
V,
r .. , .. e .. E IG HToH-s;r-,,
w
> <(
w
> 0
a::
I.!)
z
E G ST
E HOLT AVE
E PHll:ADELPHIA ST
E SCHAEFER AVE
-.:ISON AVE
w
> <
0 a::
~ w
z
>
z
w
~
0 a::
~ w
z
>
V,
IW.l_ .._.!lffl, •. _!_ .. _,
w
~
0 ..;
< !!2
:i:
\:I
a::
<(
z
w
> <
a::
w
z
a::
::>
Iv,
E
w
> <(
CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
l
..:,
I
:> <(
I
a::
u:,
z
~ <(
ON-JARIO fl:ANCH RD ~
.. ,
•I I ~ J .. ~·· EASTVALE _.,,.,,. .. .,,..,,,.
E INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
E SANTA ANA ST
!
_ .. J
I
I
GllY OF
FONTANA
County of Riverside
JURUPA VALLEY
3.2 AGRICULTURAL & FORESTRY RESOURCES
Figure 3.2-1
Important Farmland
c::J EBPSP Boundary
I.. ··1 Ontario City Boundary
I.. ··1 County Boundary
Developed Land
.. Prime Farmland
Farmland of Local Importance
Farmland of Statewide Importance
Grazing Land
Unique Farmland
Other Land
2 · 0 · 5·0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
ft ._______. FT
• I' O 2,500 5,000 10,000
Source: CADOC (Dept of Conservation) 2020 Dale: 12/10/2025 2217
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 8
This page intentionally left blank.
2218
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .2 A GR IC ULT U RE A N D FO RE STRY RES O URCE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .2 -9
Agricultural Preserve Lands
In 1988, California voters approved Proposition 70, which allocated $20 million to San Bernardino County for the permanent acquisition and preservation of agricultural lands in the Chino Agricultural Preserve. The County used these funds to purchase 366.55 acres across 9 nonadjacent parcels in the Chino Agricultural Preserve, which included parcels in what is now Ontario Ranch. The Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation (SCALF) managed 200 acres of farmland within Ontario Ranch through a 1988 Park Bond Act with San Bernardino County. In 2010, Senate Bill 1124 was passed and allowed San Bernardino County to sell or exchange the properties as long as the proceeds were used to purchase replacement property for agricultural preservation, community gardens, or wildlife habitat. The City of Ontario is not a participant in the San Bernardino County Proposition 70 implementation. The County of San Bernardino deed restrictions remain in effect until either a conservation easement is recorded or until the County of San Bernardino sells or exchanges the property.
Purchase of Agricultural Easements Programs
Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement (PACE) programs compensate property owners for keeping their land available for agriculture. Typically, PACE programs consider soil quality, threat of development, and future agricultural viability when selecting farms for protection.
They are usually administered by state or local governments but may also be operated by private conservation organizations.
The City of Ontario and San Bernardino County do not currently operate a PACE program for loss of farmland in the City or County. City of Ontario Resolution No. 2010-003, adopted by the City on January 27, 2010, found that that the replacement of agricultural resources off-site, including via establishment of conservation easements or preserves, would, given the lack of viability of such mitigation in the City, only be possible in parcels in another part of the state.
The Resolution found that “such distant mitigation would not reduce impacts because these mitigation parcels could have no bearing or relationship on the loss of agricultural lands within the City and this mitigation strategy would cause no net change in Important Farmland conversion within the state because new Important Farmland cannot be created.” California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act)
The Ontario Ranch has areas that are currently agriculture preserves under contract with San Bernardino County through the Williamson Act of 1965 (see Table 3.2-3, Remaining Agricultural Preserves in Ontario). The preservation of agricultural land through Williamson Act contracts today in Ontario is meant to discourage premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses.
Once the Ontario Ranch annexed to the City, the City of Ontario became the administrating entity for the Williamson Act contracts. Under the Act, either the landowner or the planning jurisdiction (the City) has the ability to submit the property for nonrenewal. Property owners in this area with Williamson Act contracts have filed for nonrenewal because of the declining 2219
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 1 0
profits from agriculture in the area and the potential development of these lands with nonagricultural uses. Current nonrenewed contracts would expire between 2027 and 2033.
Current Williamson Act areas in the City of Ontario are shown in Figure 3.2-2, Williamson Act Lands. Table 3.2-3 Remaining Agricultural Preserves in Ontario Land Use Category Acres
Active 308.24
Expires 2027 275.5
Expires 2028 93.4
Expires 2033 23.2
Total 700.34
Source: Ontario 2025.
Forest Land and Timberland
The City of Ontario contains no forest land or timberland that could fall under the definition of forest land per California Public Resource Code Section 12220(g).
SPECIFIC PLAN
Agricultural Resources
The existing zoning of the site is EBPSP with an Agricultural Overlay and Affordable Housing Overlay, indicating the site’s anticipated transition to urban uses. Under existing conditions, the majority of the Specific Plan area supports remnant pasture crop fields and cattle stockyards, residences, and inactive agricultural land. None of the Specific Plan parcels are San Bernardino County Agricultural Preserve Lands.
The majority of the Specific Plan area (170.72 acres) is mapped as “other land,” but small portions of grazing land (11.62 acres), and Prime Farmland (6.6 acres) are located on-site (DOC 2022). Please refer to Figure 3.2-3, EBPSP Farmland Map. Two parcels within the Specific Plan area have an active Williamson Act contract in place (APNs: 0216-231-01 and 0216-321-07).
Forestry and Timberland Resources
The City of Ontario does not contain forest land or timberland. The Specific Plan area is not zoned for forestry uses, nor is any on-site vegetation associated with forest land. Therefore, there are no forest or timberland resources within the Specific Plan area. 2220
L_ .. l
/ ' =
w
I
1 z CITY OF 0 V't
MONTCLAIR ~ I
z
!
I
CITY OF
UPLAND
w
> <(
W FOURTH ST o
z
0 w ~ ~ <(
z z
:;j: W G ST ;;; >-
z
::,
O W DST ~
z
z
l- ul •• ~ W MISSION BLVD
J 7w w
: > ::c L- j'. z W PHILLIPS ST
-··r· .. -z ~ ~ z z ::, w 0
: 'f ~
_,._J f "' ~ >-
J i
w
::c
~ W PHILADELPHIA ST ~
~-" ··~
w
~
0 ::::i
u
::>
w
z
w
> <(
<(
z
~ ....,
::>
V't
z
LU
~
<(
z
13 ::,
V,
V,
w
> <(
V't
::,
"-
~
<(
u
z
w
::c
V,
::>
"-
~ <(
u
V't
LU
~
w
>
0 a:
Cl
... E-EIGHT-H-Sil°-"~ ..
LU
~
\ ~\
CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
0 a:
~ UJ
z l,,_,, _E-f©l!JR;T,H-SiT•••-••-u-••
E G ST
E D ST
E HOLT AVE
E PHILADELPHIA ST
>
z
LU
~
0 a:
~ w
z
>
V't
w
> <(
0 ....,
<(
Q'.l
::c
1:1
a:
<(
z
w
~
.., ~
~
3 w ~
> z <(
z
w
> <(
::c
z
I
~ .. J
I
I
w
::c
~ tel
E INLAND EMPIRE BLVD z
~
E JURl!IPA ST
w
> <(
----= ,:::4i~ld!i:l:--- ~ I
z
I
I
E SANTA ANA ST 1
LU
::c
~ CITY OF
i FONTANA z
<(
~
i;::
w
t
I I County of = San Bernardino ,._,,__,,,_,,___J __ ,,_ , County of Riverside
---==( 60 '.----- .. -----&aair----+~~-----====-=------------~-====;o---
CITY OF CHINO
LU
> 0
a:
(!)
• V,
E EDISON AVE
E RIVERSIDE DR
E CHINO AVE
0 < Q'.l
i:
u
a:
<(
V't
a:
w
z
a:
::,
>-
V't
z
UJ
~ ::c
"'
I
w
I
>
<(
11 a:
w
z
~
ONTARIO RANCH RD ~ 'I
•
I
.. J ~··..,.,,,,,- EASTVALE
L ,,_,,_,,_M,~Rll .... VE-.. ---"l _ _,.,,,,.--·
L~
_,,,,,,,,-··
JURUPA VALLEY
3.2 AGRICULTURAL & FORESTRY RESOURCES
Figure 3.2-2
Williamson Act Land
c:::J EBPSP Boundary
I.. "I Ontario City Boundary
[. "I County Boundary
Parcels with Williamson Act Contract
Expires
Active
1111 2027
2028
1111 2033
2·0·5·0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 0 2,500
Source: City of Ontario, 2025
5,000
FT
10,000
Dale: 12/10/2025
2221
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 1 2
This page intentionally left blank.
2222
•• ' r
• , r •
3.2 AGRICULTURAL & FORESTRY RESOURCES
Figure 3.2-3
EBPSP Farmland Map
D EBPSP Boundary
2 · 0 · 5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPP L EMENTAL EIR
·8 ~o Feet
Source: T&B 2026 Date: 03/03/2026
2223
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 1 4
This page intentionally left blank.
2224
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .2 A GR IC ULT U RE A N D FO RE STRY RES O URCE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.2 -15
3.2.3 Standards for Analysis
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that,
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
The proposed project would result in a significant impact to agricultural and forestry resources if it would:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)).
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
2225
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 1 6
METHODOLOGY
Documentation of current area conditions as well as maps available from the Department of Conservation (California Important Farmland Finder) and the City of Ontario (Zoning Map, Status of Williamson Act Contracts Map) were reviewed to assess the potential impacts to agriculture and forestry resources.
3.2.4 Relevant New and Modified General Plan Policies
The proposed project includes modifications to the following TOP 2050 policy for agricultural resources.
ER-5.4 Transition of Farms. We protect both existing farms and sensitive uses around them as agricultural areas transition to urban uses. When uses transition from agricultural to urban uses, we do not require replacement farmland, nor do we require the dedication or preservation of agricultural land outside of our city.
3.2.5 Environmental Impacts
2022 CERTIFIED EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not result in impacts to agricultural or forest resources. The approved project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural use because the City no longer designates land for agricultural use under TOP 2050. Similarly, the approved project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use or land under Williamson Act contracts because remaining contracts would still be subject to expiration or cancellation before development. The approved project would not conflict with zoning for forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production Zones, and no such designations exist in the City. Additionally, the approved project would not indirectly induce the conversion of farmland or forest land outside the City. In summary, the Certified EIR concluded that impacts to agricultural and forest resources would either result in no impact or remain less than significant. ■
2226
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .2 A GR IC ULT U RE A N D FO RE STRY RES O URCE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.2 -17
PROPOSED PROJECT
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
The 2022 Certified EIR concluded that the City of Ontario’s land use plan no longer designates agricultural land uses in the City; therefore, TOP 2050 would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural uses and would have no impact on land zoned for the purpose of agricultural uses. The 2010 Ontario Plan Certified EIR concluded that buildout of the City would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance because it converted all of the then-existing land under these categories to residential, commercial, mixed-use, and industrial land uses (Ontario 2010). Existing agricultural uses have been allowed to persist as nonconforming uses.
Policy Plan Amendment
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the Draft SEIR evaluates the potential impacts from the change in land use designations and policies of the current TOP 2050 compared to the Policy Plan Amendment. Consistent with the TOP 2050, the City of Ontario no longer designates agricultural land uses within the City. While there is currently agricultural use in the Ontario Ranch, the planning framework to convert the land to nonagricultural land already occurred as a result of adoption of the current TOP 2050 in 2010, and prior to that as a result of annexation of the New Model Colony in 1999 from the County of San Bernardino. The proposed project would not result in any additional conversion of agricultural land in Ontario compared to the approved project.
The proposed project would redesignate land currently designated for residential to business park, increase residential densities, and allow mixed uses within developed areas, primarily on land in Ontario Ranch that is currently used for agricultural purposes. In addition, new mixeduse designations would be added for land surrounding the Ontario Sports Empire to align with recreational uses currently under development. Although the proposed project would increase residential densities and allow mixed uses in areas currently used for agricultural purposes and designated as Prime Farmland within the City, the land use plan no longer designates agricultural land uses and would not convert land from Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural uses. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on land zoned for agricultural purposes, and this impact would be less than significant.
2227
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 1 8
Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Specific Plan
As shown in Figure 3.2-3, the majority of the Specific Plan area (170.72 acres) is mapped as “other land,” but small areas of grazing land (11.62 acres) and Prime Farmland (6.6 acres) are located on-site (DOC 2022). The City of Ontario no longer has land designated for agricultural use. The 2010 Ontario Plan Certified EIR concluded that buildout of the City would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance because it converted all of the then-existing land under these categories to residential, commercial, mixed-use, and industrial land uses (Ontario 2010). Subsequently, the 2022 Certified EIR concluded that, because the City of Ontario’s land use plan no longer designates agricultural land uses, TOP 2050 would not result in farmland impacts that were not previously disclosed. On this basis, the 2022 Certified EIR concluded that no impacts to farmland would result. Existing agricultural uses have been allowed to persist as nonconforming uses. The City adopted the Agricultural Overlay Zoning District in Section 9-1.2700 of the Ontario Municipal Code and Section 6.01.035.C.1 of the Development Code, which allows for the continuation of agricultural uses until development is approved for the Ontario Ranch subareas.
Impacts associated with the loss of farmland within the City were previously analyzed and disclosed as part of the 2010 Certified EIR. The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify further impacts regarding farmland. Similarly, implementation of the EBPSP, including the conversion of grazing land and Prime Farmland to a non-agricultural use, would not result in impacts not already previously disclosed. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact AGF-1: The proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance in Ontario to nonagricultural use.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant agricultural and forestry impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. The 2010 Certified EIR found that overall continuation of agriculture in Ontario Ranch is likely not feasible given the social pressures on these areas to meet the increasing population, and also because agricultural uses in this area are being driven out by competition from operations in other sectors. In addition, 2228
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .2 A GR IC ULT U RE A N D FO RE STRY RES O URCE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.2 -19
many of the support services that dairies rely on, including feed/hay for the cattle, have also closed.
New Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the proposed project, including the conversion of grazing land and Prime Farmland to a non-agricultural use, would not result in impacts not already previously disclosed.
No mitigation is required.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
The 2022 Certified EIR determined that buildout of the approved project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts within the City. The 2022 Certified EIR would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands, impacts would be less than significant.
Policy Plan Amendment
The City of Ontario no longer designates agricultural land uses in the City. There are existing Williamson Act contracts in the City, as shown in Figure 3-2.2, and any land held in a Williamson Act contract would have to be filed for nonrenewal, and the contract would have to be allowed to expire before any development occurs on it. Because buildout of the proposed project would result in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, consistent with the approved project, the proposed project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands.
Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant Specific Plan
Two parcels within the Specific Plan area have an active Williamson Act contract in place (APNs:
0216-231-01 and 0216-321-07). An application to cancel the contract is required to be submitted to the City. The existing zoning of the site is Specific Plan with an Agricultural Overlay and Affordable Housing Overlay. The Agricultural Overlay was developed to allow for the continuation of agricultural uses until development is approved for the Ontario Ranch subareas.
Eventual removal of the Agricultural Overlay was anticipated in the 2022 Certified EIR.
As such, the EBPSP would not result in impacts not already previously disclosed. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. 2229
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 2 0
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact AGF-2: The proposed project would not result in conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant impacts, and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No mitigation is required.
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
The 2022 Certified EIR determined there are no land use designations or zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production in the City of Ontario, and impacts were less than significant.
Policy Plan Amendment
Consistent with the 2022 Certified EIR, there are no land use designations or zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production in the City of Ontario.
Consequently, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, there is no land in Ontario that would be considered forest land. Consequently, implementation of the proposed project would not result in loss or conversion of timberland to non-forest uses, and no impact would occur. The proposed project would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.
Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: No impact Specific Plan
There are no land use designations or zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production in the City of Ontario. The existing zoning of the site is Specific Plan with 2230
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .2 A GR IC ULT U RE A N D FO RE STRY RES O URCE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.2 -21
an Agricultural Overlay and Affordable Housing Overlay. The EBPSP would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland production. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Similarly, the 2022 Certified EIR did not identify any impacts regarding conflicts with zoning for forest land or timberland related uses. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: No impact Impact AGF-3: The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant agriculture and forestry impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No mitigation is required. d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? The 2022 Certified EIR determined that there are no land use designations or zoning for forest land in the City of Ontario and there were no impacts.
Policy Plan Amendment
Consistent with the Certified EIR, there are no land use designations or zoning for forest land in the City of Ontario. Consequently, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land. There is no land in Ontario that would be considered forest land and implementation of the proposed project would not result in loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. No impact would occur. The proposed project would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.
Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: No impact. 2231
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 2 2
Specific Plan
The City of Ontario does not contain any forest land or timberland that could fall under the definition of forest land per California Public Resource Code Section 12220(g). As such, no forestry resources are located within the Specific Plan area or in the immediate vicinity. The EBPSP would have no impact in this regard.
Similarly, the 2022 Certified EIR did not identify any impacts regarding the loss or conversion of forest land. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: No impact.
Impact AGF-4: No forest land would be affected by the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
No forest land would be affected by the proposed project. No mitigation is required. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The 2022 Certified EIR concluded that because the City of Ontario’s land use plan no longer designates agricultural land uses in the City, the TOP 2050 would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural uses and would have no impact on land zoned for the purpose of agricultural uses.
The 2022 Certified EIR determined that there are no land use designations or zoning for forest land in the City of Ontario and there were no impacts.
Policy Plan Amendment
Consistent with the 2010 TOP and the TOP 2050, the City of Ontario no longer designates agricultural land uses. While the proposed project would redesignate some areas currently used for agricultural activities, these sites are not zoned or designated for agricultural purposes. 2232
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .2 A GR IC ULT U RE A N D FO RE STRY RES O URCE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.2 -23
Accordingly, the proposed project would not result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses, and this impact would be less than significant. Similarly, TOP 2050 does not identify any land use designations or zoning for forest land within the City. As a result, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land.
Because no forest land exists within the City of Ontario, the proposed project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses, and this impact would be less than significant. The proposed project will not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.
Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant Specific Plan
Although the majority of the Specific Plan area is currently used for agricultural purposes, the zoning of the site is Specific Plan, denoting the site’s eventual transition to more urban uses. All former agriculture areas in the City are now designated for nonagricultural uses. As previously discussed, impacts associated with the conversion of agricultural areas were disclosed as part of the 2010 Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report. The 2010 Certified EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources because buildout would result in all agricultural areas being converted to nonagricultural uses, and because buildout would lead to cancellation or expiration of Williamson Act contracts (Ontario 2010).
Since impacts were analyzed and disclosed as part of the 2010 Certified EIR, the 2022 Certified EIR did not identify any further impacts related to the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and concluded that impacts would be less than significant. EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.
There is no forest land located within the City; therefore, the Specific Plan would not result in conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant 2233
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 2 4
Impact AGF-5: The proposed project would not involve other changes that would result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use that have not been previously disclosed.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant agricultural or forestry resource impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not involve other changes that would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use that have not been previously disclosed. No mitigation is required.
3.2.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Proposed Project
The land use changes of the Policy Plan Amendment are comprehensive and encompasses the land use changes associated with the EBPSP and the concurrent Zoning changes. Therefore, cumulative impacts for the proposed project are described below.
Mapped Important Farmland, Williamson Act Contracts, and Agricultural Zoning The 2022 Certified EIR determined that cumulative impacts related to agricultural resources would be less than significant since impacts would not exceed those already discussed in the previous document. Since the City of Ontario no longer includes agricultural zoning, implementation of the proposed project would not result in agricultural resource impacts that would combine with impacts in San Bernardino County to result in significant, cumulative impacts. Similarly, although the EBPSP would result in the conversion of 6.6 acres of Prime Farmland and the cancellation of a Williamson Act contract, impacts would not be new or more severe than those previously disclosed. As such, as determined by the 2022 Certified EIR, these impacts are not considered cumulatively considerable.
Forest Resources
The City of Ontario does not have any forest resources or timberland; therefore, no significant cumulative impact to forest resources would occur, and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. 2234
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .2 A GR IC ULT U RE A N D FO RE STRY RES O URCE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.2 -25
Cumulative Impacts: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant cumulative impacts to agricultural and forestry resources.
3.2.7 References
DOC (Department of Conservation). 2018. San Bernardino South 2018 Important Farmland Map.
DOC. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.
DOC. (2025). Williamson Act Enrollment Finder.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/.
Ontario, City of. 2010. The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report. SCH 2008101140.
Ontario, City of. 2022. TOP 2050 Draft Supplemental EIR. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf.
Ontario, City of. 2023. Williamson Act Status Map. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/ files/2025-01/williamson_act%20status%20map%20Dec%202023.pdf. 2235
ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR
CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 2 6
This page intentionally left blank.
2236
ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 1
3.3 AIR QUALITY
This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) evaluates the potential for the TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP (proposed project) to impact air quality in comparison to the current TOP (approved project) and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. This evaluation is based on the methodology recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). The analysis focuses on air pollution from regional emissions and localized pollutant concentrations.
Criteria air pollutant emissions modeling for the Policy Plan Amendment is in Appendix C1. The operational HRA for changes to the City’s truck routes is Appendix C2. The analysis for the EBPSP is based on the EBPSP Air Quality Technical Study in Appendix C3 and the EBPSP Health Risk Assessment in Appendix C4 of this SEIR.
Two comment letters were received in response to the NOP related to air quality impacts. The relevant issues raised in those comment letters are addressed throughout this section. For a summary of the comment letters, refer to Table 1-1 in Chapter 1, Introduction, or see Appendix A for the complete comment letters.
Terminology
The following are definitions for terms used throughout this section.
AAQS: Ambient Air Quality Standards that define clean air, established to protect the health of sensitive communities.
CES: CalEnviroScreen, a mapping tool that helps identify the California communities most affected by many sources of pollution, and where people are often especially vulnerable to pollution’s effects.
Concentrations: The amount of pollutant material per volumetric unit of air. Concentrations are measured in parts per million (ppm), parts per billion (ppb), or micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3
).
Criteria Air Pollutants: Those air pollutants specifically identified for control under the Federal Clean Air Act (currently six: carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, lead, sulfur oxides, ozone, and particulates).
DPM: Diesel particulate matter, exhaust from trucks, buses, trains, ships, and other equipment with diesel engines, containing a mixture of gases and solid particles.
Emissions: The actual quantity of pollutant, measured in pounds per day or tons per year. ppm: Parts per million.
Sensitive receptor: Land uses that are considered more sensitive to air pollution compared to others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. These land uses include residential, retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2237
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 2
TAC: Toxic air contaminant.
µg/m3: Micrograms per cubic meter.
VMT: Vehicle miles traveled.
CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS
The pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are categorized as primary and/or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources.
Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gasses (ROG)/volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, SO2, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), PM10, and PM2.5 are “criteria air pollutants,” which means that ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established for them. ROG and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors that form secondary criteria air pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone (O3) and NO2 are the principal secondary pollutants.
Each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and its known health effects are described below.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. CO is a primary criteria air pollutant. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during winter mornings with little to no wind, when surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines and motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), the highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near traffic-congested corridors and intersections. The primary adverse health effect associated with CO is interference with normal oxygen transfer to the blood, which may result in tissue oxygen deprivation (South Coast AQMD 2005, 2022; USEPA 2025a). The SoCAB is designated as being in attainment under the California AAQS and attainment (serious maintenance)1 under the National AAQS
(CARB 2025a).
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG)/Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) are composed primarily of hydrogen and carbon atoms. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of ROGs. Other sources include evaporative emissions from paints and solvents, asphalt paving, and household consumer products such as aerosols (South Coast AQMD 2005). There are no AAQS for ROGs; however, because they contribute to the 1 A maintenance area refers to a previously nonattainment area that has been redesignated to “maintenance” after it meets the standards and additional redesignation requirements in the Clean Air Act (Section 107(d)(3)(E)). ■
■
■
■
■
2238
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 3
formation of O3, South Coast AQMD has established a significance threshold (South Coast AQMD 2023a). The health effects for ozone are described later in this section.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) are a by-product of fuel combustion and contribute to the formation of ground-level O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The two major forms of NOX are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure.
The principal form of NOX produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts quickly with oxygen to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOX. NO2 is an acute irritant and more injurious than NO in equal concentrations. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially irritating. NO2 absorbs blue light; the result is a brownishred cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. NO2 exposure concentrations near roadways are of particular concern for susceptible individuals, including asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Current scientific evidence links short-term NO2 exposures, ranging from 30 minutes to 24 hours, with adverse respiratory effects, including airway inflammation in healthy people and increased respiratory symptoms in people with asthma.
Also, studies show a connection between elevated short-term NO2 concentrations and increased visits to emergency departments and hospital admissions for respiratory issues, especially asthma (South Coast AQMD 2005, 2022; USEPA 2025a). The SoCAB is designated in attainment (maintenance) under the National AAQS and attainment under the California AAQS (CARB 2025a).
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of sulfurous fossil fuels. It enters the atmosphere as a result of burning high-sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and chemical processes at plants and refineries. Gasoline and natural gas have very low sulfur content and do not release significant quantities of SO2. When sulfur dioxide forms sulfates (SO4) in the atmosphere, together these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX). Thus, SO2 is both a primary and secondary criteria air pollutant. At sufficiently high concentrations, SO2 may irritate the upper respiratory tract. Current scientific evidence links short-term exposures to SO2, ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours, with an array of adverse respiratory effects, including bronchoconstriction and increased asthma symptoms.
These effects are particularly adverse for asthmatics at elevated ventilation rates (e.g., while exercising or playing) at lower concentrations, and when combined with particulates, SO2 may do greater harm by injuring lung tissue. Studies also show a connection between shortterm exposure and increased visits to emergency facilities and hospital admissions for respiratory illnesses, particularly in at-risk populations such as children, the elderly, and asthmatics (South Coast AQMD 2005, 2022; USEPA 2025a). The SoCAB is designated as attainment under the California and National AAQS (CARB 2025a).
Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized and regulated. Inhalable coarse particles, or PM10, include particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10
particles, or PM2.5, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less ■
■
■
microns or less (i.e., s0.01 millimeter). lnhalable fine 2239
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 4
(i.e., millimeter). Particulate discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. Both PM10 and PM2.5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems. The US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) scientific review concluded that PM2.5, which penetrates deeply into the lungs, is more likely than PM10 to contribute to health effects and at far lower concentrations. These health effects include premature death in people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms (e.g., irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing) (South Coast AQMD 2005, 2022). There has been emerging evidence that ultrafine particulates, which are even smaller particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of <0.1 microns or less (i.e., millimeter) have human health implications because their toxic components may initiate or facilitate biological processes that may lead to adverse effects to the heart, lungs, and other organs (South Coast AQMD 2022). The EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have not adopted AAQS to regulate these particulates. Diesel particulate matter is classified by CARB as a carcinogen (CARB 1999, 2023d). Particulate matter can also cause environmental effects such as visibility impairment, 2 environmental damage, 3 and aesthetic
damage4
(South Coast AQMD 2005, 2022; USEPA 2023a). The SoCAB is a nonattainment area for PM2.5 under California and National AAQS and a nonattainment area for PM10 under the California AAQS (CARB 2025a).5
Ozone (O3) is a key ingredient of “smog” and is a gas that is formed when ROGs and NOX, both by-products of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo photochemical reactions in sunlight. O3 is a secondary criteria air pollutant. O3 concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light winds, and warm temperatures create favorable conditions for its formation. O3 poses a health threat to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as well as to healthy people. Breathing O3 can trigger a variety of health problems, including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation, and congestion.
It can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. Ground-level O3 also can reduce lung function and inflame the linings of the lungs. Repeated exposure may permanently scar lung tissue. O3 also affects sensitive vegetation and ecosystems, including forests, parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas. In particular, O3 harms sensitive vegetation during the 2 PM2.5 is the main cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the United States. 3 Particulate matter can be carried over long distances by wind and then settle on ground or water, making lakes and streams acidic; changing the nutrient balance in coastal waters and large river basins; depleting the nutrients in soil; damaging sensitive forests and farm crops; and affecting the diversity of ecosystems. 4 Particulate matter can stain and damage stone and other materials, including culturally important objects such as statues and monuments. 5
CARB approved the South Coast AQMD’s request to redesignate the SoCAB from serious nonattainment for PM10 to attainment for PM10 under the National AAQS on March 25, 2010, because the SoCAB did not violate federal 24-hour PM10 standards from 2004 to 2007. The USEPA approved the State of California’s request to redesignate the South Coast PM10 nonattainment area to attainment of the PM10 National AAQS, effective on July 26, 2013.
S0.002.5
S0.0001
■
2240
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 5
growing season (South Coast AQMD 2005, 2022; USEPA 2024a). The SoCAB is designated extreme nonattainment under the California AAQS (1-hour and 8-hour) and National AAQS (8-hour) (CARB 2025a).
Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products.
Once taken into the body, lead distributes throughout the body in the blood and accumulates in the bones. Depending on the level of exposure, lead can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproductive and developmental systems, and the cardiovascular system. Lead exposure also affects the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. The effects of lead most commonly encountered in current populations are neurological effects in children and cardiovascular effects in adults (e.g., high blood pressure and heart disease). Infants and young children are especially sensitive to even low levels of lead, which may contribute to behavioral problems, learning deficits, and lowered IQ (South Coast AQMD 2005, 2022; USEPA 2025a). The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of the USEPA’s regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, emissions of lead from the transportation sector dramatically declined by 95 percent between 1980 and 1999, and levels of lead in the air decreased by 94 percent between 1980 and 1999. Today, the highest levels of lead in air are usually found near lead smelters. The major sources of lead emissions today are ore and metals processing and piston-engine aircraft operating on leaded aviation gasoline. In 2008 the USEPA and CARB adopted more strict lead standards, and special monitoring sites immediately downwind of lead sources recorded very localized violations of the new state and federal standards.6
Because emissions of lead are found only in projects that are permitted by South Coast AQMD, lead is not a pollutant of concern for the proposed project.
Table 3.3-1, Criteria Air Pollutant Health Effects Summary, summarizes the potential health effects associated with the criteria air pollutants.
6 Source-oriented monitors record concentrations of lead at lead-related industrial facilities in the SoCAB, which include Exide Technologies in the City of Commerce; Quemetco, Inc., in the City of Industry; Trojan Battery Company in Santa Fe Springs; and Exide Technologies in Vernon. Monitoring conducted between 2004 through 2007 showed that the Trojan Battery Company and Exide Technologies exceed the federal standards (South Coast AQMD 2012).
■
2241
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 6
Table 3.3-1 Criteria Air Pollutant Health Effects Summary Pollutant Health Effects Examples of Sources Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Chest pain in heart patients
Headaches, nausea
Reduced mental alertness
Death at very high levels
Any source that burns fuel such as cars,
trucks, construction and farming
equipment, and residential heaters and
stoves
Ozone (O3) Cough, chest tightness
Difficulty taking a deep breath
Worsened asthma symptoms
Lung inflammation
Atmospheric reaction of organic gases
with nitrogen oxides in sunlight
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
Increased response to allergens
Aggravation of respiratory illness
Same as carbon monoxide sources
Particulate Matter
(PM10 and PM2.5)
Hospitalizations for worsened
heart diseases
Emergency room visits for
asthma
Premature death
Cars and trucks (particularly diesels)
Fireplaces and woodstoves
Windblown dust from overlays,
agriculture, and construction
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Aggravation of respiratory
disease (e.g., asthma and
emphysema)
Reduced lung function
Combustion of sulfur-containing fossil
fuels, smelting of sulfur-bearing metal
ores, and industrial processes
Lead (Pb) Behavioral and learning
disabilities in children
Nervous system impairment
Contaminated soil
Source: CARB 2025b.
TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
CARB has identified other air pollutants as toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are pollutants that may cause serious, long-term effects. People exposed to TACs at sufficient concentrations and durations may have an increased chance of getting cancer or experiencing other serious health effects. These health effects can include damage to the immune system as well as neurological, reproductive (e.g., reduced fertility), developmental, respiratory, and other health problems (USEPA 2025b). By the last update to the TAC list in December 1999, CARB had designated 244 compounds as TACs (CARB 1999). Additionally, CARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control. There are no air quality standards for TACs. Instead, TAC impacts are evaluated by ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2242
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 7
calculating the health risks associated with a given exposure. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most relevant to the project being particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines.
Diesel Particulate Matter
In 1998, CARB identified particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines (DPM) as a TAC.
Previously, the individual chemical compounds in diesel exhaust were considered TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particles are 10 microns or less in diameter. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. Long-term (chronic) inhalation of DPM is likely a lung cancer risk. Short-term (i.e., acute) exposure can cause irritation and inflammatory symptoms and may exacerbate existing allergies and asthma symptoms (USEPA 2002).
CARB has promulgated specific rules to limit TAC emissions. The rules are in the California Code of Regulations (CCR).
13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2485, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling
13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2480, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit School Bus Idling and Idling at Schools
13 CCR Section 2477 and Article 8, Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where TRUs Operate
Ambient air quality standards have been adopted at the state and federal levels for criteria air pollutants. In addition, both the state and federal government regulate the release of TACs. The proposed project is in the SoCAB and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by the South Coast AQMD, the California AAQS adopted by CARB, and National AAQS adopted by the EPA. Federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized in this section.
3.3.1 Regulatory Framework
FEDERAL AND STATE
Ambient Air Quality Standards
The Clean Air Act (CAA) was passed in 1963 by the US Congress and has been amended several times. The 1970 CAA amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several ■
■
■
2243
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 8
provisions, including nonattainment requirements for areas not meeting National AAQS as well as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. The 1990 amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air quality in the United States.
The CAA allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species.
The California Clean Air Act, signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the California AAQS by the earliest practical date. The California AAQS tend to be more restrictive than the National AAQS.
The National and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed.
Both California and the federal government have established health-based AAQS for seven air pollutants, which are shown in Table 3.3-2, Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Air Pollutants. These pollutants are O3, NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb. In addition, the state has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles.
These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety.
Table 3.3-2 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard1
Federal
Primary
Standard2
Major Pollutant Sources
Ozone (O3)3 1 hour 0.09 ppm * Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and solvents. 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.070
ppm
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline-powered motor vehicles.
8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2)
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
0.030 ppm 0.053
ppm
Motor vehicles, petroleum-refining
operations, industrial sources, aircraft,
ships, and railroads.
1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100
ppm
2244
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 9
Table 3.3-2 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard1
Federal
Primary
Standard2 Major Pollutant Sources
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)4 Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
* 0.010
ppm
Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur
recovery plants, and metal processing.
1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075
ppm
24 hours 0.04 ppm *
Respirable
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
20 µg/m3
* Dust and fume-producing construction,
industrial, and agricultural operations,
combustion, atmospheric photochemical
reactions, and natural activities (e.g.,
wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours 50 µg/m3
150 µg/m3 Respirable
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)5,6
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
12 µg/m3
9 µg/m3 Dust and fume-producing construction,
industrial, and agricultural operations,
combustion, atmospheric photochemical
reactions, and natural activities (e.g.,
wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours * 35 µg/m3 Lead (Pb) 30-Day
Average
1.5 µg/m3 * Present source: lead smelters, battery
manufacturing & recycling facilities. Past
source: combustion of leaded gasoline.
Calendar
Quarter
* 1.5 µg/m3 Rolling 3-
Month
Average
* 0.15
µg/m3
Sulfates
(SO4)7
24 hours 25 µg/m3
* Industrial processes.
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
8 hours ExCo
=0.23/km
visibility of
No
Federal
Standard
Visibility-reducing particles consist of
suspended particulate matter, which is a
complex mixture of tiny particles that
consists of dry solid fragments, solid
cores with liquid coatings, and small
droplets of liquid. These particles vary
lO~miles
2245
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 10
Table 3.3-2 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard1
Federal
Primary
Standard2 Major Pollutant Sources
greatly in shape, size and chemical
composition, and can be made up of
many different materials such as metals,
soot, soil, dust, and salt.
Hydrogen
Sulfide
1 hour 0.03 ppm No
Federal
Standard
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas
with the odor of rotten eggs. It is formed
during bacterial decomposition of sulfurcontaining organic substances. Also, it can be present in sewer gas and some
natural gas and can be emitted as the
result of geothermal energy exploitation.
Vinyl
Chloride
24 hours 0.01 ppm No
Federal
Standard
Vinyl chloride (chloroethene), a
chlorinated hydrocarbon, is a colorless
gas with a mild, sweet odor. Most vinyl
chloride is used to make polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products.
Vinyl chloride has been detected near
landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous
waste sites, due to microbial breakdown
of chlorinated solvents.
Sources: CARB 2024; USEPA 2025c.
Notes: ppm: parts per million; g/m3: micrograms per cubic meter * Standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity. 1 California standards for O3, CO (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1 and 24 hour), NO2, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
2 National standards (other than O3, PM, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. 3 On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to
0.070 ppm.
4 On December 27, 2024, the secondary annual SO2 standard was revised to an annual average, averaged over three consecutive years, with a level of 10 parts per billion (ppb). µ
2246
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 11
5 On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 g/m3 to 12.0 µg/m3.
The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 µg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 µg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 µg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years.
6 On February 7, 2024, the national annual PM2.5 standard was lowered from 12 g/m3 to 9 µg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary), secondary annual PM2.5 standard, and PM10 standards (primary and secondary) were retained
7 On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. The 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.