Based on the preceding, the potential for risk release of pollutants due to inundation is considered less than significant. The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify any significant inundation impacts. Accordingly, the Specific Plan 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: Less than significant. 2730
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 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .10 -41
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 project inundation would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant hydrology and water quality 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. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? The 2022 Certified EIR identified less than significant impacts related to consistency with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Policy Plan Amendment
The City’s groundwater supplies are from the Chino Groundwater Basin, which is adjudicated and managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster. The Chino Basin is exempt from legislative requirements under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) because it is an adjudicated basin and is not required to prepare a groundwater sustainability plan (DWR 2025b; CBW 2016).
During construction, adherence to the State Construction General Permit, implementation of a SWPPP, and compliance with the City’s Erosion and Sediment Control Plan would ensure that surface water and groundwater quality are not adversely affected. During long-term operation, development under the proposed project would be required to comply with the Santa Ana River Basin Plan and the NPDES Permit No. CAS618036. Projects would prepare WQMPs identifying BMPs for the prevention of stormwater pollution, including site design, source control, and treatment measures.
Development projects in the City would also continue to implement Policy ER-1.5, which prioritizes coordination with local agencies to protect water quality, prevent pollution, and remediate contaminated surface water and groundwater, particularly within environmental justice areas. Implementation of this policy further supports consistency with regional and state water quality objectives.
2731
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 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
3 .10 - 42
Through compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and continued implementation of Policy ER-1.5, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Basin Plan or any groundwater management plan. The proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to consistency with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan compared to those identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Specific Plan
Adherence to the State CGP, implementation of the SWPPP, and adherence to the City’s ESCP requirements would ensure that surface and groundwater quality are not adversely impacted during construction. In addition, installation of on-site treatment facilities such as hydrodynamic separators and biofiltration units would ensure that water quality is not impacted during operations. As a result, site development will not obstruct or conflict with the implementation of the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan. The Specific Plan area currently uses groundwater from onsite groundwater wells for the irrigation of crops and other agriculturalrelated uses, which would cease with implementation of the Specific Plan. All onsite groundwater wells would be abandoned per the California Department of Water Resources Standards and completion of a DWR Well Completion Form. Upon development, the Specific Plan area would be connected to the City’s public water supply and there would be no onsite wells for use of groundwater. The City manages both the potable and non-potable supplies to ensure withdrawals from the Chino Groundwater Basin do not exceed the safe yield for the Basin, as per the Chino Basin Watermaster's Optimum Basin Management Program (OBMP).
Therefore, the Specific Plan would not obstruct or conflict with the OBMP and impacts would be less than significant.
Implementation of the SWPPP and WQMP would ensure the Specific Plan would not conflict with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. The 2022 Certified SEIR did not identify any significant conflicts with groundwater management or controls plans. Accordingly, the Specific Plan would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified SEIR.
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 2732
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 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .10 -43
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.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant hydrology and water quality 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.
3.10.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Proposed Project
Cumulative impacts to hydrology, drainage, flooding, and water quality are considered for the Chino Creek subwatershed and the Middle Santa Ana River subwatershed, which are part of the larger Santa Ana River Watershed. 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.
Development in the City of Ontario and other projects in these watersheds would increase impervious areas, thus increasing runoff and flows into storm drainage systems. Within San Bernardino County, other projects would be required to prepare hydrology and hydraulic studies in accordance with the County Hydrology Manual and analyze stormwater flows that result from the 100-year storm event to ensure that the capacities of the storm drain systems are not exceeded. Additionally, other projects would be required to comply with MS4 permits applicable in those watersheds. The Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 permit applies to portions of three counties in the Santa Ana Basin. Other projects’ compliance with the requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 permit, the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program, and San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual guidance would reduce cumulative impacts to hydrology and drainage to less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable.
If projects in the watersheds are within 100-year flood zones, they would be mandated to comply with National Flood Insurance Program requirements. Cumulative impacts to hydrology, drainage, and flooding would be less than significant, and impacts of the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable.
2733
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 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
3 .10 - 44
Cumulative projects could generate pollutants that would contaminate stormwater. Compliance with the MS4 permit includes implementation of site design and source control BMPs that reduce the potential for pollutants to enter runoff and treatment control BMPs that remove pollutants from stormwater. Cumulative water quality impacts would be less than significant after compliance with such permits, and project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
The proposed project would not result in new or more severe cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality compared to those identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative water quality, hydrology, drainage, and flooding impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
3.10.7 References
Cal OES (California Office of Emergency Services). 2025. Dam Safety Planning. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/office-of-the-director/operations/planning-preparedness -prevention/planning-preparedness/dam-safety-planning/.
CBW (Chino Basin Watermaster).2016. Resolution 2016-03. https://www.cbwm.org/docs/resolutions/2010-2019/Resolution%2016-03.pdf.
CBW. 2020. Optimum Basin Management Program Update Report. https://www.cbwm.org/ docs/OBMP%20Update/20201022%202020%20Optimum%20Basin%20Management%2 0Program%20Report%20FINAL.pdf.
CBW. 2022. Chino Basin Watermaster Rules And Regulations. https://www.cbwm.org/docs/ rulesregs/CBWM%20Rules%20and%20Regulations%20[2022].pdf.
CBW. 2023. 2022 State of the Basin Report. https://www.cbwm.org/docs/engdocs/ State_of_the_Basin_Reports/SOB%202022/2022%20State%20of%20the%20Basin%20Re port.pdf.
CDA (Chino Basin Desalter Authority). 2025. History. https://www.chinodesalter.org/96/ History#:~:text=The%20Chino%20Groundwater%20Basin%20(Basin)%20extends%20ben eath,integral%20component%20in%20meeting%20regional%20water%20needs.
DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2025a. Well Completion Reports. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Wells/Well-Completion -Reports#:~:text=California%20Water%20Code%20Section%2013751,the%20 completion%20of%20the%20work.
2734
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 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .10 -45
DWR. 2025b. Inland Empire Utilities Agency: 8-002.01 Upper Santa Ana Valley: Chino. https://sgma.water.ca.gov/basinmod/basinrequest/preview/52.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Act). 2020. Flood Zones. https://www.fema.gov/about/glossary/flood-zones.
FEMA. 2025. Flood Maps. https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps.
GE (Groundwater Exchange). 2025. Upper Santa Ana Valley: Chino. https://groundwaterexchange.org/basin/upper-santa-ana-valley-chino-8-002-01.
IEUA (Inland Empire Utilities Agency). 2001. Initial Study for the Implementation of Storm water and Imported Water Recharge at 20 Recharge Basins in Chino Basin. https://www.ieua.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2001-Initial-StudyImplementation-of-SW-IW-Recharge-in-Chino-Basin.pdf.
JLC (JLC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.). 2025. Preliminary Hydrology Study for Ontario Ranch.
Appendix H1.
Ontario, City of. 2012. Master Plan of Drainage: City Of Ontario. https://content.ontarioca.gov/ sites/default/files/2025-01/Master%20Plan%20-%20Storm%20Drain.pdf.
Ontario. 2017. Resolution No. 2017-027. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/ migrated-files/Standard%20Conditions%20of%20Approval%20%E2%80%93%20 April%2018%2C%202017.pdf.
Ontario. 2021. Water Distribution.
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/6d225f15fa80422598971b35f8c34ade/print.
Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Draft Supplemental EIR. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf Ontario. 2023. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/ migrated-files/Ontario-Files/Fire/Ready%2520Ontario/Ontario%2520LHMP.pdf.
OMUC (Ontario Municipal Utilities Company). 2025. Water Supply Assessment for Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan. Appendix L2.
San Bernardino, County of. 1986. Hydrology Manual. https://dpw.sbcounty.gov/wp-content/ uploads/sites/87/docs/HydrologyManual.pdf.
San Bernardino, County of. 2025, October 9 (accessed). “HCOC Exempt Areas” Figure F-1 of Santa Ana, Appendix F – HCOC Exemption Criteria and Map. https://www.sbcounty.gov/ uploads/DPW/docs/AppendixF-HCOCExemptionCriteriaandMap.pdf. 2735
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 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
3 .10 - 46
Santa Ana RWQCB (Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2013. Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans. https://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/ DPW/docs/SantaAnaRiver-WQMP-Final-June2013.pdf.
Santa Ana RWQCB. 2025a. Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/.
Santa Ana RWQCB. 2025b. Stormwater Program.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/stormwater/.
Santa Ana RWQCB. 2025c. Chapter 3 of Basin Plan. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/ water_issues/programs/basin_plan/docs/2025/chp3_uses-10-2-2025.pdf.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2010. Order No. R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No.
CAS618036). https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/board_decisions /adopted_orders/orders/2010/10_036_sbc_ms4_permit_01_29_10.pdf.
SWRCB. 2025a. Storm Water Program: Trash Implementation Program. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/trash_implement ation.html.
SWRCB. 2025b. 2024 California Integrated Report. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2024-integrated-report.html.
USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2025. Seismic Seiches. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/seismic-seiches. 2736
O NTARIO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMEN TAL EI R
CITY O F ON TARIO
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 1 -1
3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) evaluates the potential impacts to land use in the City of Ontario from implementation of TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP (proposed project) compared to the current TOP 2050 (approved project) and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Land use impacts can be either direct or indirect. Direct impacts are those that result in land use incompatibilities; division of neighborhoods or communities; or interference with other land use plans, including habitat or wildlife conservation plans. This section focuses on whether implementation of the proposed project would result in direct physical impacts to the environment associated with land use and consistency with land use policies and plans. Indirect impacts are secondary effects resulting from land use policy implementation, such as an increase in demand for public utilities or services, or increased traffic on roadways. Indirect impacts are addressed in other sections of this Draft SEIR.
The Policy Plan Amendment impacts are based on the proposed land use plan, described in detail in Chapter 2, Project Description, and shown on Figure 2-5, Proposed TOP 2050 Land Use Plan, and Figure 2-6, Proposed TOP 2050 Land Use Plan with Areas of Change. TOP 2050 goals and policies have been evaluated to determine their consistency with other relevant sections of TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment.
In addition, compatibility of the proposed land use changes for the Policy Plan Amendment and the EBPSP with the existing land uses in the surrounding area is discussed in this section. TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP are also evaluated for consistency with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), also known as Connect SoCal.
There were several comment letters received in response to the NOP related to changes in the TOP 2050 land use designation and zoning as a result of the proposed project. 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 to Appendix A for the full comment letters.
2737
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
3 .11 LAN D U SE A ND PLANNING
3 .11 - 2
3.11.1 Regulatory Framework
STATE
Housing Accountability Act
The Housing Accountability Act requires that cities approve applications for residential development that are consistent with a city’s general plan and zoning code development standards without reducing the proposed density. Examples of objective standards are those that are measurable and have clear criteria that are determined in advance, such as numerical setback, height limit, universal design, lot coverage requirement, or parking requirement.
Senate Bill 330: Housing Crisis Act of 2019
Among other changes that promote housing, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 strengthened the Housing Accountability Act by stating that a housing development project that complies with the objective standards of the general plan and zoning ordinance must be approved by the city, unless the city is able to make written findings based on the preponderance of the evidence in the record that: (1) the city has already met its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirement; (2) there is an impact to the public health and safety that cannot be mitigated; (3) the property is agricultural land; (4) approval of the project would violate State or federal law and this violation cannot be mitigated; or (5) the project is inconsistent with the zoning and land use designation and not identified in the general plan housing element RHNA inventory.
Senate Bill 166: No Net Loss Law
SB 166 builds on existing laws and regulations to ensure a local agency meets its allocated housing units for lower- and moderate-income households. This bill requires adequate housing development capacities to be available throughout the housing element planning period to meet the unmet RHNA needs. SB 166 prevents a local jurisdiction from permitting an identified lower- and moderate-income residential housing site to develop another use or a lower density residential development. If a site identified for housing development is permitted for another use or developed at a lower density, and this prevents the local agency from meeting its RHNA for lower- and moderate-income residential housing, the local agency must identify another site for housing development within 180 days that will meet the RHNA.
REGIONAL
Southern California Association of Governments
SCAG is a regional council of governments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties, which encompass over 38,000 square miles.
SCAG is the federally recognized metropolitan planning organization for this region and a forum 2738
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
3 . 1 1 L A N D U S E A N D P L A N N I N G
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 1 -3
for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG is also the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under federal and state law. In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to analyze their impacts on regional planning programs. As the southern California region’s metropolitan planning organization, SCAG cooperates with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the California Department of Transportation, and other agencies in preparing regional planning documents. SCAG has developed regional plans to achieve specific regional objectives, as discussed below.
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SCAG adopted its current RTP/SCS, “Connect SoCal 2024,” in April 2024. The document provides the long-range vision for the SCAG region (SCAG 2024). Connect SoCal 2024 expands land use and transportation strategies established in previous cycles of the RTP/SCS to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. Connect SoCal 2024 contains plans and projections for the region’s future. Like other RTPs/SCSs, Connect SoCal 2024 provides a policy framework for preparing local plans and handling issues of regional significance, such as land use and housing, open space and biological habitats, water, energy, air quality, solid waste, transportation, security and emergency preparedness, economy, and education. Connect SoCal 2024 also strives to achieve broader regional objectives, such as encouraging diverse housing construction in areas supported by multiple transportation options; promoting development of complete streets that prioritize safe opportunities to walk, bike, and pursue other forms of active transportation; leveraging new transportation technologies and data-driven solutions to efficient travel; and promoting conservation of natural lands. Connect SoCal 2024 advances regional planning by incorporating an integrated approach between SCAG, state and local governments, transportation commissions, resources agencies and conservation groups, the private sector, and the general public (SCAG 2024).
San Bernardino Council of Governments
The San Bernardino Council of Governments represents 24 cities and towns, including Ontario.
It fosters intergovernmental communication and coordination, undertakes comprehensive regional planning with an emphasis on transportation, provides for citizen involvement in the planning process, and supplies technical services to its member governments. The City of Ontario is a member jurisdiction of the San Bernardino Council of Governments, and a participating agency in SCAG’s Connect SoCal.
LOCAL
City of Ontario Development Code
The City of Ontario Development Code is designed to assist in the implementation of the goals and policies of TOP in order to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general 2739
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
3 .11 LAN D U SE A ND PLANNING
3 .11 - 4
welfare in the community. Development Code Chapter 5 (Zoning and Land Use) establishes zoning designations and development standards to regulate orderly development. Currently, the Ontario Development Code identifies 7 special policy overlay zones: Agriculture (AG), Euclid Avenue (EA), Emergency Shelter (ES), Multimodal Transit Center (MTC), Interim Community Commercial (ICC), and Affordable Housing (AH), and Chino Airport (CNO). The land uses and regulations allowed in each of these overlay zones are outlined in Chapter 5 of the Ontario Development Code (Ontario 2025).
Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan State law allows local jurisdictions within San Bernardino County to be responsible for airport land use compatibility planning under the "Alternative Process" in place of a county administered ALUC. Under the provisions of the Alternative Process the City of Ontario is the designated agency having responsibility for airport compatibility planning for Ontario International Airport (ONT). The ONT Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) was adopted on April 19, 2011, by the Ontario City Council to promote compatibility with surrounding land uses and amended in July 2018. The ALUCP provides guidance to local jurisdictions that may be affected by ONT and the objective of the Plan is to promote compatibility between the airport and the land that surrounds it to avoid future compatibility conflicts (Ontario 2025). Figure 3.9-2, Airport Safety Zones, in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, maps the compatibility zones and land uses surrounding the ONT.
The Ontario International Airport–Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC) was formed through a Cooperative Agreement by all Affected Agencies to maintain local jurisdictional control of land use planning for areas within the ONT Airport Influence Area. The Affected Agencies include the City of Chino, City of Fontana, City of Montclair, City of Ontario, City of Rancho Cucamonga, City of Upland and San Bernardino County. The ONT ALUCP contains the ONT-IAC operational framework and identifies 3 framework components: 1) a technical group (ONT-IAC Technical Staff Group) comprised of senior staff members from the Affected Agencies to review projects for consistency with the ALUCP; 2) an appeals body (ONT-IAC Mediation Board) to resolve consistency evaluation disputes; and 3) an administrative function managed by the City of Ontario.
Chino Airport Master Plan
The City of Ontario is also within the Chino Airport Influence Area. The Chino Airport is south of the City of Ontario across Merrill Avenue and is owned and operated by San Bernardino County.
The City of Chino adopted its own Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (ACLUP) in November 1991. The Chino Airport Master Plan (AMP) was adopted by the County of San Bernardino in 2006. The 1991 Chino ACLUP does not reflect the 2006 Chino AMP nor does it reflect the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c) requires local jurisdictions that are under the “alternative process” to “rely upon” the California Airport 2740
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
3 . 1 1 L A N D U S E A N D P L A N N I N G
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 1 -5
Land Use Planning Handbook published by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics in October 2011, for preparing Compatibility Plans and to utilize the Handbook’s height, land use, noise, safety, and density criteria. Although the City of Ontario does not have the formal responsibility under the “alternative process” to prepare a compatibility plan for Chino Airport, the City of Ontario has adopted the Chino Airport Overlay Zone that addresses Chino Airport’s impacts on Ontario, consistent with policies and criteria set forth within the Caltrans 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Caltrans 2011). Figure 3.9-2, Airport Safety Zones, in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, maps the compatibility zones and land uses surrounding Chino Airport within the City of Ontario.
3.11.2 Existing Conditions
POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
The City of Ontario developed from a small agricultural town centered mainly on the citrus industry to a suburban community with a large manufacturing and industrial base. Figure 2-4, Current Land Use Plan, and Table 2-1, Approved TOP 2050 Land Use Designation, in Chapter 2, Project Description, show the existing land uses of Ontario. The City has a total population of 184,404 residents, the majority of whom live in the developed lands north of Riverside Drive (DOF 2025). This area was the City’s boundary prior to the annexation of Ontario Ranch (formerly known as the New Model Colony) in 1999 and is called the Original Model Colony (OMC). Ontario Ranch was predominantly used for citrus and dairy agriculture. It is still used for dairy, poultry, and row crop agriculture, and it has some residential land uses. These residential land uses are older, single-family land uses and newer planned communities. Portions of the land are under contract with the City through the Williamson Act of 1964 to preserve agriculture land; however, as Ontario Ranch continues to develop, these contracts would expire or would be terminated.
Existing residential areas tend to be in the older portions of the City west of Grove Avenue and north of Riverside Drive, and scattered throughout Ontario Ranch. Business land uses include commercial and industrial land uses. Commercial land uses are prominent in the historic downtown area, mostly along Euclid and Holt Avenues; around the ONT and the business parks and industrial areas surrounding the airport; and around the Ontario Mills commercial and entertainment complex. Industrial and employment-based centers are prominent in Ontario, especially in the eastern portions of the City and areas surrounding the ONT and Chino Airport in Ontario Ranch. In these areas, types of businesses include light manufacturing, research and development, and technology development as well as medical services, entertainment venues, retail stores, galleries, health clubs, financial institutions, day care facilities, and professional offices. Public open space areas in the City include the Whispering Lakes Golf Course north of Riverside Drive, the Cucamonga-Guasti Regional Park in northern Ontario, with the Grand Park Phase 1 and the Ontario Sports Empire in southern Ontario. 2741
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
3 .11 LAN D U SE A ND PLANNING
3 .11 - 6
SPECIFIC PLAN
On-Site Land Uses
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 semitrailer trucks, storage and distribution of krill oil and soy sauce, tire storage, and small animal keeping.
The site is relatively flat, 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).
Surrounding Uses
Surrounding land uses are described below and illustrated in Figure 3.1-2 in Section 3.1, Aesthetics. North: Dairy farms and residences, similar to existing land uses within the Specific Plan area, are adjacent to the site on the north.
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 and residence.
East: Dairy farms and residences are east of the site, across Walker Avenue.
West: Additional dairy/agricultural uses are west of the site across Campus Avenue.
General Plan Designations
The current General Plan designations of the site include Medium Density Residential (with Affordable Housing Overlay), Mixed Use with Chino Airport Overlay (and Affordable Housing Overlay), and Open Space–Parkland.
The Medium Density Residential designation is intended for single and multi-family attached and detached residences, including townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard homes, and small lot single-family subdivisions. The Mixed Use designation is envisioned to primarily accommodate employee-intensive office, entertainment facilities, live-work, and supporting retail uses. The Affordable Housing Overlay identifies housing opportunities in the City to implement required rezone programs in compliance with State housing element law. The Open Space–Parkland designation allows recreational facilities, such as tot-lots, parks, golf courses, and sports complexes and joint-use facilities with schools, utilities, and drainage facilities. 2742
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
3 . 1 1 L A N D U S E A N D P L A N N I N G
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 1 -7
Zoning Designation
The City of Ontario’s Zoning Map designates the Specific Plan area’s zoning as Specific Plan with an Agricultural Overlay and Affordable Housing Overlay. The Agricultural Overlay serves to accommodate the continuation of agricultural uses within the City, on an interim basis, until such time that development is slated to occur. The Affordable Housing Overlay facilitates housing opportunities within the City by implementing required rezone programs in compliance with State Housing Element law.
Airport Considerations
Although the Specific Plan area is in the ONT Airport Influence Area, it is outside any identified safety, airspace protection, and noise impact zones. All properties within the ONT Influence Area are subject to a real estate transaction disclosure notice (Ontario 2018).
The Specific Plan area is also in the Chino Airport (CNO) Influence Area. The San Bernardino County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Chino Airport was adopted in 1991 and does not reflect guidance in the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. (SBC ALUC 1991) As such, in 2022, the City of Ontario adopted the CNO Overlay District, which provides maps, criteria, and policy language to guide development within the Chino Influence Area, consistent with the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
As illustrated in Figure 3.9-2, Airport Safety Zones, the majority of the Specific Plan area is within CNO Safety Zone 6 (low risk), with a very small portion of the southeastern corner within Safety Zone 4 (moderate risk). Uses permitted by the EBPSP are allowed in both of these safety zones (Ontario 2022).
3.11.3 Standards for Analysis
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to land use if it would:
a) Physically divide an established community.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
2743
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
3 .11 LAN D U SE A ND PLANNING
3 .11 - 8
METHODOLOGY
Specific Plan
The following analysis considers whether the EBPSP would conflict with applicable planning documents, plans, or policies from the City and other agencies that were adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and whether those conflicts, if any, would cause significant environmental effects. A determination regarding a project’s consistency with an applicable plan is made by the Lead Agency. Consistency is achieved where a project furthers the overall objectives and policies of a plan and where it would not obstruct their attainment. EBPSP consistency was analyzed for the following plans: SCAG’s 2024-2050 Connect SoCal, the City of Ontario Policy Plan, and City Municipal Code. Additionally, the Specific Plan’s consistency with nearby airport requirements was considered.
A project’s conflict with a policy is considered significant if such inconsistency would cause significant physical environmental impacts. A policy conflict is not in and of itself considered a significant impact but may be evidence that an underlying physical impact is significant and adverse.
Relevant New and Modified General Plan Policies
There are no new and modified general plan policies applicable to land use and planning.
3.11.4 Environmental Impacts
2022 Certified EIR
The Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would not divide an established community, and is consistent with the ONT and Chino airport land use compatibility plans and the SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (Connect SoCal). Implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval ensured that no significant impacts would occur.
Proposed Project
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? Division of an established community commonly occurs with construction and development of physical features that constitute a barrier to easy and frequent travel between two or more constituent parts of a community. For example, a large freeway structure with few crossings 2744
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
3 . 1 1 L A N D U S E A N D P L A N N I N G
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 1 -9
could effectively split a community. The Certified EIR found that the approved project would not conflict with existing land uses and would not divide an established community.
POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
Implementation of Policy Plan Amendment would guide future growth within the City of Ontario. Table 2-1, Approved TOP 2050 Land Use Designations, Table 2-3, TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Proposed Land Use Summary, and Table 2-4, Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment, in Chapter 2, Project Description, detail the buildout statistics associated with the current TOP 2050 and the proposed Policy Plan Amendment.
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the physical division of an established community. As shown in Figure 2-6, Policy Plan Amendment: Areas of Change, the proposed project would redesignate land currently designated for residential to business park, increase residential densities, and allow mixed uses in developed areas primarily on land within the Ontario Ranch that is currently used for agricultural purposes. More specifically, the proposed project would redesignate the area along Holt Boulevard from Business Park to Mixed Use land use and a portion along Grove Avenue from Airport to Industrial. These land use changes are consistent with the existing development pattern and would align with the surrounding land uses. Another concentrated area of land use redesignations would occur on the land south of Edison Avenue from General Commercial, Medium Density Residential, and Mixed Use to Business Park and Open Space–Recreation. In general, these changes would result in a reduction in residential land uses and align with the surrounding land uses. In addition, a new mixed use designation would be added for land surrounding the Ontario Sports Empire to align with recreational uses currently under development. Overall, by providing a mix of compatible uses that support connectivity, accessibility, and cohesive development, the redesignations would not create physical barriers or fragment the area.
Additionally, t TOP 2050 Policy Plan includes policies and programs that promote preservation and enhancement of existing neighborhoods and reduce potential conflicts between adjacent land uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not divide an established community or introduce incompatible land uses.
The proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to the division of a community compared to the approved project.
Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
SPECIFIC PLAN
Although the Specific Plan would result a change of land use when compared to existing conditions, the EBPSP would act to implement the amended Policy Plan land use designations 2745
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
3 .11 LAN D U SE A ND PLANNING
3 .11 - 10
(Business Park and Open Space–Parkland) that are being processed as a companion action to the Specific Plan. The site is zoned Specific Plan, indicating the site’s anticipated transition to more urban uses. Additionally, the proposed business park uses would act as a logical transition from the industrial uses currently located to the south of the Specific Plan area toward the park and residential uses envisioned to the north. The Specific Plan would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, this impact is 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.
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact LUP-1: Project implementation would not divide an established community.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant land use and planning impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are warranted. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Pursuant to CEQA, impacts are considered significant if being inconsistent with a plan or policy would result in a physical impact to the environment. The Certified EIR found that buildout of the approved project would not conflict with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Policy Plan Amendment
The preparation of the Policy Plan Amendment must be consistent with the policies and regulations of existing regional and local plans that are meant to prevent environmental impacts related to population growth and land use conflicts.
Consistency with SCAG’s Regional Plans and Policies
The consistency of Policy Plan Amendment with SCAG’s Connect SoCal is shown in Table 3.11-1, Policy Plan Amendment Consistency with SCAG Connect SoCal. Connect SoCal is a major advisory 2746
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
3 . 1 1 L A N D U S E A N D P L A N N I N G
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .11 -11
plan prepared by SCAG that addresses important regional issues like housing, traffic/transportation, water, and air/quality. Connect SoCal serves as an advisory document to local agencies in the Southern California region for their information and voluntary use when preparing local plans and handling local issues of regional significance. Connect SoCal is advisory only and cannot be used for intergovernmental review. The Policy Plan Amendment is consistent with the majority of Connect SoCal’s goals (see Section 3.14, Population and Housing, for a discussion on consistency with SCAG demographic projections). As shown in this table, the Policy Plan Amendment would be generally supportive of or consistent with the relevant policies and objectives in Connect SoCal 2024.
Table 3.11-1 Policy Plan Amendment Consistency with SCAG Connect SoCal Connect SoCal Policy/Objective Number Policy Plan Amendment Consistency Analysis Mobility: Build and maintain an integrated
multimodal transportation network.
Consistent. Ontario’s Vision is to increase mobility
options as the City and region grow. The mobility
system would be coordinated with future land use
patterns and levels of buildout. Access and connectivity to mobility options would be integrated into
neighborhoods, villages, and districts. The Policy Plan Amendment includes updates to the mobility element
to the City’s multipurpose trails and bikeways to better align with changes under the Policy Plan Amendment.
These changes would ensure multimodal transportation
network throughout the city.
Communities: Develop, connect and
sustain communities that are livable and
thriving.
Consistent. The Policy Plan Amendment would not
result in a reduction in housing capacity and would
ensure that land uses are consistent with surrounding
development. In addition, the Policy Plan Amendment
would evaluate opportunities to reduce the impacts of
truck routes on sensitive receptors, thereby promoting
a more livable and thriving community.
Environment: Create a healthy region for
the people of today and tomorrow.
Consistent. The Policy Plan Amendment does not
propose changes to the Social Resources Element of
TOP 2050, which identifies quality and accessible health care, education, community services, and cultural
activities as critical components to achieving Ontario’s Vision. The Policy Plan Amendment represents an
efficient use of available land within the city,
contributes to local and regional economies, and
expands and diversifies employment and housing
opportunities. As such the Policy Plan Amendment
would remain consistent with the environment and
social resources in Ontario.
2747
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
3 .11 LAN D U SE A ND PLANNING
3 .11 - 12
Table 3.11-1 Policy Plan Amendment Consistency with SCAG Connect SoCal Connect SoCal Policy/Objective Number Policy Plan Amendment Consistency Analysis Economy: Support a sustainable, efficient
and productive regional economic
environment that provides opportunities
for all residents.
Consistent. The Policy Plan Amendment does not
propose any changes to the Community Economics
Element as included in the TOP 2050, which outlined
goals and policies for decision-making in Ontario that
incorporate the full short-term and long-term economic
and fiscal implications of proposed City Council actions.
As such, the Policy Plan Amendment would remain
consistent with the economic environment in Ontario.
Sources: SCAG 2024.
Airport Plans
Airport operations and their accompanying noise and safety hazards require careful land use planning on adjacent lands to ensure the safety of residents and passengers, and to protect Ontario businesses and property owners from the potential hazards that could be created by airport operations. The Federal Aviation Administration and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics provide guidance for land use safety near airports. With adherence to these guidelines, high concentrations of people are not exposed to potential airplane accidents along runways or near airports while airplanes are departing and arriving. There are also guidelines on the placement of housing, schools, and other sensitive land uses near airports because of the noise pollution caused by airplanes.
Ontario International Airport
Ontario International Airport (ONT) provides regional air service for domestic and international commercial and cargo operations and includes the necessary support facilities for both major and smaller airlines. ONT operates as a medium-hub, full-service airport serving major U.S. and international destinations. The City of Ontario has adopted an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for ONT in accordance with the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics’ California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
The Policy Plan Amendment would redesignate the area along Holt Boulevard from Business Park to Mixed Use land use and a portion along Grove Avenue from Airport to Industrial land use. Although the Policy Plan Amendment would redesignate land uses near ONT, any future development facilitated by these changes would remain subject to meet the applicable safety zone restrictions, noise compatibility requirements, and airspace protection policies of the adopted ALUCP. The Land Use Element of the existing TOP 2050 requires that all new development surrounding ONT be consistent with the adopted ALUCP and comply with the 2748
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
3 . 1 1 L A N D U S E A N D P L A N N I N G
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .11 -13
standards and recommendations of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 77, as adopted through Ordinance 2758 of the Ontario Municipal Code.
A consistency determination analysis for ONT was prepared by the City of Ontario, which found that TOP 2050 is consistent with the ALUCP for ONT (ONT–IAC 2018) (Appendix G6). The Policy Plan Amendment would be consistent with the existing policies related to the ONT in the Land Use Element; therefore, the Policy Plan Amendment would remain consistent with the approved project.
Chino Airport
Chino Airport is operated by the San Bernardino County Department of Airports and functions as a reliever airport for ONT and San Bernardino International Airport. The airport encompasses approximately 1,100 acres and serves private, business, and corporate tenants and customers throughout the Inland Empire. The City of Ontario is also within the Chino Airport Influence Area. The Chino Airport is south of the City of Ontario across Merrill Avenue. The City of Chino adopted its own Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (ACLUP) in November 1991. The Chino Airport Master Plan (AMP) was adopted by the County of San Bernardino in 2006. The 1991 Chino ACLUP does not reflect the 2006 Chino AMP nor does it reflect the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c) requires local jurisdictions that are under the “alternative process” to “rely upon” the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics in October 2011, for preparing Compatibility Plans and to utilize the Handbook’s height, land use, noise, safety, and density criteria. Although the City of Ontario does not have the formal responsibility under the “alternative process” to prepare a compatibility plan for Chino Airport, the City of Ontario has adopted the Chino Airport Overlay Zone and Reference I: Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan that addresses Chino Airport’s impacts on Ontario, consistent with policies and criteria set forth within the Caltrans 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Caltrans 2011).
Figure 3.9-2, Airport Safety Zones, in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, maps the compatibility zones and land uses surrounding Chino Airport within the City of Ontario.
Land uses within the Chino Airport Overlay Zone include Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use, Business Park, Industrial, and Open Space–Recreation. The Policy Plan Amendment would redesignate land south of Edison Avenue from General Commercial, Medium Density Residential, and Mixed Use to Business Park and Open Space–Recreation. In general, these changes would result in a reduction of residential land use within the safety zones of Chino Airport. Future projects within this area would be required to comply with the conditions of the Chino Airport Overlay Zone , Reference I: Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, that include standards governing allowable land uses, maximum population density, maximum site coverage, height restrictions, and notification/disclosure requirements based on noise contours and the runway protection, 2749
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
3 .11 LAN D U SE A ND PLANNING
3 .11 - 14
approach, and Part 77 zones established by the FAA (Caltrans 2011). The Policy Plan Amendment does not include any changes to policies or plans related to Chino Airport; therefore, the Policy Plan Amendment would remain consistent with the approved project. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Specific Plan
This section includes an analysis of the EBPSP’s consistency with TOP 2050, the City’s Development Code, and SCAG’s Connect SoCal. Additionally, the Specific Plan’s consistency with nearby airport requirements is discussed.
The Ontario Plan
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 3.11-2, Land Use Designations: Affected Acreage. Table 3.11-2 Land Use Designation: Affected Acreage Current Land Use Designation
New Land Use
Designation Acreage Affected
Medium Density Residential
(with Affordable Housing Overlay) Business Park 47.74 acres Mixed Use
(with Chino Airport Overlay and Affordable Housing
Overlay)
Business Park 81.70 acres
Open Space–Parkland Business Park 19.18 acres
Total 148.62 acres1
1 The remaining Specific Plan acreage is designated as Open Space–Parkland and would be unaffected by the Policy Plan Amendment.
The Specific Plan would be implemented consistent with these land use designations, as amended. The following Table 3.11-3, EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis, provides an analysis of the EBPSP’s consistency with applicable TOP 2050 policies. As demonstrated, no conflicts would occur.
2750
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
3 . 1 1 L A N D U S E A N D P L A N N I N G
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .11 -15
Table 3.11-3 EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis
The Ontario Plan Policy Consistency
Land Use Element
LU-1: A community that has a spectrum of housing types and price ranges that match the jobs in the City and that make it possible for people to live and work in Ontario and maintain a quality of life.
LU-1.1: Strategic Growth.
We concentrate growth in strategic
locations that help create place and
identity, maximize available and planned
infrastructure, foster the development of
transit, and support the expansion of the
active and multimodal transportation
networks throughout the City.
Consistent. The Specific Plan area is located in the
Ontario Ranch area of the City, which is an area planned for future growth. The City’s Master Plans for water,
sewer, and storm drainage identify planned
infrastructure facilities to support growth in this area.
The developer(s) of the EBPSP would be required to
participate in the installation of the Master Planned
infrastructure. Additionally, streets within the Specific Plan area would be designed to be safe and accessible
to accommodate different modes of non-vehicular
transportation.
LU-1.2: Sustainable Community Strategy.
We integrate state, regional, and local
Sustainable Community /Smart Growth
principles into the development and
entitlement process.
Consistent. The EBPSP features numerous sustainable
features. The Specific Plan encourages non-motorized
circulation by employees and visitors via its provision of an integrated network of sidewalks, bikeways, and
trails. In accordance with Policy Plan Exhibit M-02,
Multipurpose Trails & Bikeway, Class II bike lanes would be provided along both sides of Campus Avenue and
Walker Avenue. Additionally, the Specific Plan area
would also include an 8-foot multi-purpose trail along
Eucalyptus Avenue, Grove Avenue and Walker Avenue.
All development in the Specific Plan area would be
required to conform to the California Green Building
Standards Code (CALGreen Code), and the Specific Plan
includes energy efficiency guidelines. In addition, the EBPSP includes a rooftop solar energy system which
would generate enough electricity to meet 45% of
annual electricity demand. The plant palette for the
Specific Plan area consists of water-efficient species
native to southern California or naturalized to the arid southern California climate, and the use of turf would
be minimized. As such, the EBPSP is consistent with this policy.
LU-1.3: Adequate Capacity.
We require adequate infrastructure and
services for all development.
Consistent. The developer(s) of the EBPSP would be
required to install adequate roadway and utility
infrastructure improvements to meet the demands of
the Specific Plan while maintaining adequate service
2751
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
3 .11 LAN D U SE A ND PLANNING
3 .11 - 16
Table 3.11-3 EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis
The Ontario Plan Policy Consistency
levels for existing, surrounding development. Refer to
SEIR Section 2.0, Project Description, for a detailed
analysis of the adequacy of the Specific Plan’s
infrastructure improvements.
LU-1.4: Multimodal Mobility.
We require development and urban design,
where appropriate, that reduces reliance
on the automobile and capitalizes on active
transportation, transit, electric vehicles,
and multimodal transportation
opportunities
Consistent. The EBPSP would offer numerous
opportunities for nonvehicular circulation, including
multi-purpose trails, bikeways, and sidewalks. Class II bike lanes would largely be provided along both sides of Campus Avenue, between Riverside Drive and Holt
Avenue, and along Walker Avenue, between Euclid
Avenue and Hamner Avenue. Additionally, the Specific
Plan would include an 8-foot multi-purpose trail along
Eucalyptus Avenue, Grove Avenue, and Walker Avenue
to encourage connectivity and circulation by
employees, visitors, and the passersby that is not
completely dependent on a motorized vehicle.
Additionally, bike storage facilities would be required to be installed in each building to further promote
alternative transportation.
LU-1.5: Jobs-Housing Balance.
We coordinate land use, infrastructure, and
transportation planning and analysis with
regional, county, and other local agencies
to further regional and subregional goals
for jobs-housing balance.
Consistent. The EBPSP would construct roadway and
utility improvements in accordance with the City’s
infrastructure master plans. Furthermore, the Specific
Plan area would generate employment opportunities
for residents and reduce the need for residents in the
region to commute to other regions for employment
opportunities.
LU-1.6: Complete Community.
We incorporate a variety of land uses and
building types in our land use planning
efforts that result in a complete community
where residents at all stages of life,
employers, workers, and visitors have a
wide spectrum of choices of where they
can live, work, shop and recreate within
Ontario.
Consistent. The EBPSP land use plan provides business
park uses that would accommodate a variety of
employment uses arranged in a sensible and efficient
manner that allow ease of access and complement the
surrounding community. The 36.15 acres of parkland
would provide recreational amenities for residents of
and visitors to the City of Ontario. The business park
uses are intended to attract local, national, and
international businesses and would assist in diversifying the mix of employment opportunities available in the
City. Potential retail uses would serve both on-site uses and the broader community.
2752
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
3 . 1 1 L A N D U S E A N D P L A N N I N G
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .11 -17
Table 3.11-3 EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis
The Ontario Plan Policy Consistency
LU-2: Compatibility between a wide range of uses and resultant urban patterns and forms.
LU-2.1: Land Use Decisions.
We minimize adverse impacts on adjacent
properties when considering land use and
zoning requests.
Consistent. The Development Standards and Design
Guidelines presented in the Specific Plan would act to
minimize or preclude potential adverse impacts
affecting adjacent properties. Proposed roadway
improvements would allow for improved vehicle travel
in the vicinity. Additionally, business park uses
proposed by the EBPSP would act as a logical transition between the industrial uses currently being constructed to the south of the Specific Plan area and the park and residential uses envisioned to the north.
LU-2.2: Buffers.
We require new uses to provide mitigation
or buffers between existing uses where
potential adverse impacts could occur.
Additional mitigation is required when new
uses could negatively impact environmental
justice areas.
Consistent. The EBPSP provides conceptual
streetscapes for Eucalyptus Avenue, Campus Avenue,
Walker Avenue, and Public Street ‘A’; primary and
secondary corner treatments at Specific Plan entry
points; and landscaped screening walls between truck
courts and parking areas and adjacent public rights-ofway. Implementation of these features would provide a visual buffer between on-site/off-site uses. Additionally, the Specific Plan includes Open Space–Parkland along
the northern boundary to separate the business park
uses from the residential uses planned to the north. As such, the EBPSP is consistent with this policy.
LU-2.3: Hazardous Uses.
We regulate the development of industrial
and similar uses that use, store, produce, or
transport toxic substances, air emissions,
other pollutants, or hazardous materials.
Consistent. Building occupants within the Specific Plan area would be required to comply with all local and
State requirements for using, storing, producing, or
transporting toxic substances, air emissions, other
pollutants, or hazardous materials.
LU-2.5: Regulation of Uses.
We regulate the location, concentration,
and operation of uses that have impacts on
surrounding land uses.
Consistent. Refer to Policy LU-2.1, above.
LU-2.6: Infrastructure Compatibility.
We require infrastructure to be
aesthetically pleasing and in context with
the community character.
Consistent. Water, sewer, storm drain, and dry utility
improvements would be located underground and out
of view, with the exception of stormwater inlets and
channels that are required to be exposed at the surface.
Roadway infrastructure improvements would be
designed to be landscaped with a combination of
evergreen and deciduous trees, including flowering
varieties; shrubs; and groundcovers in an aesthetically 2753
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
3 .11 LAN D U SE A ND PLANNING
3 .11 - 18
Table 3.11-3 EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis
The Ontario Plan Policy Consistency
pleasing manner to establish the Specific Plan’s design theme.
LU-2.8: Transitional Areas.
We require development in transitional
areas to protect the quality of life of
current residents.
Consistent. The Specific Plan stipulates landscaping and building setbacks along all of the Specific Plan’s
perimeter streets that separate the Specific Plan area
from adjacent properties. Additionally, the proposed
business park uses would act as a logical transition from the industrial uses currently being constructed south of the Specific Plan area to the park and residential uses envisioned in the north.
Trucks traveling to and from the Specific Plan area
would be required to utilize the City’s approved truck
routes, thereby minimizing exposure of nearby
residents to truck-related impacts. Development within
the Specific Plan area would comply with the Design
Guidelines in Chapter 6 of the Specific Plan, which
would provide for a high-quality, attractive, and
contemporary environment.
LU-2.9: Methane Gas Sites.
We require sensitive land uses and new
uses on former dairy farms or other
methane-producing sites be designed to
minimize health risks.
Consistent. As detailed in SEIR Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, laboratory testing of on-site soils concluded that none of the samples contained
contaminants above the thresholds established by the
EPA or DTSC for commercial/industrial land uses.
Nonetheless, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1-SP is included
to preclude impacts related to potential unknown
soil/soil vapor contamination within the Specific Plan
area.
LU-4: Development that provides short-term value only when the opportunity to achieve our Vision can be preserved.
LU-4.2: Interim Development.
We allow development in urban, mixed use,
and transit-oriented Place Types that is not
immediately reflective of our ultimate
Vision for the Place Type, provided it can be
modified or replaced when circumstances
are right to support development aligned
with the Place Type Vision. We will not
allow development that impedes,
Consistent. The central theme of the Ontario Vision is
“[a] sustained, community-wide prosperity which
continuously adds value and yields benefits.” The open
space/park area would introduce and sustain
recreational amenities in the long term for use by City residents and visitors. The phased development of the
business park uses would attract new businesses,
provide employment opportunities for residents,
contribute to the City’s tax base, and construct
circulation and utility infrastructure improvements that 2754
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
3 . 1 1 L A N D U S E A N D P L A N N I N G
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .11 -19
Table 3.11-3 EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis
The Ontario Plan Policy Consistency
precludes, or compromises our ability to
achieve our Vision.
are critical to allow for the growth of the region. As
such, implementation of the Specific Plan would help
the City achieve its Vision by continuously adding value, yielding benefits, and contributing to the prosperity of the City and the Inland Empire region.
LU-4.3: Infrastructure Timing.
We require that the necessary
infrastructure and services be in place prior
to or concurrently with development.
Consistent. Chapter 7, Implementation Plan, of the
EBPSP includes a development phasing plan that
requires infrastructure needed to support the buildout
of the Specific Plan to be adequately phased
concurrently with development.
LU-5: Integrated airport systems and facilities that minimize negative impacts to the community and maximize economic benefits.
LU-5.5: Airport Compatibility Planning for
ONT.
We create and maintain the Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan for ONT.
Consistent. The land uses provided by the EBPSP would
be consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan (ALUCP) requirements for the Ontario
International Airport. Furthermore, future development
on the Specific Plan property would be required to
comply with the Development Standards and Design
Guidelines established in the Specific Plan, as well as the applicable requirements of the City of Ontario
Development Code, which would preclude any
potential inconsistencies with the Ontario International Airport ALUCP.
LU-5.7: ALUCP Consistency with Land Use
Regulations.
We comply with state law that requires
general plans, specific plans, and all new
development to be consistent with the
policies and criteria set forth within an
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for any
public-use airport.
Consistent. The land uses provided by the EBPSP would
be consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan (ALUCP) requirements for both the Ontario
International Airport and the Chino Airport. All
proposed development would be reviewed by the
Airport Land Use Commission in the Development Plan
review process.
LU-5.8: Chino Airport.
We will support the creation and
implementation of the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan for Chino Airport.
Consistent. The land uses provided by the EBPSP would
be consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan (ALUCP) requirements for the Chino Airport.
Proposed development within the Specific Plan area
would be reviewed by the Airport Land Use
Commission in the site plan review process.
2755
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
3 .11 LAN D U SE A ND PLANNING
3 .11 - 20
Table 3.11-3 EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis
The Ontario Plan Policy Consistency
Housing Element
H-1: Stable neighborhoods of quality housing, ample community services and public facilities, wellmaintained infrastructure, and public safety that foster a positive sense of identity.
H-1.4: Historical Preservation.
We support the preservation and
enhancement of residential structures,
properties, street designs, lot
configurations, and other reminders of
Ontario’s past that are considered to be
local historical or cultural resources.
Consistent. As detailed in Section 3.5, Cultural
Resources, no historical resources would be impacted
by the EBPSP.
Parks and Recreation Element
PR-1: A system of safe and accessible parks that meets the needs of the community.
PR-1.9: Phased Development.
We require parks be built in new
communities before a significant
proportion of residents move in.
Consistent. The EBPSP does not include the creation of
new residential units, but includes 36.15 acres of the
City’s Grand Park, providing amenities such as
pedestrian paths, gathering areas, turf areas, and
botanical gardens. Phasing of Specific Plan
development is discussed in Chapter 7, Implementation
Plan, of the EBPSP.
PR-1.15: Trail Connectivity.
We strengthen and improve equestrian,
bike, and multipurpose trail connections
within the City and work to improve trail
connections into adjacent jurisdictions.
Consistent. The EBPSP would include an 8-foot-wide
multi-purpose trail along Eucalyptus Avenue and
13-foot-wide multi-purpose trails along Grove Avenue
and Walker Avenue to encourage connectivity and
circulation by employees, visitors, and passersby that is not completely dependent on a motorized vehicle. The
multi-purpose trail system in the Specific Plan area
implements the multipurpose trail system shown in
Exhibit M-3, Multipurpose Trails & Bikeway Corridor
Plan, of the Policy Plan.
Environmental Resources Element
ER-1: A reliable and cost-effective system that permits the City to manage its diverse water resources and needs.
ER-1.3: Conservation and Sustainable
Water Supply.
We work with regional water providers and
users to conserve water and ensure
sustainable local water supplies as more
frequent droughts reduce long term local
and regional water availability
Consistent. The Specific Plan proposes a droughttolerant plant palette and water-efficient irrigation system design to minimize the water demands of
planned development. In addition, implementing
development projects would be required to comply
with the water-efficiency mandates of the California
2756
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
3 . 1 1 L A N D U S E A N D P L A N N I N G
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .11 -21
Table 3.11-3 EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis
The Ontario Plan Policy Consistency
Green Building Standards Code, including the provision
of water-efficient fixtures.
ER-1.4: Supply-Demand Balance.
We require that available water supply and
demands be balanced.
Consistent. Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, evaluates the potential impacts related to water supply based on the results of a Water Supply Assessment. As
concluded, implementation of the EBPSP would not
obstruct the City’s ability to meet water demands of its customers in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years.
ER-1.5: Water Resource Management.
Environmental justice areas are prioritized
as we coordinate with local agencies to
protect water quality, prevent pollution,
address existing contamination, and
remediate contaminated surface water and
groundwater.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, implementation of the Specific Plan
would not result in new, substantial sources of urban
runoff, nor would it violate applicable stormwater
quality requirements. Also, the EBPSP area includes
permeable surfaces (e.g., Open Space–Parkland,
landscaped areas, water quality/infiltration basins) that would allow surface water to percolate and contribute
to recharge of the aquifer.
ER-1.6: Urban Run-off Quantity.
We encourage the use of low impact
development strategies, including green
infrastructure, to intercept run-off, slow the
discharge rate, increase infiltration, and
ultimately reduce discharge volumes to
traditional storm drain systems.
Consistent. Please refer to Policy ER-1.5, above.
ER-1.7: Urban Run-off Quality.
We require the control and management of
urban run-off, consistent with Regional
Water Quality Control Board regulations.
Consistent. Please refer to Policy ER-1.5, above.
ER-1.8: Wastewater Management.
We require the management of wastewater
discharge and collection consistent with
waste discharge requirements adopted by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Consistent. All sewer conveyance infrastructure needed
to serve the Specific Plan area would be installed in
accordance with City design standards. Accordingly,
implementation of the EBPSP would not violate any
applicable waste discharge requirements.
ER-3: Cost-effective and reliable energy system sustained through a combination of low impact buildings, site and neighborhood energy conservation, and diverse sources of energy generation that collectively helps to minimize the region’s carbon footprint.
ER-3.3: Building and Site Design.
We require new construction to
incorporate energy efficient building and
site design strategies, which could include
Consistent. The EBPSP Design Guidelines encourage all
new construction to utilize design features, fixtures,
appliances, and heating and cooling controls to
conserve energy and water. In addition, all
2757
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
3 .11 LAN D U SE A ND PLANNING
3 .11 - 22
Table 3.11-3 EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis
The Ontario Plan Policy Consistency
appropriate solar orientation, maximum
use of natural daylight, passive solar, and
natural ventilation.
development would be required to comply with the
California Green Building Standards Code.
ER-3.6: Generation- Renewable Sources.
We promote the use of renewable energy
sources (e.g., solar, wind, biomass) in public
and private sector development.
Consistent. The EBPSP proposes a rooftop solar energy
system which generates enough electricity to meet 45%
of annual electricity demand.
ER-4: Improved indoor and outdoor air quality and reduced locally generated pollutant emissions.
ER-4.1: Land Use.
We reduce GHG and other local pollutant
emissions through compact, mixed use, and
transit-oriented development and
development that improves the regional
jobs-housing balance.
Consistent. The EBPSP would provide employment land
uses in close proximity to major transportation
corridors (Interstate 10, Interstate 15, State Route 60, State Route 83, State Route 71, and State Route 91) and near bus rapid transit (BRT) corridors along Edison
Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road and Euclid Avenue.
Therefore, the Specific Plan area provides local
employment opportunities for residents and serves to
improve the regional jobs-housing balance.
Additionally, the Specific Plan area provides an
integrated system of sidewalks, bikeways, and multipurpose trails on internal and perimeter roadways to encourage non-vehicular modes of transportation.
ER-4.3: Greenhouse Gases (GHG)
Emissions Reductions.
We will reduce GHG emissions in
accordance with regional, state, and federal
regulations.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Specific Plan would be consistent with
applicable regional, State, and federal regulations
related to the reduction of GHG emissions and would
not obstruct implementation of any GHG reduction
plans/programs.
ER-4.8: Tree Planting.
We protect healthy trees within the City
and plant new trees to increase carbon
sequestration and help the regional/local
air quality. We expand the tree canopy in
environmental justice areas to enhance air
quality and reduce the “heat island” effect.
Consistent. The EBPSP is not located within an
environmental justice area; regardless, numerous trees
would be planted within the Specific Plan area, and in
particular, along roadway street frontages, near
building entrances, and in passenger car parking lots. In addition, trees would be planted in the Open Space–
Parkland planning areas.
ER-5: Protected high value habitat and farming and mineral resource extraction activities that are compatible with adjacent development.
ER-5.1: Habitat Conservation Areas.
We support the protection of biological
resources through the establishment,
Consistent. As presented with SEIR Section 3.4,
Biological Resources, the site consists of disturbed and developed land that has been subject to a variety of
anthropogenic disturbances which have eliminated the
2758
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
3 . 1 1 L A N D U S E A N D P L A N N I N G
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .11 -23
Table 3.11-3 EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis
The Ontario Plan Policy Consistency
restoration, and conservation of highquality habitat areas. natural plant communities that once grew there. No native plant communities or natural communities of
special concern are present within or adjacent to the
Specific Plan area.
ER-5.2: Entitlement and Permitting
Process.
We comply with state and federal
regulations regarding protected species.
Consistent. SEIR Section 3.4, Biological Resources, includes Mitigation Measures BIO-1-SP through BIO-3- SP which require pre-construction surveys for nesting
birds, burrowing owl, and roosting bat species, thus
precluding significant impacts to protected species that may occur on-site.
ER-5.3: Right to Farm.
We support the right of existing farms to
continue their operations within the
Ontario Ranch.
Consistent. As shown in Table 5-1, Permitted Uses, of
the EBPSP, existing agricultural and dairy farms in the Specific Plan area are permitted uses in all Planning
Areas.
ER-5.4: Transition of Farms.
We protect both existing farms and
sensitive uses around them as agricultural
areas transition to urban uses.
Consistent. Please refer to Policy ER-5.3, above.
Community Economics Element
CE-1: A complete community that provides for all incomes and stages of life.
CE-1.1: Jobs-Housing Balance.
We pursue improvement to the Inland
Empire’s balance between jobs and housing
by promoting job growth that reduces the
regional economy’s reliance on outcommuting.
Consistent. The EBPSP would provide approximately
138 acres of new employment-generating land uses in
close proximity to existing and planned residential land uses. The Specific Plan would provide an estimated
1,590 employees and would assist efforts to promote
job growth and improve the balance between jobs and
housing in the Inland Empire.
CE-1.12: Circulation.
We continuously plan and improve public
transit and non-vehicular circulation for the
mobility of all, including those with limited
or no access to private automobiles.
Consistent. BRT corridors are located along Edison
Avenue and Euclid Avenue, in close proximity to the
Specific Plan area. The EBPSP would construct a bus
turnout near the intersection of Grove Avenue and
Eucalyptus Avenue in anticipation of future Omnitrans
service. Additionally, the Specific Plan area would
provide Class II bikeways along Walker Avenue and
Campus Avenue. Sidewalks would be provided along all
streets within the Specific Plan area.
2759
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
3 .11 LAN D U SE A ND PLANNING
3 .11 - 24
Table 3.11-3 EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis
The Ontario Plan Policy Consistency
CE-2: A City of distinctive neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and centers where people choose to be.
CE-2.1: Development Projects.
We require new development and
redevelopment to create unique, highquality places that add value to the community.
Consistent. The EBPSP would provide for the
development of a high-quality and contemporary
business park. The Specific Plan’s Design Guidelines
establish criteria for architecture, lighting, signage, and landscape design to promote the development of an
attractive business park with timeless design features, for an inviting place to work and conduct business. The adjacency of the park and retail development would
enhance the attractiveness of the Specific Plan area.
CE-2.2: Development Review.
We require those proposing new
development and redevelopment to
demonstrate how their projects will create
appropriately unique, functional, and
sustainable places that will compete well
with their competition within the region.
Consistent. Implementing development projects within
the Specific Plan area would be reviewed and approved
pursuant to the provisions of the City’s Subdivision
Ordinance and Development Plan Review process. This
provides for review by the City’s Planning Department,
which would require the development to demonstrate
how appropriately unique, functional, and sustainable
places would be created. Furthermore, development
projects in the Specific Plan area would be required to be designed in accordance with the architectural and
landscape Design Guidelines established in Chapter 6,
Design Guidelines, of the EBPSP, which would result in a unique, aesthetically attractive, and contemporary
business park that would be highly competitive with
similar developments in the region.
CE-2.4: Protection of Investment.
We require that new development and
redevelopment protect existing investment
by providing architecture and urban design
of equal or greater quality.
Consistent. Development projects in the EBPSP would
be required to be designed in accordance with the
architectural and landscape design guidelines in
Chapter 6, Design Guidelines, of the Specific Plan,
which would result in a unique, aesthetically attractive, and contemporary business park that reflects highquality architectural design.
Mobility Element
M-1: A system of roadways that meets the mobility needs of a dynamic and prosperous Ontario.
Policy M1-1: Roadway Design and
Maintenance.
We require our roadways to:
Comply with federal, state, and
local design and safety standards;
Consistent. The Specific Plan proposes roadway
improvements consistent with the City of Ontario
Master Plan of Streets and Highways, as described in
EBPSP Chapter 4, Infrastructure Plan. Perimeter and
internal streets would be constructed to City standards •
2760
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
3 . 1 1 L A N D U S E A N D P L A N N I N G
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .11 -25
Table 3.11-3 EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis
The Ontario Plan Policy Consistency
Meet the needs of multiple
transportation modes and users;
Handle the capacity envisioned in
the City of Ontario Master Plan of
Streets and Highways;
Be maintained in accordance with
best practices;
Be compatible with the streetscape
and surrounding land uses; and
Promote the efficient flow of all modes of
traffic through the implementation of
intelligent transportation systems and
travel demand management strategies.
and designed to accommodate vehicles, pedestrians,
and bicyclists through the inclusion of sidewalks, Class II bike lanes, and multi-purpose trails. Roadway designs
include parkways and landscaping to support
circulation and enhance compatibility with adjacent
land uses. Maintenance responsibilities are outlined in EBPSP Chapter 7, Implementation Plan.
Policy M1-2: Mitigation of Impacts.
We require development to mitigate its
traffic impacts.
Consistent. The EBPSP mitigates potential VMT impacts
to the extent feasible. Additionally, the Traffic Analysis identifies improvements and fair share contributions to be assessed of the EBPSP.
Policy M1-4: Complete Streets.
We work to provide a complete, balanced,
context-aware, multimodal transportation
network that meets the needs of all users
of streets, roads, and highways, including
motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children,
persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of
commercial goods, and users of public
transportation. We prioritize
implementation of complete streets
improvements in environmental justice
areas to facilitate opportunities for
residents to use active transportation
systems.
Consistent. The Specific Plan establishes a multimodal
circulation network that includes sidewalks, Class II bike lanes, and multi-purpose trails along major roadways
such as Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue, as
described in EBPSP Chapter 4, Infrastructure Plan. The
plan is designed to accommodate pedestrians,
bicyclists, and vehicles through coordinated roadway
and non-vehicular improvements. Design guidelines in
EBPSP Chapter 6 address pedestrian connectivity and
require consistent treatment of sidewalks, parkways,
and landscape buffers to support safe and functional
circulation throughout the Specific Plan area.
Policy M1-5: Level of Service.
Maintain a peak hour Level of Service (LOS)
E or better at all intersections. Maintain
Level of Service D or better on arterial
streets in the City. Develop and maintain a
list of locations where LOS E or LOS F are
considered acceptable and would be
exempt from this level of service policy.
Considerations for LOS exemption include
Consistent. The Traffic Analysis identifies improvements and fair share contributions to be assessed of the EBPSP to maintain acceptable LOS at affected intersections.
•
•
•
•
2761
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
3 .11 LAN D U SE A ND PLANNING
3 .11 - 26
Table 3.11-3 EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis
The Ontario Plan Policy Consistency
being restricted by environmental
constraints, lacking available right-of-way,
deterring an increase in VMT, or degrading
other modes of travel (such as bicycle or
pedestrian infrastructure).
Policy M1-6: Reduced Vehicle Miles
Traveled.
We will strive to reduce VMT through a
combination of land use, transportation
projects, travel demand management
strategies, and other trip reduction
measures in coordination with
development projects and public capital
improvement projects.
Consistent. Uses internal to the Specific Plan would be connected through internal circulation systems,
including sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-purpose
trails, reducing vehicle miles traveled.
M-2: A system of trails and corridors that facilitate and encourage active modes of transportation.
Policy M2-1: Active Transportation.
We maintain our Active Transportation
Master Plan to create a comprehensive
system of on- and off-street bikeways and
pedestrian facilities that are safe,
comfortable, and accessible and connect
residential areas, businesses, schools,
parks, and other key destination points.
Consistent. The Specific Plan includes the construction of Class II bike lanes along Campus Avenue and Walker
Avenue, as well as multi-purpose trails along Eucalyptus Avenue, Grove Avenue, and Walker Avenue, as detailed
in EBPSP Chapter 4, Infrastructure Plan. These facilities are integrated with a network of sidewalks throughout
the Specific Plan area to support safe and accessible
travel for pedestrians and bicyclists. The circulation
improvements are designed to enhance connectivity
within the business park and to adjacent areas,
consistent with the City’s active transportation goals.
Policy M2-2: Bicycle System.
We provide off-street multipurpose trails
and Class II bikeways as our primary paths
of travel and use the Class III for
connectivity in constrained circumstances.
When truck routes and bicycle facilities
share a right-of-way, we prefer Class I or
Class IV bicycle facilities. We require new
development to include bicycle facilities,
such as bicycle parking and secure storage
areas.
Consistent. The EBPSP includes Class II bikeways and
multi-purpose trails throughout the circulation network to support bicycle travel. All development in the
Specific Plan area would be required to comply with
City of Ontario bicycle facility standards, including
provisions for bike lanes, trails, and secure bicycle
parking and storage.
Policy M2-3: Pedestrian Walkways.
We require walkways that promote safe
and convenient travel between residential
Consistent. The EBPSP includes sidewalks and multipurpose trails along all major perimeter roadways, including Eucalyptus Avenue, Grove Avenue, Walker
2762
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
3 . 1 1 L A N D U S E A N D P L A N N I N G
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .11 -27
Table 3.11-3 EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis
The Ontario Plan Policy Consistency
areas, businesses, schools, parks,
recreation areas, and other key destination
points.
Avenue, Bon View Avenue, and Campus Avenue, to
ensure safe and convenient pedestrian access
throughout the area. Internal private drive aisles and
public streets would provide additional pedestrian
connections between planned business park uses and
open space areas. All pedestrian facilities would be
constructed in accordance with City standards and
designed to promote visibility and safety.
M-2.4 Network Opportunities.
We use public rights-of-way and easements
such as utility easements, levees, drainage
corridors, road rights-of-way, medians, and
other potential options to maintain and
expand our bicycle and pedestrian network.
In urban, mixed- use, and transit-oriented
Place Types, we encourage the use of
underutilized public and private spaces to
expand our public realm and improve
pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. (Link to
Community Design Element Urban, Mixed
Use, and Transit-oriented Place Types
Section)
Consistent. The EBPSP utilizes public rights-of-way to
establish a connected bicycle and pedestrian network,
including sidewalks and multi-purpose trails within the ROWs of Eucalyptus Avenue, Grove Avenue, Walker
Avenue, and other major corridors. The EBPSP
incorporates parkways, landscape buffers, and trail
corridors to expand the public realm and improve nonvehicular connectivity throughout the Specific Plan area in alignment with City goals.
Goal M-4: An efficient flow of goods through the City that maximizes economic benefits and minimizes negative impacts.
Policy M4-1: Truck Routes.
We designate and maintain a network of
City truck routes that provide for the safe
and efficient transport of goods while
minimizing negative impacts on local
circulation and noise-sensitive land uses, as
shown on Exhibit M-04, Truck Routes. We
will minimize conflicts on truck routes
through the design and implementation of
buffers between travel lanes and
pedestrian and bicycle facilities on
designated truck routes.
Consistent. Trucks accessing the Specific Plan area
would be required to travel along City-designated truck routes. Mandatory use of truck routes would minimize
potential conflicts between truck traffic and other
motorized and non-motorized transportation modes.
Policy M4-4: Environmental
Considerations.
We support both local and regional efforts
to reduce/eliminate the negative
environmental impacts of goods movement
Consistent. The EBPSP supports regional goods
movement through planned improvements to
surrounding roadways. The Specific Plan incorporates
circulation and site planning strategies that
accommodate truck access and loading while
2763
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
3 .11 LAN D U SE A ND PLANNING
3 .11 - 28
Table 3.11-3 EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis
The Ontario Plan Policy Consistency
through the planning and implementation
of truck routing and the development of a
plan to evaluate the future needs of clean
fueling/recharging and electrified truck
parking.
minimizing conflicts with non-vehicular travel. These
improvements provide a framework that can support
future environmental initiatives related to sustainable goods movement.
Community Design Benefit
CD-1: A dynamic, progressive city containing distinct neighborhoods and commercial districts that foster a positive sense of identity and belonging among residents, visitors, and businesses.
Policy CD1-3: Existing Neighborhoods.
We require the existing character of viable
residential and non-residential
neighborhoods be preserved, protected
and enhanced.
Consistent. The EBPSP is designed to preserve and
protect the character of surrounding neighborhoods by
incorporating a thoughtful land use plan, site design,
and buffer treatments. Landscaped setbacks would be
located along perimeter roadways to provide a visual
and physical buffer between business park uses and
adjacent properties. Building orientation, screening
walls, and enhanced landscaping would be used to
minimize visual and operational impacts on neighboring
land uses. EBPSP Design Guidelines and Development
Standards would ensure that lighting is directed away
from adjacent areas and that loading and service areas
are screened from public view, thereby reducing
potential edge effects and maintaining compatibility
with the surrounding community.
Policy CD1-4: Transportation Corridors.
We will enhance our major transportation
corridors within the City through landscape,
hardscape, signage and lighting. The extent
of enhancement should be appropriate to
the use, type, and context of each corridor.
Consistent. The EBPSP would enhance major
transportation corridors through a cohesive streetscape design that includes landscaping, parkways, and multipurpose trails along Eucalyptus Avenue, Grove Avenue, Walker Avenue, Bon View Avenue, and Campus Avenue.
These improvements include a combination of canopy
trees, shrubs, and groundcover to frame the corridor
edges and provide visual continuity. Class II bike lanes and an internal pedestrian network to promote safe,
multimodal travel would also be provided. Entry
monuments, consistent signage, and corner treatments
would be integrated into the streetscape to reinforce
the design character of the business park and create a
welcoming environment for employees and visitors.
EBPSP Design Guidelines establish architectural and
landscape elements appropriate to the context of each
corridor.
2764
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
3 . 1 1 L A N D U S E A N D P L A N N I N G
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .11 -29
Table 3.11-3 EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis
The Ontario Plan Policy Consistency
Policy CD1-3: Existing Neighborhoods.
We require the existing character of viable
residential and non-residential
neighborhoods be preserved, protected
and enhanced.
Consistent. The EBPSP is designed to preserve and
protect the character of surrounding neighborhoods by
incorporating a thoughtful land use plan, site design,
and buffer treatments. Landscape setbacks and open
space parkland would be located along perimeter
roadways to provide a visual and physical buffer
between business park uses and adjacent properties.
Building orientation, screening walls, and enhanced
landscaping would be used to minimize visual and
operational impacts on neighboring land uses. EBPSP
Design Guidelines and Development Standards would
ensure that lighting is directed away from adjacent
areas and that loading and service areas are screened
from public view, thereby reducing potential edge
effects and maintaining compatibility with the
surrounding community.
Policy CD1-5: View Corridors.
We require all major north-south streets be
designed and redeveloped to feature views
of the San Gabriel Mountains, which are
part of the City’s visual identity and a key to
geographic orientation. Such views should
be free of visual clutter, including billboards
and may be enhanced by framing with
trees.
Consistent. The Specific Plan does not include any
design features that would obstruct views along major
north-south corridors such as Campus Avenue, Grove
Avenue, Bon View Avenue, and Walker Avenue. As
outlined in EBPSP Chapter 6, Design Guidelines, and
EBPSP Chapter 4, Infrastructure Plan, landscaping
(including street trees and parkways) would be installed along these corridors as part of roadway improvements.
These enhancements would be implemented
concurrently with development to create a cohesive
streetscape while maintaining an open visual character
consistent with City policies.
CD-2: A high level of design quality resulting in public spaces, streetscapes, and developments that are attractive, safe, functional and distinct.
Policy CD2-1:
Quality Architecture. We encourage all
development projects to convey visual
interest and character through:
Building volume, massing, and
height to provide appropriate scale
and proportion;
A true architectural style which is
carried out in plan, section and
elevation through all aspects of the
building and site design and
Consistent. Future development within the EBPSP area
would be guided by the Specific Plan’s Design
Guidelines (Chapter 6), which promote high-quality
architectural design through appropriate building
massing, scale, and articulation. The guidelines require a unified architectural theme and consistent application of materials, colors, and detailing across all visible
building elevations. While the Specific Plan does not
prescribe specific materials, it emphasizes the use of
durable and visually appealing finishes appropriate to a modern business park setting. These standards would
---
•
•
2765
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
3 .11 LAN D U SE A ND PLANNING
3 .11 - 30
Table 3.11-3 EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis
The Ontario Plan Policy Consistency
appropriate for its setting; and
Exterior building materials that are
visually interesting, high quality,
durable, and appropriate for the
architectural style.
ensure that new development contributes positively to
the City’s visual character.
Policy CD2-5: Streetscapes.
We design new and, when necessary,
retrofit existing streets to improve
walkability, bicycling and transit integration,
strengthen connectivity, and enhance
community identity through improvements
to the public right of way such as sidewalks,
street trees, parkways, curbs, street lighting
and street furniture.
Consistent. As part of implementation of the EBPSP,
improvements would be made to existing public streets
including Eucalyptus Avenue, Grove Avenue, Walker
Avenue, Bon View Avenue, and Campus Avenue, as
outlined in EBPSP Chapter 4, Infrastructure Plan.
Planned improvements would include the addition of
sidewalks, Class II bike lanes, and multi-purpose trails to support safe and efficient travel for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and vehicles. Landscaped parkways with trees and other plantings would be provided along all major
roadways to enhance the visual character of the street
network and reinforce the Specific Plan’s design
framework as described in EBPSP Chapter 6, Design
Guidelines. These enhancements are intended to
improve connectivity and promote a cohesive
streetscape identity throughout the plan area.
Policy CD2-7: Sustainability.
We collaborate with the development
community to design and build
neighborhoods, streetscapes, sites, outdoor
spaces, landscaping and buildings to reduce
energy demand through solar orientation,
maximum use of natural daylight, passive
solar and natural ventilation, building form,
mechanical and structural systems, building
materials and construction techniques.
Consistent. The Specific Plan supports sustainable
development principles through its location near
regional transportation corridors and within close
driving distance of existing residential neighborhoods.
The land use plan promotes a mix of employmentgenerating uses intended to serve both the local and regional workforce, aligning with smart growth
objectives. As described in EBPSP Chapter 6, Design
Guidelines, the landscaping strategy emphasizes the
use of drought-tolerant plant species appropriate for
the Inland Southern California climate, with an
emphasis on low water use and long-term maintenance
efficiency. These measures, combined with coordinated
site planning and infrastructure improvements, would
contribute to reduced resource demand and enhanced
environmental performance across the Specific Plan
area.
Policy CD2-8: Safe Design.
We incorporate defensible space design
into new and existing developments to
Consistent. The EBPSP serves as the framework for
implementing development projects within the Specific
2766
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
3 . 1 1 L A N D U S E A N D P L A N N I N G
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .11 -31
Table 3.11-3 EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis
The Ontario Plan Policy Consistency
ensure the maximum safe travel and
visibility on pathways, corridors, and open
space and at building entrances and
parking areas by avoiding physically and
visually isolated spaces, maintenance of
visibility and accessibility, and use of
lighting.
Plan area, and includes design specifications for walls, fences, sidewalks, building entrances, and lighting.
Policy CD2-9: Landscape Design.
We encourage durable landscaping
materials and designs that enhance the
aesthetics of structures, create and define
public and private spaces, and provide
shade and environmental benefits.
Consistent. The landscape concept for the EBPSP
incorporates the use of attractive, durable landscaping materials, and an irrigation system designed to keep
plant materials in good health while conserving water.
Landscaping would be provided throughout the Specific
Plan area, including along roadways, within passenger
car parking lots, at monuments/entries, within common
open space areas, and adjacent to buildings.
Policy CD2-10: Parking Areas.
We require all development, including
single-family residential, to minimize the
visual impact of surface, structured, and
garage parking areas visible from the public
realm in an aesthetically pleasing, safe and
environmentally sensitive manner.
Examples include:
1. Surface parking: Shade trees,
pervious surfaces, urban run-off
capture and infiltration, and
pedestrian paths to guide users
through the parking field.
2. Structured parking: facade
articulation, screening, appropriate
lighting, and landscaping.
Garage parking: providing access to singlefamily residential garages through alley access, recessing garages from the frontage
to emphasize front doors or active living
spaces.
Consistent. Surface parking lots, truck courts, and
loading areas would be designed in accordance with the
City’s Development Code and the Specific Plan’s Design
Guidelines (Chapter 6), which require the incorporation of landscaping, screening, and clearly defined
pedestrian pathways and drive aisles. Additionally, each building’s surface parking area would be designed to
treat urban runoff through the respective site’s storm
drain design.
Policy CD2-11: Entry Statements. We encourage the inclusion of amenities, signage and landscaping at the entry to
neighborhoods, commercial centers, mixed
use areas, industrial developments, and
Consistent. The EBPSP includes guidelines for building
entry treatments, primary and secondary corner
treatments, and tenant monument treatments to
identify the development and distinguish individual
planning areas, in conformance with the intent of Policy 2767
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
3 .11 LAN D U SE A ND PLANNING
3 .11 - 32
Table 3.11-3 EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis
The Ontario Plan Policy Consistency
public places that reinforce them as
uniquely identifiable places.
CD2-11. The entry treatments, corner treatments, and
tenant monuments which are illustrated in EBPSP
Chapter 6, Design Guidelines, incorporate landscaping
and enhanced signage to provide attractive and
distinctive visual statements.
Policy CD2-12: Site and Building Signage.
We encourage the use of sign programs
that utilize complementary materials,
colors, and themes. Project signage should
be designed to effectively communicate
and direct users to various aspects of the
development and complement the
character of the structures.
Consistent. The Design Guidelines (Chapter 6 of the
Specific Plan) include signage guidelines to ensure that future development would construct clear, concise,
easy-to-read signs that reflect and complement the
Specific Plan’s design theme, provide for safe and
efficient circulation of vehicle traffic, and facilitate pedestrian travel. Signs would be of high quality, and
the use of distracting sign elements, such as flashing
lights or moving parts, is prohibited. Additionally, a sign program would be provided along with the Specific Plan
to further provide design standard for signs within the Specific Plan area.
Goal CD3: Vibrant urban environments that are organized around intense buildings, pedestrian and transit areas, public plazas, and linkages between and within developments that are conveniently located, visually appealing and safe during all hours.
Policy CD3.2: Comfortable, Human-Scale
Public Realm.
We require that public spaces, including
streets, parks, and plazas on both public
and private property be designed to
maximize safety, comfort and aesthetics
and connect to the citywide pedestrian,
vehicular, and bicycle networks.
Consistent. The Specific Plan promotes a comfortable,
human-scale public realm through the coordinated
design of its streetscapes, sidewalks, and multi-purpose trails, as described in EBPSP Chapter 4, Infrastructure Plan, and Chapter 6, Design Guidelines. Sidewalks and
trails are integrated throughout the area to enhance
pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, while landscaped
parkways and consistent setbacks create a visually
appealing and walkable environment. These
improvements are designed to provide safe, accessible,
and aesthetically cohesive connections to the citywide
transportation network. Additionally, the Open Space–
Parkland planning areas would provide both passive
and active open space use for visitors, employees, and
surrounding residents of the Specific Plan area.
Policy CD3.3: Complete and Connected
Network
We require that pedestrian, vehicular, and
bicycle circulation on both public and
private property be coordinated to provide
connections internally and externally to
Consistent. The Specific Plan provides a coordinated
and interconnected circulation network for vehicles,
bicycles, and pedestrians, as illustrated in EBPSP
Chapter 4, Infrastructure Plan, and EBPSP Chapter 6,
Design Guidelines. Public roadways and private drive
aisles would include sidewalks, Class II bike lanes, and 2768
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
3 . 1 1 L A N D U S E A N D P L A N N I N G
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .11 -33
Table 3.11-3 EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis
The Ontario Plan Policy Consistency
adjacent neighborhoods and properties
(existing and planned) through a system of
local roads and trails that promote walking
and biking to nearby destinations (including
existing and planned parks, commercial
areas, and transit stops) and are designed
to maximize safety, comfort, and aesthetics.
multi-purpose trails to ensure internal mobility and
connectivity to surrounding areas. Improvements along
major corridors such as Eucalyptus Avenue, Grove
Avenue, and Walker Avenue support access to regional
transit and commercial destinations. All future
development would be required to comply with City
standards for sight visibility, safety, and landscape
placement to ensure a comfortable and secure travel
experience for all users.
Policy CD 3.4: Context-Aware and
Appropriate Design
We require appropriate building and site
design that complements existing
development, respects the intent and
identity of the Place Type, and provides
appropriate transitions and connections
between adjacent uses to ensure
compatibility of scale, maintain an
appropriate level of privacy for each use,
and minimize potential conflicts.
Consistent. The Specific Plan establishes building and
site design standards that ensure compatibility with
surrounding development and land uses, as detailed in
EBPSP Chapters 5, Development Regulations, and
6, Design Guidelines. The plan incorporates landscaped
setbacks, internal circulation buffers, and screening
treatments along perimeter roadways to create
appropriate transitions between the business park and
adjacent uses. Building height, massing, and orientation are designed to respect the scale of surrounding
development and minimize potential land use conflicts,
supporting a context-sensitive and visually cohesive
environment.
Policy CD 3.5: Active Frontages.
We create lively pedestrian streetscapes by
requiring primary building, business, and
residential entrances, outdoor dining, and
storefronts be located on ground floors
adjacent to sidewalks or public spaces and
designed to maximize safety, comfort,
aesthetics, and the intended functionality
(as defined by the Place Type).
Consistent. The Specific Plan incorporates design
elements that support active and engaging frontages
along key pedestrian corridors. As described in EBPSP
Chapter 6, Design Guidelines, primary building
entrances are oriented toward public streets or internal circulation routes, with pedestrian connections
provided from sidewalks and trails. Landscaping,
lighting, and pathway design contribute to a safe and
comfortable pedestrian experience, reinforcing the
plan’s intent to create a cohesive and visually appealing business park environment.
Policy CD 3.6: Managed Infrastructure.
We collaborate with developers and
property owners to facilitate development
that realizes the envisioned character and
functionality of the Place Type through the
use of green and shared infrastructure
within each Place Type.
Consistent. The Specific Plan supports coordinated
infrastructure planning to achieve the intended
character and functionality of a modern business park.
As outlined in EBPSP Chapter 4, Infrastructure Plan, the Specific Plan includes shared infrastructure
improvements such as integrated roadway systems,
stormwater facilities, and utility corridors designed to serve multiple parcels efficiently. The Specific Plan also 2769
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
3 .11 LAN D U SE A ND PLANNING
3 .11 - 34
Table 3.11-3 EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis
The Ontario Plan Policy Consistency
promotes sustainable practices through the use of
drought-tolerant landscaping and multi-purpose trails
within public rights-of-way, contributing to a cohesive, functional, and environmentally responsible
development pattern.
Goal CD-5: A sustained level of maintenance and improvement of properties, buildings and infrastructure that protects the property values and encourages additional public and private investments.
Policy CD5-1: Maintenance of Buildings
and Property.
We require all public and privately-owned
buildings and property (including trails and
easements) to be properly and consistently
maintained.
Consistent. The Specific Plan defines the responsible
parties for maintaining both public and private
improvements, including roadways, utilities,
landscaping, and pedestrian infrastructure, as outlined in EBPSP Chapter 7, Implementation Plan. A
maintenance responsibility matrix is included to ensure long-term upkeep of all improvements, including trails
and easements, in accordance with City standards. This
framework ensures that all development within the
Specific Plan area would be properly and consistently
maintained.
Policy CD5-2: Maintenance of
Infrastructure.
We require the continual maintenance of
infrastructure.
Consistent. Please refer to Policy CD5-1, above.
Sources: Ontario 2022b.
Ontario Development Code
Upon adoption of the Specific Plan, the EBPSP Development Regulations and Design Standards would apply to the Specific Plan area and would establish the applicable zoning regulations and development standards. The Specific Plan would become the land use implementation tool for the site as a whole. As stated in Ontario Development Code Section 1.01.035, in the event of any conflict between the requirements of the Development Code and the standards contained within an adopted project, the requirements of the project would govern, and when the provisions of a project are silent on a specific matter, the regulations in the Development Code shall apply (Ontario 2020). As such, the EBPSP would not result in conflicts with the Ontario Development Code, and impacts would be less than significant. 2770
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
3 . 1 1 L A N D U S E A N D P L A N N I N G
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .11 -35
SCAG’s Connect SoCal
SCAG’s Connect SoCal goals are meant to provide guidance for municipalities throughout the SCAG jurisdictional area within the context of regional goals and policies. On April 4, 2024, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2024-2050 Connect SoCal (SCAG 2024). Table 3.11-4, EBPSP Consistency with Connect SoCal, provides an analysis of the Specific Plan’s consistency with applicable policies of the 2024-2050 Connect SoCal. As shown, no conflicts would occur.
Table 3.11-4 EBPSP Consistency with Connect SoCal
2024-2050 RTP/SCS Regional Planning Policies EBPSP Consistency Mobility
Complete Streets
03. Pursue the development of Complete Streets
that comprise a safe, multimodal network with
flexible use of public rights-of-way for people of
all ages and abilities using a variety of modes
(e.g., people walking, biking, rolling, driving,
taking transit).
No Conflict. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation
would be accommodated within the Specific Plan
area through a network of sidewalks, multipurpose trails, and bike lanes. 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.
05. Facilitate the implementation of Complete
Streets and curb space management strategies
that accommodate and optimize new
technologies, micromobility devices and first/last
mile connections to transit and last-mile delivery.
No Conflict. The EBPSP would include roadways
improvements consistent with City requirements
to accommodate site access and maintain
acceptable peak hour operations. Additionally,
the applicant would be required to pay Developer
Impact Fees (DIF) to contribute to regional and
local street improvements within the City. Due to
the Specific Plan’s proximity to the State highway
system, uses implemented pursuant to the
Specific Plan would facilitate first/last mile
delivery for the movement of goods.
Communities
Priority Development Areas
34. Seek to realize scale economies or a critical
mass of jobs and destinations in areas across the
region that can support non- single occupant
vehicle (SOV) options and shorter trip distances,
combined trips and reduced vehicle miles
traveled.
No Conflict. The Specific Plan would increase
employment opportunities in the Inland Empire
area, reducing the need for members of the local
workforce to commute outside the area for
employment. Additionally, the EBPSP would
establish development intensities that could
support future transit in the local area.
2771
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
3 .11 LAN D U SE A ND PLANNING
3 .11 - 36
Table 3.11-4 EBPSP Consistency with Connect SoCal
2024-2050 RTP/SCS Regional Planning Policies EBPSP Consistency Environment
Sustainable Development
48. Promote sustainable development and best
practices that enhance resource conservation,
reduce resource consumption and promote
resilience.
No Conflict. The EBPSP promotes sustainable
development practices that align with California’s
long-term environmental goals and energy
efficiency standards. Section 6.6 of the Specific
Plan includes energy efficiency guidelines. In
addition to meeting or exceeding the California
Green Building Standards Code and Title 24
energy efficiency requirements, future land uses
would be required to accommodate solar
photovoltaic (PV) systems and use zero-emission
equipment for building operations. Compliance
with applicable federal and State regulations and
requirements, including the provisions of the Title
24 Building Energy Standards, would reduce the
Specific Plan’s resource consumption and help
promote sustainable development.
Air Quality
51. Reduce hazardous air pollutants and
greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality
throughout the region through planning and
implementation efforts.
The EBPSP would implement measures to reduce
operational-source criteria pollutant emissions
(refer to Mitigation Measures AIR-5-SP through
AIR-12-SP and GHG-1-SP).
Source: SCAG 2024.
Airport Considerations
Although the Specific Plan area is within the ONT Airport Influence Area, it is outside any identified safety, airspace protection, and noise impact zones. All properties within the ONT Airport Influence Area are subject to a real estate transaction disclosure notice (Ontario 2018).
The Specific Plan area is also within the CNO Influence Area. The San Bernardino County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Chino Airport was adopted in 1991 and does not reflect guidance in the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (SBC ALUC 1991). As such, in 2022, the City of Ontario adopted the CNO Overlay District and Reference I: Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, which provides maps, criteria, and policy language to guide development within the Chino Influence Area, consistent with the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
2772
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
3 . 1 1 L A N D U S E A N D P L A N N I N G
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .11 -37
The majority of the Specific Plan area is within CNO Safety Zone 6 (low risk), with a very small part of the southeastern corner in Safety Zone 4 (moderate risk). Uses permitted by the EBPSP are allowed in both of these safety zones, subject to the criteria and policies of Reference I:
Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan in Table 3.11-5, CNO Compatibility Criteria Matrix (Ontario 2022).
Table 3.11-5 CNO Compatibility Criteria Matrix Safety Zones Residential
Density
Limits
Nonresidential
Intensity
Limits
(People
per acre)
Open Land
Requirement
for Entire
Zone Other Criteria
Boundary
Determinations
Zone 1
Runway Protection
Zone
0 0 All Remaining Avigation
Easement and
Airspace Review
Required
RPZ
Zone 2
Inner Approach/
Departure Zone
0 60 (avg.)
120 (single
acre)
25%; preserve
open land
nearest
runway end
Avigation
Easement and
Airspace Review
Required
Safety Zone 2
Zone 3
Inner Turning Zone
dwelling
unit per 2-
acre lot
100 (avg.)
300 (single
acre)
15%; preserve
open land
along
extended
runway
centerline
Avigation
Easement and
Airspace Review
Required
Safety Zone 3
Zone 4
Outer Approach/
Departure Zone
2 dwelling
units per 2-
acre lot
150 (avg.)
450 (single
acre)
15%; preserve
open land
along
extended
runway
centerline
Avigation
Easement and
Airspace Review
Required
Safety Zone 4
Zone 6
Traffic Pattern Zone
No Limit 300 (avg.)
1,200
(single
acre)
10%; preserve
open land
every 1/4 to
1/2 mile
Deed Notice
and Airspace
Review
Required
Safety Zone 6
Source: Ontario 2022.
Note: Excerpt from Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CNO ALUCP), Table I-1: Compatibility Criteria Matrix, Reference I
2773
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
3 .11 LAN D U SE A ND PLANNING
3 .11 - 38
As discussed in SEIR Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the EBPSP uses have the potential to create up to 1,590 jobs. This would equate to an average of 8.41 people per acre, which would not exceed the non-residential intensity limits for Safety Zones 4 or 6. Even with the addition of visitors to the site, the intensity limits set forth above would not be exceeded. Future land uses implemented pursuant to the EBPSP would not conflict with the regulations for the applicable Safety Zone in which it is located.
Summary
Based on the preceding discussions, the EBPSP would not result in a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts are considered 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.
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact LUP-2: Project implementation would not conflict with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant land use and planning impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
No mitigation measures were required.
Specific Plan
No mitigation measures were required.
3.11.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Cumulative projects in the City would have the potential to result in a cumulative impact if they would, in combination, conflict with existing land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. Projects in the City would utilize TOP 2050 and regional planning documents such as SCAG’s Connect SoCal during planning, to the extent that they are applicable. Cumulative projects would be required to 2774
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
3 . 1 1 L A N D U S E A N D P L A N N I N G
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .11 -39
comply with the proposed project or they would not be approved without a general plan amendment. As discussed above, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with existing land use plans, policies, or regulations. In addition, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, proposed project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact, and this impact is less than significant. Cumulative Impacts: The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to land use and planning.
3.11.6 References
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/.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics). 2011, October.
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/ programs/aeronautics/documents/californiaairportlanduseplanninghandbook-a11y.pdf.
Chino Airport Land Use Commission. 2023, May 2 (revised). Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CNO ALUCP). Reference I, Table I-1. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2024- 12/Reference%20I_Chino%20Airport%20Land%20Use%20Compatibility%20Plan_Rev%2 005.02.2023.pdf.
Ontario, City of. 2018. Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/community-development/planning/planning -programs/ontario-international-airport-inter
Ontario. 2020. Development Code Enactment and General
Provisionshttps://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2024- 12/Chapter%201.0%20-
%20Development%20Code%20Enactment%20and%20General%20Provisions_Rev%2012 -01-2020.pdf
Ontario. 2022. Planning Commission Staff Report. https://legistarwebproduction.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/1480169/20220719_File_No._ PDCA22-004__02_PC_Back-up.pdf
ONT-IAC (Ontario International Airport–Inter Agency Collaborative). 2018, March 28. Project Comment Worksheet for Major Land Use Actions within the ONT Airport Influence Area. 2775
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
3 .11 LAN D U SE A ND PLANNING
3 .11 - 40
SBC ALUC (San Bernardino County Airport Land Use Commission). 1991. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Chino Airport. https://lus.sbcounty.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/48/Airports/Chino.pdf.
San Bernardino, County of. 2011. Airport Master Plan for Chino Airport. https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.legistar.com/SanBernardino/119/1143377.pdf.
SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2024. Connect So Cal. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/23-2987-connect-socal-2024-final -complete-040424.pdf.
2776
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
M ARCH 2 026 3 .12 -1
3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) evaluates potential mineral resource impacts of TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment and the EBPSP (proposed project) compared to the current TOP (approved project) and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Minerals are defined as any naturally occurring chemical elements or compounds, formed from inorganic processes and organic substances. Minable minerals or an “ore deposit” is defined as a deposit of ore or mineral having a value materially in excess of the cost of developing, mining, and processing the mineral and reclaiming the area.
3.12.1 Regulatory Framework
STATE
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
California’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) was enacted to address the need for a continuing supply of mineral resources, and to prevent or minimize the negative impacts of surface mining to public health, property, and the environment. Requirements for SMARA are codified under Public Resources Code Section 2710, et. seq. Under State law, all mining operations are required to obtain permits prior to commencing operations and to abide by local and state operating requirements. Mining operations are also required to have appropriate reclamation plans in place, provide financial assurances, and abide by State and local environmental laws.
Classification
The California Geological Survey Mineral Resources Project provides information about California’s nonfuel mineral resources. The Mineral Resources Project classifies lands throughout the state that contain regionally significant mineral resources per SMARA. Nonfuel mineral resources include metals such as gold, silver, iron, and copper; industrial metals such as boron compounds, rare-earth elements, clays, limestone, gypsum, salt and dimension stone; and construction aggregate including sand, gravel, and crushed stone. Development generally results in a demand for minerals, especially construction aggregate. Urban preemption of prime deposits and conflicts between mining and other uses throughout California led to passage of SMARA, which requires all city and county general plans to incorporate the mapped designations approved by the State Mining and Geology Board.
The classification process involves the determination of Production-Consumption (P-C) region boundaries based on identification of active aggregate operations (Production) and the market area served (Consumption). The P-C regional boundaries are modified to include only the parts 2777
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
3 .12 -2
of the region that are urbanized or urbanizing and are classified for their aggregate content. An aggregate appraisal further evaluates the presence or absence of significant sand, gravel, or stone deposits that are suitable sources of aggregate. The classification of these mineral resources is a joint effort of the state and the local governments. It is based on geologic factors and requires that the State Geologist classify the mineral resources area as one of 4 mineral resource zones (MRZ).
MRZ-1. Adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or likely to be present.
MRZ-2. Adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or a likelihood of their presence, and development should be controlled.
MRZ-3. The significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available data.
MRZ-4. There is insufficient data to assign any other MRZ designation.
As part of the classification process, an analysis of site-specific conditions is used to calculate the total volume of aggregates in individually identified resource sectors. Resource sectors are MRZ-2 areas of regional or statewide significance. Anticipated aggregate demand in the P-C regions for the next 50 years is then estimated and compared to the total volume of aggregate reserves identified in the P-C region.
Designation
Once a classification report has been completed, the State Mining and Geology Board may choose, based on recommendations from the State Geologist, to proceed with the second step in SMARA’s mineral land identification process, which is designation of mineral deposits that are of regional or statewide significance. In contrast to classifications, which inventories mineral deposits without regard to land use or land ownership, the purpose of a designation is to identify deposits that are potentially available from a land-use perspective and are of prime importance in meeting future needs of the region or state.
3.12.2 Existing Conditions
POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
Mineral Resource Zones
Areas with known mineral resources in Ontario are shown in Figure 3.12-1, Areas of Mineral Resource Significance. Two areas in the City are classified as MRZ-2. One is in the northwestern part of the City, and the second is along the eastern City boundary (CDOC 1984). These 2 areas total 6,132 acres, or approximately 19 percent of the City’s total area (Ontario 2022). The ■
■
■
■
2778
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.12 MINERAL RESO URCES
M ARCH 2 026 3 .12 -3
remaining 81 percent of the City’s area is MRZ-3, where the significance of mineral deposits is unknown. Mineral resources in the City are limited to construction aggregates such as sand and gravel. There are currently no permitted mining operations in the City.
Production-Consumption Regions
The City is in 3 P-C Regions. The northwestern portion is in the Claremont Upland Region, the eastern portion is in the San Bernardino Region, and the southwestern portion is in the Orange County-Temescal Region, as shown in Figure 3.12-1. All 3 regions are in the Greater Los Angeles Sand and Gravel Resource Area (Ontario 2022).
Regionally Significant Aggregate Resource Sectors
There is one area in Ontario that is designated by the California Geological Survey as Resource Sectors containing construction aggregate of “regional significance” (Ontario 2022). This area, known as the Day Creek Fan, Mira Loma Area Resource Sector, covers approximately 975 acres, a portion of which lies within the City of Ontario. The Day Creek Fan, Mira Loma Area Resource Sector is in the San Bernardino P-C Region and is divided into three aggregate resource sectors in the City of Ontario, identified as D-2, D-3, and D-5 (refer to Figure 3.12-1).
Since the mineral land classification was conducted in 1987, much of the Day Creek Fan, Mira Loma Area Resource Sector, has been developed for industrial park and warehousing uses.
Aggregate resource sectors D-3 and D-5, totaling 385 acres, have been developed entirely with nonmineral uses and only small parcels remain. Portions of aggregate resource sector D-2, which totals approximately 106 acres, have been developed with industrial and warehouse uses (Ontario 2010). Industrial uses in aggregate resource sector D-2 do not necessarily preclude mining activities, but significant structural improvements in this part of the City may inhibit development of the Day Creek Fan, Mira Loma Area Resource Sector, for mineral extraction.
As defined by Section 2726 of SMARA, an area of regional significance is ... an area which is known to contain a deposit of minerals, the extraction of which is judged to be of prime importance in meeting future needs for minerals in a particular region of the state within which the minerals are located and which, if prematurely developed for alternate incompatible land uses, could result in the permanent loss of minerals that are of more than local significance.
Land uses inherently incompatible with mining include residential, commercial, public facilities, and geographically limited but impact-intensive industrial. According to Section 2762 of SMARA, prior to permitting a use that would threaten the potential to extract minerals in that area, the City would be required to prepare a statement specifying its reasons for permitting the proposed use and consider the importance of these minerals to their market region as a whole and not just their importance to Ontario.
2779
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
3 .12 -4
SPECIFIC PLAN
As described previously, approximately 19 percent of the City’s area is classified as MRZ-2. The remaining 81 percent of the City’s area, including the Specific Plan area, is classified as MRZ-3, where the significance of mineral deposits is unknown (CDOC 2024). The location of the Specific Plan area within the City’s MRZs is illustrated in Figure 3.12-1.
3.12.3 Standards for Analysis
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to mineral resources if it would:
a) 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.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.
METHODOLOGY
Specific Plan
The Department of Conservation’s Mineral Resources Data Portal and the EBPSP’s Phase I Environmental Site Assessment were reviewed to determine whether there were any past or current mineral resources extraction activities within the Specific Plan area. This information was used to determine the potential to affect any mineral resources.
3.12.4 Relevant New and Modified General Plan Policies
There are no applicable policy changes.
2780
Claremont-Upland P-C Region
Orange County-Temescal P-C Region
D-2
D-3
D-5
E RI ERSIDE DR
E G ST
W D ST
E PHILADELPHIA ST
W FOURTH ST
E D ST
W MISSION BLVD
W G ST
E FOURTH ST
W PHILADELPHIA ST
E EIGHTH ST
W FRANCIS ST
E JURUPA ST
E AIRPORT DR
AND EMPIRE BLVD
E EDISON
E SANTA ANA
E HOLT
E EUCALYPTUS
E SCHAEFER
E MERRILL
E CHINO
E EUCALYPTUS
-L_ .. l
/ · l
:i:: l
z CITY OF ~ z
MONTCLAIR f
z
!
LJ.J
~
z
~
I= z
::::>
0 ;2:
z
[
·7.Jl .. .J
I ,
-··r ..1-.. : (I,)
z
u:,
"' - ~
, .. ......J (
J
LJ.J
~
z
~ z
::::>
0 ;2:
V)
CITY OF CHINO
CITY OF
UPLAND
LJ.J
~
g
z
0 fz
<t
z
<t
V)
z
V,
V,
)>
z
)>
z
-I
0 z
0 ~ (fl
LJ.J
~
Cl
::::;
u
::::>
LJ.J
z
LJ.J LJ.J
~ ~ <t V)
z ::::>
~ 0..
;2:
::::> <t V) u
z z
LJ.J
~
V) V)
::::>
0..
;2:
<t
u
V)
,1-,1-,1--•••- " '
z
LJ.J
~
Cl
a::
~ LJ.J
z
>
Vl
z
LJ.J
~ :i:::
z
V)
CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
'O
C:
tll
i5.
::::,
,.!.
C:
0 E
~ tll
c3
0 .!:
'O
...
tll
C:
...
Q)
Ill
C:
tll
Cl)
LJ.J
> <t
reek Fan,
r
- .. J
I
I
County of Riverside
oma Area Resource Sector
JURUPA VALLEY
3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Figure 3 .12-1
Areas of Mineral
Resource Significance
D EBPSP Boundary
C.J Ontario City Boundary
C.J County Boundary
---· Production-Consumption (P-C) Region Boundaries
Aggregate Resource Sectors
i7ZI D-2
EZZI D-3
~ D-5
Mineral Resource Zones
~ MRZ-2
~ MRZ-3
2 · 0 · 5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
@ 0 2,500 5,000
Source: The City of Ontario 2021,
CGS 2007 and 2008
FT
10,000
Date: 3/2/2022
2781
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
3 .12 -6
This page intentionally left blank.
2782
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.12 MINERAL RESO URCES
M ARCH 2 026 3 .12 -7
3.12.5 Environmental Impacts
2022 CERTIFIED EIR
The Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource due to existing regulations and land uses. Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, impacts of the approved project would be less than significant.
PROPOSED PROJECT
a) Would the project 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? The Certified EIR identified that the approved project’s land use plan would not alter existing conditions within areas designated as MRZ-2 and would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources in Ontario. As such, impacts were found to be less than significant.
Policy Plan Amendment
As described in Section 3.12.2, Existing Conditions, there are two areas in Ontario that are designated MRZ-2, where mineral resources are known or are likely. However, only one of these areas contains mineral resources that are regionally significant (Day Creek Fan, Mira Loma Area Resource Sectors D-2, D-3, and D-5). The remainder of the City is designated MRZ-3, where the significance of mineral deposits is unknown. Development in an MRZ-3 area would not result in significant impacts because mineral resources of statewide or local importance are not identified on the California Geological Survey’s P-C maps. Aggregate resource sectors D-3 and D-5 have been completely developed, along with portions of sector D-2.
Prior to permitting a use that would threaten the potential to extract minerals in an MRZ-2 area, the City of Ontario is required under SMARA to prepare a statement specifying its reasons for permitting the proposed use and to consider the importance of these minerals to their market region as a whole and not just their importance to the City.
As shown in Figure 2-5, Proposed Land Use Plan Map, in Chapter 2, Project Description, the proposed project would primarily modify the planned TOP land use pattern across nearly 1,000 acres in southern Ontario and would not alter the existing land use designations for areas classified as MRZ-2 or aggregate resource sectors. Additionally, the parts of the City that are designated MRZ-2 but are outside of aggregate resource sectors are developed with urban uses and would continue to be designated for urban uses by the proposed project. Areas designated MRZ-2 outside of aggregate resource sectors are not available for extraction of mineral resources, and the proposed project would not result in changes to the existing conditions of 2783
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
3 .12 -8
these areas. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource in Ontario. Additionally, the proposed project includes Environmental Resources (ER) Element Goal 5, which aims to protect high value habitat and ensure that mineral resource extraction activities that are compatible with adjacent land uses. Thus, 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.
Specific Plan
As shown in Figure 3.12-1, the Specific Plan area is designated as MRZ-3. Areas designated by the State of California Geologist as MRZ-3 include land that the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available data. There are no known mineral resources in Specific Plan area. Additionally, the proposed project includes Environmental Resources (ER) Element Goal 5, which aims to protect high value habitat and ensure that mineral resource extraction activities that are compatible with adjacent land uses. Therefore, the EBPSP would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. No impacts are anticipated.
Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the approved project.
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: No Impact.
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.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant regional or state mineral resources impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
No new Mitigation Measures are required.
2784
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.12 MINERAL RESO URCES
M ARCH 2 026 3 .12 -9
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not result in the loss of availability of locally important mineral resource recovery sites in Ontario, and impacts were identified as less than significant.
Policy Plan Amendment
As shown in Figure 2-5, the proposed project would primarily modify the planned TOP land use pattern across nearly 1,000 acres in southern Ontario and would not alter the existing land use designations for areas classified as MRZ-2 or aggregate resource sectors. As described previously in impact discussion a), the parts of the City that are designated MRZ-2 but are outside of aggregate resource sectors are developed with urban uses and would continue to be designated for urban uses by the proposed project. Areas designated MRZ-2 outside of aggregate resource sectors are not available for extraction of mineral resources, and the proposed project would not result in changes to the existing conditions of these areas.
Additionally, the proposed project includes Goal ER-5, shown below, which aims to protect high value habitat and ensure that mineral resource extraction activities that are compatible with adjacent land uses.
Goal ER-5: Protected high value habitat and farming and mineral resource extraction activities that are compatible with adjacent development.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resources recovery site. 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.
Specific Plan
As discussed above, there are no known mineral resources in the Specific Plan area, nor are there any permitted mining operations within the City. The Specific Plan area is not a mineral resource recovery site, and is currently developed with mostly dairy farms and associated residences. The EBPSP would not result in the loss of availability of locally important mineral resource recovery site. No impacts are anticipated. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the approved project.
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: No Impact. ■
2785
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
3 .12 -10
Impact MIN-2: The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource area.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant locally important mineral resources impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
No new Mitigation Measures are required.
3.12.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The area considered for cumulative impacts to mineral resources is the P-C regions overlapping the City of Ontario and extending into other counties within the Greater Los Angeles Sand and Gravel Resources Area: the Claremont-Upland P-C region extends into Los Angeles County; the Orange County-Temescal Region extends into Orange County and Western Riverside County, and the San Bernardino P-C region encompasses San Bernardino and most western Riverside County. Other projects in the referenced areas could be proposed within areas designated by the California Geological Survey as Resource Sectors containing construction aggregate of “regional significance.” Development of these projects within these areas of regional or statewide significance could cause loss of availability of known mineral resources valuable to the region; however, such projects would be subject to independent CEQA review, including an evaluation of potential impacts to MRZ areas and mining sites. Implementation of all feasible mitigation measures would be required to reduce any significant impacts identified.
As identified above, the proposed project would not impact mineral resources of statewide, regional, or local value. Specifically, the Specific Plan area is designated as MRZ-3 and does not contain known mineral resource deposits or any locally important mineral resource recovery sites on or within proximity to the Specific Plan area. Additionally, the proposed project includes Goal ER-5, which aims to protect high value habitat and ensure that mineral resource extraction activities that are compatible with adjacent land uses, which would help minimize cumulative impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would not cumulatively contribute to a significant cumulative impact. Impacts are less than significant.
2786
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.12 MINERAL RESO URCES
M ARCH 2 026 3 .12 -11
Cumulative Impacts: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in cumulative mineral resource impacts.
3.12.7 References
CDOC (California Department of Conservation). 1984. Ontario (Plate 6-8) and Guasti (Plate 6-9) Quadrangles. Accessed September 23, 2025.
https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=SR_143.
––––––. 2024. CGS Information Warehouse, California Mineral Resources Data Portal. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc.
Ontario, City of. 2022. The Ontario Plan 2050. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.
State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364.
https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. 2787
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
3 .12 -12
This page intentionally left blank.
2788
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -1
3.13 NOISE
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 result in noise and vibration impacts in the local environment in comparison to the current TOP (approved project) and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Specifically, this section summarizes relevant federal, State and local noise guidelines, policies, and standards; reviews noise levels at existing receptor locations, and evaluates potential noise impacts. This evaluation uses procedures and methodologies specified by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The traffic noise analysis focuses on traffic noise increases due to the proposed truck route changes within the City.
The analysis for the Policy Plan Amendment is based in part on the noise modeling data included in Appendix I1 in this SEIR. The analysis for the EBPSP component is based on the noise technical study included as Appendix I2 in this SEIR.
One comment letter and one written comment were received in response to the NOP and related to noise impacts due to increased truck traffic and existing and future vibration impacts due to heavy truck traffic along Ontario Ranch Road. 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 entire comment letters.
Terminology
The following are definitions for terms used throughout this section.
Sound. A disturbance created by a vibrating object, which, when transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone.
Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable.
Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale.
A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear.
Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq); also called the Energy-Equivalent Noise Level. The value of an equivalent, steady sound level that, in a stated time period (often over an hour) and at a stated location, has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time-varying sound.
Thus, the Leq metric is a single numerical value that represents the equivalent amount of variable sound energy received by a receptor over the specified duration. ■
■
■
■
■
2789
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -2
Statistical Sound Level (Ln). The sound level that is exceeded “n” percent of time during a given sample period. For example, the L50 level is the statistical indicator of the time-varying noise signal that is exceeded 50 percent of the time (during each sampling period); that is, half of the sampling time, the changing noise levels are above this value and half of the time they are below it. This is called the “median sound level.” The L10 level, likewise, is the value that is exceeded 10 percent of the time (i.e., near the maximum) and this is often known as the “intrusive sound level.” The L90 is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is often considered the “effective background level” or “residual noise level.” Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn or DNL). The energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 5 dB added from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dB from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. For general community/environmental noise, CNEL and Ldn values rarely differ by more than 1 dB (with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive, that is, higher than the Ldn value). As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are interchangeable and are treated as equivalent in this assessment.
Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). The peak signal value of an oscillating vibration velocity waveform usually expressed in inches per second (in/sec).
Sensitive Receptor. Noise- and vibration-sensitive receptors include land uses where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment and public health and safety. Residences, schools, motels and hotels, libraries, religious institutions, hospitals, and nursing homes are examples.
Noise and Vibration Fundamentals
Noise is defined as unwanted sound and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance.
Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people. People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as “noisiness” or “loudness.” Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the federal government, the State of California, and many local governments have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human activities.
■
■
■
■
■
2790
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -3
SOUND FUNDAMENTALS
Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. It is described in terms of loudness or amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in Hertz [Hz] or cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Changes of 1 to 3 dBA are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions, and changes of less than 1 dBA are usually indiscernible. A 3 dBA change in noise levels is considered the minimum change that is detectable with human hearing in outside environments. A change of 5 dBA is readily discernable to most people in an exterior environment, and a 10 dBA change is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the sound.
The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hz are not heard at all and are “felt” more as a vibration. Similarly, while people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off rapidly above about 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale is usually used to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.
Noise is defined as unwanted sound and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance.
Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the federal government, the State of California, and many local governments have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human activities.
NOISE FUNDAMENTALS
Noise intensity is measured through the A-weighted scale to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. That is, an A-weighted noise level de-emphasizes low and very high frequencies of sound similar to the human ear’s de-emphasis of these frequencies.
Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing points on a sharply rising curve. On a logarithmic scale, an increase of 10 dBA is 10 times more intense than 1 dBA, while 20 dBA is 100 times more intense, and 30 dBA is 1,000 times more intense. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times greater than 0 dBA.
The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud).
Sound levels are generated from a source and their decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. This 2791
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -4
phenomenon is known as “spreading loss.” For a single point source, sound levels decrease by approximately 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source. This drop-off rate is appropriate for noise generated by on-site operations from stationary equipment or activity at a project site. If noise is produced by a line source, such as highway traffic, the sound decreases by 3 dBA for each doubling of distance in a hard site environment. Line source noise in a relatively flat environment with absorptive vegetation decreases by 4.5 dBA for each doubling of distance.
Time variation in noise exposure is typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called Leq), or alternately, as a statistical description of the sound level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. For example, the L50 noise level represents the noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time. Half the time the noise level exceeds this level and half the time the noise level is less than this level. This level is also representative of the level that is exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L2, L8, and L25 values represent the noise levels that are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour. These “L” values are typically used to demonstrate compliance for stationary noise sources with a city’s noise ordinance, as discussed below. Other values typically noted during a noise survey are the Lmin and Lmax.
These values represent the minimum and maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over the measurement period.
Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, an artificial dB increment is added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or Day-Night Noise Level (Ldn). The CNEL descriptor requires that an artificial increment of 5 dBA be added to the actual noise level for the hours from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM and 10 dBA for the hours from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM The Ldn descriptor uses the same methodology except that there is no artificial increment added to the hours between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Both descriptors give roughly the same 24 hour level with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive (i.e., higher).
Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise
Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects our entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, and thereby affecting blood pressure, functions of the heart, and the nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA could result in permanent hearing damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear. This is called the threshold of pain. A sound level of 190 dBA will rupture the eardrum and permanently damage the inner ear. 2792
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -5
VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS
Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium, such as the ground or a building.
Vibration is normally associated with activities stemming from operations of railroads or vibration-intensive stationary sources but can also be associated with construction equipment such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and hydraulic hammers.
Amplitude
Vibration amplitudes are usually described in terms of either the peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) velocity. PPV is the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal, and RMS is the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. PPV is more appropriate for evaluating potential building damage. The units for PPV are normally inches per second (in/sec). Typically, groundborne vibration generated by human activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration.
The way in which vibration is transmitted through the earth is called propagation. As vibration waves propagate from a source, the energy is spread over an ever-increasing area such that the energy level striking a given point is reduced with the distance from the energy source. This geometric spreading loss is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. The amount of attenuation provided by material damping varies with soil type and condition as well as the frequency of the wave.
As with airborne sound, annoyance with vibrational energy is a subjective measure, depending on the level of activity and the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Persons accustomed to elevated ambient vibration levels, such as in an urban environment, may tolerate higher vibration levels.
Table 3.13-1, Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels, shows the human response and the effects on buildings resulting from continuous vibration (in terms of various levels of PPV).
Table 3.13-1 Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels Vibration
Level (PPV) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0.006–0.019
in/sec
Threshold of perception, possibility of
intrusion
Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of
any type
0.08 in/sec Vibrations readily perceptible Recommended upper level of vibration to which ruins and ancient monuments
should be subjected
0.10 in/sec Level at which continuous vibration begins
to annoy people
Virtually no risk of “architectural” (i.e., not
structural) damage to normal buildings
2793
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -6
Table 3.13-1 Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels Vibration
Level (PPV) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0.20 in/sec Vibrations annoying to people in buildings Threshold at which there is a risk to “architectural” damage to normal
dwellings – houses with plastered walls
and ceilings
Source: Caltrans 2020.
Notes: in/sec = inches per second; PPV = peak particle velocity; Caltrans = California Department of Transportation.
3.13.1 Regulatory Framework
To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, and local governments have established standards and ordinances to control noise.
FEDERAL
Federal Highway Administration
Proposed federal or federal-aided highway construction projects at a new location, or the physical alteration of an existing highway that significantly changes the horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the number of through-traffic lanes, require an assessment of noise and consideration of noise abatement per 23 CFR Part 772, “Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise.” The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has adopted noise abatement criteria for sensitive receivers—such as picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sport areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals—when “worst-hour” noise levels approach or exceed 67 dBA Leq (Caltrans 2020).
US Environmental Protection Agency
In addition to FHWA standards, the EPA has identified the relationship between noise levels and human response. The EPA has determined that over a 24-hour period, an Leq of 70 dBA will result in some hearing loss. Interference with activity and annoyance will not occur if exterior levels are maintained at an Leq of 55 dBA and interior levels at or below 45 dBA. These levels are relevant to planning and design and useful for informational purposes, but they are not land use planning criteria because they do not consider economic cost, technical feasibility, or the needs of the community; therefore, they are not mandated.
The EPA also set 55 dBA Ldn as the basic goal for exterior residential noise intrusion; however, other federal agencies, in consideration of their own program requirements and goals, as well as the difficulty of actually achieving 55 dBA Ldn, have settled on the 65 dBA Ldn level as their 2794
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -7
standard. At 65 dBA Ldn, activity interference is kept to a minimum, and annoyance levels are still low. It is also a level that can realistically be achieved.
US Department of Housing and Urban Development
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has set the goal of 65 dBA Ldn as a desirable maximum exterior standard for residential units developed under HUD funding (this level is also generally accepted within the State of California). Although HUD does not specify acceptable interior noise levels, standard construction of residential dwellings typically provides 20 dBA or more of attenuation with the windows closed. Based on this premise, the interior Ldn should not exceed 45 dBA Ldn.
Federal Transit Administration
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) oversees safety measures related to noise and vibration. The FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment manual indicates that 80 dBA equivalent sound level (Leq) is reasonable criteria for assessing construction noise levels at residential uses (FTA 2018). In the absence of local construction noise limits, the FTA recommends 80 dBA Leq criteria to assess the significance of construction noise levels at residential receivers. Recommended criteria for residential, commercial, and industrial receivers are shown in Table 3.13-2, FTA Detailed Analysis Construction Noise Criteria. Table 3.13-2 FTA Detailed Analysis Construction Noise Criteria Building/Structural
Category
Daytime Leq (8-hour)
dBA
Nighttime Leq (8-
hour) dBA
30-Day Average Ldn
(dBA)
Residential 80 70 751 Commercial 85 85 802
Industrial 90 90 852
Source: FTA 2018.
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; FTA = Federal Transit Administration; Leq = equivalent continuous sound level 1In urban areas with very high ambient noise levels (Ldn greater than 65 dB), Ldn from construction operations should not exceed existing ambient + 10 dB.
224-hour Leq, not Ldn.
The FTA also provides criteria for acceptable levels of groundborne vibration for various types of buildings. Structures amplify groundborne vibration; wood-frame buildings, such as typical residential structures, are more affected by ground vibration than heavier buildings. The level at which groundborne vibration is strong enough to cause architectural damage has not been determined conclusively, but the standards recommended by the FTA are shown in Table 3.13-3, FTA Construction Vibration Damage Criteria.
2795
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -8
Table 3.13-3 FTA Construction Vibration Damage Criteria Building/Structural Category
Peak Particle
Velocity (PPV)
(in/sec)
Approximate
Vibration VdB
I. Reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Nonengineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 Source: FTA 2018.
Notes: VdB = vibration decibels; in/sec = inches per second; PPV = peak particle velocity; FTA = Federal Transit Administration
STATE
General Plan Guidelines
The State of California, through its General Plan Guidelines, discusses how ambient noise should influence land use and development decisions and includes a table of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable uses at different noise levels, expressed in CNEL (LCI 2017). A conditionally acceptable designation implies new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use and needed noise insulation features are incorporated in the design. By comparison, a normally acceptable designation indicates that standard construction can occur with no special noise reduction requirements. The general plan guidelines provide cities with recommended community noise and land use compatibility standards that can be adopted or modified at the local level based on conditions and types of land uses specific to that jurisdiction.
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC) is Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. CBC Part 2, Volume 1, Chapter 12, Section 1206.4, Allowable Interior Noise Levels, requires that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources not exceed 45 dBA in any habitable room. The noise metric is evaluated as either Ldn (the day-night average sound level) or CNEL (the community noise equivalent level), whichever is consistent with the noise element of the local general plan.
The State of California’s noise insulation standards for non-residential uses are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). CALGreen noise standards are applied to new or renovation construction projects in California to control interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. Proposed 2796
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -9
projects may use either the prescriptive method (Section 5.507.4.1) or the performance method (Section 5.507.4.2) to show compliance. Under the prescriptive method, a project must demonstrate transmission loss ratings for the wall and roof-ceiling assemblies and exterior windows when located within a noise environment of 65 dBA CNEL or higher. Under the performance method, a project must demonstrate that interior noise levels do not exceed 50 dBA Leq(1hr).
Airport Noise Standards
California Code of Regulations Title 21, Subchapter 6, Airport Noise Standards, establishes 65 dBA CNEL as the acceptable level of aircraft noise for persons living in the vicinity of airports.
Noise-sensitive land uses are generally incompatible in locations where the aircraft exterior noise level exceeds 65 dBA CNEL unless an aviation easement for aircraft noise has been acquired by the airport proprietor or the residence is a high-rise with an interior CNEL of 45 dBA or less in all habitable rooms and an air circulation or air conditioning system, as appropriate.
Assembly Bill (AB) 2776 requires any person who intends to sell or lease residential properties in an airport influence area to disclose that fact to the person buying the property.
REGIONAL
Ontario International Airport Authority
The City of Ontario and San Bernardino County formed the Ontario International Airport (ONT) Authority in August 2012 by enacting a joint powers agreement (Ontario 2018). The Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) was adopted on April 19, 2011, by the Ontario City Council to promote compatibility with surrounding land uses and was amended in July 2018. The ALUCP provides guidance and promotes compatibility between the airport and the land that surrounds it to avoid potential compatibility conflicts (Ontario 2018). The ONT ALUCP identifies noise compatibility zones in the form of airport noise contour graphics that are intended to prevent development that is incompatible with airport operations.
Chino Airport
The City of Ontario is also within the Chino Airport Influence Area. Chino Airport (CNO) is south of the City of Ontario across Merrill Avenue and is owned and operated by San Bernardino County. The City of Chino adopted its own Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (ACLUP) in November 1991. The Chino Airport Master Plan (AMP) was adopted by the County of San Bernardino in 2006. The 1991 Chino ACLUP does not reflect the 2003 Chino AMP nor does it reflect the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c) requires local jurisdictions that are under the “alternative process” to “rely upon” the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics in October 2011, for preparing Compatibility Plans and to utilize the Handbook’s height, land use, noise, safety, and density criteria. Although the City of Ontario does not have 2797
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -10
the formal responsibility under the “alternative process” to prepare a compatibility plan for Chino Airport, the City of Ontario has adopted the Chino Airport Overlay Zone that addresses Chino Airport’s impacts on Ontario, consistent with policies and criteria set forth within the Caltrans 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Caltrans 2011). Figure 3.9-2, Airport Safety Zones, in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, maps the compatibility zones and land uses surrounding Chino Airport within the City of Ontario.
LOCAL
The Ontario Plan 2050
TOP 2050 goals, policies, and programs that are relevant to noise are primarily in the Safety Element. The Safety Element aims to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels by guiding decisions concerning land use and location of new roads and transportation facilities. The City’s land use compatibility standards, shown in Table 3.13-4, Ontario Noise Level Exposure and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, provide urban planners with a tool to gauge the compatibility of land uses relative to existing and future noise levels.
Table 3.13-4 Ontario Noise Level Exposure and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines Land Use Categories Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) Category Uses
Clearly
Acceptable1 Normally Acceptable2
Normally
Unacceptable3
Clearly
Unacceptable4 Residential /
Lodging
Single Family /
Duplex
<60 60-65 65-70 70-85
Multifamily <60 60-65 65-75 75-85
Mobile Homes <60 60-65 — 65-85
Hotel / Motel <65 65-70 70-80 80-85
Public /
Institutional
Schools /
Hospitals
<60 60-65 65-70 70-85
Churches /
Libraries
<60 60-65 65-70 70-85
Auditoriums /
Concert Halls
<55 55-60 60-70 70-85
Commercial Offices <65 65-75 75-80 80-85
Retail <70 70-75 75-80 80-85
Industrial Manufacturing <70 70-75 75-85 —
Warehousing <70 70-80 80-85 —
2798
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -11
Table 3.13-4 Ontario Noise Level Exposure and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines Land Use Categories Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) Category Uses
Clearly
Acceptable1 Normally
Acceptable2
Normally
Unacceptable3
Clearly
Unacceptable4 Recreational
/ Open
Space
Parks /
Playgrounds
<65 65-70 70-75 75-85
Golf Course /
Riding Stables
<65 65-70 70-75 75-85
Outdoor
Spectator Sports
<60 60-65 65-70 —
Outdoor Music
Shells /
Amphitheaters — <60 60-65 65-85
Livestock /
Wildlife
Preserves
<70 — 70-75 75-85
Crop Agriculture <55-85 — — — Source: Ontario 2022a.
1. No special noise insulation required, assuming buildings of normal conventional construction.
2. Acoustical reports will be required for major new residential construction. Conventional construction with closed windows and fresh air supply systems of air conditions will normally suffice.
3. New construction should be discouraged. Noise/aviation easements required for all new construction. If new construction does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made, and necessary noise insulation features included.
4. No new construction should be permitted.
City of Ontario Municipal Code
The City of Ontario enforces noise limits through its Municipal Code Chapter 29, Noise, Section 5.29. The Ontario Municipal Code provides exterior noise standards that limit noise exposure to sensitive receptors, as summarized in Table 3.13-5, Ontario Exterior Noise Standards.
2799
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -12
Table 3.13-5 Ontario Exterior Noise Standards
Noise
Zone Land Use
Allowed Equivalent Noise Level, Leq
7:00 AM to 10:00
PM
10:00 PM to 7:00
AM
I Single-Family Residential 65 dBA 45 dBA
II Multi-Family Residential, Mobile Home
Parks
65 dBA 50 dBA
III Commercial Property 65 dBA 60 dBA
IV Residential Portion of Mixed Use 70 dBA 70 dBA
V Manufacturing and Industrial, Other Uses 70 dBA 70 dBA Source: Ontario Municipal Code Section 5.29.
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels
The following supplemental standards shall apply to this table:
The noise limits summarized in Table 3.13-5 shall not exceed 1) the noise standard for the applicable zone for any 15-minute period (L25) and 2) a maximum instantaneous noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time (Lmax).
In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the maximum allowable noise level under such category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.
The Noise Zone IV (residential portion of mixed use) standard shall apply to that portion of residential property falling within 100 feet of a commercial property or use, if the noise originates from that commercial property or use.
If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply.
Per Section, 5-29.11, the noise standards assigned to Noise Zone I (single-family residential) also apply to the outdoor use area of any school, day care center, hospital or similar health care institution, library, or museum while it is in use.
Exemptions
Section 5-29.06, Exemptions, of the Noise Chapter exempts:
Any activity conducted on public property, or on private property with the consent of the owner, by any public entity or its officers, employees, representatives, agents, subcontractors, permittees, licensees or lessees that the public entity has authorized are exempt from the provisions of this chapter. This includes, without limitation, sporting and recreational activities that are sponsored, co-sponsored, permitted or allowed by the City or any school district within the City's jurisdictional boundaries. This also includes, without limitation, occasional outdoor gatherings, public dances, shows or sporting and entertainment events, provided such events are conducted pursuant to an approval, ■
■
■
■
■
2800
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -13
authorization, contract, lease, permit or sublease by the appropriate public entity, specifically the planning commission or City Council.
Occasional outdoor gatherings, public dances, show, sporting, and entertainment events, provided said events are conducted pursuant to a permit or license issued by the appropriate jurisdiction relative to the staging of said events.
Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, or grading of public rights-of-way or during authorized seismic surveys.
All mechanical devices, apparatus, or equipment associated with agriculture operations provided that:
Operations do not take place between 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
Such operations and equipment are utilized for the protection or salvage of agricultural crops during periods of potential or actual frost damage or other adverse weather conditions.
Such operations and equipment are associated with agricultural pest control through pesticide application, provided the application is made in accordance with permits issued by or regulations enforced by the California Department of Agriculture.
Construction Noise
As stated above, noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition or grading of a public right-of-way is exempt from the provisions of the Municipal Code.
Section 5-29.09 addresses construction noise and states that no person, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition or any other related building activity, shall operate any tool, equipment, or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, or a police or code enforcement officer, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM or on Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM
3.13.2 Existing Conditions
POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
Sensitive Receptors
Certain land uses, such as residences, schools, and hospitals, are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration. Sensitive noise receptors include residences, senior housing, schools, places of worship, and recreational areas. These uses are regarded as sensitive because they are where ■
■
■
■
■
■
2801
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -14
citizens most frequently engage in activities which are likely to be disturbed by noise, such as reading, studying, sleeping, resting, working from home, or otherwise engaging in quiet or passive recreation. Commercial and industrial uses are not particularly sensitive to noise. Nonresidential structures are still analyzed for potential vibration impacts, such as architectural damage to a structure due to construction or demolition activities in close proximity.
Traffic Noise
On-road vehicles are the most prominent source of noise in the proposed project area. Traffic noise levels were estimated using a version of the FHWA traffic noise prediction model (FHWARD-77-108). Segment volume data, vehicle mix, and day, evening, and night percentage splits were provided by Fehr & Peers. Figure 3.13-1, Existing Traffic Noise Contours, provides a graphical representation. Appendix I1 contains the inputs and outputs used in existing traffic noise modeling.
Aircraft Noise
Figure 3.13-2, Airport Noise Contours, shows the ALUCP noise contours based on the latest data provided by the City of Ontario and Chino Airport Master Plan for ONT and CNO, respectively.
The noise contours are elongated in an east-west orientation aligned with the tarmacs.
Currently sensitive uses, such as residential, are within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. The 65 dBA airport noise contour for CNO does not extend into the City.
Rail Noise
Railroad operations are also a substantial source of noise in some parts of the City. Day-night average noise levels vary by the number of trains per day along a given rail line, the timing and duration of train pass-by events, and whether or not trains must sound their warning whistles near “at-grade” crossings. Train warning whistles typically generate maximum noise levels of 105 to 110 dBA at 100 feet. Existing railroad noise levels were estimated using the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) CREATE rail noise model and the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) Grade Crossing Horn Model. Current freight and passenger train traffic on the rail lines in Ontario were estimated based on the number of locomotives and rail cars published by the Metrolink website, Union Pacific (UP) Los Angeles and Alhambra Subdivision videos, and FRA crossing and accident data. (FRA 2026; Amtrak 2026, Metrolink 2026). 2802
CITY OF
MONTCLAIR
CITY OF
UPLAND
w
W F0URTH ST Q ~
CITY OF CHINO
..,
::,;
<!
Cl
E P.f.fll!A0E~PHIA S•li
E RIVERSIDE .OR
....,,. ..
u,
::,.
<(
C
.::,
<(
a,
J:
l!l
a:;
<(
CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
-~--~~,~----
z
...
::,;
<(
J:
z
E SAN'TA ANA S·l'
I _ ,,J
I
l
z
CITY OF
~ FONTANA z
<(
v"I
County of
San Bernardino :-.._...,.. _____ , _______ ,,_ ,,
County of Riverside
JURUPA VALLEY
V,
EASTVALE
3.13 NOISE
Figure 3.13-1
Existing Traffic Noise Contours
Existing Noise Contours
60-65 dBA CNEL
65-70 dBA CNEL
- 70+ dBA CNEL
0 Ontario City Boundary
0 County Boundary
CJ EBPSP Boundary
2 · 0 · 5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
G 0 2.500 5,000
Source: Fehr & Peers 2025; PlaceWorks 2025
FT
10,000
Date: 2/19/2026
2803
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -16
This page intentionally left blank.
2804
Clrt;0F
MONifGLAIR
CITY OF CHINO
JURUPA VALLEY
3.13 NOISE
Figure 3.13-2
Airport Noise Contours
c::] EBPSP Boundary
[-"J Ontario City Boundary
l:-"J County Boundary
Ontario Airport Noise Contours
60-65 dBA CNEL
[=i 65-70 dBA CNEL
1111 70-75 dBA CNEL
1111 75+ dBA CNEL
Chino Airport Noise Contours 2028
!=i 55-60 dBA CNEL
60-65 dBA CNEL
!=i 65-70 dBA CNEL
1111 70+ dBA CNEL
2·0·5·0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 0 2,500 5,000
Source: The City of Ontario 2020, 2022;
Riverside County ALUCP 2020
FT
10,000
Date: 2/19/2026
2805
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -18
This page intentionally left blank.
2806
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -19
Table 3.13-6, Existing Railroad Noise Levels, contains the calculated distances to the 65 dBA CNEL contours from existing railroad noise, both from the main lines and within a quarter mile of grade crossings where horn warnings are required.
Table 3.13-6 Existing Railroad Noise Levels
Operator Subdivision
Distance (feet) to 65 dBA CNEL
Contour (Main Line)
Distance (feet) to 65 dBA CNEL
Contour
(Within ¼ Mile of Grade Crossing)
UP Los Angeles 200 368
UP Alhambra 490 509
UP Spurs 8 71
SCRRA San Gabriel 45 139
UP Los Angeles 200 368
Source: Calculated using the FTA CREATE Model and FRA Grade Crossing Horn Model. See Appendix I1.
Notes: UP = Union Pacific; SCRAA = Southern California Regional Rail Authority Stationary Noise
Stationary sources of noise occur on all types of land uses. Residential uses generate noise from landscaping, maintenance activities, and air conditioning systems. Commercial uses generate noise from heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; loading docks; and other sources. Industrial uses may generate noise from HVAC systems, loading docks, and machinery.
Noise generated by residential or commercial uses is generally short and intermittent. Industrial uses may generate noise on a more continual basis. Nightclubs, outdoor dining areas, gas stations, car washes, fire stations, drive-throughs, swimming pool pumps, school playgrounds, athletic and music events, and public parks are other common noise sources.
Vibration
Commercial and industrial operations in the plan area can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the operational procedures and equipment. Such equipment-generated vibrations spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the vibration source depends on soil type, ground strata, and receptor-building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. In addition, substantial vibration levels can be generated at close distances to existing railroad lines and heavily travelled roadways at high rates of speed consisting of heavy truck traffic in the plan project area. 2807
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -20
SPECIFIC PLAN
Noise Monitoring
To assess the existing noise level environment, 24-hour noise level measurements were taken at 7 locations in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area (see Appendix I2, Exhibit 5-1). The receiver locations were selected to describe and document the existing noise environment. The longterm noise level measurements were positioned as close to the nearest sensitive receiver locations as possible. Table 3.13-7, EBPSP Ambient Noise Levels, provides the ambient noise level measurements in the Specific Plan area.
Table 3.13-7 EBPSP Ambient Noise Levels
Location Description
Energy Average
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Daytime Nighttime CNEL
L1 Located near the residence at 14353 Bon
View Ave.
69.8 62.9 71.5
L2 Located near the residence at 14333 Bon
View Ave.
64.9 57.6 66.4
L3 Located north of the site near the residence
at 14117 S. Grove Ave.
69.4 60.8 70.6
L4 Located north of the site near the residence
at 8377 Edison Ave.
69.9 60.0 70.5
L5 Located north of the site near the residence
at 14350 Walker Ave.
59.8 51.4 61.2
L6 Located south of the site near the residence
at 7566 Eucalyptus Ave.
62.3 52.5 62.8
L7 Located west of the site near the residence at
7511 Eucalyptus Ave.
49.9 47.7 54.9
Sources: Appendix I2
3.13.3 Standards for Analysis
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to noise if it would:
2808
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -21
a) Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
b) Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. c) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, if the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
THRESHOLD GUIDANCE
Construction Noise Thresholds
The City of Ontario does not have an established construction noise threshold; therefore, the FTA’s criteria for temporary construction noise is used. The FTA recommends a noise limit of 80 dBA Leq at property lines of receiving noise-sensitive receptors. A significant impact would occur if daytime construction noise would exceed 80 dBA Leq at noise-sensitive receptors (e.g., residential).
Since there are no measurable construction noise level limits set by the City of Ontario, thresholds from adjacent municipalities were reviewed. The City of Los Angeles recently proposed an update to its guidance, in accordance with CEQA, for assessing impacts from construction noise and vibration to account for reasonable expectations regarding construction noise and vibration during daytime and nighttime hours, and also include absolute maximum noise levels to protect human health (see Appendix I).
Daytime Construction. Construction activities between 7 AM and 7 PM Monday through Friday and between 8 AM and 6 PM on Saturdays would be limited to a maximum noise level of 80 dBA Leq, 8-hour at sensitive uses (at the property line with outdoor uses or at the exterior of the building), including outdoor public recreational areas. This threshold is based on the recommended criteria in the FTA Manual.
Nighttime Construction. For construction activities between 7 PM and 7 AM Monday through Friday, between 6 PM and 8 AM on Saturdays, and anytime on Sundays or national holidays, noise levels at sensitive uses would not exceed 5 dBA above the ambient noise level at the receptor. Mat pour activities (and other types of concrete pour, which require an extended continuous pour beyond the allowable construction hours) that are required to occur during nighttime hours for less than 5 days are exempt from this provision. 2809
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -22
Nighttime-Absolute Noise
Maximum 55 dBA Leq (Equivalent Continuous Sound Pressure Level) for sensitive uses within older buildings that would have operable windows that may be open; Maximum 65 dBA Leq for sensitive uses with windows closed that are not operable and are single-glazed;
Maximum 70 dBA Leq for sensitive uses that have newer construction (i.e., the structures have been designed to ensure that an interior 45 dBA is obtained with double- paned windows). Certain mat pour activities are exempt from this provision.
Transportation and Operational Noise Thresholds
A project will normally have a significant effect on the environment related to traffic noise if it would substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas. Most people can detect changes in sound levels of approximately 3 dBA under normal, quiet conditions, and changes of 1 to 3 dBA under quiet, controlled conditions. Changes of less than 1 dBA are usually indiscernible. A change of 5 dBA is readily discernible to most people in an outdoor environment. Based on this, the following thresholds of significance, similar to those recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), are used to assess traffic noise impacts at sensitive receptor locations. A significant impact would occur if the traffic noise increase at sensitive receptors would exceed:
1.5 dBA for ambient noise environments of 65 dBA CNEL and higher. 3 dBA for ambient noise environments of 60 to 64 CNEL.
5 dBA for ambient noise environments of less than 60 dBA CNEL.
For the EBPSP, a significant impact would occur if the traffic noise increase at non-sensitive receptors would exceed:
3 dBA for ambient noise environments of 75 dBA CNEL and higher.
Stationary Noise Thresholds
As discussed in Section 3.13.1.2, Regulatory Background, the City’s exterior noise standards are established in the Municipal Code, Chapter 29, Noise, Section 5.29 (Table 3.13-5). For the purposes of this analysis, these exterior noise standards are used to determine potentially significant stationary noise impacts.
Vibration Thresholds
The City of Ontario does not provide a quantified vibration perception (human annoyance) standard, nor does it establish a specific vibration damage standard. Structural damage is based on the PPV of the vibrations, and the criteria for assessing damage are based on building ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2810
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -23
material. Vibration annoyance is evaluated based on vibration velocity levels (Lv) measured in units of VdB. The FTA criterion for acceptable vibration damage levels for various types of buildings are shown in Table 3.13-8, Groundborne Vibration Damage Criteria. Table 3.13-8 Groundborne Vibration Damage Criteria Building/Structural Category Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) (in/sec) I. Reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
III. Nonengineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Source: FTA 2018.
Notes: in/sec = inches per second; PPV = peak particle velocity; FTA = Federal Transit Administration According to FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, a vibration velocity (VdB) of 75 to 80 VdB will annoy individuals. Table 3.13-9, Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration and Noise, presents the human response to different levels of ground-borne vibration and noise.
Table 3.13-9 Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration and Noise
Vibration
Velocity Level
Nosie Level
Human Response
Low
Frequency
Mid
Frequency
65 VdB 25 dBA 40 dBA Approximate threshold of perception for many humans.
Low-frequency sound: usually inaudible. Mid-frequency
sound: excessive for quiet sleeping areas.
75 VdB 35 dBA 50 dBA Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible. Many people find transit
vibration at this level annoying. Low-frequency noise:
tolerable for sleeping areas. Mid-frequency noise:
excessive in most quiet occupied areas.
85 VdB 45 dBA 60 dBA Vibration tolerable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day. Low-frequency noise:
excessive for sleeping areas. Midfrequency noise:
excessive even for infrequent events for some activities.
Source: FTA 2018, Table 5-5.
Low Frequency= Approximate noise level when vibration spectrum peak is near 30 hertz (Hz).
Mid Frequency= Approximate noise level when vibration spectrum peak is near 60 Hz. 2811
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -24
The nearest buildings adjacent to the Specific Plan area can best be described as nonengineered timber and masonry buildings with a maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.2 PPV (in/sec). For purposes of this analysis, the threshold of 75 VdB will be applied to human vibration annoyance.
METHODOLOGY
Policy Plan Amendment
The SEIR noise evaluation was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA to fully disclose new impacts or changes in impacts that would occur because of the proposed project.
The net change in traffic noise levels is determined by comparing the approved project average daily traffic (ADT) baseline to the proposed project’s ADT volumes using a version of the Federal Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Railroad noise levels were estimated using the FTA CREATE rail noise model and the FRA Grade Crossing Horn Model.
Specific Plan
Ambient Noise
Ambient noise levels were measured during typical weekday conditions over a 24-hour period.
The long-term noise readings were recorded using Piccolo Type 2 integrating sound level meter and dataloggers. The Piccolo sound level meters were calibrated using a Larson-Davis calibrator, Model CAL 150. All noise meters were programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form. The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. All noise level measurement equipment satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard specifications for sound level meters ANSI S1.4- 2014/IEC 61672-1:2013.
Construction Noise
To describe construction noise activities, the analysis was prepared using reference construction equipment noise levels from the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), which includes a national database of construction equipment reference noise emission levels. The RCNM equipment database provides a comprehensive list of the noise generating characteristics for specific types of construction equipment. In addition, the database provides an acoustic usage factor to estimate the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation. Reference noise levels used in the analysis are shown in Table 3.13-10, Construction Reference Noise Levels. 2812
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -25
Table 3.13-10 Construction Reference Noise Levels
Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction
Equipment
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
Composite
Reference Noise
Level
(dBA Leq)
Reference
Power Level
(dBA Lw)
Demolition
Concrete Saw 83
Grapple (on backhoe) 83 86.8 118.4
Gradall (Forklift) 79
Site
Preparation
Tractor 80
Backhoe 74 84.0 115.6
Grader 81
Grading
Scraper 80
Excavator 77 83.3 114.9
Dozer 78
Building
Construction
Crane 73
Tractor 80 81.1 112.8
Welder/Torch 70
Paving
Paver 74
Dump Truck 72 77.8 109.5
Roller 73
Architectural
Coating
Man Lift 68
Compressor (air) 74 79.8 111.4
Generator 78
Source: Appendix I2
Nighttime Pours
To estimate the noise levels due to nighttime concrete pour activities, sample reference noise level measurements were taken during a nighttime concrete pour at an unrelated construction site. Short-term nighttime concrete pour reference noise level measurements were taken during the noise-sensitive nighttime hours between 1:00 AM to 2:00 AM at 27334 San Bernardino Avenue in the City of Redlands. The reference noise levels describe the expected concrete pour noise sources that may include concrete mixer truck movements and pouring activities, concrete paving equipment, rear mounted concrete mixer truck backup alarms, engine idling, air brakes, generators, and workers communicating/whistling. To describe the nighttime concrete pour noise levels associated with the construction of the EBPSP, the analysis relies on reference sound pressure level of 67.7 dBA Leq at 50 feet represented by a sound power level (Lw) of 100.3 dBA Lw.
2813
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -26
Operational Noise
To estimate operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels expected with operations of the EBPSP.
The reference noise level measurements shown in Table 3.13-11, Operational Reference Noise Levels, were used to estimate the EBPSP operational noise impacts. It is important to note that the following projected noise levels assume the worst-case noise environment with all noise source activity all operating at the same time. These sources of noise activity will likely vary throughout the day.
Table 3.13-11 Operational Reference Noise Levels
Reference
Noise Source
Noise Source
Height (Feet)
Min./ Hour Reference
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
@ 50 Feet
Sound
Power Level
Day Night (dBA)
Loading Dock Activity 8' 60 60 65.7 111.5
Tractor Trailer Storage Activity 8' 60 60 62.8 103.4
Truck Movements 8' 60 60 59.8 93.2
Trash Enclosure Activity 5' 60 30 57.3 89.0
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 5' (above roofline) 39 28 57.2 88.9 Drive-Through Speakerphone 3' 60 30 54.8 84.0
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 5' 60 30 52.6 81.1
Park Activities 5’ 60 0 49.4 78.0
Source: Appendix I2
Traffic Noise
The expected roadway noise level increases from vehicular traffic were calculated using a computer program that replicates the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model- FHWA-RD-77-108.
This methodology is commonly used to describe the off-site traffic noise levels throughout southern California. The FHWA Model arrives at a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL) by vehicle type. REMEL represents the maximum sound level (Lmax) of individual vehicle “pass by” events by vehicle type when measured at a “reference distance” of 50 feet from the center of the travel lane.
In California, the national REMELs are substituted with the California Vehicle Noise (Calveno) Emission Levels. Adjustments are then made to the REMEL to account for: the roadway classification (e.g., collector, secondary, major or arterial), the roadway active width (i.e., the distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each side of the roadway), the total average daily traffic (ADT), the travel speed, the percentages of automobiles, medium 2814
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -27
trucks, and heavy trucks in the traffic volume, the roadway grade, the angle of view (e.g., whether the roadway view is blocked), the site conditions ("hard" or "soft" relates to the absorption of the ground, pavement, or landscaping), and the percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period. Research conducted by Caltrans has shown that the use of soft site conditions is appropriate for the application of the FHWA traffic noise prediction model used in this analysis.
Vibration
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. As provided by FTA, ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized in Table 3.13-12. Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the potential for building damage using the following vibration assessment methods defined by the FTA. To describe the vibration impacts the FTA provides the following equation:
PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
. Table 3.13-12 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV (in/sec) at 25 feet
Small bulldozer 0.003
Jackhammer 0.035
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Large bulldozer 0.089
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Source: Appendix I2
Receiver Locations
To describe the potential off-site noise levels, eight receiver locations in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area were identified. Other sensitive land uses in the study area that are located at greater distances than those identified would experience lower noise levels due to the additional attenuation from distance and the shielding of intervening structures. Distance is measured in a straight line from the Specific Plan boundary to each receiver location. Receiver locations are described below and illustrated in Figure 3.13-3, EBPSP Noise Receiver Locations. Location R1 represents the existing residence at 7697 Edison Avenue, approximately 668 feet north of the site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the ■
2815
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -28
site, receiver R1 is placed at the building’s façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
Location R2 represents the existing residence at 14213 Bon View Avenue, approximately 89 feet north of the site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the site, receiver R2 is placed at the building’s façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L2, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
Location R3 represents the existing residence at 14117 Grove Avenue, approximately 900 feet north of the site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the site, receiver R3 is placed at the building’s façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L3, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
Location R4 represents the existing residence at 8377 Edison Avenue, approximately 639 feet north of the site. Receiver R4 is placed in the private outdoor living area (backyard) facing the site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L4, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
Location R5 represents the existing residence at 14350 Walker Avenue, approximately 109 feet east of the site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the site, receiver R5 is placed at the building’s façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L5, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
Location R6 represents the Ontario Fire Station 11 located at 7721 Eucalyptus Avenue, approximately 166 feet south of the site. R6 is placed at the nearest building façade facing the site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the site, receiver R6 is placed at the building’s façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L6, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
Location R7 represents the existing residence at 7566 Eucalyptus Avenue, approximately 164 feet south of the site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the site, receiver R7 is placed at the building’s façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L6, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
Location R8 represents the existing residence at 7511 Eucalyptus Avenue, approximately 105 feet west of the site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the site, receiver R8 is placed at the building’s façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L7, to describe the existing ambient noise environment. ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2816
O'i
- -' aQQ .
Site
3.13 NOISE
Figure 3.13-3
EBPSP Noise Receiver
Locations
r I, Site Boundary
-·
□ EBPSP Boundary
0 Receiver Locations
-• Distance from Receiver to Project Site Boundary
(in feet)
2 · 0·5
· 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
ft:~Ff
'lllllll" 0 300 600
Source: Urban Crossroads 2025 Date: 01/15/2026
2817
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -30
This page intentionally left blank.
2818
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -31
3.13.4 Relevant New and Modified General Plan Policies
The proposed project includes modifications to the following TOP 2050 policy related to noise.
M-4.1 Truck Routes. We designate and maintain a network of City truck routes that provide for the safe and efficient transport of goods while minimizing negative impacts on local circulation and noise- and- vibration- sensitive land uses, as shown on Exhibit M-04, Truck Routes. We will minimize conflicts on truck routes through the design and implementation of buffers between travel lanes and pedestrian and bicycle facilities on designated truck routes.
3.13.5 Environmental Impacts
2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR concluded that implementation of the approved project would not result in long-term operation-related stationary noise impacts and that stationary noise sources as a result of the approved project exceed City noise standards.
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that sensitive land uses within the 65 dBA CNEL (community noise equivalent-level) noise contour of the ONT airport would be exposed to substantial levels of airport-related noise. Mitigation Measure NOI-3-PPA (former MM 12-1) would reduce airport noise impacts to the extent feasible; however, this impact was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the approved project.
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that construction activities associated with the approved project would expose sensitive uses to strong levels of groundborne vibration and construction noise. In addition, construction activities would substantially elevate noise levels in the vicinity of existing and future sensitive receptors. Mitigation Measures NOI-3-PPA (former MM 12-2) and NOI-1-PPA (former MM 12-4) would reduce construction-related noise and vibration impacts to the extent feasible; however, construction noise and vibration were identified as significant unavoidable impacts of the approved project.
Proposed Project
a) Would the project generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
■
2819
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -32
CONSTRUCTION NOISE
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that TOP buildout could result in individual construction developments near noise sensitive receptors and expose receptors to prolong periods of construction activity. Mitigation Measure NOI-1-PPA (former MM 12-4) was identified to reduce construction noise to the extent feasible; however, construction noise impacts of the approved project were identified as significant and unavoidable.
Policy Plan Amendment
Under the proposed project, the primary source of temporary noise within the City would be construction activities associated with new development projects. The proposed project would result in an increase in land use intensity rather than development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the City that would require substantial landform modification.
Construction activities would involve both off-road demolition/construction equipment (e.g., excavators, dozers, cranes, etc.), general demolition/construction equipment (e.g., compressors, jack hammers, saws), and transport of workers and equipment to and from construction sites.
The dominant equipment noise source is typically the engine, although work-piece noise (such as dropping of materials) can also be noticeable. Table 3.13-13, Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels, lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet from the equipment. It is noted that future development under the proposed project could potentially require installation of pile foundations that utilize impact pile drivers or similar equipment that generates high noise levels.
2820
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -33
Table 3.13-13 Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels Construction
Equipment
Typical Noise Levels at
50 feet, dBA
Construction
Equipment
Typical Noise Levels at
50 feet, dBA
Air Compressor 80 Pile-Driver (Impact) 101
Backhoe 80 Pile-Driver (Sonic) 95
Ballast Equalizer 82 Pneumatic Tool 85
Ballast Tamper 83 Pump 77
Compactor 82 Rail Saw 90
Concrete Mixer 85 Rock Drill 95
Concrete Pump 82 Roller 85
Concrete Vibrator 76 Saw 76
Crane, Derrick 88 Scarifier 83
Crane, Mobile 83 Scraper 85
Dozer 85 Shovel 82
Generator 82 Spike Driver 77
Grader 85 Tie Cutter 84
Impact Wrench 85 Tie Handler 80
Jack Hammer 88 Tie Inserter 85
Loader 80 Truck 84
Paver 85
Source: FTA 2018.
dBA = A-weighted decibels.
Table 3.13-14, Typical Construction Noise Levels at Receptors, shows construction noise levels for individual construction activities for proposed project phases at varying distances. Program level data for individual developments for TOP 2050 (such as construction equipment, duration, and phasing) is based on equipment list shown in this table and could generate noise levels in excess of 84 dBA Leq at 50 feet. Because multiple phases are proposed, project construction activities could generate noise disturbances for prolonged periods of time at noise-sensitive receptors throughout all phases of the proposed project. 2821
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -34
Table 3.13-14 Typical Construction Noise Levels at Receptors Construction
Activity Phase
Noise Levels in dBA Leq
RCNM
Reference Noise
Level
Receptor at
100 feet
Receptor at
200 feet
Receptor at
300 feet
Receptor at
400 feet
Demolition 81 75 69 66 63
Site Prep 82 76 70 66 64
Grading 84 78 72 68 66
Building
Construction 76 70 64 60 58
Paving 84 77 71 68 65
Architectural
Coating 79 73 67 63 61
Exceeds FTA 80 Leq Standard? No No No No
Source: Appendix I1 (FHWA’s CRAM software)
Notes. Distance measurements were taken using Google Earth (2025) from the area of anticipated construction to the property line of the nearest receptors.
dBA Leq = Energy Average Sound Levels
Safety Element Policy S4-1, Noise Mitigation, would help minimize the construction noise impacts through enforcement of the City’s Noise Ordinance. This includes Municipal Code Chapter 29, Section 5-29.09, which limits construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, or any other related building activity to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM on weekends. The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project. Nevertheless, construction-related noise impacts from the proposed project would be potentially significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant. 2822
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -35
Specific Plan
Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary
Each construction stage has a specific equipment mix, depending on the work to be completed during that stage. As a result of the equipment mix, each stage has its own noise characteristics; some stages have higher continuous noise levels than others, and some have higher impact noise levels than others. Figure 3.13-4, EBPSP Construction Noise Source Locations, illustrates the boundaries of construction activities. Construction activities are expected to occur in the following stages:
Demolition
Site Preparation
Grading
Building Construction
Paving
Architectural Coating
As previously mentioned, the construction noise analysis relies on reference construction equipment noise levels from the FHWA’s RCNM, which includes a national database of construction equipment reference noise emission levels. Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the EBPSP construction noise level impacts at the nearest sensitive receiver locations were completed. To account for the dynamic nature of construction activities, the CadnaA construction noise analysis evaluates the noise source activities as multiple moving point sources, or construction crews, within the limits of construction. Construction impacts are based on the loudest activity and the highest noise level calculated at each receiver location, as shown in Table 3.13-15, Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary. As shown in this table, the construction noise levels are expected to range from 60.3 to 66.1 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations. ■
■
■
■
■
■
2823
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -36
Table 3.13-15 EBPSP Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary Receiver
Location
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Demolition
Site
Preparation Grading
Building
Construction Paving
Architectural
Coating
Highest
Levels
R1 61.0 58.2 57.5 55.3 52.0 54.0 61.0
R2 66.1 63.3 62.6 60.4 57.1 59.1 66.1
R3 60.8 58.0 57.3 55.1 51.8 53.8 60.8
R4 60.3 57.5 56.8 54.6 51.3 53.3 60.3
R5 65.0 62.2 61.5 59.3 56.0 58.0 65.0
R6 64.9 62.1 61.4 59.2 55.9 57.9 64.9
R7 63.6 60.8 60.1 57.9 54.6 56.6 63.6
R8 63.8 61.0 60.3 58.1 54.8 56.8 63.8
Source: Appendix I2
Construction Noise Compliance
To evaluate whether the Specific Plan would generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at nearest receiver locations, a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts pursuant to FTA guidance. Table 3.13-16, EBPSP Construction Noise Compliance, shows that the noise levels at the nearest receiver locations would satisfy the daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during construction activities.
Table 3.13-16 EBPSP Construction Noise Compliance
Receiver
Location
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels Threshold
Threshold
Exceeded?
R1 61.0 80 No
R2 66.1 80 No
R3 60.8 80 No
R4 60.3 80 No
R5 65.0 80 No
R6 64.9 80 No
R7 63.6 80 No
R8 63.8 80 No
Source: Appendix I2
2824
3.13 NOISE
Figure 3.13-4
EBPSP Construction
Noise Source Locations
~ Construction Boundary
□ EBPSP Boundary
" Receiver Locations
-• Distance from Receiver to Project Site Boundary
(in feet)
2 · 0·5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
~~FT
.. .,. 0 300 600
Source: Urban Crossroads 2025 Date: 01/15/2026
2825
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -38
This page intentionally left blank.
2826
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -39
Temporary Construction Noise Increases
To describe the temporary construction noise contributions to the ambient noise environment, the Specific Plan construction noise levels were combined with the existing ambient noise level measurements at the nearest off-site receiver locations. The difference between the combined noise levels is used to describe the construction noise level contributions. Temporary noise level increases that would be experienced at sensitive receiver locations when construction-source noise is added to the ambient daytime conditions are presented in Table 3.13-17, EBPSP Daytime Construction Noise Increases. As indicated in this table, the Specific Plan would contribute construction noise increases ranging from 0.5 to 14.1 dBA Leq during the daytime hours at the nearest receiver locations. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations would not exceed the 20 dBA Leq noise significance threshold during construction activities.
Table 3.13-17 EBPSP Daytime Construction Noise Increases Receiver
Location
Typical EBPSP
Construction
Noise Level
Measurement
Location
Reference
Ambient Noise
Levels
Combined
EBPSP and
Ambient
EBPSP
Increase
Increase
Criteria
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 61.0 L1 69.8 70.3 0.5 20 No
R2 66.1 L2 64.9 68.6 3.7 20 No
R3 60.8 L3 69.4 70.0 0.6 20 No
R4 60.3 L4 69.9 70.4 0.5 20 No
R5 65.0 L5 59.8 66.1 6.3 20 No
R6 64.9 L6 62.3 66.8 4.5 20 No
R7 65.4 L6 62.3 67.1 4.8 20 No
R8 63.8 L7 49.9 64.0 14.1 20 No
Source: Appendix I2
Nighttime Concrete Pour Analysis
Nighttime concrete pouring activities are often used to support reduced concrete mixer truck transit times and to take advantage of lower air temperatures. Since nighttime concrete pours would take place outside the hours permitted by Section 5-29.09[a] of the City’s Municipal Code, the Applicant would be required to obtain authorization from the City. Table 3.13-18, EBPSP Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Compliance, provides the noise levels associated with these activities. As shown in this table, the noise levels associated with the nighttime concrete pour activities are estimated to range from 42.2 to 48.0 dBA Leq and would satisfy the FTA nighttime exterior noise level thresholds at all the receiver locations. 2827
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -40
Table 3.13-18 EBPSP Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Compliance Receiver
Location
Concrete Pour Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Exterior
Noise Levels Threshold
Threshold
Exceeded?
R1 42.9 70 No
R2 48.0 70 No
R3 42.7 70 No
R4 42.2 70 No
R5 46.9 70 No
R6 46.8 70 No
R7 45.5 70 No
R8 45.7 70 No
Source: Appendix I2
To describe the temporary concrete pour noise contributions, the concrete pour noise levels were combined with the existing nighttime ambient noise levels measurements at the nearest off-site receiver locations, as shown in Table 3.13-19, EBPSP Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Increases. As indicated above, the nighttime concrete pour activities will generate noise increases ranging from 0.0 to 2.1 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours at the nearest receiver locations. As such, the nearest receiver locations would not exceed the nighttime 5 dBA noise increase threshold during nighttime concrete pour activities.
Table 3.13-19 EBPSP Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Increases Receiver
Location
Typical EBPSP
Construction
Noise Level
Measurement
Location
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels
Combined
EBPSP and
Ambient
EBPSP
Increase
Increase
Criteria
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 42.9 L1 62.9 62.9 0.0 5 No
R2 48.0 L2 57.6 58.1 0.5 5 No
R3 42.7 L3 60.8 60.9 0.1 5 No
R4 42.2 L4 60.0 60.1 0.1 5 No
R5 46.9 L5 51.4 52.7 1.3 5 No
R6 46.8 L6 52.5 53.5 1.0 5 No
R7 45.5 L6 52.5 53.3 0.8 5 No
R8 45.7 L7 47.7 49.8 2.1 5 No
Source: Appendix I2
2828
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -41
Off-Site Improvements
To support Specific Plan development, there would be milling, trenching, and paving for off-site improvements associated with roadway construction and utility installation. These off-site improvements would be constructed mostly within the existing public right-of-way (ROW). It is expected that the off-site construction activities would not take place at any one location for more than several days due to the nature of the linear construction activity. Construction noise from this off-site work would, therefore, be relatively short-term and the noise levels would be reduced as construction work moves linearly along with the selected alignment and farther from sensitive uses.
The loudest phase of construction associated with off-site improvements would likely be demolition/site preparation activities, which would generate similar noise levels compared to the construction noise source activities previously outlined. Using the loudest stage of demolition/site preparation construction activity, Table 3.13-20, Off-site Improvements Noise Levels, presents the estimated off-site construction noise levels at distances ranging from 25 to 200 feet. As shown in this table, the off-site construction noise levels are estimated to range from 64.6 to 68.45 dBA Leq. Since the off-site construction activities would not exceed the 80 dBA Leq construction noise level standard, the noise impacts due to these off-site activities would be less than significant.
Table 3.13-20 Off-site Improvements Noise Levels
Distance from
Construction
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Construction Noise Levels Threshold
Threshold
Exceeded?
25 Feet 68.4 80 No
50 Feet 67.3 80 No
100 Feet 66.1 80 No
200 Feet 64.6 80 No
Source: Appendix I2
Summary
Based on the preceding discussions, construction of EBPSP land uses and associated infrastructure would not exceed the thresholds set forth in previous Table 3.13-15 through Table
3.13-20. Additionally, increases in ambient noise levels would not exceed applicable thresholds.
As such, construction-source noise would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area in excess of established standards.
Construction noise 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. 2829
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -42
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
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. Construction of the EBPSP would not exceed applicable thresholds or significantly increase ambient noise levels.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The following mitigation measures were taken directly from the 2022 Certified EIR. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the 2022 Certified EIR are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and underline for new, inserted text. The numbering of the mitigation measures has been updated for clarity, with the original mitigation number in the 2022 Certified EIR identified in parenthesis [Former MM].
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 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.
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.
■
■
■
2830
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -43
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, 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.
New Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure NOI-1-PPA is applicable to the proposed project. No additional mitigation measures have been identified.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2831
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -44
Specific Plan
Construction of the Specific Plan would not result in exceedances of applicable noise thresholds; and therefore, no EBPSP-specific mitigation measures are necessary. In accordance with Policy Plan Mitigation Measure NOI-1-PPA, the listed measures shall be identified on applicable EBPSP construction plans.
Significance After Mitigation
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure NOI-1-PPA would reduce potential impacts associated with construction from individual development projects to the extent feasible; however, due to the potential for proximity of construction activities to sensitive uses, the number of construction projects occurring simultaneously, and the potential duration of construction activities, Impact NOI-1 could still result in a temporary substantial increase in noise levels above ambient conditions and exceedance of the 80 dBA Leq threshold. Therefore, project and cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that the identification of this programlevel impact does not preclude the finding of less than significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.
Policy Plan Amendment Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
OPERATION NOISE
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that TOP buildout would not result in operational noise impacts at noise sensitive receptors due to stationary and traffic noise sources. Future stationary noise sources would be designed to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance, building codes, and subdivision and development code regulations to reduce noise from future development projects. Buildout of the TOP traffic noise would not result in a substantial noise increase in the vicinity of noise-sensitive receptors that would exceed the City’s noise standards.
Policy Plan Amendment
Stationary Noise
The proposed project would introduce a variety of new mechanical equipment throughout the project site. This could include rooftop heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, chillers, cooling towers, pumps, boilers, air handling units, emergency power equipment, loading and unloading activities, leaf blowers, street sweepers, and parking areas.
Stationary noise sources as part of future projects under the TOP would be required to comply with the exterior and interior noise level standards in the City’s Municipal Code Section 5.29, shown in Table 3.13-5.
2832
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -45
Design features commonly employed to achieve compliance, such as rooftop or groundmounted equipment enclosures, parapet walls, acoustical screening, and silencers for exhaust and intake openings, would be incorporated as necessary based on final equipment specifications and acoustical evaluation. Due to the size of the project site, much of the mechanical equipment would be at large distances from off-site sensitive receptors and/or would be shielded by intervening structures. Furthermore, the Policy Plan Amendment Safety Element Policy S-4.1 requires implementation of noise mitigation measures based on ordinance and code threshold compliance.
Policy S4-1: Noise Mitigation. We utilize the City’s Noise Ordinance, building codes, and subdivision and development codes to mitigate noise impacts.
Individual projects accommodated under the proposed project would not exceed operational noise significance thresholds. Compared to the approved project, the proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts. Therefore, like the approved project, stationary noise impacts of developments that would be accommodated by the proposed project would be less than significant.
Traffic Noise
Individual projects and activities under the proposed project are expected to affect the community noise environment by generating additional traffic. The proposed project would revise existing truck routes to better accommodate future planned uses, align with adjacent jurisdictions truck routes, and alleviate truck traffic noise levels at existing and future noise sensitive uses. Project truck route traffic noise was analyzed for 203 roadway segments in the City to account for project related daily truck volume increases and decreases along existing and proposed truck route roadway segments. Of the 203 roadway segments analyzed, 34 segments resulted in daily traffic noise level increases, and for some of these roadway segments, a decrease in daily traffic noise levels.
Traffic-source noise levels were calculated using the FHWA-RD-77-108 with traffic data provided by Fehr and Peers. The model calculates the average noise level along specific roadway segments based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, vehicle type, and site environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (energy rates) used in the FHWA model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by Caltrans. Figure 3.13-5, Project-Related Traffic Noise Contours, provides a graphical representation. Table 3.13-21, Project-Related Increase in Traffic Noise, shows the no-project and with-project predicted noise levels at 100 feet from the nearest travel centerline as well as the predicted traffic noise increase with implementation of the proposed project. This table shows 34 roadway segments analyzed; the other 169 roadway segments analyzed resulted in a less than 1 dBA change in traffic noise with implementation of the proposed project. ■
2833
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -46
Table 3.13-21 Project-Related Increase in Traffic Noise Roadway
Segment dBA CNEL at 50 Feet Buildout
Noise
Increase,
CNEL
Existing
Sensitive
Receptors
Significant
From To Increase?
2050 No
Project
2050 with
Project
Mountain Avenue Holt Blvd State St 70 66 -4 No No
Euclid Avenue Mission Blvd Phillips St 68 64 -4 Yes No
Euclid Avenue SR 60 Pomona Fwy Walnut St 70 67 -3 No No Euclid Avenue Walnut St Riverside Dr 71 67 -4 Yes No
Grove Avenue 5th St 4th St 62 64 2 No No
Walker Avenue Ontario Ranch Rd Eucalyptus Ave 66 70 4 No Yes Walker Avenue Eucalyptus Ave Merrill Ave 64 69 5 No Yes Ontario Avenue Eucalyptus Ave Merrill Ave 60 66 6 No Yes Archibald Avenue SR 60 Pomona Fwy Riverside Dr 74 73 -1 Yes No Archibald Avenue Riverside Dr Chino Ave 72 71 -1 Yes No Archibald Avenue Chino Ave Schaefer Ave 71 70 -1 Yes No Archibald Avenue Schaefer Ave Ontario Ranch Rd 71 70 -1 Yes No Archibald Avenue Ontario Ranch Rd Eucalyptus Ave 72 70 -2 Yes No Archibald Avenue Eucalyptus Ave Merrill Ave 71 70 -1 Yes No Archibald Avenue Merrill Ave the South 68 65 -3 Yes No
Milliken Avenue I-10 San Bernardino
Fwy
Airport Dr 70 76 6 No Yes
Milliken Avenue Santa Ana St Jurupa St 67 73 6 No Yes
Milliken Avenue Jurupa St Francis St 69 71 2 No Yes
Milliken Avenue Mission Blvd SR 60 Pomona Fwy 69 74 5 No Yes Milliken Avenue Chino Ave Ontario Ranch Rd 65 67 2 No Yes 2834
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -47
Table 3.13-21 Project-Related Increase in Traffic Noise Roadway
Segment dBA CNEL at 50 Feet Buildout
Noise
Increase,
CNEL
Existing
Sensitive
Receptors
Significant
From To Increase?
2050 No
Project
2050 with
Project
Etiwanda Avenue Ontario Mills Pky 1-10 San Bernardino
Fwy
74 71 -3 No No
Jurupa Street Milliken Ave I-15/Ontario Fwy 75 71 -4 No No Mission Boulevard San Antonio Ave Euclid Ave 69 66 -3 Yes No Philadelphia Street Parco Ave Baker Ave 65 71 6 Yes Yes Edison Ave Euclid Ave Campus Ave 70 69 -1 Yes No
Edison Ave Campus Ave Bon View Ave 70 68 -2 Yes No
Edison Ave Bon View Ave Grove Ave 70 69 -1 Yes No
Edison Ave Grove Ave Walker Ave 70 69 -1 Yes No
Eucalyptus Avenue Euclid Ave Campus Ave 68 72 4 Yes Yes Eucalyptus Avenue Campus Ave Bon View Ave 67 71 4 Yes Yes Eucalyptus Avenue Bon View Ave Grove Ave 66 70 4 No Yes Eucalyptus Avenue Grove Ave Walker Ave 64 69 5 No Yes
Eucalyptus Avenue Walker Ave Vineyard Ave 63 68 5 No Yes Eucalyptus Avenue Vineyard Ave Ontario Ave 63 68 5 No Yes Source: Appendix I1. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Notes: Model based on traffic volumes and truck mix use percentages provided by Fehr and Peers.
Bold text signifies a significant increase.
2835
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -48
Appendix I1 contains the traffic noise modeling inputs and outputs for all truck route roadway segments analyzed.
For roadways with existing ambient noise environments of 65 dBA CNEL and higher, an increase of 1.5 dBA CNEL or greater would be considered a significant impact. For roadways with existing ambient noise environments of 60 dBA to 64 dBA CNEL, an increase of 3 dBA CNEL or greater would be considered a significant impact. As shown in Table 3.13-21, Project-Related Increase in Traffic Noise, with implementation of the proposed project, receptors along Mountain Avenue, Euclid Avenue, Archibald Avenue, Etiwanda Avenue, Jurupa Avenue, Mission Avenue, and Edison Avenue would experience a decrease of -1 dBA to -4 dBA CNEL in daily traffic noise levels. This decrease, or benefit, is attributable to proposed truck route changes. This table also shows that 15 roadway segments of Walker Avenue, Ontario Avenue, Milliken Avenue, Philadelphia Avenue, and Eucalyptus Avenue would experience a significant impact of 2 dBA to 6 dBA CNEL traffic noise increases with buildout of the proposed project. There are no noisesensitive land uses along Walker Avenue, Ontario Avenue, or Milliken Avenue roadway segments; however, existing noise sensitive land uses are along the impacted roadway segments of Philadelphia Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue.
Policy Plan Amendment Safety Element Policies S4-2, S4-4, and S4-5 encourage collaboration with other agencies, manage truck traffic, and minimize noise impacts through street design.
Policy S4-2: Coordination with Transportation Authorities. We collaborate with airport owners, FAA, Caltrans, SBCTA, SCAG, neighboring jurisdictions, and other transportation providers in the preparation and maintenance of, and updates to transportation-related plans to minimize noise impacts and provide appropriate mitigation measures.
Policy S4-4: Truck Traffic. We manage truck traffic to minimize noise impacts on sensitive land uses.
Policy S4-5: Roadway Design. We design streets and highways to minimize noise impacts.
The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project. Nevertheless, traffic-related noise impacts from the proposed project would be significant.
Summary
Stationary noise impacts of the proposed project would not exceed the City’s operational noise thresholds; however, traffic noise generated by the proposed project would result in noticeable increase in traffic noise levels above the City’s noise standards. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant. ■
■
■
2836
CITY OF
MONTCLAIR
CITY OF
UPLAND
W FO RTH ST ~
0 .-
z
<
z z
~ W G Sli ti\ ,;-
z z
CITY OF CHINO
u.,
~
VI
::,
Q.
< ==
~
.,,
E-IGHliH •li- - -
RIVERSIDE DR
....,,. ..
~ a:
.....
z
a:
::,
j,"-
CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
~ ,:(;
.,,
EASTVALE
~
u.,
...,
...,
> u.,
z
3 .,, "'
I _ ,,J
I
l
CITY OF
FONTANA
County of
San Bernardino _ ,,_ ,,
County of Riverside
JURUPA VALLEY
3.13 NOISE
Figure 3.13-5
Future Project Traffic-Related
Noise Contours
Future Noise Contours
60-65 dBA CNEL
65-70 dBA CNEL
- 70+ dBACNEl
c:J Ontario City Boundary
c:J County Boundary
D EBPSP Boundary
2 · 0 · 5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
G 0 2,500 5,000
Source: Fehr & Peers 2025; PlaceWorks 2025
FT
10,000
Date: 2/19/2026
2837
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -50
This page intentionally left blank.
2838
WALKER AVE
E EUCALYPTUS AVE CAMPUS AVE BON VIEW AVE CUCAMONGA AVE GROVE AVE COMET AVE
3.13 NOISE
Figure 3.13-6
EBPSP Operational
Noise Source Locations
r I, Site Boundary
-·
□ EBPSP Boundary
lffl Tractor Trailer Storage Activity
ffl Loading Dock Activity
II Parking Lot Vehicle Movements
-- Truck Movements
~ Park Activities
* Drive-Through Speakerphone
♦ Trash Enclosure Activity
D Roof-Top Air Conditioning Unit
2 · 0·5
· 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
ft:~Ff
'lllllll" 0 300 600
Source: Urban Crossroads 2025 Date: 01/15/2026
2839
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -52
This page intentionally left blank.
2840
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -53
Specific Plan
Operation
EBPSP-related operational noise sources are expected to include loading dock activity, tractor trailer storage activity, truck movements, trash enclosure activity, roof-top air conditioning units, drive-through speakerphones, parking lot vehicle movements, and park activities. Figure
3.13-6, EBPSP Operational Noise Source Locations, illustrates the operational noise source locations.
To present the potential worst-case noise conditions, the following analysis assumes the EBPSP land uses would be operational 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Table 3.13-22, EBPSP Daytime Operational Noise Levels, and Table 3.13-23, EBPSP Nighttime Operational Noise Levels, present the daytime (7:00 AM-10:00 PM) and nighttime (10:00 PM-7:00 AM) operational noise levels, respectively, that can be expected at each of the receiver locations. As shown in these tables, the daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 43.3 to 52.8 dBA Leq and the nighttime hourly noise levels are expected to range from 42.7 to 52.7 dBA Leq. Table 3.13-22 EBPSP Daytime Operational Noise Levels Noise Source
Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8
Loading Dock Activity 48.9 52.3 49.0 47.0 47.5 45.2 42.4 37.8 Tractor Trailer Storage Activity 36.0 38.4 29.5 33.6 29.7 30.0 29.5 25.5 Truck Movements 35.2 37.8 34.7 34.5 35.1 36.7 26.0 24.7 Trash Enclosure Activity 29.9 32.6 27.4 29.4 21.7 21.5 20.1 17.4 Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 33.6 36.4 34.4 32.6 35.9 39.3 36.5 37.9 Drive-Through Speakerphone 21.5 25.8 15.6 10.5 7.8 10.4 5.8 2.8 Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 28.6 31.2 28.6 27.6 33.9 37.2 35.2 39.2 Park Activities 20.0 23.8 19.9 18.8 28.1 6.8 5.8 14.4
Total (All Noise Sources) 49.5 52.8 49.4 47.7 48.3 47.2 44.2 43.3 Source: Appendix I2
2841
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -54
Table 3.13-23 EBPSP Nighttime Operational Noise Levels
Noise Source
Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8
Loading Dock Activity 48.9 52.3 49.0 47.0 47.5 45.2 42.4 37.8 Tractor Trailer Storage Activity 36.0 38.4 29.5 33.6 29.7 30.0 29.5 25.5 Truck Movements 35.2 37.8 34.7 34.5 35.1 36.7 26.0 24.7 Trash Enclosure Activity 25.9 28.6 23.4 25.5 17.7 17.6 16.1 13.4 Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 31.2 34.0 32.0 30.2 33.5 36.9 34.1 35.5 Drive-Through Speakerphone 21.5 25.8 15.6 10.5 7.8 10.4 5.8 2.8 Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 28.6 31.2 28.6 27.6 33.9 37.2 35.2 39.2 Park Activities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total (All Noise Sources) 49.4 52.7 49.3 47.6 48.1 46.9 43.9 42.7 Source: Appendix I2
To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the operational noise levels were evaluated against the City of Ontario exterior noise level standards, as shown in Table 3.13-24, EBPSP Operational Noise Level Compliance. As shown in this table, the operational noise levels associated with the EBPSP would not exceed applicable exterior noise level standards (adjusted to reflect the ambient noise levels per Section 5-29.04[a][1] of City of Ontario Municipal Code).
Table 3.13-24 EBPSP Operational Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location
EBPSP Operational
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)
Noise Level Standards
Exceeded?
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
R1 49.5 49.4 69.8 62.9 No No
R2 52.8 52.7 65.0 57.6 No No
R3 49.4 49.3 69.4 60.8 No No
R4 47.7 47.6 69.9 60.0 No No
R5 48.3 48.1 65.0 51.4 No No
R6 47.2 46.9 65.0 52.5 No No
R7 44.2 43.9 65.0 52.5 No No
R8 43.3 42.7 65.0 47.7 No No
Source: Appendix I2
To describe the EBPSP operational noise level increases, the operational noise levels were combined with the ambient noise levels measurements for the nearby receiver locations. Table
3.13-25, EBPSP Daytime Operational Noise Increases, and Table 3.13-26, EBPSP Nighttime Operational Noise Increases, present the daytime and nighttime operational noise level 2842
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -55
increases that can be expected at each of the receiver locations. As indicated in these tables, the EBPSP would generate daytime operational noise increases ranging from 0.0 to 0.9 dBA Leq and nighttime operational noise increases ranging from 0.2 to 1.7 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. As such, noise increases associated with operations of the EBPSP would not exceed the applicable increase criteria.
Table 3.13-25 EBPSP Daytime Operational Noise Increases Receiver
Location
Total EBPSP
Operational
Noise Level
Measurement
Location
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels
Combined
EBPSP and
Ambient
EBPSP
Increase
Increase
Criteria
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 49.5 L1 69.8 69.8 0.0 1.5 No
R2 52.8 L2 64.9 65.2 0.3 5.0 No
R3 49.4 L3 69.4 69.4 0.0 1.5 No
R4 47.7 L4 69.9 69.9 0.0 1.5 No
R5 48.3 L5 59.8 60.1 0.3 5.0 No
R6 47.2 L6 62.3 62.4 0.1 5.0 No
R7 44.2 L6 62.3 62.4 0.1 5.0 No
R8 43.3 L7 49.9 50.8 0.9 5.0 No
Source: Appendix I2
Table 3.13-26 EBPSP Nighttime Operational Noise Increases Receiver
Location
Total EBPSP
Operational
Noise Level
Measurement
Location
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels
Combined
EBPSP and
Ambient
EBPSP
Increase
Increase
Criteria
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 49.4 L1 62.9 63.1 0.2 5.0 No
R2 52.7 L2 57.6 58.8 1.2 5.0 No
R3 49.3 L3 60.8 61.1 0.3 5.0 No
R4 47.6 L4 60.0 60.2 0.2 5.0 No
R5 48.1 L5 51.4 53.1 1.7 5.0 No
R6 46.9 L6 52.5 53.6 1.1 5.0 No
R7 43.9 L6 52.5 53.1 0.6 5.0 No
R8 42.7 L7 47.7 48.9 1.2 5.0 No
Source: Appendix I2
Off-Site Traffic Noise
To assess the off-site transportation CNEL noise level impacts associated with development of the Specific Plan, noise contours were developed for each of the scenarios outlined in the EBPSP 2843
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -56
Traffic Analysis (Existing, Opening Year 2031, Horizon Year 2050). The noise contours were used to assess the incremental 24-hour dBA CNEL traffic-related noise impacts at land uses adjacent to roadways conveying EBPSP traffic. The noise contours represent the distance to noise levels of constant value and are measured from the center of the roadway for the 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL noise levels. The noise contours do not consider the effect of any existing noise barriers or topography that may attenuate ambient noise levels. In addition, because the noise contours reflect modeling of vehicular noise on area roadways, they appropriately do not reflect noise contributions from the surrounding stationary noise sources within the study area.
Existing with EBPSP Scenario
Based on the developed noise contours, Table 3.13-27, Existing with EBPSP (Phase 1) Traffic Noise Increases, Table 3.13-28, Existing with EBPSP (Phase 2) Traffic Noise Increases, and Table
3.13-29, Existing with EBPSP (Buildout) Traffic Noise Increases, present the off-site traffic noise increases that would be attributable to the EBPSP for the existing with EBPSP scenario. It is noted that the Existing With EBPSP (Phase 1 through Buildout) condition is provided solely for informational purposes and would not occur, since the Specific Plan would not be fully developed and occupied under Existing conditions.
EBPSP Phase 1 off-site traffic noise increases would range from -0.4 to 2.2 dBA CNEL (see Table
3.13-27).1
Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise, the noise increase threshold would be exceeded along the following two roadway segments under this scenario:
Walker Avenue south of Ontario Ranch Road (Segment #9)
Eucalyptus Avenue east of Euclid Avenue (Segment #17)
Table 3.13-28 shows that EBPSP Phase 2 off-site traffic noise increases would range from -0.4 to
3.2 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise, the same two study area roadway segments (Segments 9 and 17) would continue to experience noise increases in excess of the threshold under this scenario.
1 It is noted that the City truck route modifications proposed as part of the Policy Plan Amendment may result in certain reductions in with EBPSP traffic volumes, and subsequently, the with EBPSP off-site traffic noise levels. ■
■
2844
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -57
Table 3.13-27 Existing with EBPSP (Phase I) Traffic Noise Increases ID Road Segment
Receiving
Land Use
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold
No
EBPSP
With
EBPSP
EBPSP
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Euclid Ave (SR-83) n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 79.8 79.9 0.1 1.5 No 2 Euclid Ave (SR-83) n/o Eucalyptus Ave Sensitive 78.8 79.1 0.3 1.5 No 3 Euclid Ave (SR-83) s/o Eucalyptus Ave Sensitive 80.6 80.7 0.1 1.5 No 4 Bon View Ave n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 68.7 68.6 -0.1 1.5 No 5 Bon View Ave s/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 67.3 67.3 0.0 1.5 No 6 Grove Ave n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 73.7 73.7 0.0 1.5 No 7 Grove Ave s/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 72.3 72.4 0.1 1.5 No 8 Walker Ave n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 72.4 72.3 -0.1 1.5 No 9 Walker Ave s/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 70.5 72.7 2.2 1.5 Yes 10 Archibald Ave n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 78.6 78.3 -0.3 1.5 No 11 Archibald Ave s/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 79.8 79.4 -0.4 1.5 No 12 Ontario Ranch Rd e/o Euclid Ave (SR-83) Sensitive 75.3 74.9 -0.4 1.5 No 13 Ontario Ranch Rd w/o Grove Ave Sensitive 74.4 74.0 -0.4 1.5 No 14 Ontario Ranch Rd e/o Grove Ave Sensitive 74.5 74.1 -0.4 1.5 No 15 Ontario Ranch Rd w/o Archibald Ave Non-Sensitive 76.3 77.5 1.2 3.0 No 16 Ontario Ranch Rd e/o Archibald Ave Sensitive 77.1 77.9 0.8 1.5 No 17 Eucalyptus Ave e/o Euclid Ave (SR-83) Sensitive 71.0 72.8 1.8 1.5 Yes 18 Eucalyptus Ave w/o Grove Ave Non-Sensitive 69.8 71.8 2.0 n/a No 19 Eucalyptus Ave e/o Grove Ave Non-Sensitive 73.5 74.4 0.9 n/a No 20 Eucalyptus Ave e/o Walker Ave Non-Sensitive 72.9 73.0 0.1 n/a No Source: Appendix I2
2845
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -58
Table 3.13-28 Existing with EBPSP (Phase 2) Traffic Noise Increase ID Road Segment
Receiving
Land Use
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold
No
EBPSP
With
EBPSP
EBPSP
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Euclid Ave (SR-83) n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 79.8 80.0 0.2 1.5 No 2 Euclid Ave (SR-83) n/o Eucalyptus Ave Sensitive 78.8 79.2 0.4 1.5 No 3 Euclid Ave (SR-83) s/o Eucalyptus Ave Sensitive 80.6 80.8 0.2 1.5 No 4 Bon View Ave n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 68.7 68.6 -0.1 1.5 No 5 Bon View Ave s/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 67.3 67.4 0.1 1.5 No 6 Grove Ave n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 73.7 73.8 0.1 1.5 No 7 Grove Ave s/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 72.3 72.5 0.2 1.5 No 8 Walker Ave n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 72.4 72.4 0.0 1.5 No 9 Walker Ave s/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 70.5 73.7 3.2 1.5 Yes 10 Archibald Ave n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 78.6 78.3 -0.3 1.5 No 11 Archibald Ave s/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 79.8 79.5 -0.3 1.5 No 12 Ontario Ranch Rd e/o Euclid Ave (SR-83) Sensitive 75.3 74.9 -0.4 1.5 No 13 Ontario Ranch Rd w/o Grove Ave Sensitive 74.4 74.1 -0.3 1.5 No 14 Ontario Ranch Rd e/o Grove Ave Sensitive 74.5 74.2 -0.3 1.5 No 15 Ontario Ranch Rd w/o Archibald Ave Non-Sensitive 76.3 77.8 1.5 3.0 No 16 Ontario Ranch Rd e/o Archibald Ave Sensitive 77.1 78.3 1.2 1.5 No 17 Eucalyptus Ave e/o Euclid Ave (SR-83) Sensitive 71.0 73.5 2.5 1.5 Yes 18 Eucalyptus Ave w/o Grove Ave Non-Sensitive 69.8 72.8 3.0 n/a No 19 Eucalyptus Ave e/o Grove Ave Non-Sensitive 73.5 75.2 1.7 n/a No 20 Eucalyptus Ave e/o Walker Ave Non-Sensitive 72.9 73.1 0.2 n/a No Source: Appendix I2
2846
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -59
Table 3.13-29 shows that EBPSP Buildout off-site traffic noise increases would range from -0.4 to
3.7 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise, the same 2 study area roadway segments (Segments 9 and 17) would continue to experience noise increases in excess of the threshold under this scenario.
Opening Year with EBPSP Scenario
Based on the developed noise contours, Table 3.13-30, Opening Year (2031) with EBPSP Traffic Noise Increases, present the off-site traffic noise increases that would be attributable to the EBPSP for the opening year scenario. As shown in this table, the Opening Year (2031) off-site traffic noise increases would range from 0.0 to 2.3 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise, the noise increase threshold would be exceeded along the following roadway segment under this scenario:
Walker Avenue south of Ontario Ranch Road (Segment #9)
Horizon Year with EBPSP Scenario
Based on the developed noise contours, Table 3.13-31, Horizon Year (2050) with EBPSP Traffic Noise Increases, present the off-site traffic noise increases that would be attributable to the EBPSP for the opening year scenario. As shown, Horizon Year (2050) off-site traffic noise increases would range from 0.0 to 0.7 dBA CNEL. Noise increases along all roadway segments would not exceed the significance criteria.
Summary
Operational Noise Summary
As shown in Table 3.13-22 through 3.13-26, noise associated with EBPSP operations would not exceed applicable thresholds for daytime or nighttime conditions. Additionally, noise level increases associated with operation of the Specific Plan would not exceed the increase criteria thresholds. Based on the preceding discussions, operational noise impacts of the EBPSP would be less than significant. Accordingly, EBPSP operations would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.
Off-Site Traffic Noise Summary
Based on the information presented in Tables 3.13-27 through 3.13-31, certain roadway segments would experience noise level increases in excess of the significance threshold under Existing with EBPSP (Phase 1 though Buildout) and Opening Year (2031) conditions. The EBPSP would not result in new or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts compared to that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Nevertheless, this would be a potentially significant impact.
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant. ■
2847
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -60
Table 3.13-29 Existing with EBPSP (Buildout) Traffic Noise Increases ID Road Segment
Receiving
Land Use
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold
No
EBPSP
With
EBPSP
EBPSP
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Euclid Ave (SR-83) n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 79.8 80.1 0.3 1.5 No 2 Euclid Ave (SR-83) n/o Eucalyptus Ave Sensitive 78.8 79.3 0.5 1.5 No 3 Euclid Ave (SR-83) s/o Eucalyptus Ave Sensitive 80.6 80.8 0.2 1.5 No 4 Bon View Ave n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 68.7 68.7 0.0 1.5 No 5 Bon View Ave s/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 67.3 67.5 0.2 1.5 No 6 Grove Ave n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 73.7 73.8 0.1 1.5 No 7 Grove Ave s/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 72.3 72.7 0.4 1.5 No 8 Walker Ave n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 72.4 72.4 0.0 1.5 No 9 Walker Ave s/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 70.5 74.2 3.7 1.5 Yes 10 Archibald Ave n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 78.6 78.3 -0.3 1.5 No 11 Archibald Ave s/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 79.8 79.5 -0.3 1.5 No 12 Ontario Ranch Rd e/o Euclid Ave (SR-83) Sensitive 75.3 74.9 -0.4 1.5 No 13 Ontario Ranch Rd w/o Grove Ave Sensitive 74.4 74.2 -0.2 1.5 No 14 Ontario Ranch Rd e/o Grove Ave Sensitive 74.5 74.2 -0.3 1.5 No 15 Ontario Ranch Rd w/o Archibald Ave Non-Sensitive 76.3 78.1 1.8 3.0 No 16 Ontario Ranch Rd e/o Archibald Ave Sensitive 77.1 78.5 1.4 1.5 No 17 Eucalyptus Ave e/o Euclid Ave (SR-83) Sensitive 71.0 73.9 2.9 1.5 Yes 18 Eucalyptus Ave w/o Grove Ave Non-Sensitive 69.8 73.2 3.4 n/a No 19 Eucalyptus Ave e/o Grove Ave Non-Sensitive 73.5 75.6 2.1 n/a No 20 Eucalyptus Ave e/o Walker Ave Non-Sensitive 72.9 73.1 0.2 n/a No Source: Appendix I2
2848
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -61
Table 3.13-30 Opening Year (2031) with EBPSP Traffic Noise Increases ID Road Segment
Receiving
Land Use
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold
No
EBPSP
With
EBPSP
EBPSP
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Euclid Ave (SR-83) n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 80.4 80.6 0.2 1.5 No 2 Euclid Ave (SR-83) n/o Eucalyptus Ave Sensitive 79.7 80.0 0.3 1.5 No 3 Euclid Ave (SR-83) s/o Eucalyptus Ave Sensitive 81.3 81.4 0.1 1.5 No 4 Bon View Ave n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 70.7 70.7 0.0 1.5 No 5 Bon View Ave s/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 69.7 69.9 0.2 1.5 No 6 Grove Ave n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 75.2 75.4 0.2 1.5 No 7 Grove Ave s/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 73.9 74.1 0.2 1.5 No 8 Walker Ave n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 73.8 73.8 0.0 1.5 No 9 Walker Ave s/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 72.6 74.9 2.3 1.5 Yes 10 Archibald Ave n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 79.7 79.7 0.0 1.5 No 11 Archibald Ave s/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 80.7 80.8 0.1 1.5 No 12 Ontario Ranch Rd e/o Euclid Ave (SR-83) Sensitive 76.4 76.4 0.0 1.5 No 13 Ontario Ranch Rd w/o Grove Ave Sensitive 75.6 75.7 0.1 1.5 No 14 Ontario Ranch Rd e/o Grove Ave Sensitive 75.6 75.6 0.0 1.5 No 15 Ontario Ranch Rd w/o Archibald Ave Non-Sensitive 77.6 78.5 0.9 3.0 No 16 Ontario Ranch Rd e/o Archibald Ave Sensitive 78.6 79.4 0.8 1.5 No 17 Eucalyptus Ave e/o Euclid Ave (SR-83) Sensitive 73.3 74.8 1.5 1.5 No 18 Eucalyptus Ave w/o Grove Ave Non-Sensitive 72.0 74.0 2.0 n/a No 19 Eucalyptus Ave e/o Grove Ave Non-Sensitive 74.8 76.2 1.4 n/a No 20 Eucalyptus Ave e/o Walker Ave Non-Sensitive 73.1 73.4 0.3 n/a No Source: Appendix I2
2849
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -62
Table 3.13-31 Horizon Year (2050) with EBPSP Traffic Noise Increases ID Road Segment
Receiving
Land Use
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold
No
EBPSP
With
EBPSP
EBPSP
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Euclid Ave (SR-83) n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 81.1 81.3 0.2 1.5 No 2 Euclid Ave (SR-83) n/o Eucalyptus Ave Sensitive 81.4 81.6 0.2 1.5 No 3 Euclid Ave (SR-83) s/o Eucalyptus Ave Sensitive 82.4 82.5 0.1 1.5 No 4 Bon View Ave n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 76.8 76.8 0.0 1.5 No 5 Bon View Ave s/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 77.3 77.4 0.1 1.5 No 6 Grove Ave n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 80.0 80.0 0.0 1.5 No 7 Grove Ave s/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 78.7 78.8 0.1 1.5 No 8 Walker Ave n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 78.1 78.1 0.0 1.5 No 9 Walker Ave s/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 79.1 79.8 0.7 1.5 No 10 Archibald Ave n/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 82.5 82.5 0.0 1.5 No 11 Archibald Ave s/o Ontario Ranch Rd Sensitive 82.8 82.8 0.0 1.5 No 12 Ontario Ranch Rd e/o Euclid Ave (SR-83) Sensitive 79.4 79.5 0.1 1.5 No 13 Ontario Ranch Rd w/o Grove Ave Sensitive 78.7 78.8 0.1 1.5 No 14 Ontario Ranch Rd e/o Grove Ave Sensitive 78.3 78.3 0.0 1.5 No 15 Ontario Ranch Rd w/o Archibald Ave Non-Sensitive 81.2 81.6 0.4 3.0 No 16 Ontario Ranch Rd e/o Archibald Ave Sensitive 82.3 82.7 0.4 1.5 No 17 Eucalyptus Ave e/o Euclid Ave (SR-83) Sensitive 79.4 79.8 0.4 1.5 No 18 Eucalyptus Ave w/o Grove Ave Non-Sensitive 78.2 78.7 0.5 3.0 No 19 Eucalyptus Ave e/o Grove Ave Non-Sensitive 78.8 79.2 0.4 3.0 No 20 Eucalyptus Ave e/o Walker Ave Non-Sensitive 74.0 74.1 0.1 n/a No Source: Appendix I2
2850
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -63
Impact NOI-2: Implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP would expose sensitive receptors to substantial permanent traffic noise increases.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant operational noise impacts, and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
TOP 2050 Policies (see Policies M-1.1 and M-4.1) would reduce roadway noise, to the extent feasible; however, no mitigation measures are available that would reduce the proposed project’s substantial increase in traffic noise levels.
Specific Plan
To address potentially significant off-site traffic noise increases along study areas roadway segments, both quiet pavement and off-site noise barriers were considered as potential noise mitigation measures, as discussed below.
Quiet Pavement
The application of quieter pavements reduces traffic noise levels at the tire/pavement interface, which has been shown to be the primary source of traffic noise when vehicles travel faster than about 30 mph. Additionally, quiet pavement does not have the same physical site limitations as barriers and typically has a lower upfront cost. The noise performance of quieter pavement can degrade over time, typically 10 years, resulting in increased maintenance and rehabilitation needs for purposes of noise reduction.
Changing the pavement type of a roadway has been shown to reduce the amount of tire/pavement noise produced at the source under both near-term and long-term conditions.
Traffic noise is generated primarily by the interaction of the tires and pavement, the engine, and exhaust systems. For automobile noise, as much as 75 to 90 percent of traffic noise is generated by the interaction of the tires and pavement, especially when traveling at higher speeds.
According to research conducted by Caltrans, these types of pavements typically provide noise attenuation of 6 dBA for automobile traffic noise levels.
The effectiveness of reducing traffic noise levels is higher on roadways with low percentages of heavy trucks, since the heavy truck engine and exhaust noise is not reduced by quiet pavement. 2851
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -64
This is due to the height of the truck engine exhaust stack above the pavement. Per Caltrans guidance a truck stack height is modeled using a height of 11.5 feet above the road. Based on Calveno REMELs, one heavy truck traveling at 55 mph generates as much noise as approximately 13 autos at the same speed. This is due to a combination of factors including the difference between the noise source height for heavy trucks of 11.5 feet versus autos with a noise source height of less than 2 feet. With the primary off-site traffic noise levels for the EBPSP consisting of heavy trucks with a stack height of 11.5 feet off the ground, the tire/pavement noise reduction benefits associated with quiet pavement would be primarily limited to autos.
Although the use of quiet pavement could theoretically reduce off-site traffic noise levels, such reductions would not provide reliable or meaningful benefits for noise generated by heavy truck traffic. Quiet pavement is primarily effective at reducing tire-on pavement noise at higher speeds and does not substantially reduce noise from truck engines and exhaust stacks.
Consequently, quiet pavement would not reduce off-site truck-related traffic noise to less than significant levels.
Off-Site Noise Barriers
While noise barriers are commonly used to reduce the potential traffic noise levels from nearby transportation noise source activities, they are typically developed in coordination with new noise sensitive residential development or as part of a roadway widening project. Even though off-site noise barriers are typically not developed by individual off-site projects that contribute to the cumulative off-site traffic noise levels, off-site noise barriers were considered in the analysis as a potential traffic noise mitigation measure to reduce the EBPSP-related impacts.
However, noise barriers are not considered feasible as barriers would require openings for driveway access to individual residential lots fronting the road, thus greatly reducing their effectiveness. As such, off-site noise barriers would not be expected to lower the off-site traffic noise levels below a level of significance.
Significance After Mitigation
Policy Plan Amendment
Measures applied to individual development projects, such as constructing noise walls, evaluating and installing upgraded windows and doors, or applying rubberized asphalt on impacted roadway segments could reduce potential traffic noise impacts; however, impacted homes are on private property outside of the control of future project developers, so there may be limited admittance onto these properties to construct such walls. The cost versus benefit ratio in relation to the number of households benefited may not be feasible and reasonable in all cases. There are no funding mechanisms and procedures that would guarantee that the 2852
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -65
implementation of sound insulation features at each affected home would reduce traffic noise in interior areas. Therefore, project impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that the identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less than significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.
Policy Plan Amendment Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
Specific Plan
Due to the infeasibility of both quiet pavement and off-site noise barriers, EBPSP-related off-site traffic noise increases at adjacent noise-sensitive land uses are considered a significant and unavoidable impact.
Specific Plan Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. b) Would the project generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that TOP buildout could result in individual construction developments near noise sensitive receptors and expose receptors to prolong periods of construction activity. Mitigation Measure NOI-2-PPA (former MM 12-2) was identified to reduce construction vibration to the extent feasible; however, construction vibration impacts of the approved project were identified as significant and unavoidable.
Policy Plan Amendment
Under the proposed project, the primary source of temporary vibration within the City would be construction activities associated with new development projects. The proposed project would result in an increase in land use intensity rather than development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the City that would require substantial landform modification.
Construction activity in the proposed project area would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and equipment. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the construction site varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor-building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels.
Vibration from construction activities rarely reaches the levels that can damage structures but can achieve the audible and perceptible ranges in buildings close to the construction site. It is 2853
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -66
noted that future development under the proposed project could potentially require installation of pile foundations that utilize impact pile drivers or similar equipment that generates high noise levels. Groundborne vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors, so it is usually evaluated in terms of indoor receivers (FTA 2018). Table 3.13-32, Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment, lists reference vibration levels for construction equipment.
Table 3.13-32 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment
Approximate RMS Vibration
Level at 25 Feet (VdB)
Approximate PPV Vibration
Level at 25 Feet (in/sec)
Pile Driver, Impact (Upper Range) 112 1.518
Pile Driver, Impact (Typical) 104 0.644
Pile Driver, Sonic (Upper Range) 105 0.734
Pile Driver, Sonic (Typical) 93 0.170
Vibratory Roller 94 0.210
Large Bulldozer 87 0.089
Caisson Drilling 87 0.089
Loaded Trucks 86 0.076
Jackhammer 79 0.035
Small Bulldozer 58 0.003
Source: FTA 2018.
Notes: in/sec = inches per second; RMS = root-mean-square; PPV = peak particle velocity; VdB = vibration decibel.
As shown in the table, vibration generated by construction equipment has the potential to be substantial since it has the potential to exceed the FTA criteria for architectural damage thresholds shown in the table (e.g., 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings). Construction details and equipment for future project-level developments under the proposed project are not known at this time but may cause vibration impacts. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant.
Specific Plan
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. The FTA provides representative ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment. Based on the representative vibration levels, it is possible to estimate the potential vibration levels received at vicinity sensitive receiver locations. As shown in Table 3.13-33, EBPSP Construction Vibration Levels, at distances ranging from 89 to 900 feet from construction 2854
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -67
activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range from 0 to 0.031 PPV in/sec. Based on maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.2 PPV (in/sec), the typical construction vibration levels would fall below the damage thresholds at all the receiver locations. Therefore, EBPSP-related vibration impacts are considered 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.
Table 3.13-33 EBPSP Construction Vibration Levels
Location
Distance
to Const.
Activity
(Feet)
Typical Construction Vibration Levels
PPV (in/sec)
Thresholds
PPV
(in/sec)
Thresholds
Exceeded?
Small
bulldozer
JackhammerLoaded
Trucks
Large
bulldozer
Vibratory
Roller
Highest
Vibration
Level
R1 668' 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.2 No
R2 89' 0.000 0.005 0.011 0.013 0.031 0.031 0.2 No
R3 900' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.2 No
R4 639' 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.2 No
R5 109' 0.000 0.004 0.008 0.010 0.023 0.023 0.2 No
R6 166' 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.005 0.012 0.012 0.2 No
R7 164' 0.000 0.002 0.005 0.005 0.012 0.012 0.2 No
R8 105' 0.000 0.004 0.009 0.010 0.024 0.024 0.2 No
Source: Appendix I2
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact NOI-3: Construction activities associated with buildout of the Policy Plan Amendment may expose sensitive uses to excessive levels of groundborne vibration.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The following mitigation measures were taken directly from the 2022 Certified EIR. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the 2022 Certified EIR are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and underline for new, inserted text. The numbering of the mitigation measures has been updated for clarity, with the original mitigation number in the 2022 Certified EIR identified in parenthesis [Former MM]. 2855
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -68
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 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 nonengineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses 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.
New Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
No additional mitigation measures are available to reduce construction-related vibration.
Specific Plan
The EBPSP would not result in significant construction-related vibration impacts. No mitigation is necessary.
Significance After Mitigation
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure NOI-2-PPA would reduce potential impacts associated with construction vibration from individual development projects to the extent feasible. However, due to the potential for proximity of construction activities to sensitive uses, the number of construction projects occurring simultaneously, and the potential duration of construction activities, construction vibration impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, construction 2856
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -69
vibration impacts associated with the proposed project would remain significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that the identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less than significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.
Policy Plan Amendment Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
OPERATION VIBRATION
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that the majority of commercial and industrial uses would not be immediately adjacent to vibration-sensitive uses, the use of heavy equipment associated with industrial activities would occur indoors, and no significant vibration impacts would occur from vibration generated by these uses. The 2022 Certified EIR also identified that potential impacts from on-road vehicles would not generate more than 0.8 in/sec PPV at vibrationsensitive receptors and approved project operational vibration impacts were less than significant.
Policy Plan Amendment
Commercial and Industrial Vibration
Commercial and industrial operations in the City would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the operational procedures and equipment. Such equipment-generated vibrations would spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the vibration source varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor-building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. Individual projects accommodated under the proposed project would not exceed operational vibration significance thresholds. Compared to the approved project, the proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts. Therefore, like the approved project, operational vibration impacts of developments that would be accommodated by the proposed project would be less than significant.
Truck Route Vibration
Caltrans has studied the effects of propagation of vehicle vibration on sensitive land uses and notes that heavy trucks and buses generate the highest earth-borne vibrations of normal traffic.
Caltrans further notes that the highest traffic-generated vibrations are along freeways and state routes. Its study finds that,
... vibrations measured on freeway shoulders (five meters from the centerline of the nearest lane) have never exceeded 0.08 inches per second, with the worst 2857
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -70
combinations of heavy trucks and poor roadway conditions (while such trucks were moving at freeway speeds). This level coincides with the maximum recommended safe level for ruins and ancient monuments (and historic buildings). (Caltrans 2013)
Truck route operations would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the truck weight, speed, travel lane distance from sensitive receptors, and roadway condition. As noted from public comments, residential receptors along existing truck routes have experienced heavy truck travel vibration annoyance. Reducing speed limits of heavy trucks and increasing the travel lane distance to sensitive receptors would reduce truck route vibration impacts at existing and future sensitive receptors along the City’s truck routes. The proposed project would result in a new, or substantial heavy truck-related vibration annoyance impact compared to the approved project. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant.
Summary
Individual projects accommodated under the proposed project would not exceed operational vibration significance thresholds; however, the proposed project would result in a new, or substantial heavy truck-related vibration annoyance impact compared to the approved project.
Therefore, this impact is potentially significant.
Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant.
Specific Plan
As identified above for the Policy Plan Amendment, individual projects accommodated under the proposed project would not exceed operational vibration significance thresholds. Under long-term conditions, the EBPSP would not include or require equipment or activities that would result in perceptible groundborne vibration beyond the Specific Plan area. Trucks would travel to and from the site along local roadways; however, vibration levels for heavy trucks operating at the posted speed limits on paved surfaces are not generally perceptible beyond the roadway. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in new impacts or an increase in magnitude of impacts compared to that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant 2858
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -71
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.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant long-term vibration impacts, and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
TOP 2050 Policy M-1.1 would reduce vibration levels due to heavy truck routes, to the extent feasible, through roadway maintenance. Additionally, the Policy Plan Amendment includes revisions to Policy M-4.1 that would provide safe and efficient transport of goods and minimizing negative impacts to vibration sensitive receptors.
Specific Plan
The EBPSP would not result in significant long-term operational vibration impacts. No mitigation is necessary.
Significance After Mitigation
Policy Plan Amendment
Revisions to Policy M-4.1 of TOP 2050 would reduce vibration annoyance impacts associated with heavy truck travel along City haul routes from individual development projects to the extent feasible. Reducing heavy truck travel speeds provide safe and efficient transport of goods on impacted roadway segments could reduce potential heavy truck vibration annoyance impacts. However, impacted receptors may still perceive an annoyance. Therefore, heavy truck vibration impacts associated with the proposed project would remain significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that the identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less than significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.
Policy Plan Amendment Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. 2859
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -72
c) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
AIRPORT NOISE HAZARDS
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that TOP buildout could expose noise sensitive uses to excessive noise levels from ONT. No impacts were identified from aircraft noise at CNO.
Mitigation Measure NOI-3-PPA (former MM 12-1) was identified to reduce construction aircraft noise to the extent feasible. However, ONT noise impacts of the approved project were identified as significant and unavoidable.
Policy Plan Amendment
The City of Ontario’s noise and land use compatibility standards considers a noise environment up to 60 dBA CNEL to be “clearly acceptable” for residential uses. Residential uses in exterior noise environments of up to 65 dBA CNEL are “normally acceptable.” Normally acceptable conditions would require an acoustical report for major new residential construction. CBC Part 2, Volume 1, Chapter 12, Section 1206.4, Allowable Interior Noise Levels, requires that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources not exceed 45 dBA in any habitable room.
The 2022 Certified EIR found that residents and other sensitive receptors within the 65 dBA noise contour of ONT would be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations, and consequently indoor and exterior noise environments would be exposed to elevated noise levels from aircraft overflights. No impacts would occur from aircraft overflights at CNO because the 65 dBA noise contour for CNO does not extend into the City.
The Policy Plan Amendment would redesignate the area along Holt Boulevard from Business Park to Mixed Use land use and a portion along Grove Avenue from Airport to Industrial land use. Although the Policy Plan Amendment would redesignate land uses near ONT, future development facilitated by these changes would remain subject the noise compatibility requirements of the adopted ALUCP. The Land Use Element of the existing TOP 2050 requires that new development surrounding ONT be consistent with the adopted ALUCP and comply with the standards and recommendations of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 77, as adopted through Ordinance 2758 of the Ontario Municipal Code.
A consistency determination analysis for ONT was prepared by the City of Ontario, which found that TOP 2050 is consistent with the ALUCP for ONT (ONT–IAC 2018) (Appendix G6). As stated in the consistency analysis, the proposed mixed-use land use designation allows for a combination of multi-family residential greater than 8 dwelling units per acre, office and commercial uses.
The proposed mixed-use land use is consistent with the ONT ALUCP Noise Policy N2a, which allows new multi-family residential within the 65 to 70 dB CNEL noise contour provided that the 2860
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -73
development can achieve a density that is 8 dwelling units per acre or greater and incorporate interior common space and recreational facilities.
Furthermore, Safety Element Policy S4-6, Airport Noise Compatibility, would minimize impacts.
Policy S4-6 states that information from the ALUCPs shall be utilized to prevent the construction of new noise-sensitive land uses within airport noise impact zones. Future sensitive uses within the ONT Airport 65 dBA CNEL noise contour would be required to conduct a noise assessment and mitigate, as feasible, to achieve an interior noise level 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room.
Policy Plan Amendment Safety Element Policies S4-2, S4-3, and S4-6 help minimize airport noise impacts.
Policy S4-2 Coordination with Transportation Authorities. We collaborate with airport owners, FAA, Caltrans, SBCTA, SCAG, neighboring jurisdictions, and other transportation providers in the preparation and maintenance of and updates to transportation-related plans to minimize noise impacts and provide appropriate mitigation measures.
Policy S4-3 Airport Noise Mitigation. We aggressively pursue funding and utilize programs to reduce the effects of aircraft noise in impacted areas of our community.
Policy S4-6 Airport Noise Compatibility. We utilize information from Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans to prevent the construction of new noise -sensitive land uses within airport noise impact zones.
While the consistency determination for ONT identified that Policy Plan Amendment changes are consistent with the ONT ALUCP (Appendix G6), individual projects accommodated under the TOP 2050 could locate sensitive receptors within the 65 dBA noise contour of ONT and expose people residing or working in the City to excessive aircraft noise levels. Compared to the approved project, the Policy Plan Amendment would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts. Therefore, like the approved project, aircraft noise impacts of developments that would be accommodated by the Policy Plan Amendment would be potentially significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant.
Specific Plan
Although the Specific Plan area is located within the ONT Influence Area (AIA), it is located outside any identified safety, airspace protection, and noise impact zones. All properties located within the ONT AIA are subject to a real estate transaction disclosure notice. (Ontario 2018) The Specific Plan area is also located within the CNO AIA. The San Bernardino County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Chino Airport was adopted in 1991 and does not reflect ■
■
■
2861
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -74
guidance set forth in the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. (SBC ALUC, 1991) As such, in 2022, the City of Ontario adopted the CNO Overlay District which provides maps, criteria, and policy language to guide development within the Chino AIA consistent with the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
CNO overlay guidance illustrates that the Specific Plan area is located outside all identified noise contours of the Chino Airport. (Ontario 2022b) Similarly, the 2022 Certified EIR determined that the CNO noise contours would not result in significant impacts to the City of Ontario. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of aircraft-related noise impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact NOI-5: Implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment could expose noise sensitive uses to excessive noise levels from the Ontario International Airport (ONT).
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The following mitigation measures were taken directly from the 2022 Certified EIR. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the 2022 Certified EIR are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and underline for new, inserted text. The numbering of the mitigation measures has been updated for clarity, with the original mitigation number in the 2022 Certified EIR identified in parenthesis [Former MM].
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).
New Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure NOI-3-PPA is applicable to the proposed project. No additional mitigation measures have been identified.
2862
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -75
Specific Plan
The EBPSP would not be subject to excessive aircraft noise; No mitigation is necessary.
Additionally, the Specific Plan area is not located within the 65 dBA CNEL contour of the Ontario International Airport, as such, Mitigation Measure NOI-3-PPA would not apply.
Significance After Mitigation
Policy Plan Amendment
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3-PPA and TOP 2050 policies, impacts to future sensitive receptors from excessive airport-related noise from operations at ONT would be reduced to comply with interior noise level thresholds of 45 dBA CNEL or less. While interior noise levels are required to achieve the interior noise limits of the California Building Standards, Title 24 and Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, exterior noise levels may continue to exceed the noise compatibility criteria for the City. It should be noted that the identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less than significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level. Consequently, airport noise compatibility impacts of the proposed project would remain significant and unavoidable. Policy Plan Amendment Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
3.13.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The area considered for cumulative impacts for construction noise and vibration is the City of Ontario. Since details of individual development projects as a result of the proposed project are currently unknown, it cannot be determined whether proposed mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels for cumulative projectrelated noise impacts.
Construction
Construction activities may occur simultaneously and close to noise-sensitive receptors, which could result in significant impacts. For the EBPSP, there are no known projects that would overlap with the EBPSP’s proposed construction schedule, with the exception of the Center Park Specific Plan to the north. Given the acreage associated with both the EBPSP and the Center Park Specific Plan and distance to the nearest noise-sensitive receptors, construction noise levels from the individual projects are not loud enough to result in a doubling of noise energy.
Thus, the EBPSP would not substantially contribute to construction noise levels at noise sensitive receptors. EBPSP construction-source noise would not exceed applicable thresholds and would not substantially contribute to ambient noise conditions or to other related noise sources. There are no known or probable related projects that would interact with the less than significant effects of the EBPSP and thereby result in cumulatively significant impacts; however, 2863
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -76
for the larger Policy Plan Amendment, the phasing of construction activities is speculative. As details of individual development projects in the project area are currently unknown, it cannot be determined whether Mitigation Measure NOI-1-PPA would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant. The proposed project’s contribution to construction-related noise and vibration would therefore be cumulatively considerable, and the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Operation
Stationary Sources
Stationary noise sources as part of future projects under the proposed project would be required to comply with the exterior and interior noise level standards in the City’s Municipal Code Section 5.29, shown in Table 3.13-5, and Policy Plan Amendment Policy S4-1, Noise Mitigation. Design features commonly employed to achieve compliance, such as rooftop or ground-mounted equipment enclosures, parapet walls, acoustical screening, and silencers for exhaust and intake openings, would be incorporated as necessary based on final equipment specifications and acoustical evaluation. Due to compliance with stationary noise standards at the project level, much of the mechanical equipment would be located at large distances from off-site sensitive receptors and/or would be shielded by intervening structures. The proposed project would therefore not contribute to cumulatively considerable stationary source-related noise, and the cumulative impact would be less than significant.
Traffic Sources
To specifically estimate the proposed project’s contribution to traffic noise, no-project noise levels were compared to those projected with completion of the proposed project. As demonstrated above, the proposed project’s contribution to increases in ambient noise levels results in a significant impact. The proposed project would, therefore, contribute to cumulatively considerable traffic-related noise, and the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Vibration
Construction
For the EBPSP, there are no known projects that would overlap with the EBPSP’s proposed construction schedule, with the exception of the Center Park Specific Plan to the north. Given the acreage associated with both the EBPSP and the Center Park Specific Plan and distance to the nearest noise-sensitive receptors, construction noise levels from the individual projects are not loud enough to result in a doubling of noise energy. Thus, the EBPSP would not substantially contribute to construction noise levels at noise sensitive receptors. Accordingly, there is no 2864
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .13 -77
potential for the EBPSP to contribute to the exposure of persons to substantial cumulative temporary groundborne vibration or noise. For the Policy Plan Amendment construction activities may occur simultaneously and close to vibration-sensitive receptors, that could result in significant impacts. As details of individual development projects in the project area are currently unknown, it cannot be determined whether Mitigation Measure NOI-2-PPA would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.
Operation
Groundborne vibration levels from heavy truck travel along City-designated truck routes of the proposed project could expose existing and future sensitive receptors to annoying vibration levels, as discussed above. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to truck route-related vibration annoyance would therefore be cumulatively considerable, and the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Summary
The above analysis of proposed project addresses cumulative impacts with regard to operational and construction noise as well as groundborne noise and vibration in the City. The project proposes the long-term buildout and operation of many different uses. Although multiple simultaneous nearby noise sources may, in combination, result in higher overall noise levels, this effect is captured and accounted for by the community noise level metrics that form the basis of the standards of significance for noise analysis. As described above, cumulative impacts for short-term construction noise and long-term operation (traffic noise and vibration from heavy trucks) are cumulatively considerable; and therefore, significant. Cumulative Impacts: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, could result in a substantial impact related to cumulative construction noise and vibration impacts and operational truck route traffic vibration impacts.
3.13.7 References
Amtrak. 2026. Sunset Limited Schedule. Effective October 5, 2020. https://content.amtrak.com/content/timetable/Sunset%20Limited.pdf.
Caltrans. 2013, September. Technical Noise Supplement (“TeNS”).
Caltrans. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) User’s Guide.
2865
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.13 NOISE
3 .13 -78
FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) 2026. Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory and Accidents. https://railroads.dot.gov/safety-data/fra-safety-data-reporting/crossing-inventory-datasearch?title=&field_topic_target_id=1311&email_of_dept_buiss_org=.
FTA (Federal Transit Administration) 2018, September. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. United States Department of Transportation.
LCI (Governor’s Office of Land use and Climate Innovation). 2017. State of California General Plan 2017 Guidelines.
Metrolink. 2026. Metrolink Timetable. Accessed 10/6/2021. https://metrolinktrains.com/globalassets/schedules/timetables/2025/alllinetimetable_june2025.pdf.
Ontario, City of. 2010. The Ontario Plan (TOP). https://www.ontarioplan.org/.
Ontario. 2018, July (amended). Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. City of Ontario Airport Compatibility Planning. https://www.ontarioca.gov/planning/ont-iac.
Ontario. 2022a. The Ontario Plan 2050: Policy Plan.
https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/community-development/planning/ontarioplan/ontario-plan-policy-plan Ontario. 2022b. Planning Commission Staff Report. https://legistarwebproduction.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/1480169/20220719_File_No._ PDCA22-004__02_PC_Back-up.pdf.
San Bernardino County. 1991, November. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Chino Airport.
Prepared by Ray A. Vidal, Aviation Planning Consultant, for San Bernardino County Airport Land Use Commission. http://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/lus/airports/chino.pdf. 2866
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
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 4 -1
3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) examines the potential for socioeconomic impacts of TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP (proposed project) compared to that of the TOP 2050 (approved project) and 2022 Certified EIR.
Population and housing impacts in the City of Ontario include changes in population, employment, and demand for housing, particularly housing cost/rent ranges defined as “affordable.” Current website information and pertinent documents from the City of Ontario and other appropriate agencies were used in preparation of this section. The analysis in this section is based, in part, on information from:
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
United States Census Bureau (US Census)
California Department of Finance (DOF)
3.14.1 Regulatory Framework
STATE
California Housing Element Law
California planning and zoning law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan for future growth (California Government Code Section 65300). This plan must include a housing element that identifies housing needs for all economic segments and provides opportunities for housing development to meet that need. At the state level, the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) estimates the relative share of California’s projected population growth that would occur in each county based on California DOF population projections and historical growth trends. These figures are compiled by HCD in a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for each region of California. Where there is a regional council of governments, HCD provides the RHNA to the council. The council then assigns a share of the regional housing need to each of its cities and counties. The process of assigning shares gives cities and counties the opportunity to comment on the proposed allocations. HCD oversees the process to ensure that the council of governments distributes its share of the state’s projected housing need.
California housing element laws (California Government Code Sections 65580–65589) require that each city and county identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs within its jurisdiction and prepare goals, policies, and programs to further the development, improvement, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the community commensurate with local housing needs. State law recognizes the vital role local governments ■
■
■
2867
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
3 .14 PO PU LA TI ON AND HOU SI NG
3 .14 - 2
play in the supply and affordability of housing. To that end, California Government Code requires that the housing element achieve legislative goals to:
Identify adequate sites to facilitate and encourage the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for households of all economic levels, including persons with disabilities.
Remove, as legally feasible and appropriate, governmental constraints to the production, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons of all incomes, including those with disabilities.
Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderateincome households.
Conserve and improve the condition of housing and neighborhoods, including existing affordable housing. Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability.
Preserve for lower-income households the publicly assisted multifamily housing developments in each community.
REGIONAL
Southern California Association of Governments
SCAG is a regional council of governments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties, which encompass over 38,000 square miles.
SCAG is the federally recognized metropolitan planning organization for this region and a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG is also the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under federal and state law. In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to analyze their impacts on regional planning programs. As the southern California region’s metropolitan planning organization, SCAG cooperates with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the California Department of Transportation, and other agencies in preparing regional planning documents. The City of Ontario is within the San Bernardino County Transportation Agency (SBCTA) subregion of SCAG.
SCAG adopted its current RTP/SCS, “Connect SoCal 2024,” in April 2024 to provide a long-range vision for the SCAG region (SCAG 2024a). Connect SoCal 2024 expands land use and transportation strategies established from previous cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. Connect SoCal 2024 contains plans and projections for the region’s future. Like other RTPs/SCSs, Connect SoCal 2024 provides a policy framework for preparing local plans and handling issues of regional significance, such as land use and ■
■
■
■
■
2868
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
3 .14 PO PU LA TI ON AND HOU SI NG
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 4 -3
housing, open space and biological habitats, water, energy, air quality, solid waste, transportation, security and emergency preparedness, economy, and education. Connect SoCal 2024 also strives to achieve broader regional objectives, such as encouraging diverse housing construction in areas supported by multiple transportation options; promoting development of complete streets that prioritize safe opportunities to walk, bike, and pursue other forms of active transportation; leveraging new transportation technologies and data-driven solution to efficient travel; and promoting conservation of natural lands. Connect SoCal 2024 advances regional planning by incorporating an integrated approach between SCAG, state and local governments, transportation commissions, resources agencies and conservation groups, the private sector, and the general public. See Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning, of this SEIR.
LOCAL
City of Ontario Housing Element
The City’s 6th-cycle housing element for the 2021-2029 period was adopted on March 1, 2022.
The housing element is the City’s plan for achieving local housing goals and compliance with the applicable statutes that are required of all local governments when updating their housing elements. The housing element includes housing programs that the City will implement to achieve the goals, policies, and objectives of the element. Program 11 of the housing element addresses development within the Ontario Ranch community. Goal 1 and its associated policies express the City’s commitment to providing parks and recreational amenities for City neighborhoods.
3.14.2 Existing Conditions
POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
Population
As of May 2025, according to the California Department of Finance, the City of Ontario and San Bernardino County have current populations of approximately 184,404 persons and 2,207,424 persons, respectively (DOF 2025). Table 3.14-1, Population Trends in the City of Ontario and San Bernardino County, exhibits the population growth trends in the City and County, collected by the DOF. According to the data, population has steadily increased in the City from 2020 to 2025, with the largest percentage increase for the City being 1.53 percent from 2021 to 2022.
Countywide population has fluctuated year to year, but overall increased over the last 6 years. 2869
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
3 .14 PO PU LA TI ON AND HOU SI NG
3 .14 - 4
Table 3.14-1 Population Trends in the City of Ontario and San Bernardino County Year
City of Ontario San Bernardino County
Population Percent Change Population Percent Change
2020 175,297 N/A 2,181,654 N/A
2021 175,907 0.35% 2,179,941 -0.08%
2022 178,591 1.53% 2,183,077 0.14%
2023 180,707 1.18% 2,182,351 -0.03%
2024 182,875 1.20% 2,200,351 0.82%
2025 184,404 0.84% 2,207,424 0.32%
Sources: DOF 2025
Housing
As shown in Table 3.14-2, Historical Housing Growth Trends in the City of Ontario and San Bernardino County, the rate of housing growth has varied over the years.
Table 3.14-2 Historical Housing Growth Trends in the City of Ontario and San Bernardino County
Year
City of Ontario San Bernardino County
Total Housing
Units Percent Change
Total Housing
Units Percent Change
2020 53,219 N/A 731,899 N/A
2021 53,666 0.84% 734,848 0.40%
2022 54,918 2.33% 740,893 0.82%
2023 55,981 1.94% 746,006 0.69%
2024 56,836 1.53% 751,646 0.76%
2025 57,621 1.38% 758,120 0.86%
Sources: DOF 2025.
Housing units in the City of Ontario are primarily single-family homes, although the City has a greater share of multifamily homes compared to San Bernardino County as a whole.
Table 3.14--3, Housing Units by Type in the City of Ontario and County of San Bernardino, identifies the prevalence of housing types in the City and county. As shown in Table 3.14-3, in 2025, 58 percent of housing units in Ontario and 71 percent of housing units in the county were detached single-family homes. In 2025, 31 percent of housing units in Ontario were multifamily homes with 2 or more units, compared to 20 percent of housing units in the county. 2870
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
3 .14 PO PU LA TI ON AND HOU SI NG
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 4 -5
Table 3.14-3 Housing Units by Type in the City of Ontario and County of San Bernardino Type
City of Ontario San Bernardino County
Total Housing
Units Percent
Total Housing
Units Percent
Single-Family Detached 33,638 58% 537,845 71%
Single-Family Attached 3,775 7% 28,069 4%
Multifamily (2 to 4 Units) 5,217 9% 47,351 6%
Multifamily Homes (5 or More Units) 12,827 22% 102,452 14% Mobile Homes 2,164 4% 42,403 6%
Total 57,621 100% 758,120 100%
Vacancy Rate Percent Vacant = 3.8% Percent Vacant = 8.8% Household Size Household Size = 3.31 Household Size = 3.14 Sources: DOF 2025.
Employment
According to the California Employment Development Department, the growth rate of employment in the City of Ontario and San Bernardino County increased from 2020 to 2024.
The City of Ontario and San Bernardino County employment among local residents and annual employment change percentages are shown in Table 3.14-4, City of Ontario and San Bernardino County Employment Trends. In 2024, Ontario’s employed residents made up 9.2 percent of San Bernardino County’s total employment of 975,200.
Table 3.14-4 City of Ontario and San Bernardino County Employment Trends Year
City of Ontario San Bernardino County
Employment
(Persons) Percent Change
Employment
(Persons) Percent Change
2020 78,200 N/A 879,600 N/A
2021 82,200 5.12% 915,500 4.08%
2022 87,000 5.84% 958,100 4.65%
2023 88,800 2.07% 967,900 1.02%
2024 89,500 0.79% 975,200 0.75%
Sources: EDD 2025.
Jobs-Housing Balance
The ratio of jobs to housing is important because an imbalanced ratio can lead to physical impacts on the environment. The “jobs-housing ratio” or “jobs-housing balance” is generally 2871
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
3 .14 PO PU LA TI ON AND HOU SI NG
3 .14 - 6
measured by comparing the total number of jobs compared to the number of housing units or employed residents in a defined geographic area, without regard to economic constraints or individual preferences. The jobs-housing balance has implications for mobility, air quality, and the distribution of tax revenues and is one indicator of a project’s effect on growth and quality of life in the project area. There is no ideal ratio adopted in state, regional, or city policies. The American Planning Association (APA) is an authoritative resource for community planning best practices, including the following recommendations for assessing job-housing balance:
Jobs-housing ratio
Recommended target: 1.5 jobs per housing unit
Recommended range: 1.3 to 1.7 jobs per housing unit
Jobs-employed resident ratio
Recommended target: 1 job per employed resident
Recommended range: 0.8 to 1.25 jobs per employed resident (Weitz 2003) The APA recognizes that an ideal ratio will vary across jurisdictions and that, beyond the numerical ratio, it is also important for there to be a match between the types of jobs available in a community, the skills of the local labor force, and the characteristics of available housing, such as price, size, and location (Weitz 2003).
According to the Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data, in 2022 (the most recent year for which data are available) the City of Ontario had 137,623 jobs (US Census 2025). As shown in Table 3.14-4, in 2022 Ontario had 54,918 housing units. Therefore, in 2022 Ontario had a jobs-housing ratio of 2.51 (137,623 jobs/54,918 housing units). In 2022 Ontario had 80,700 employed residents (EDD 2025). Therefore, in 2022 Ontario had a jobs–to– employed residents ratio of 1.7 (137,623 jobs/80,700 employed residents), which is considered slightly imbalanced using the APA’s recommended range of 0.8 to 1.25 jobs per employed resident (Weitz 2003).
Forecast
Regional Growth Forecast
Table 3.14-5, SCAG Projections, City of Ontario and County of San Bernardino, shows SCAG’s regional forecast population and job projections for 2019 to 2050 for Ontario and the county.
According to SCAG, the City and county are forecast to experience high growth in the next 2 decades. The number of households in the City are forecast to increase from 50,500 to 95,500, a difference of 45,000 (89.1 percent increase) between 2019 and 2050. The number of jobs in the City are forecast to increase from 122,000 to 187,700, a difference of 65,700 (53.9 percent increase) between 2019 and 2050. As shown in Table 3.14-5, SCAG projects a lower rate of ■
■
•
•
•
•
2872
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
3 .14 PO PU LA TI ON AND HOU SI NG
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 4 -7
growth in San Bernardino County as a whole, with a projected 20.6 percent population growth,
45.1 percent household growth, and 33.1 percent job growth.
Table 3.14-5 SCAG Projections, City of Ontario and County of San Bernardino Category 2019 2050
Projected Change
2019–2050
Percent Change
2019–2050
County of San Bernardino
Population 2,175,000 2,623,000 448,000 20.6%
Households 657,000 953,000 296,000 45.1%
Jobs 860,000 1,145,000 285,000 33.1%
City of Ontario
Population1 174,800 N/A N/A N/A
Households 50,500 95,500 45,000 89.1%
Jobs 122,000 187,700 65,700 53.9%
Source: SCAG 2024b.
1 SCAG no longer forecasts population by jurisdiction in the Regional Transportation Plan.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
As shown in Table 3.14-6, City of Ontario 2021–2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment, the City of Ontario’s RHNA allocation for the 2021–2029 planning period is 20,854 units.
Table 3.14-6 City of Ontario 2021–2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment Income Category (Based on
County AMI)
Number of Units Percentage
Very Low 5,640 27%
Low 3,286 16%
Moderate 3,329 16%
Above Moderate 8,599 41%
Total 20,854 100%
Source: SCAG 2021.
Note: AMI = Area Median Income
SPECIFIC PLAN
Under existing conditions, 10 residential units are located within the EBPSP area. Certain areas of the EBPSP area are currently designated Medium Density Residential (with an Affordable Housing Overlay) and Mixed Use (with an Affordable Housing Overlay) under the approved 2873
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
3 .14 PO PU LA TI ON AND HOU SI NG
3 .14 - 8
project. Under the current TOP 2050, these EBPSP parcels were planned to accommodate up to 2,195 housing units, including 1,098 low- and very-low income units.
3.14.3 Standards for Analysis
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to population and housing if it would:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
METHODOLOGY
The project area’s demographics are examined in the context of existing and projected populations and housing units for San Bernardino County and the City of Ontario. Information on population, housing, and employment for the project area is available from several sources, including:
California Department of Finance. The DOF prepares and administers California’s annual budget. Other duties include estimating population demographics and enrollment projections.
Southern California Association of Governments. Policies, programs, employment, housing, and population projections adopted by SCAG to achieve regional objectives are expressed in its 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.
United States Census Bureau. The official United States Census is described in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States. It calls for an actual enumeration of the people every 10 years, to be used for apportionment among the states of seats in the House of Representatives. The United States Census Bureau publishes population and household data gathered in the decennial census.
American Community Survey. The American Community Survey is facilitated by the U.S.
Census Bureau and provides estimates of population, housing, household, economic, and transportation trends between decennial census.
■
■
■
■
2874
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
3 .14 PO PU LA TI ON AND HOU SI NG
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 4 -9
3.14.4 Relevant New and Modified General Plan Policies
There are no new and modified general plan policies applicable to population and housing.
3.14.5 Environmental Impacts
2022 CERTIFIED EIR
The Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would directly result in population growth in the City. Buildout of the approved project would not displace people or housing and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing. No significant adverse impacts were anticipated upon regulatory compliance and compliance with the approved project policies and programs.
PROPOSED PROJECT
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The Certified EIR identified that implementation of the approved project would accommodate population growth through land-use designations, goals, and policies that would provide a vision and guide growth in the City. One of the purposes of TOP 2050 is to adequately plan and accommodate future growth. Implementation of TOP 2050 accommodates population growth through land use designations, goals, and policies that provide a vision and guide growth in the City.
POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
The proposed project includes changes in land use, with the majority of changes concentrated in Ontario Ranch. These land use changes are intended to improve growth areas by growing business and industrial uses in the city, adjust housing types, and meet state housing laws (see Chapter 2, Project Description).
The proposed project would increase population, dwelling units, nonresidential buildings, and employment when compared to the approved project (see Table 2-4, Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment). The increase in housing capacity would be aligned with State initiatives to increase housing production in California in response to the State housing crisis (see Section 3.14.1, Regulatory Framework). The proposed project would ensure continued compliance with the objectives of the Housing Element. Also, the increase in employment would be aligned with the City’s objectives to align with the jobs market. 2875
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
3 .14 PO PU LA TI ON AND HOU SI NG
3 .14 - 10
Table 3.14-7, Buildout Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 and Proposed Project to SCAG Forecasts, compares the City’s buildout projections for population, housing, and jobs to SCAG projections and includes buildout projections under both the approved project and the proposed project.
SCAG forecasts the City to be jobs-rich, with a jobs-housing ratio of 2.2 in 2045, which is the same as that of the proposed project. According to the California EDD, unemployment in the City was 5,000 in August 2025 (5.3 percent unemployment rate) and 61,700 for San Bernardino County (5.9 percent unemployment rate) (EDD 2025).
Table 3.14-7 Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 and Proposed Project to SCAG Forecasts Category
SCAG Projections
(2050) Approved TOP 2050
Proposed Project
(2050)
Population1 N/A 411,268 427,741
Housing Units 95,500 129,951 137,177
Jobs 187,700 299,204 301,035
Jobs-Housing Ratio 2.2 2.3 2.2
Source: SCAG 2024b. 1 SCAG no longer forecasts population by jurisdiction in the Regional Transportation Plan.
SCAG’s Connect SoCal identifies several types of “priority growth areas” in Ontario, including high-quality transit areas, transit priority areas, neighborhood mobility areas, and livable corridors. TOP 2050 would promote growth consistent with these priority growth areas because proposed land use changes under the proposed project are intended to encourage walking and biking, put residents in proximity to resources, and align future growth in Ontario with planned infrastructure improvements and regional transportation goals.
Although the increase in housing, and employment under the proposed project would exceed SCAG’s regional forecasts for the City of Ontario, the proposed project would maintain the City’s jobs-housing balance. Furthermore, TOP 2050 is consistent with SCAG’s Connect SoCal strategies (see Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning). Therefore, while buildout under the proposed project would result in substantial population and employment growth, this growth is in line with the City’s goals and policies to update business centers, adjust housing types, and meet state housing laws.
The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project and that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant 2876
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
3 .14 PO PU LA TI ON AND HOU SI NG
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .14 -11
Specific Plan
Direct Impacts
Construction activities would generate temporary employment opportunities, including shortterm design, engineering, and construction jobs. These types of employment are typical of the region and would not induce substantial population growth, if any.
Operations of the EBPSP land uses has the potential to generate up to 1,590 employees. SCAG projects 187,700 employees within the City by 2050. Table LU-03, Future Buildout, of the City’s TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment projects 301,035 employees during the same timeframe.
There are currently approximately 89,500 employees in the City of Ontario (EDD 2025). SCAG forecasts 187,700 employees by 2050 (SCAG 2024b). The EBPSP’s estimated 1,590 employees represents 1.6 percent of SCAG’s projected employment growth1 and 0.8 percent of TOP’s
projected employment growth.2
Therefore, the EBPSP’s contribution to employment is well within current regional and local growth projections. Long-term employment demands would likely be filled by the available personnel pools within the City of Ontario, and/or neighboring communities. These types of employment positions are relatively common throughout Southern California and are unlikely to generate significant population migration.
Based on the preceding, the EBPSP’s potential to directly induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area is considered less than significant.
Indirect Impacts
As detailed in Section 2, Project Description, of this SEIR, the EBPSP would require construction of roadways and utility infrastructure to serve the development. The EBPSP would implement infrastructure improvements that are consistent with the City and purveyor master plans.
Environmental impacts of growth that would result from roadways and utilities pursuant to the Policy Plan have been previously evaluated and addressed in the 2022 Certified EIR. Growth that may result from or be facilitated by the EBPSP infrastructure improvements would not result in impacts not previously considered and addressed in the Policy Plan EIR.
Neither the EBPSP nor any related component would directly or indirectly result in substantial unplanned population growth that would cause a significant impact to the environment.
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. 1 1,590/(187,700-89,500) = 1.6% 2
1,590/(296,204-89,500) = 0.8%
2877
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
3 .14 PO PU LA TI ON AND HOU SI NG
3 .14 - 12
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact POP-1: The Policy Plan Amendment and Specific Plan would directly result in population growth in the City of Ontario. [Threshold P-1] Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant population and housing impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are warranted. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not displace people or housing and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing.
Policy Plan Amendment
One of the purposes of Policy Plan Amendment is to adequately plan and accommodate future growth through the distribution, location, balance, and extent of land uses. Implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment would accommodate population growth through land use designations, goals, and policies that provide a vision and guide growth in the City. Land use changes under the proposed project would increase opportunities for housing in the City—for example, by increasing residential density in existing residential areas. The proposed project would provide land use designations for a variety of housing types and provide for additional residential opportunities throughout Ontario. The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project and that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Specific Plan
Under existing conditions, the Specific Plan area contains 10 residential units. The loss of these units is not considered substantial, given the City’s overall housing stock. Implementation of the EBPSP would not displace a substantial number of people or housing and would not necessitate 2878
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
3 .14 PO PU LA TI ON AND HOU SI NG
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .14 -13
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, the EBPSP would not result in significant impacts in this regard.
It is noted that development of the EBPSP area with the uses proposed under the EBPSP would result in the loss of the potential housing units anticipated under the current Policy Plan land use designations. To offset this loss consistent with SB 330, the Policy Plan Amendment is being processed in conjunction with the EBPSP and would redesignate various properties throughout the City to a more intensive residential land use designation. In summary, Citywide residential capacity would increase from 129,551 units to 137,177 units. Please refer to the Policy Plan discussions presented previously. 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.
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
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].
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant population and housing impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are warranted.
3.14.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The area considered for cumulative impacts is the SCAG region. As described above, the approved project exceeds SCAG’s regional forecasts for the City of Ontario and therefore the increase in population, housing, and employment as part of the proposed project would also exceed SCAG’s regional forecast for the City. The proposed project would comply with SB 330 and SB 166 (see Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning), and there would be no net loss of residential units in the City with implementation of the proposed project. The proposed project would align jobs with the current employment market. Employment generated by the proposed project is expected to be filled by the local and regional labor force. Regionally, The City of Ontario represents approximately 8 percent of the population, 8 percent of the housing, and 9 2879
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
3 .14 PO PU LA TI ON AND HOU SI NG
3 .14 - 14
percent of the employment within San Bernardino County. Therefore, the proposed increase in population, housing units, and jobs would comprise a small portion of the countywide total.
SCAG identifies several Priority Growth Areas in Ontario, including high-quality transit areas, transit priority areas, neighborhood mobility areas, and livable corridors. The proposed project would promote growth consistent with these Priority Growth Areas, as proposed land use changes under the Policy Plan Amendment would promote mixed-use areas which would encourage walking and biking, put residents in proximity to resources, and align future growth in Ontario with planned infrastructure improvements and regional transportation goals.
Impacts of the proposed project would be less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Cumulative Impacts: The proposed Policy Plan Amendment and Specific Plan would not cause a cumulative impact to population and housing.
3.14.7 References
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/.
EDD (California Employment Development Department). 2025. County of San Bernardino Labor Force. Accessed 10/1/2025. https://labormarketinfo.edd
.ca.gov/cgi/dataanalysis/labForceReport.asp?menuchoice=LABFORCE.
SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2021. SCAG 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation Plan. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/6th-cycle-rhna-final -allocation-plan.pdf?1625161899.
SCAG. 2024a. Connect So Cal. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/23-2987-connect -socal-2024-final-complete-040424.pdf.
SCAG. 2024b, April 4. Connect SoCal 2024 Demographics and Growth Forecast. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/23-2987-tr-demographics-growth -forecast-final-040424.pdf.
2880
ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 5 -1
3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) addresses the impacts of Policy Plan Amendment Project and EBPSP (proposed project) compared to TOP 2050 (approved project), as identified in the 2022 Certified EIR, to public services providing fire protection services, police protection services, school services, and parks (see Table 3.15-1, Public Service Providers). Parks and recreation services are also addressed in Section 3.16, Recreation. Public and private utilities and service systems, including water, wastewater, and solid waste services and systems, are addressed in Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems. Public agency responses to service questionnaires are in Appendix J to this SEIR.
Table 3.15-1 Public Service Providers
Public Service Agency Name
Police City of Ontario Police Department (OPD)
San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical
Services
City of Ontario Fire Department (OFD)
San Bernardino County Fire Department
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
(CAL FIRE)
United States Forest Service (USFS)
Public Schools
Chaffey Joint Union High School District (CJUHSD)
Ontario-Montclair School District (OMSD)
Mountain View School District (MVSD)
Cucamonga School District (CSD)
Chino Valley Unified School District (CVUSD)
Chaffey Community College District
Library Lewis Family Branch Library
Ovitt Family Community Library
3.15.1 Regulatory Framework
FEDERAL
International Fire Code
The International Fire Code (IFC) includes specialized technical fire and life safety regulations that apply to the construction and maintenance of buildings and land uses. Topics addressed in the code include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions 2881
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
3 .15 - 2
intended to protect and assist fire responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire safety requirements for new and existing buildings.
STATE
California Health and Safety Code
State fire regulations in Sections 13000, et seq., of the California Health and Safety Code include regulations for building standards (also in the California Building Code), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building and childcare facility standards, and fire suppression training.
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC) (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 9) is based on the 2021 IFC and includes amendments from the State of California fully integrated into the code.
The CFC contains fire safety-related building standards that are referenced in other parts of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The CFC is updated once every 3 years; the 2022 CFC took effect on January 1, 2023, and the 2025 CFC, published on July 1, 2025, became effective January 1, 2026.
California State Assembly Bill 2926: School Facilities Act of 1986 To assist in providing school facilities to serve students generated by new development, Assembly Bill (AB) 2926 was enacted in 1986 and authorizes a levy of impact fees on new residential and commercial/industrial development. The bill was expanded and revised in 1987 through the passage of AB 1600, which added Sections 66000, et seq., to the Government Code.
Under this statute, payment of impact fees by developers serves as CEQA mitigation to satisfy the impact of development on school facilities.
California Education Code Section 17620
California Education Code Section 17620 gives school districts the authority to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district, for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities, subject to any limitations set forth in Chapter 4.9 (commencing with Section 65995) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
California Senate Bill 50
Senate Bill (SB) 50, passed in 1998, provides a comprehensive school facilities financing and reform program and enables a statewide bond issue to be placed on the ballot. Under the provisions of SB 50, school districts are authorized to collect fees to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity as a result of development and related population increases. 2882
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 5 -3
The funding goes to acquiring school sites, constructing new school facilities, and modernizing existing school facilities. SB 50 establishes a process for determining the amount of fees developers would be charged to mitigate the impact of development on school districts from increased enrollment. According to Section 65996 of the California Government Code, development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation.”
Under this legislation, there are 3 levels of developer fees that may be imposed upon new development by the governing school district. Level I fees are assessed based upon the proposed square footage of residential, commercial/industrial, and/or parking structure uses.
Level II fees require the developer to provide one-half of the costs of accommodating students in new schools, and the state provides the remaining half. To qualify for Level II fees, the governing board of the school district must adopt a School Facilities Needs Analysis and meet other prerequisites in accordance with Section 65995.6 of the California Government Code.
Level III fees apply if the state runs out of bond funds, allowing the governing school district to impose 100 percent of the cost of school facility or mitigation minus any local dedicated school monies on the developer.
LOCAL
City of Ontario Municipal Code
Title 4, Chapter 4, Fire Code, states that the 2022 edition of the California Fire Code in its entirety, together with the amendments, additions, deletions, exceptions in Chapter 4, are the adopted Fire Code of the City.
Title 4, Chapter 9, Alarm Systems, provides the City’s standards regarding private alarm systems including: police response, fees, fines, conditions for the suspension of a police response and a public education and training program.
Title 4, Chapter 11, Security Standards for Buildings, provides standards for security measures in new and existing buildings in the City. The Chief of Police is responsible for the implementation of these standards during building plan checks and inspections.
Title 9, Chapter 6, Development and Subdivision Regulations, establishes park dedication and in-lieu development fees for new subdivisions in Section 6.08.030, Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fee Regulations. This section establishes a park area standard ratio of 0.005 (five acres of park area per 1,000 residents) to calculate maximum amount of public park land required and a park area fee standard ratio of 0.003 (three acres of park area per 1,000 residents) to calculate the park impact fee in lieu of making an offer of parkland dedication. ■
■
■
■
2883
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
3 .15 - 4
Development Impact Fees
City of Ontario Services
The City uses development impact fees collected at building permit issuance to provide funding for police, fire, roadways, storm drainage, water and sewer infrastructure, solid waste infrastructure, general public facilities, libraries, public meetings, aquatics, and parks. Specific public infrastructure, facilities, and improvements projects are identified in the City’s Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Nexus Report, which was most recently updated in 2025 (Ontario 2025a). The City also levies citywide development impact fees in addition to fees specific to development in Ontario Ranch. The most recent fee schedule was adopted by resolution (Resolution No. 2025-10) and became effective on July 1, 2025.
School Services
In accordance with Government Code Section 65995, et. seq, all 5 school districts serving the City currently levy developer fees on new development within their respective boundaries.
These fees are levied for both residential and non-residential development and support the costs of providing school services.
Ontario Recreation and Parks Master Plan
The City of Ontario adopted the Ontario Recreation and Parks Master Plan in August 2021. The Master Plan includes an inventory of the City’s existing parks and recreation facilities and analyzes the City’s existing park level of service. This analysis is used to inform the Master Plan’s recommendations for facility improvements.
3.15.2 Existing Conditions
FIRE PROTECTION
Policy Plan Amendment
The City of Ontario Fire Department (OFD) operates 11 fire stations throughout the City, including the Ontario International Airport fire station. The OFD has 265 personnel, including 213 sworn firefighters and 52 professional staff members that make up 7 bureaus—Operations, Fire Prevention, Support Services, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), Training and Professional Development, Personal and Professional Standards, and Administrative Services—and operates with a daily staff of 59 sworn firefighters. Throughout the 11 fire stations, there are ten 4- person paramedic engine companies, four 4-person truck companies, an 8-person aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) station, 2 fire investigation supervisors, and 2 battalion chiefs (OFD 2025a).
2884
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 5 -5
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Fire Code section 1710 recommends that a firstresponder unit arrive at the scene in a travel time of 4 minutes or less at least 90 percent of the time. NFPA recommends that full response to a low/medium hazard fire occur within 8 minutes of the 911 call at least 90 percent of the time and within 10 minutes for a high hazard. The California Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA) is responsible for coordinating the planning, development, and implementation of 32 local EMS systems throughout California.
The OFD’s total response time for the first arriving engine/unit is 10 minutes and 45 seconds on fire calls and 10 minutes and 17 seconds for EMS calls, 90 percent of the time, as of September 2025. OFD noted that its ideal response time 90 percent of the time is 6 minutes 39 seconds for arrival of the first fire suppression unit and 6 minutes 19 seconds for first arrival of a unit with minimum life support capabilities. Between July 2024 and June 2025, the OFD responded to 24,477 incidents (OFD 2025b).
The OFD has Automatic Aid Agreements with the cities that border Ontario—Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, and Chino. The OFD participates in the State of California Master Mutual Aid System, which provides statewide resources if necessary, assisting with emergency response, fire services for all structural fires, and advanced life support (Ontario 2023; San Bernardino 2024).
Specific Plan
As previously stated, the City of Ontario, inclusive of the Specific Plan area, is currently served by the OFD. The nearest fire stations that serve the Specific Plan area are Fire Station 11, immediately south of the Specific Plan area at 7721 Eucalyptus Avenue, and Fire Station 9,
1.35 miles east of the Specific Plan area at 2661 East Grand Park Street. Station 11 is staffed with Engine 141 and Truck 141, which have 4 firefighters on each unit.
POLICE PROTECTION
Policy Plan Amendment
The City of Ontario Police Department (OPD) provides police protection services to the City, organized into three geographic areas: West Area Command, East Area Command, and South Area Command. Each area has a dedicated team of officers who operate 24/7 patrols as well as traffic officers, community engagement officers, narcotics investigators, and detectives (OPD 2025a). The OPD responded to approximately 208,000 calls for service in 2024 and had an average response of 3 minutes and 11 seconds in 2024 (OPD 2025b). The OPD currently has a
1.67 police officers per citizen ratio and an average response time of 1.16 minutes (OPD 2025c).
Currently, the OPD has a total of 429 employees, 314 of which are sworn personnel (OPD 2025b). The main OPD station is at 2500 South Archibald Avenue in central Ontario. The OPD also has a substation called the Mills Station at 1 Mills Circle in the northeastern part of the City (OPD 2025a).
2885
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
3 .15 - 6
The Ontario Police Department’s Airport Operations Bureau serves the Ontario International Airport (ONT) and consists of police officers, explosive detection canines, narcotic detection canines, and community service officers. The Airport Operations Bureau patrols all areas of the airport, investigates crimes, manages traffic flow, and responds to airport emergencies, all while enforcing Transportation Safety Administration regulations and airport security programs (OPD 2025c).
In addition to serving the City of Ontario, the OPD participates in mutual aid agreements with different public agencies to provide the optimum level of service during times of emergency.
The OPD holds a mutual aid agreement with the San Bernardino County Sheriff and various jurisdictions surrounding Ontario (San Bernadino 2025). The OPD also participates in a statewide mutual aid program facilitated by the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). This enables the OPD to request assistance from other police and sheriff departments located within its designated Cal OES region when its resources are inadequate to meet service demands (Cal OES 2019).
Specific Plan
The Specific Plan area is currently served by the OPD and is at the southern end of the South Area Command. The nearest police facility is approximately 3 miles to the northeast at 2500 S.
Archibald Avenue.
SCHOOL SERVICES
Policy Plan Amendment
There are 5 public school districts that serve the City of Ontario:
Chaffey Joint Union High School District (CJUHSD) serves grades 9 through 12, except in the southwestern portion of Ontario Ranch, which is covered by CVUSD.
Chino Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) serves TK through 12 in the western half of Ontario Ranch.
Ontario-Montclair School District (OMSD) serves grades TK through 8 in the western half of the Original Model Colony (OMC).
Mountain View School District (MVSD) serves grades K through 8 in the eastern half of Ontario Ranch and a portion of OMC.
Cucamonga School District (CSD) serves grades K through 8 in the eastern half of the OMC and has one school (the Ontario Center School) within the City’s boundaries. ■
■
■
■
■
2886
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 5 -7
Figure 3.15-1, School Facilities and Districts, shows the areas of Ontario covered by each school district. Table 3.15-2, Public Schools Serving the City of Ontario, lists schools in Ontario under each school district.
Table 3.15-2 Public Schools Serving the City of Ontario School District Schools
Chaffey Joint Union High School District Chaffey High School Colony High School
Ontario High School
Chino Valley Unified School District Levi Dickey Elementary School Liberty Elementary School
Woodcrest Junior High School
Cucamonga School District Cucamonga Elementary School
Los Amigos Elementary School
The Ontario Center School
Mountain View School District Creek View Elementary School Mountain View Elementary School
Park View Elementary School
Ranch View Elementary School
Grace Yokley Junior High School
Ontario-Montclair School District Arroyo Elementary School Berlyn Elementary School
Bon View Elementary School
Central Language Academy
Corona Elementary School
Del Norte Elementary School
Edison Academy
El Camino Elementary School
Elderberry Elementary School
Euclid Elementary School
Hawthorne Elementary School
Haynes Elementary School
Lincoln Elementary School
Mariposa Elementary School
Sultana Elementary School
Vista Grande Elementary School
Vineyard STEM Academy
De Anza Middle School
Oaks Middle School
Vina Danks Middle School
Wiltsey Middle School
Source: CDE 2025a.
2887
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
3 .15 -8
Table 3.15-3, School District (K-12) Enrollment, shows historical enrollment for each school district from 2021 to 2025 based on school year. As shown in the table, school district enrollment has remained steady during this time.
Table 3.15-3 School District (K-12) Enrollment School District 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Chaffey Joint Union High School District 23,566 23,145 22,628 22,116 Chino Valley Unified School District 26,822 26,601 26,473 26,529 Cucamonga School District 2,395 2,299 2,296 2,360
Mountain View School District 2,707 3,035 3,156 3,318
Ontario-Montclair School District 18,909 18,471 17,944 17,695 Source: CDE 2025b.
Note: Not all school districts offer the full range of grades K-12.
All 5 school districts serving the City currently levy developer fees on new development within their respective boundaries. For the purpose of calculating these fees, 4 of the districts have developed student generation rates that represent the average number of students per dwelling unit. The rates for each school district are shown in Table 3.15-4, Student Generation Rates. Table 3.15-4 Student Generation Rates School District Elementary School1 Middle School1 High School1 Chaffey Joint Union High School District -- -- 0.133 Chino Valley Unified School District 0.241 0.063 0.144
Mountain View School District 0.155 0.023 -- Ontario-Montclair School District 0.306 0.093 -- Source: CJUHS 2024; CVUSD 2024; MVSD 2025; OMSD 2024 Note: N/A = not available.
1 Notes average generation rate across all dwelling unit types. 2888
CITY OF
MONTCLAIR T
[--U
l
-w
~ L- !
CITY OF
UPLAND
_ .. r ~ - _J f <
J z
i.....-., W PHl[AD
~-\
CITY OF CHINO
CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
I _ .. J
I
I
JURUPA VALLEY
PUBLIC SERVICES
Figure 5.15-l . .
School Facilities & D1stncts
□ EBSP Boundary
D Ontario City Boundary
D County Boundary
; • Public & Prwate Schools . . t
•
H. h School D1stnc / / / Chaffey Joint Umon ig . .
Ontario Mootclair School D1stnct
C monga School District uca .
t • View School Distnc 1 Moun am . . t
Chino Valley Unified School Distnc
2·0·5·0
THE ON ENTAL EIR
SUPPLEM -- I~
~ 2500 5,000 .. 0 • 4 CSD2025 Source: ' COE 2025· OMSD 201 ; 10,000
Dale: 12/15/2025
2889
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
3 .15 - 10
This page intentionally left blank.
2890
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .15 -11
Specific Plan
The Specific Plan area is located within the boundaries of CVUSD. CVUSD, which also serves the City of Chino, consists of 35 schools, including 4 alternative education schools, 3 K-8 schools, 20 elementary schools, 5 junior high schools, and 5 high schools. The EBPSP is within the attendance boundaries of Dickey Elementary School, Liberty Elementary School, Woodcrest Junior High School, and Chino High School (CVUSD n.d.).
PARKS
Policy Plan Amendment
Parks and recreational facilities in the City of Ontario are discussed in detail in Section 3.16 of this SEIR. The City has approximately 727 acres of parkland, consisting of 7 miniparks, 15 neighborhood parks, 6 community parks, 4 linear and special use parks, and 2 regional parks, each described in Table 3.16-2, Park/Recreational Facilities in Ontario. The City’s population is 184,404 people (DOF 2025). Based on the City’s established parkland standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents, the City currently requires 553 acres of parkland.
Regional and state parks and recreation facilities in the vicinity of the City also provide parks and recreation opportunities for residents. These include the San Bernardino National Forest, Clevland National Forest, Silverwood Lake State Recreation Area, Chino Hill State Recreation Area, Cucamonga-Guasti Regional Park, and Prado Regional Park. Additional recreational facilities in the City separate from those associated with the parks in Table 3.16-2 include facilities on school sites. The City’s joint use agreements with CVUSD and CJUHSD allow for public use of district facilities. The City also maintains 2.4 miles of paved hiking and biking trails and 1.3 miles of equestrian trails in the West Cucamonga Creek Trail System.
Specific Plan
The Ontario Recreation & Community Services Department provides community services such as parks, community centers, school recreation facilities, private golf courses, and recreational trails. As noted in Section 3.15.2, the City maintains a Recreation & Parks Master Plan that provides goals for infrastructure and program improvements throughout the City. Centennial Park, North Celebration Park, and South Celebration Park are all within 2 miles of the Specific Plan area.
A 36.15-acre segment of the City’s “Grand Park” lies within the Specific Plan boundaries between Walker Avenue and Campus Avenue. Grand Park is planned as a 3.7-mile, 340-acre greenbelt between Haven Avenue and Euclid Avenue. The on-site segment of Grand Park would be developed as part of the Specific Plan.
2891
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
3 .15 - 12
OTHER PUBLIC SERVICES
Policy Plan Amendment
Other public services analyzed in the 2022 Certified EIR include library services. The City of Ontario has two facilities in its library system: the Ovitt Family Community Library at 215 East C Street, and the Lewis Family Branch at 3850 East Riverside Drive.
The Ontario library system has phases for proposed growth in alignment with population growth as part of its Library Facility Master Plan, which projects to a horizon year of 2035.
Currently, the Ontario library system offers approximately 43 square feet per 100 capita among its 2 library branches. The Library Facility Master Plan outlines 8 projects, referred to as phases, that would each add facility space corresponding with growth in the City’s population. The first permanent addition of a new library facility would occur when the City reaches a population of 205,000 residents under Phase 2a and each subsequent phase would add new facilities (Ontario 2020). The City currently levies development impact fees to offset costs for library facilities.
Specific Plan
As noted, the City’s library system includes the Ovitt Family Community Library, located at 215 East C Street, and the Lewis Family Branch, located at 3850 East Riverside Drive. These facilities contain over 315,000 items, including books, magazines, DVDs, audio books, and a local history collection. A wide variety of technology is available for the public including internet, several software, eBooks, and state-of-the-art technology through Lightspeed makerspace that offers access to equipment such as 3D printers and a laser cutter (Ontario 2025b).
3.15.3 Standards for Analysis
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to public services if it would:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: - Fire protection - Police protection 2892
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .15 -13
- Schools
- Parks - Other public facilities
METHODOLOGY
The following analysis utilizes performance objectives provided by service providers in the questionnaires to assess the project’s impact with respect to service levels. While a project’s impact on performance objectives can be used to inform whether new or expanded facilities will be needed, public service provider impacts under CEQA concern the environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or expanded facilities. Therefore, despite whether a project results in diminished service levels, a significant impact would only occur if the construction/operation of new or expanded government facilities necessitated by the project results in a significant environmental impact.
Service provider questionnaires (see Appendix J) were prepared and distributed to the OFD, OPD, and the 5 school districts serving the City of Ontario to identify potential impacts related to public services associated with the proposed project. Each questionnaire included project buildout information and a site description to assist the agencies in evaluating whether new or expanded facilities may be required as a result of the project.
3.15.4 Relevant New and Modified General Plan Policies
There are no applicable policy changes.
3.15.5 Impact Analysis
2022 CERTIFIED EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR noted that buildout of the approved project would require expansion of fire protection, police, and library services due to the introduction of new structures, residents, and workers within the City’s boundaries. The 2022 Certified EIR concluded, however, that impacts would be less than significant since projects under the approved project would be reviewed by the City and the City service providers on an individual basis and would be required to comply with requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued, including the payment of development impact fees that contribute to funding for additional staffing, facilities, and equipment.
The 2022 Certified EIR also concluded that impacts to school services would be less than significant since the capacity of existing and planned schools serving the City would be able to accommodate the increase in population under the approved project. Developer impact fees 2893
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
3 .15 - 14
levied by each district also reduced impacts under the approved project. Additionally, the 2022 Certified EIR identified that implementation of the approved project would increase the use of existing park and recreational facilities, but that park dedications and payment of in-lieu fees would ensure impacts are less than significant.
PROPOSED PROJECT
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives?
FIRE PROTECTION
The 2022 Certified EIR concluded that impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant under the approved project.
Policy Plan Amendment
As shown in Table 2-4, Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment, of this SEIR, buildout of the proposed project would result in a net increase of 16,473 residents and 1,831 employees in the City when compared to buildout under the approved project, which would result in increased demand on fire protection services. Based on correspondence with the OFD, while existing staffing and equipment levels are adequate to meet current demands for services, implementation of the proposed Policy Plan Amendment would incrementally impact the OFD’s service capacity and likely require the construction new stations. The OFD notes that the department anticipates construction of a permanent facility for Fire Station 11 and that 2 additional stations would be required to meet future demands within the horizon of TOP 2050 (Appendix J).
The City’s Master Facilities Plan, which outlines the City’s plan for allocating funds to projects from development impact fees, also discusses OFD’s need for these additional fire stations to meet future demand. With implementation of these additional facilities, the OFD reports that the projected population and employment increase under the proposed project would not result in a reduction in fire protection services (Appendix J).
While the details and timelines for constructing these stations is unknown at this time, development and implementation of new or expanded OFD facilities could have physical effects on the environment, such as lighting, biological resources, noise, traffic, and air quality. Impacts associated with buildout of the proposed Land Use Plan, which includes buildout of public service facilities, are analyzed throughout this SEIR. For example, construction-related air 2894
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .15 -15
quality and noise impacts of the proposed project are described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, and Section 3.13, Noise. Evaluation of environmental impacts specific to these facilities would be conducted pursuant to CEQA, when individual development projects are proposed. Evaluation of site-specific impacts in this SEIR would be speculative in this program-level SEIR.
The City has existing procedures to ensure that fire protection facilities are funded. For example, new development is require to pay Development Impact Fees, which are used to fund new OFD facilities and expansions. Additionally, implementation of the City’s Master Facilities Plan ensures that OFD facility needs are identified for the allocation of Development Impact Fee funds. The City also allocates funds for new OFD facilities, equipment, and service personnel through the General Fund revenue and other revenue sources collected by the City (Ontario 2025a). Allocation of General Fund revenue for new facilities would ensure that new facilities are constructed to meet the service demands of OFD as a result of buildout of the proposed project.
Additionally, several Safety Element policies direct the City and the OFD maintain adequate service levels and ensure that development incorporates fire prevention measures. This includes Policy S-3.3, Fire and Emergency Medical Services, which directs the City to maintain sufficient fire stations, equipment and staffing to respond effectively to emergencies and meet the needs of the community and state requirements. Additionally, Policy S-3.7, Fire Prevention through Environmental Design, requires new development to incorporate fire prevention consideration in the design of streetscapes, sites, open spaces, and buildings.
Furthermore, future development projects would be reviewed by the City and OFD on an individual basis. Future development projects would be required to comply City and OFD requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued to ensure that OFD fire safety needs are met.
Similar to development under the approved project, the City’s existing processes for funding OFD facilities, equipment, and personnel would ensure that the necessary service improvements would be provided, when needed, through buildout under the proposed project.
Impacts to fire protection services would therefore be less than significant. Additionally, 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 2022 Certified EIR.
Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Specific Plan
As previously discussed, fire suppression and emergency response services for the Specific Plan area are currently provided by the OFD.
2895
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
3 .15 - 16
A need for new or expanded public services, such as fire protection services, is typically associated with population increases. The Specific Plan does not include the construction of new homes. While there would be increased employment on-site, it would not induce substantial population growth, as concluded in Section 3.14, Population and Housing. It is also noted that fire stations are a permitted use within the EBPSP, should the need arise at a later date.
Incremental fire protection service demands generated by the EBPSP are offset through payment of City of Ontario Development Impact Fees, a portion of which are allocated for fire protection services. Development impact fees would be paid at issuance of building permit(s).
Future projects within the EBPSP would be reviewed by OFD on an individual basis. Additionally, to the satisfaction of the OFD, uses implemented pursuant to the EBPSP would comply with City and Fire Department fire prevention and suppression requirements, including building/site design requirements, fire flow adequacy, and provisions for emergency access, thereby reducing potential increased demands for fire protection services. Based on the preceding, the potential for the EBPSP to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered fire protection facilities is considered 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.
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact PUB-1: The proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts due to the provision of new or expanded fire protection services.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant fire and emergency services impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are warranted.
POLICE PROTECTION
The 2022 Certified EIR identified less than significant impacts to police services and facilities. 2896
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .15 -17
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would increase growth in the City when compared to the approved project and would result in an increased demand for police protection services. Therefore, the OPD may require additional staffing and facilities to accommodate population increases under the proposed project. To ensure the OPD is able to meet demands in its service area, it participates in mutual aid agreements with the San Bernardino County Sherriff and various jurisdictions surrounding Ontario. This allows resources to be allocated to participating jurisdictions when service demands are not able to be met by the jurisdiction’s service provider at a particular time.
To meet long-term demand for services, the OPD may require the construction and operation of new substations. While the details and timelines for constructing new facilities are unknown at this time, development and implementation of new or expanded OPD facilities could have adverse physical effects on the environment, such as lighting, biological resources, noise, traffic, and air quality. Impacts associated with buildout of the proposed Land Use Plan, which includes buildout of public service facilities, are analyzed throughout this SEIR. For example, construction-related air quality and noise impacts of the proposed project are described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, and Section 3.13, Noise. Evaluation of environmental impacts specific to these facilities would be conducted pursuant to CEQA, when individual development projects are proposed. Evaluation of site-specific impacts in this SEIR would be speculative in this program-level SEIR.
The police services required to cover the new development and population growth for Ontario would be assessed and acquired appropriately based on the needs of the City. The City’s Master Facilities Plan is continually updated to identify funding for police protection facilities and equipment through Development Impact Fees. Like development under the approved project, development under the proposed project would be subject to Development Impact Fees that fund the police services and facilities identified in the Master Facilities Plan. Additionally, funds for police service personnel are provided through the City’s General Fund revenue and other sources of revenue collected by the City (Ontario 2025a). Allocation of General Fund revenue for new facilities would ensure that new facilities are constructed to meet the service demands of OPD as a result of buildout of the proposed project.
Several Safety Element policies also direct the City and the OPD maintain adequate service levels and ensure that development incorporates crime prevention measures. These include Policy S-7.1, Police Unit Response, which directs OPD to respond to calls for service in a timely manner, and Policy S-7.4 which requires new development to incorporate Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles in the design of streetscapes, sites, open spaces, and buildings. Future projects under the proposed project would also be reviewed by the City and the OPD on an individual basis and would be required to comply with regulations in effect at the time building permits are issued. This includes applicable provisions in the City’s Municipal Code 2897
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
3 .15 - 18
that aim to reduce impacts on police services by requiring installation of crime prevention measures (see Title 4, Chapter 11, Security Standards for Buildings).
While additional facilities may be required to support the OPD within the horizon of the proposed project, the locations and details regarding these potential future facilities are unknown and would be speculative to evaluate at this time. As with the approved project, the need for additional structures and personnel would be financed through available revenue sources collected by the City, and the impacts of the proposed project on police facilities, equipment, and services would be less than significant. Additionally, 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 2022 Certified EIR.
Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Specific Plan
As previously discussed, police protection services for the Specific Plan area are currently provided by the OPD.
A need for new or expanded public services, such as police protection services, is typically associated with population increases. The Specific Plan does not include the construction of new homes. While there would be increased employment on-site, it would not induce substantial population growth, as concluded in Section 3.14, Population and Housing. It is also noted that police stations are a permitted use within the EBPSP, should the need arise at a later date.
Incremental police protection service demands generated by the EBPSP are offset through payment of City of Ontario Development Impact Fees. Development impact fees would be paid at issuance of building permit(s).
Additionally, site plan concepts and proposed building designs would be reviewed by the OPD to ensure incorporation of appropriate safety and security elements. Such design features would include secure building designs, defensible spaces, and area and facility security lighting. These design features would act to reduce demands for police protection services. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Specific Plan to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered police protection facilities is considered 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.
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 2898
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .15 -19
Impact PUB-2: The proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts due to the provision of new or expanded police facilities.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant policy protection services impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are warranted.
SCHOOLS
The 2022 Certified EIR identified impacts to school facilities and services as less than significant upon payment of developer impact fees.
Policy Plan Amendment
Implementation of the proposed project would result in 7,225 additional housing units when compared to implementation of the approved project. As shown in Figure 2-6, Areas of Change, the proposed project would revise land uses in portions of the City within the school district boundaries of CJUHSD, CVUSD, MVSD, and OMSD. No residential land use changes would occur within the boundaries of OMSD; the parcels of change in this area are currently designated for non-residential uses under the approved project and would remain designated for nonresidential uses under the proposed project.
Because the majority of the land use changes associated with the proposed project are in Ontario Ranch, student generations rates for the CVUSD identified in Table 3.15-4 were utilized to provide a conservative estimate of the maximum increase in students associated with the proposed project, as shown in Table 3.15-5.
2899
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
3 .15 - 20
Table 3.15-5 Proposed Project Student Generation
Location Current TOP 2050
Proposed TOP
2050 Change
Original Model Colony
Elementary School 16,720 16,817 97
Middle School 4,371 4,396 25
High School 9,990 10,048 58
Total OMC 31,081 31,262 181
Ontario Ranch
Elementary School 14,598 16,242 1,644
Middle School 3,816 4,246 430
High School 8,723 9,705 983
Total Ontario Ranch 27,137 30,193 3,057
Total Citywide
Elementary School 31,318 33,060 1,741
Middle School 8,187 8,642 455
High School 18,713 19,753 1,041
Total Citywide 58,218 61,455 3,237
Note: Total may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. Based on student generation rates for the CVUSD since these rates reflect the more conservative estimate of the maximum increase in students associated with the proposed project.
As part of the development of this SEIR, the City reached out to the five school districts that serve residents of Ontario to obtain existing conditions information and information on potential impacts of the proposed project. As noted above, schools in the CVUSD, MVSD, and the CJUHSD would experience the greatest increase in enrollment as a result of development in Ontario Ranch.
Based on responses from MVSD and CVUSD (see Appendix J), MVSD and CVUSD schools have capacity to accommodate increased student population under the proposed project. MVSD noted that its schools have a total maximum capacity of 4,450 students which indicates that the MVSD’s school have a residual capacity of 1,132 students when accounting for existing 2024- 2025 enrollment (MVSD 2025). CVUSD noted that its schools have a residual capacity of 1,681 2900
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .15 -21
students when accounting for 2024-2025 school enrollments (CVUSD 2025). Enrollments for CJUHSD and OMSD in 2024-2025 were also below their 2021-2022 enrollments and have largely decreased each year over this four-year period (see Table 3.15-3), indicating that these school districts also have additional capacity. For example, in CJUSD, 1,450 more students were enrolled in 2021-2022 than in 2024-2025. Therefore, based on this assumed capacity from enrollment in 2021-2022, CJUSD schools would have existing capacity for all school students added by the proposed project. Nonetheless, additional school facilities may be needed to serve the additional growth under the proposed project, especially within the Ontario Ranch.
Each school district that serves the City assesses its needs individually based on student generation rates from residential development, and charges development impact fees accordingly. Like under the approved project, residential development in Ontario under the proposed Policy Plan Amendment would require payments to corresponding school districts, which would go towards the construction of new facilities when and if they are needed. School districts determine their own development impact fees based on their student generation rates.
These payments accommodate the need for new facilities based on the increase in student population in each district.
Developers would be required to pay the impact fees levied by each school district, set within the limits of SB 50. This funding program has been found by the Legislature to constitute “full and complete mitigation of the impacts” on the provision of adequate school facilities (Government Code Section 65995[h]). SB 50 establishes three potential limits for school districts, depending on the availability of new school construction funding from the state and the particular needs of the individual school districts. The school districts serving Ontario qualify for Level 1 fees, in which each district justifies their development fees for each land use and cannot request payment of development fees for school facility construction exceeding the amount of the statutory fees expressed in Education Code Section 17620. If school districts conduct a school facility needs assessment and qualify for participation in the State Funding Program by the State Allocation Board, among meeting other requirements, they can be eligible for Level 2 and Level 3 fees.
As discussed above, the school districts that would serve the increased growth under the proposed project would have capacity to accommodate this growth. Although the increased demand on school facilities would have the potential to impact one or more of the school districts that serve Ontario, payment of impact fees in compliance with SB 50 would reduce the impacts to an acceptable level. Therefore, 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 2022 Certified EIR and impacts would be less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 2901
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
3 .15 - 22
Specific Plan
The Specific Plan area lies within the boundaries of CVUSD. The Specific Plan does not propose residential uses that would result in populations of resident school-aged children requiring public education, and would therefore not directly cause or contribute to a need to construct new or physically altered public school facilities. Additionally, employment generated by the Specific Plan is well within growth projections and is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in population (please also refer to Draft SEIR Section, 3.14, Population and Housing.) Each school district that serves the City of Ontario assesses its needs individually and charges development impact fees accordingly pursuant to SB 50. These payments accommodate the need for new facilities based on the increase in student population in each district. Payment of school impact fees would reduce any potential impacts to school services to levels that would be less than significant.
Based on the preceding, the potential for the EBPSP to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered school facilities is considered 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.
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
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.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant school services impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are warranted.
PARKS
The 2022 Certified EIR concluded that development of park and recreation facilities required by the City’s existing park dedications and in-lieu fee regulations would be able to serve the buildout population under the approved project and ensure that the City’s parks per resident standards are maintained.
2902
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .15 -23
Policy Plan Amendment
As discussed in Section 3.16, the City of Ontario uses the established parkland standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents but strives for 5 acres per 1,000 residents for parks in Ontario Ranch.
The City has approximately 727 acres of parkland and a population of 184,404 people (DOF 2025). Thus, the City currently requires 553 acres of parkland.1 Buildout of the Policy Plan Amendment would modify the planned TOP land use pattern and generate additional residents in the City, most of whom would be concentrated in the southern portion of the City (refer to Table 2-4). Changes to the land use plan associated with the Policy Plan Amendment would result in a reduction of 43 acres of parkland in the City (4 percent reduction), including land formerly designated as Open Space–Recreation southeast of Chino Avenue and Haven Avenue and land at the southwest corner of Grove Avenue and Riverside Drive (see Figure 2-6, Policy Plan Amendment Areas of Change). Additionally, future growth in the City in accordance with buildout of the Policy Plan Amendment would increase the demand for parks and increase existing park usage (see Section 3.16, Recreation, Table 3.16-3, Proposed Project Parkland Demand). As a result, the proposed project would result in a demand of 1,283 acres of parkland. Compared to the approved project, the proposed project would result in an increased demand of 49 acres of parkland.
The proposed project would designate approximately 998 acres for recreational use under the Open Space Parkland (including EBPSP) land use designation (refer to Table 2-3). Based on the proposed project’s future buildout projections, the 998 acres designated as Open Space Parkland would not satisfy the City’s existing Park Dedications and In-Lieu Fee Regulations for parkland acquisition, resulting in a shortfall of 285 acres of parkland.2 While the proposed project would result in a slight reduction in parkland in the City compared to the approved project, the City strives to have new development in Ontario Ranch provide an additional 2 acres of private parkland to achieve a park ratio of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. The proposed project would generate an additional demand of approximately 31 acres of private parks in Ontario Ranch compared to the approved project (see Section 3.16, Recreation, Table
3.16-3, Proposed Project Parkland Demand). As described above, subdivisions with residential land uses are required to dedicate property for park and recreational purposes on-site, or pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a shared combination of both, to help achieve the City’s park standards.
Therefore, residential subdivisions within the Ontario Ranch may include additional parks that are not identified on the land use plan. 1
(184,404 people / 1,000) x 3.0 acres per person = 553 2 Policy Plan Amendment’s 1,283 acres of parkland demand – 998 acres of designated parkland = 285 acres of parkland
2903
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
3 .15 - 24
In addition to parkland that is managed by the City, there are at least 180 acres of regional recreational facilities, joint-use agreements with school districts, and private recreational opportunities providing services that cannot be accommodated by existing facilities. Prado Regional Park also provides approximately 2,000 acres that would offset recreational demands.
Furthermore, the Ontario Sports Empire is currently under construction and would develop approximately 199 acres to provide a variety of recreational amenities, including a semiprofessional minor league baseball stadium, retail uses, a recreation center and aquatic center, and baseball/softball, soccer, and multi-use fields. Therefore, regional parks would more than offset the slight reduction in parkland of the proposed project compared to the approved project.
The proposed project, similar to the approved project, provides land use opportunities for public parks to be developed in line with future development. The Parks and Recreation (PR) Element contains relevant policies and programs to acquire additional parkland; integrate new park and recreation facilities with existing and future trails, bikeways, and easements; and conduct regular reviews and updates of the City’s parks and trails plans to keep pace with demographic trends and recreational needs of Ontario’s residents. The policies include:
PR-1.1: Access to Parks. In all new residential development areas, we strive to provide a park and/or recreational facility within walking distance (¼ mile) of every residence and prioritize the establishment of parks in environmental justice areas that do not have adequate access to parks.
PR-1.2: Adjacency to Schools. We examine locating parks adjacent to school sites to promote joint-use opportunities.
PR-1.3: Funding. We shall seek outside, one-time sources of funding for capital improvements and reserve ongoing City funds primarily for operations and maintenance.
PR-1.4: Joint-Use Opportunities. In areas where there is a need but no City recreational facility, we explore joint-use opportunities. (e.g., school sites).
PR-1.5: Acreage Standard. We strive to provide 5 acres of parkland (public and private) per 1,000 residents.
PR-1.6: Private Parks. We expect development to provide a minimum of 2 acres of developed private park space per 1,000 residents.
PR-1.12: Trails. We promote connections between parks and local trails including those managed by other public agencies.
PR-1.13: Equestrian Trails. We require the design, construction, and maintenance of equestrian trails in Rural Residential designated areas. ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2904
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .15 -25
PR-1.15: Trail Connectivity. We strengthen and improve equestrian, bike, and multipurpose trail connections within the City and work to improve trail connections into adjacent jurisdictions.
PR-2.4: Access to Programs. We provide a range of recreational and physical exercise programs that are accessible to residents of all income levels throughout the community and prioritize establishing and maintaining equitable access for residents in environmental justice areas.
These policies and regulations are intended to support the City’s standard parkland acreage ratio and to address the need for recreation space and parkland, while also preserving natural assets and environmentally sensitive lands. Additionally, the Ontario Sports Empire would provide high-quality athletic facilities and recreational spaces, resulting in a net increase in the amount of publicly accessible recreational amenities within the City; however, the extent to which the City of Ontario can plan and implement parks, trails, and other recreational facilities is related to the availability of funding.
Impacts associated with the development of land uses under the proposed project, including new parks and recreation facilities identified on the Land Use Plan, are analyzed throughout this SEIR. For example, construction-related air quality and noise impacts of the proposed project, which parks identified in the Land Use Plan, are described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, and Section 3.13, Noise. Park sites within future projects in Ontario Ranch would also be reviewed by the City of Ontario on an individual basis, as development occurs, and would be required to comply with requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued (i.e., payment of development impact fees).
The City’s policies and regulations would ensure that development of park facilities would keep pace with the anticipated increase in population from buildout of the proposed project.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to the use of existing park and recreational facilities compared to the approved project and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Specific Plan
The Specific Plan includes 36.15 acres of passive recreational opportunities for future employees and visitors through features such as pedestrian paths, gathering areas, turf areas, and botanical gardens. Future open space and recreational facility development in the Specific Plan area would be required to adhere to the Development Standards and Design Guidelines of the EBPSP. The construction of these recreational facilities would occur within the boundaries of the Specific Plan and would be inherent to the EBPSP’s construction phase(s). Construction ■
■
2905
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
3 .15 - 26
impacts are analyzed throughout this Draft SEIR and mitigation is incorporated where necessary.
As concluded in this Draft SEIR, the EBPSP’s construction activities would be less than significant.
It is also noted that the recreational facilities provided by the Specific Plan were assumed by the City’s Recreation & Parks Master Plan. The Master Plan concluded that the City is currently underserved by park facilities, and that the proposed recreational facilities were needed to serve the City’s growing population (Ontario 2021). In this regard, the EBPSP the contribute to the overall provision of parkland within the City.
Based on the preceding, impacts associated with the Specific Plan’s park facilities 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.
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact PUB-4: The proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with the provision or expansion of parks and recreation facilities.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant park services impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are warranted.
OTHER PUBLIC SERVICES
The 2022 Certified EIR analyzed impacts to library services and determined that adequate services would be provided and payment of development impact fees would offset the costs associated with library services, ensuring that impacts on library services are less than significant.
Policy Plan Amendment
The Ontario library system strives for a goal of 0.6 square feet of library facilities per capita (Ontario 2020). The library’s most recent Library Facility Master Plan notes that the library’s current service ratio is 0.43 square feet per capita based on its 2020 service population. The Facility Master Plan also outlines strategies for the library to expand services as population in Ontario continues to increase. In accordance with the Facility Master Plan, the library system 2906
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .15 -27
would continue to evaluate library needs based on facilities, staffing, and resources provided as population continues to increase. The Ontario library system also offers interlibrary exchanges with the Inland Library System as well as with participating libraries throughout the country.
Buildout under the proposed project would increase growth population in the City when compared to the approved project, resulting in an increase in demand for library services. New facilities, books, and personnel would be necessary to maintain and reach adequate levels of service. Environmental impacts could result from the construction of future facilities; however, the location and size of potential future facilities is currently unknown. Future projects would be reviewed by the City of Ontario on an individual basis and would be required to comply with requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued (i.e., payment of development impact fees). Since adequate services would be provided and payment of development impact fees would offset the costs associated with library services, impacts on library services would be less than significant. Additionally, 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 2022 Certified EIR.
Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Specific Plan
Demands for other public services are typically created by residential uses, which are not proposed by the Specific Plan. Implemented land uses would increase employment opportunities on-site; however, these positions would likely be filled by the existing employment pool in the City and/or neighboring communities. Therefore, uses implemented pursuant to the EBPSP would not be likely to create a significant increase in the use of other public facilities such as libraries, community centers, post offices or animal shelters. Therefore, impacts to other public services 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.
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact PUB-5: The proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts due to the provision of new or expanded library services.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant other public services impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. 2907
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
3 .15 - 28
New Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are warranted.
3.15.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographic scope of cumulative impacts under the proposed project is the service areas of the respective service providers.
FIRE
Growth associated with the proposed project are cumulative impacts since the service boundary of OFD is the City. As described above, OFD would be required to meet the increased demand for population and employment growth over the buildout of the proposed project. All development within the City, is subject to payment of development impact fees to ensure the adequate provision of services and maintenance of facilities. Increased property and sales tax from future new developments would provide funding for any capital improvements necessary to maintain adequate fire and police protection facilities, equipment, and/or personnel. By maintaining a consistent level of service through expansion or facility improvements, the OFD would be able to ensure that their performance objectives are consistently met. Furthermore, development pursuant to the proposed project would be subject to review by the OFD ensuring appropriate safety requirements are met. Accordingly, the proposed project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact on fire protection services.
POLICE
Growth associated with the proposed project are cumulative impacts since the service boundary of OPD is the City. As described above, OPD would be required to meet the increased demand for population and employment growth over the buildout of the approved project. All development within the City is subject to payment of development impact fees to ensure the adequate provision of services and maintenance of facilities. Increased property and sales tax from future new developments would provide funding for any capital improvements necessary to maintain adequate fire and police protection facilities, equipment, and/or personnel. By maintaining a consistent level of service through expansion or facility improvements, the OPD would be able to ensure that their performance objectives are consistently met. Furthermore, development pursuant to the proposed project would be subject to review by the OPD ensuring appropriate safety requirements are met. Accordingly, the proposed project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact on police protection services. 2908
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .15 -29
SCHOOLS
The EBPSP does not include any residential land uses and, therefore, is not expected to result in a significant increase in demand for schools. Projects pursuant to the Policy Plan Amendment and other cumulative development that involve residential development would increase the public-school population in the region and require the construction or expansion of school facilities so that adequate service ratios are maintained. This increase in student population would require the construction or expansion of school facilities, which could result in adverse environmental impacts. As discussed above, under state law, development projects are required to pay established school impact fees in accordance with SB 50 at the time of building permit issuance. The funding program established by SB 50 has been found by the Legislature to constitute “full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act…on the provision of adequate school facilities” (Government Code Section 65995[h]). The fees authorized for collection under SB 50 are conclusively deemed full and adequate mitigation of impacts on school district facilities. Furthermore, cumulative school projects require discretionary actions and would be required to demonstrate compliance with CEQA prior to project approval. The proposed project would not combine with areawide growth to result in cumulatively considerable impacts to school services.
PARKS
The proposed project provides land use opportunities for public parks to be developed in line with future development. The City would continue to regularly review the City’s parks and trails inventory to ensure that it keeps pace with demographic trends and the recreational needs of Ontario’s residents and construct new parks and recreation facilities accordingly. Since the details of future parks and recreation projects that would the proposed project and cumulative development are unknown at this time, such projects would be reviewed when proposed and comply with applicable requirements from the City to address potential environmental impacts.
The EBPSP does not include any residential land uses, and therefore is not expected to result in a significant increase in demand for parks. As with the development allowed under the Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP, cumulative development projects would be required to comply with all applicable existing regulations, procedures, and policies that are intended to address impacts to park and recreation facilities. Therefore, impacts are less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable.
LIBRARY
Growth associated with the proposed project are cumulative impacts since the service boundary for the Ontario library system is the City. The EBPSP does not include any residential land uses and, therefore, is not expected to result in a significant increase in demand for other public facilities, including libraries. Projects pursuant to the Policy Plan Amendment and other 2909
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
3 .15 - 30
cumulative development that involve residential development would increase the population in the region and require the construction or expansion of library facilities so that adequate service ratios are maintained. Development within the City is subject to payment of development impact fees to ensure the adequate provision of services and maintenance of public facilities. New or expanded libraries would also be subject to environmental review to determine potential environmental impacts when development is proposed. Impacts would be less than significant, and therefore, less than cumulatively considerable.
Cumulative Impacts: Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with other cumulative development, would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to public services.
3.15.7 References
Cal OES (California Office of Emergency Services). 2019. Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Plan. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/Law-Enforcement/Documents/Blue -Book_Law-Enforcement-Mutual-Aid-Plan.pdf.
CDE (California Department of Education). 2025a, October 4 (accessed). California Public Schools 2024-25. https://data-cdegis.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ 586424d4a1964277a2e0b73191da51bb_0/explore?location=34.098609%2C -117.575857%2C13.85.
CDE. 2025b, October 4 (accessed). DataQuest. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/page2.asp ?level=District&subject=Enrollment&submit1=Submit.
CJUHSD (Chaffey Joint Union High School District). 2024, April. Chaffey Joint Union High School District Fee Justification Report for Residential & Commercial/Industrial Development. https://4.files.edl.io/6f2c/10/31/24/171504-d48d2168-7f88-4a77-bc29 -c8e718f9ac8b.pdf.
CSD (Cucamonga School District). 2022. School Boundary Map. https://www.cuca.k12.ca.us/ pf4/cms2/view_page?d=x&group_id=1516954841972&vdid=ni8d14en1rqia21e.
CVUSD (Chino Valley Unified School District). 2025, November 20. Personal communication from Gregory Stachura, Assistant Superintendent, Facilities, Planning & Operations.
CVUSD. 2024, May. Chino Valley Unified School District 2024 Fee Justification Study. https://files.smartsites.parentsquare.com/7144/chino-valley-usd_2024_fee-justification -study_2024-05-03.pdf.
CVUSD. (n.d.). School Site Locator. https://www.schoolsitelocator.com/apps/chino/. 2910
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .15 -31
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/.
Inland Library System. 2022. Inland Library System: About. Accessed March 3, 2022. https://www.inlandlib.org/about.php.
MVSD (Mountain View School District). 2024, March. Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study. https://www.omsd.net/cms/lib/ CA02204858/Centricity/Domain/52/OMSD%20Justification%20Study%202024.pdf.
MVSD. 2025, October 24. Personal communication from Jeremey Currier, Deputy Superintendent.
OFD (Ontario Fire Department). 2025a September 22 (accessed). Fire Department. https://www.ontarioca.gov/Fire.
OFD. 2025b, February 15. Personal communication from Sagar Patel, Fire Administrative Director, Ontario Fire Department.
Ontario, City of. 2021, August. Ontario Recreation and Parks Master Plan (ORPMP). https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-11/ORPMP_Final %20Report_20210806_opt.pdf.
Ontario. 2022. The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364).
Ontario. 2023, November. City of Ontario Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/migrated-files/Ontario-Files/Fire/ Ready%2520Ontario/Ontario%2520LHMP.pdf.
Ontario. 2020, September 1. Library Facility Master Plan. https://content.ontarioca.gov/ sites/default/files/2024-11/Ontario%20City%20Library%20-%20Facilities% 20Master%20Plan.pdf.
Ontario. 2022, March 3 (accessed). Library Services.
https://www.ontarioca.gov/Library/Services.
Ontario. 2025a, February 10. City of Ontario Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Calculation Update. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2025- 03/City%20of%20Ontario%20Master%20Facilities%20Plan%20and%20Development%20 Impact%20Fee%20Calculation%20from%202021-22%20and%202023-24.pdf 2911
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 .15 PU BLIC SE RVIC ES
3 .15 - 32
Ontario. 2025b. Annual Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2025-2026. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-08/FY%202025- 26%20Adopted%20Operating%20Budget%20Book.pdf
Ontario. 2025c. About Your Library. https://www.ontarioca.gov/CommunityLife/library/ about-your-library.
OPD (Ontario Police Department). 2025a, September 22 (accessed). Area Command. https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/police/about-us/area-command.
OPD. 2025b. City of Ontario Fiscal Year 2025-26 Adopted Annual Operating Budget. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-08/FY%202025-26%20 Adopted%20Operating%20Budget%20Book.pdf.
OPD. 2025b September 22 (accessed). Airport Operations Bureau. https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/police/divisions/airport-operations-bureau.
OPD. 2025c, July. Heather Lugo, Management Analyst, Ontario Police Department (personal communication).
OPD. 2022b, March 1. Personal communication from Joseph Estrada, Sergeant.
San Bernardino, County of. 2024, March 26. Report/Recommendation to the Board of Directors of San Bernardino County Fire Protection District and Record of Action. https://sanbernardino.legistar.com/ViewReport.ashx?M=R&N=TextL5&GID=742&ID=762 29&GUID=LATEST&Title=Board+Agenda+Item.
San Bernardino County. 2025, January 28. Report/Recommendation to the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County and Record of Action. https://sanbernardino.legistar.com/ View.ashx?M=F&ID=13718288&GUID=414A5DDE-ECE6-459E-BC45-3AEB2BAC2B50. 2912
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
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 6 -1
3.16 RECREATION
This section of the Draft SEIR evaluates the potential impacts to public parks and recreational facilities associated with the TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP (proposed project) compared to impacts to the current TOP 2050 (approved project) and impacts in the 2022 Certified EIR.
Several comment letters related to recreation were received in response to the NOP. The relevant issues raised in those comment letters are addressed throughout this section. For a summary of the response letters, refer to Table 1-1 in Chapter 1, Introduction, or Appendix A for the response letters.
3.16.1 Regulatory Framework
STATE
Quimby Act
The Quimby Act was established by the California Legislature in 1965 to provide parks for the growing communities in California. The act authorizes cities to adopt ordinances addressing parkland and/or fees for residential subdivisions for the purpose of providing and preserving open space and recreational facilities and improvements. The Quimby Act requires the provision of 3 acres of park area per 1,000 persons residing within a subdivision unless the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area exceeds that limit, in which case the city may adopt a higher standard, not to exceed 5 acres per 1,000 residents. The Quimby Act also specifies acceptable uses and expenditures of such funds.
Mitigation Fee Act
The California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000, et seq.) allows cities to establish fees that will be imposed upon development projects for the purpose of mitigating the impact that the development projects have upon cities’ ability to provide specified public facilities. In order to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act, the City must follow four primary requirements:
1) Make certain determinations regarding the purpose and use of a fee and establish a nexus or connection between a development project or class of project and the public improvement being financed with the fee. 2) Segregate fee revenue from the General Fund in order to avoid commingling of capital facilities fees and general funds.
2913
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
3 .16 R ECR E AT ION
3 .16 - 2
3) Make findings each fiscal year describing the continuing need for fees that have been in the possession of the City for five years or more and that have not been spent or committed to a project.
4) Refund any fees with interest for developer deposits for which the findings noted above cannot be made.
California Public Park Preservation Act
The primary instrument for protecting and preserving parkland is California’s Public Park Preservation Act of 1971. Under the Public Resource Code, cities and counties may not acquire any real property that is in use as a public park for any nonpark use unless compensation, land, or both are provided to replace the parkland acquired. This provides for no net loss of parkland and facilities.
LOCAL
City of Ontario Municipal Code
Quimby Act Fees
The Quimby Act is codified in Chapter 6.08.030, Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fee Regulations, in the Ontario Development Code. As a condition of approval of a tentative tract map, final map, or parcel map for a residential subdivision or the residential portion of a mixed-use project, or for a building permit within a subdivision, the subdivider shall be required to pay an impact fee, offer for dedication of park land in lieu thereof, or both, at the sole and exclusive option of the City. Recreational facilities provided by a project must be provided in accordance with the standards, specifications, and requirements of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan, any applicable specific plan, and any other applicable resolution, policy, or standard of the City.
To meet the recreational needs of current and future residents and workers, the City requires 3 acres of park area for every 1,000 persons, equivalent to a park area standard ratio of 0.003.
The maximum amount of public park land required to be dedicated by a subdivision or development project shall be equal to the total number of dwelling unit types multiplied by the dwelling unit occupancy factor multiplied by the park area standard ratio of 0.003. When a fee is paid to the City, in lieu of making an offer of parkland dedication, the park impact fee is calculated based on the total number of dwelling units multiplied by the dwelling unit occupancy factor multiplied by the park area fee standard ratio of 0.003 multiplied by the fair market value of the land to be developed by the City for parkland and recreational facilities. In addition, the City strives to have new development in Ontario Ranch provide an additional 2 acres of private parkland in order to achieve a park ratio of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. 2914
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
3 .16 RECR E AT ION
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 6 -3
At the time of filing a tentative map application for all subdivisions with residential land uses, project applicants may indicate whether they desire to dedicate property for park and recreational purposes on-site, or whether they desire to pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a shared combination of both. If they desire to dedicate land, they must designate the area on a tentative map in conformance with the provisions of TOP; any specific plan adopted thereto; and any other adopted resolution, policy, or regulation of the City.
Development Impact Fees
The City of Ontario has a list of development impact fees (DIF) charged by the Building Department or collected by the Building Department on behalf of other departments or governmental agencies at the time permits are issued. DIF provide the means to finance adequate infrastructure and other public improvements and facilities made necessary by the impacts created by new residential (i.e., beyond just demand created by subdivisions) and nonresidential development. The City’s current fees for the General City (GC) and Ontario Ranch (OR) areas took effect on July 1, 2025 (Ontario 2025). To maintain the current level of service for parks in the City, the City requires payment of specific DIF for recreational facilities to ensure the acquisition and improvement of adequate recreation facilities (Ontario 2025). The DIF relevant to recreational facilities are in Table 3.16-1, Recreational Facility Development Impact Fees. Table 3.16-1 Recreational Facility Development Impact Fees Infrastructure Category/Area
Detached
Dwellings
Attached
Dwellings
High Density
Dwellings
Mobile Home
Dwellings
Per Dwelling Unit
General City (GC)
Aquatics $122 $108 $86 $102
Parks $17,263 $15,300 $12,106 $14,401
Ontario Ranch (OR)
Aquatics $122 $108 $86 N/A
Parks $17,263 $15,300 $12,106 N/A
Source: Ontario 2025b.
Ontario Recreation and Parks Master Plan
The City of Ontario finalized the Ontario Recreation and Parks Master Plan (ORPMP) in August 2021. The ORPMP is a comprehensive planning effort that provides a clear set of goals for infrastructure and program improvements to create a premier recreation and parks system in the City. Goals of the ORPMP include evaluating existing parks and recreation programs and 2915
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
3 .16 R ECR E AT ION
3 .16 - 4
facilities, engaging and listening to the community, identifying common and visionary opportunities, and establishing implementation strategies. The ORPMP also outlines short-, mid-, and long-term recommendations in the areas of capital improvement plans; financial strategy plans; prioritization of proposed recommendations; park branding, signage, and placemaking; and improvements to the trail network. Priorities and recommendations for the City include:
Maximize active park acreage on City-owned land by adding park amenities to opportunity areas.
Implement joint-use agreements with school districts for use of amenities such as fields, courts, and walking/running tracks on school sites.
Continue to work with developers on providing infill parks for future populations.
Consider other park types such as linear parks when determining deficiencies in certain areas.
Consider non-Ontario parks and programs in determining population-based demand and requirements.
Focus should be given to preschool programming, youth activities, swim lessons, and senior wellness activities.
Programs that are in high demand should be expanded while programs that have lower participation and service a narrower target market segment should be divested from.
Demand for adult sports may be met through partnerships with existing providers or the City could provide programs for adults not offered by private providers.
Continue to enable the Teen Action Committee and shape youth programming.
Consider developing a walking/hiking/bicycling program that aims to increase awareness of programs, parks, trails, routes, and parks' amenities.
3.16.2 Existing Conditions
Ontario provides a variety of recreational opportunities in the City and nearby open space areas, including City parks, county parks, community centers, school recreation facilities, private parks, private golf courses, and recreational trails for bicycles, horses, and hiking. Open space provides many benefits to the community, including park and recreation areas, recreational trails, conservation of natural and significant resources, buffers between land uses, and the preservation of scenic views. Ontario has convenient access to several active and passive open space areas. Active recreation areas typically include facilities such as tailored playing surfaces, buildings, parking areas, and similar modifications to a natural site. Passive recreation areas ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2916
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
3 .16 RECR E AT ION
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 6 -5
accommodate less-structured recreational pursuits and typically include minor modifications such as trails, service vehicle access improvements, enhanced landscape materials, and similar nonintrusive changes to the site (Ontario 2022).
The City has approximately 727 acres of parkland; it has 7 miniparks, 15 neighborhood parks, 6 community parks, 4 linear and special use parks, and 2 regional parks. Figure 3.16-1, Existing and Proposed Park Facilities, illustrates the locations of parklands in and around the City. Table
3.16-2, Park/Recreational Facilities in Ontario, provides the acreage and types of parks.
Table 3.16-2 Park/Recreational Facilities in Ontario
Name Location Amenities
Size
(Acres)
Miniparks
Nugent's Park 200 S. Lemon Avenue 6 horseshoe courts 0.2 Mountain View
School Park
2585 S. Archibald Avenue Playground 0.5
Sam Alba Park 401 E. Sunkist Street Playground, restroom building, multipurpose field, baseball field,
basketball court, softball field
1.0 Conservation Park 303 E. B Street Amphitheater, 2 group picnic areas, playground, aquatic feature, walking
path
1.0 Ranch Park 2832 E. Clydesdale Street Playground, basketball court, walking path
1.8 Ontario Town
Square
224 N. Euclid Avenue Amphitheater, group picnic area,
playground, 3 walking paths
1.9 George Gibbs Park 1499 W. 5th Street Group picnic area, parking lot, multipurpose field, softball
2.7 Total Minipark Acreage 9.1
Neighborhood Parks
Grove Memorial
Park
1072 N. Grove Avenue Walking path 3.1
James R. Bryant 648 W. D Street Playground, restroom building, dog park, parking lot, exercise area, 3
basketball courts, tennis court
4.5 Centennial Park 701 E. Riverside Drive Group picnic area, playground, restroom building, multipurpose field,
exercise area, 3 basketball courts
4.6 2917
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
3 .16 R ECR E AT ION
3 .16 - 6
Table 3.16-2 Park/Recreational Facilities in Ontario
Name Location Amenities
Size
(Acres)
Cypress Park 1030 S. Cypress Avenue 2 group picnic areas, playground, restroom building, parking lot,
multipurpose field, exercise area, 3
basketball courts, walking path,
volleyball court
4.7 Del Rancho Park 2014 S. Cypress Avenue Group picnic area, playground, parking lot
4.8 James Galanis Park 1259 E. D Street Parking lot 4.8 South Bon View
Park
2025 S. Bon View Avenue Group picnic area, playground,
restroom building, parking lot,
multipurpose field, exercise area,
walking path
4.8 North Celebration
Park
4980 S. Celebration
Avenue
Group picnic area, playground,
restroom building, parking lot,
multipurpose field, walking path
5.0 South Celebration
Park
2910 E. Merrill Avenue Amphitheater, 3 group picnic areas, restroom building, multipurpose field, 3
walking paths
5.5 Ontario Motor
Speedway Park
915 N Center Avenue Playground, restroom building, parking lot, multipurpose field, concession
stand, exercise area, softball field, 2
soccer fields, 2 walking paths
6.2 Creekside Park 3151 E. Riverside Drive 2 group picnic areas, playground, restroom building, parking lot,
multipurpose field, 3 basketball courts,
2 tennis courts, walking path, volleyball
court
6.9 Kimball Park 773 E. Walnut Street Restroom building, parking lot, baseball field, 2 softball fields
7.1 Veterans Memorial
Park
1259 E. D Street Group picnic area, playground,
restroom building, parking lot,
multipurpose field, exercise area,
softball field, 2 walking paths
7.5 Vineyard Park 1400 E. Sixth Street 2 group picnic areas, playground, restroom building, parking lot, 3
basketball courts, pool, 2 walking paths
9.0 2918
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
3 .16 RECR E AT ION
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 6 -7
Table 3.16-2 Park/Recreational Facilities in Ontario
Name Location Amenities
Size
(Acres)
Jay Littleton Ball
Park
1076 N. Grove Avenue Restroom building, concession stand, baseball field
9.7 Total Neighborhood Parks Acreage 88.2
Community Parks
Bon View Park 1010 S. Bon View Avenue Group picnic area, playground, restroom building, community garden,
2 parking lots, multipurpose field,
concession stand, exercise area,
baseball field, basketball court, softball
field, pool, 2 walking paths
10.3 Homer Briggs Park 2099 S. Oaks Avenue 3 group picnic areas, playground, restroom building, parking lot,
multipurpose field, concession stand, 2
baseball fields, basketball court,
horseshoe court, equestrian trail,
equestrian staging area, 3 walking
paths
14.4 Anthony Munoz
Park
1240 W. 4th Street Playground, restroom building,
community garden, 2 parking lots, 3
basketball courts, 2 softball fields, pool,
3 soccer fields, volleyball court
15.8 De Anza Park 1405 S. Fern Avenue Group picnic area, playground, 2 restroom buildings, 3 parking lots,
exercise area, 2 basketball courts,
softball field, futsal court, pickleball
court, 2 horseshoe courts, 4 soccer
fields, 3 walking paths, and volleyball
court
19.2 Westwind Park 2455 E. Riverside Drive Group picnic area, playground, restroom building, 4 parking lots,
concession stand, exercise area, 2
baseball fields, 3 basketball courts, 2
softball fields, pool, 3 tennis courts, 2
soccer fields, 4 walking paths
23 John Galvin Park 1072 N. Grove Avenue 3 group picnic areas, playground, restroom building, dog park, 2 parking
lots, multipurpose field, exercise area, 2
baseball fields, 3 basketball courts,
25.6 2919
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
3 .16 R ECR E AT ION
3 .16 - 8
Table 3.16-2 Park/Recreational Facilities in Ontario
Name Location Amenities
Size
(Acres)
softball field, 2 futsal courts, 2
horseshoe courts, 3 tennis courts,
walking path, volleyball court
Total Community Parks Acreage 108.3
Linear and Special Use Parks
Euclid Avenue
Parkway
N. Euclid Ave. Turf, planter areas, rose gardens,
benches, mule car display, bandstand,
and fountain
13.4 Ontario Soccer
Complex
2200 E. Philadelphia
Street
2 group picnic areas, restroom building,
concession stand, 6 soccer fields,
walking path
23.4 West Cucamonga
Creek Trail
1450 E. Mission Blvd. Paved hiking and bicycle trail, and equestrian trails
34.0 Whispering Lakes
Golf Course
2525 E. Riverside Drive Dog park, parking lot 175.9
Total Linear and Special Use Parks Acreage 246.7
Regional Parks
Guasti Regional Park 800 N Archibald Avenue 4 group picnic areas, playground, 3 restroom buildings, 2 parking lots, 2
aquatic features, pool, splash pad
75.5 Ontario Sports
Empire
Southeast corner of
Riverside Drive and
Vineyard Avenue
Minor League Baseball stadium,
recreational center, aquatics center, 8
multiuse baseball, softball, and soccer
fields, active fields, commercial retail
space, an indoor athletic facility, and
community recreation center
199
Total Regional Parks Acreage 274.5
Total Park Acreage 726.8
Source: Ontario 2021, 2025c.
Note: Greenways allow for recreational access and open space. This table does not include the Euclid Avenue greenway, which has a bandstand (C Street/Euclid), WCTU Fountain (C Street/Euclid), trees, turf, planter areas, rose garden, benches, and a mule car display. In addition, the Mission Boulevard greenway is not in this table, nor is the West Cucamonga Creek Trail (classified as a linear and special use park), which consists of a paved hiking and bicycle trail—2.4 miles long—and 1.3 miles of equestrian trails. 2920
w: I I i
1J\i
CITY OF
UPLAND
r"~ .. £ "GHJ!!.E.,_,.
_____ _.,_..__.,.,.._,.......,_J ~
■ w
~ w w
Q ~ ~
CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
E FOURTH ST
I _ .. J
I
l ;1 W FOURTH ST z < .,, CITY OF 0 z :, w ..... < - c,. !I ~ z !:; ~ <
-
··-··-··-:-··-·· ··-··-·;, ~ i1
MONTCLAIR :, < z W G ST z .,, u
~ <(
11'1 z z f E INLAND EMPIRE BLVD ~ :::J z i I :, W DST 0 I ---===== ,.;..._----------=i:-====--==!i55~~-------~~=ll~IO:al!l;;b..._ ~ z E HOLT AVE 2
l' :
~ l ';! i r
J_ <; z ! PHILLIPS ST a
-r i1 I ~ *' ~ ~ - j :1 ! ~~= 1 ~ w
W FRANCIS ST ~ ~ ~
J w PHILAOELPH ::-ST ; :;: ~ - E PHILAOELPHlfi ST I ~ "' I
W MISSION BLVD
,.._\ .-••-: 1,/l
----=<60 \----~-----1------------....... -----....,;;,;.,-~~------=-=---
CITY OF CHINO
~
I
:1
~1
- VI
E CHINO AVE
E SCHAEFER AVE
E EDISON AVE
w
::,.
<
9 ,. < co
:c
u
a::
<(
V,
a:
w - z
a:
2 .,,
w
~
z
w
~ :c
z
z
w
~ :c
lll
z
w
~
a:
w
z
ONTARIO RANCH RD ~ :c
V, I
I ~~ --- I
I_ E EUCALYPTUS AVE ,.J .. /"
L MERRILL AVE ,,,,,,,,,.
,._.,_ .,_,,_,,_ .. _.,l .r ~-~·· EASTVALE
: ~
L~
_,,,,,,,,. ..
z
' E SANTA ANA ST ~I
ii ~I
E JURUPA ST
w
~
~
> w
z
3 V, I
,._,,_,,_,,~
CITY OF
FONTANA
County of
San Bernardino
County of Riverside
JURUPA VALLEY
3.16 RECREATION
Figure 3.16-1
Existing and Proposed
Park Facilities
CJ Ontario City Boundary
CJ County Boundary
Rail Network
- Existing Park
- Existing Parkway
- Existing Trail
Planned Park
* Community Center
l. Anthony Munoz Community Center
2. Armstrong Community Center
3. De Anza Community & Teen Center
4. Dorothy A Quesada Community Center
5. Ontario Senior Center
6. Veterans Memorial Community Center
7. Westwind Community Center
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: 2/27/2026
2921
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
3 .16 R ECR E AT ION
3 .16 - 10
This page intentionally left blank.
2922
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
3 .16 RECR E AT ION
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .16 -11
POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
Natural Areas
San Bernardino National Forest
San Bernardino National Forest (SBNF) is northeast of Ontario. It is situated in the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and Santa Rosa mountains and includes the vacation resort areas of Big Bear Lake, Lake Arrowhead, Mount San Jacinto, and the San Gorgonio Wilderness. The US Forest Service manages the 677,928-acre SBNF, 456,928 acres of which are in San Bernardino County. The SBNF consists of 500 miles of trails. Aside from camping, SBNF provides outdoor activities like hunting, fishing, recreational shooting, hiking, backpacking, mountain biking, horseback riding, and boating in the warmer months; and cross-country skiing, snowboarding, and snowmobiling in the winter months. Also associated with SBNF activities are volunteer organizations and trails associations.
Cleveland National Forest
The Cleveland National Forest is the southernmost national forest in California, 10 miles south of Ontario. The forest consists of 460,000 acres that offer a variety of terrains and recreational opportunities. The Trabuco Ranger District operates out of the Corona office at 1147 East Sixth Street. The Trabuco District manages approximately 139,000 acres in Orange and Riverside counties and offers a multitude of trails for hiking, biking, horseback riding, and remote camping for those seeking an alternative to developed campgrounds.
State Parks
Silverwood Lake State Recreation Area
Silverwood Lake State Recreation Area is adjacent to the SBNF along Highway 138, approximately 35 miles northeast of Ontario. Silverwood Lake was formed by the 249-foot Cedar Springs Dam, which, at 3,350 feet, is the highest reservoir in the State Water Project.
Silverwood Lake State Recreation Area is approximately 2,000 acres and includes a stretch of the Pacific Crest Trail, which is a national scenic trail spanning 2,650 miles from Mexico to Canada.
Activities at Silverwood Lake State Recreation Area include camping, hiking trails, swimming, boating, waterskiing, and fishing. Silverwood Lake State Recreation Area is managed by the California State Parks Department.
Chino Hills State Recreation Area/Chino Hills State Park Chino Hills State Recreation Area/Chino Hills State Park is a 14,100-acre preserve that stretches from San Bernardino County through parts of Orange County. This recreation area is 15 miles 2923
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
3 .16 R ECR E AT ION
3 .16 - 12
southwest of Ontario and provides recreational opportunities, including over 90 miles of trails for hiking, biking, and equestrian uses, and facilities for camping. The park is also a key wildlife corridor from the Puente Hills extending south to the Cleveland National Forest.
Regional Parks
Ontario Sports Empire
Ontario Sports Empire is a multiphase regional sports and entertainment complex currently under construction that would develop approximately 199 acres to provide a variety of recreational opportunities within Ontario Ranch. This regional park would provide a variety of experiences, including a 6,000-capacity, semipro, minor league baseball stadium with supportive retail/hospitality uses and community recreation facilities, including a new recreational center; aquatics center; and baseball, softball, and soccer fields. The Ontario Sports Empire is positioned to become a premier hub for sports tourism, retail, hospitality, and community activities in Southern California.
Cucamonga-Guasti Regional Park
Regional parks consist of 50 acres or more and attract users from a service radius of up to an hour’s drive. A wide range of amenities are available at regional parks, including picnic grounds, hiking trials, scenic areas, lakes, campgrounds, and major sports facilities. The CucamongaGuasti Park is a day-use park near the Ontario Convention Center, Ontario Mills, and Ontario International Airport. Cucamonga-Guasti Park consists of approximately 180 acres and offers two lakes, a swim complex, water slide, splash pool, vineyards, and hiking trails. The park offers activities such as swimming, fishing, hiking, mountain biking, boating, volleyball, picnicking, and various other activities.
Prado Regional Park (City of Chino)
Prado Regional Park is on Highway 83, south of Highway 60 and north of Highway 91 in Chino; therefore, the acreage associated with this regional park is not included in Table 3.16-2. The regional park encompasses approximately 2,000 acres and includes such activities as fishing, picnics, horseback riding, camping, golf, hiking, and shooting range. Facilities include a dog training facility, showers, restrooms, public phones, groceries, grills and fire rings, picnic tables and shelters, and a 1.6-acre play area.
Local Parks
Local parks in Ontario vary in size and the amenities they provide to the population. Ontario’s park classification system sets standards for 5 different types of parks: mini/neighborhood parks, community parks, linear parks, regional parks, and special use parks (Ontario 2021). 2924
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
3 .16 RECR E AT ION
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .16 -13
Miniparks and Neighborhood Parks are generally less than 5 acres and serve residents within a 15-minute walk. Although they tend to focus more on passive recreation, they play an important role in providing outdoor access for neighborhoods. Open grassy areas, picnic tables, walkways, and playgrounds are typical park amenities.
Community Parks are usually 5 to 30 acres and contain larger park facilities such as multipurpose fields, pools, and sports courts. Community parks serve the daily recreational needs of their local neighborhood as well as the broader community. This means they serve residents within a 15-minute walk or a 5-minute drive. Most community parks in Ontario also have community centers that provide a wide range of programs and services and accommodate special events, recreation programs, offices, and community services.
Linear Parks are narrow and linear open spaces that typically have limited park amenities.
They typically provide passive linear recreation experiences, such as walking, jogging, and biking as well as some forms of gathering spaces, such as benches and picnic tables.
Regional Parks are larger than 30 acres and provide for a wide range of passive and active recreation. Recreation opportunities include natural open space, sports fields and courts, cultural facilities, trails, multipurpose buildings, playgrounds, aquatic facilities, and many other amenities. Regional parks can be found within city limits and may be managed by the city or the county.
Special Use Parks are park areas that provide unique recreation opportunities. They often serve the recreation needs of specific groups of people but are always publicly available.
Public Recreation
The City of Ontario has joint agreements with Chino Unified School District and Woodcrest Junior High for the use of Kimball Park. The City also has an agreement with Chaffey Joint Union High School District and Colony High School for use of baseball fields and outdoor basketball and tennis courts.
Trail System
Current trail opportunities are in the northern portions of the City (north of Riverside Drive).
City and private trails are localized in the northeastern corner of the intersection at Philadelphia Street and Benson Avenue. There are more than 4 miles of equestrian trails in the neighborhoods north of Philadelphia Street, south of Mission Boulevard, west of Magnolia Avenue, and east of Benson Avenue. The West Cucamonga Creek Trail provides 1.3 miles of equestrian trails and 2.4 miles of paved hiking and bicycle trails. In addition, the Home Briggs Memorial Park provides equestrian facilities (Ontario 2021). ■
■
■
■
■
2925
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
3 .16 R ECR E AT ION
3 .16 - 14
Greenways allow for recreational access and open space. Most trail use is restricted to flood control channels and other informal trails. A number of greenways are utility easements interspersed throughout the City; however, greenway utility easements are not linked to the larger regional trails network. The Euclid Avenue Parkway is a 35-acre greenbelt stretching the entire length of the City. In addition, Mission Boulevard provides a 66-acre undeveloped greenway that traverses the City (Ontario 2022).
Bike Lanes and Bikeways
The California Streets and Highway Code designates bikeways and trails Class I, II, III, or IV. Class I bikeways are dedicated for exclusive use by bicyclists along rivers, channels, and utility rightsof-way. Class II bikeways are dedicated lanes along streets, with no parking allowed in the bike lane. Class III bikeways are bike routes normally shared with motor vehicles on the street or with pedestrians on sidewalks, and parking is allowed. Class IV bikeways are dedicated for exclusive use of bicycles and are physically separated from motor traffic with a vertical feature.
Many of the City’s bicycle paths are combined with sidewalks along each side of major streets.
Cyclists generally use these one-way bike lanes for commuter or longer recreational purposes.
Most of the City's arterial streets are sufficiently wide to allow for a 4-foot-wide Class II bike lane along the curb. Bicycle corridors, multipurpose trails, and Class I, II, III, and IV bike routes in Ontario are shown on Figure 3.17-3, Multipurpose Trails and Bikeway Corridor Plan. Santa Ana River Trail The Santa Ana River Trail is a developing corridor trail system south and east of Ontario in the Santa Ana River Wash. When completed, this regional trail will run 110 miles, from the Heart Bar Ranch area in the San Bernardino National Forest to the Pacific Ocean. The trail crosses 33 miles of the SBNF and covers 18 miles in San Bernardino County. The San Bernardino County Regional Parks Division is responsible for the creation, operation, and maintenance of 22 miles of trail in 4 phases. Phase I and II are complete and consist of 7.5 miles of trail starting at Waterman Avenue in San Bernardino to the Riverside County line. Phase III consists of 3.6 miles of the trail from Waterman Avenue to California Street in Redlands, and Phase IV consists of 11 miles of the trail from California Street in Redlands to Garnet Street in Mentone and up to the San Bernardino National Forest (San Bernardino County 2025).
SPECIFIC PLAN
The Ontario Recreation & Community Services Department provides community services such as parks, community centers, school recreation facilities, private golf courses, and recreational trails. The City maintains a Recreation & Parks Master Plan which provides goals for infrastructure and program improvements throughout the City.
Centennial Park, North Celebration Park, and South Celebration Park are all within 2 miles of the Specific Plan area. No recreational facilities are currently within the Specific Plan area. 2926
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
3 .16 RECR E AT ION
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .16 -15
3.16.3 Standards for Analysis
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to recreation if it would:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
METHODOLOGY
Specific Plan
To assess potential recreational impacts of the EBPSP, existing programs and facilities available within the City and provided by the Ontario Recreation & Community Services Department were reviewed, as well as the future facilities planned as part of the Ontario Parks Recreation & Parks Master Plan.
3.16.4 Relevant New and Modified General Plan Policies
There are no applicable policy changes.
3.16.5 Environmental Impacts
2022 CERTIFIED EIR
The Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would generate additional residents, which would increase the use of existing park and recreational facilities. Project implementation would result in environmental impacts from the provision of new and/or expanded recreational facilities. Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and compliance with TOP policies and programs, impacts of the approved project would be less than significant. 2927
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
3 .16 R ECR E AT ION
3 .16 - 16
PROPOSED PROJECT
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
The Certified EIR found that buildout of the approved project’s land use plan would result in population growth and an associated increase in demand for recreational facilities and parkland areas. Implementation of the approved project’s policies and land use opportunities for public parks, designed to be aligned with future development, would ensure that park facilities would keep pace with the anticipated increase in population growth. As a result, impacts were identified as less than significant.
Policy Plan Amendment
Currently, the City of Ontario uses the established parkland standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents but strives for 5 acres per 1,000 residents for parks in Ontario Ranch. The City has approximately 727 acres of parkland (see Table 3.16-2) and a population of 184,404 people (DOF 2025). Thus, the City currently requires 553 acres of parkland.1 Buildout of the Policy Plan Amendment would modify the planned TOP land use pattern and generate additional residents in the City, most of whom would be concentrated in the southern portion of the City (refer to Table 2-4). Changes to the land use plan associated with the Policy Plan Amendment would result in a reduction of 43 acres of parkland in the City (4 percent reduction), including land formerly designated as Open Space–Recreation southeast of Chino Avenue and Haven Avenue and land at the southwest corner of Grove Avenue and Riverside Drive (see Figure 2-6, Policy Plan Amendment Areas of Change). Additionally, future growth in the City in accordance with buildout of the Policy Plan Amendment would increase the demand for parks and increase existing park usage, as shown in Table 3.16-3, Proposed Project Parkland Demand.
1 (184,404 people / 1,000) x 3.0 acres per person = 553 2928
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
3 .16 RECR E AT ION
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .16 -17
Table 3.16-3 Proposed Project Parkland Demand
Infrastructure
Category/Area Population
Parkland Demand
(Acres)
Ontario Ranch
Additional Parkland
Demand (Acres)
Total Parkland
Demand (Acres)
Approved Project
Old Model Colony 217,612 653 N/A 653
Ontario Ranch 193,656 581 387 968
Total 411,268 1,234 387 1,621
Proposed Project
Old Model Colony 218,643 656 N/A 656
Ontario Ranch 209,098 627 418 1,045
Total 427,741 1,283 418 1,701
Net Change
Total Net Change 16,473 49 31 80
Note: Total parkland demand was calculated based on 3 acres/1,000 residents for Old Model Colony and Ontario Ranch, with an additional 2 acres/1,000 residents for new parkland in Ontario Ranch.
The Quimby Act is a funding mechanism for parkland acquisition. Under this Act and pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code, residential subdivisions must dedicate parkland or pay in lieu fees to enable the City to acquire a ratio of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. As shown in Table 3.16-3, the approved project would result in a demand of 1,234 acres of parkland, and the proposed project would result in a demand of 1,283 acres of parkland. As a result, buildout allowed under the proposed project would result in an increased demand of 49 acres of parkland compared to the approved project.
The proposed project would designate approximately 998 acres for recreational use under the Open Space Parkland (including EBPSP) land use designation (refer to Table 2-3). Based on the proposed project’s future buildout projections, the 998 acres designated as Open Space Parkland would not satisfy the City’s existing Park Dedications and In-Lieu Fee Regulations for parkland acquisition, resulting in a shortfall of 285 acres of parkland.2 2 Policy Plan Amendment’s 1,283 acres of parkland demand – 998 acres of designated parkland = 285 acres of parkland
2929
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
3 .16 R ECR E AT ION
3 .16 - 18
While the proposed project would result in a slight reduction in parkland in the City compared to the approved project, the City strives to have new development in Ontario Ranch provide an additional 2 acres of private parkland to achieve a park ratio of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. As shown in Table 3.16-3, the proposed project would generate an additional demand of approximately 31 acres of private parks in Ontario Ranch compared to the approved project. As described above, subdivisions with residential land uses are required to dedicate property for park and recreational purposes on-site, or pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a shared combination of both, to help achieve the City’s park standards. Therefore, residential subdivisions within the Ontario Ranch may include additional parks that are not identified on the land use plan.
In addition to parkland that is managed by the City, there are at least 180 acres of regional recreational facilities, joint-use agreements with school districts, and private recreational opportunities providing services that cannot be accommodated by existing facilities. Prado Regional Park also provides approximately 2,000 acres that would offset recreational demands.
Furthermore, the Ontario Sports Empire is currently under construction and would develop approximately 199 acres to provide a variety of recreational amenities, including a semiprofessional minor league baseball stadium, retail uses, a recreation center and aquatic center, and baseball/softball, soccer, and multi-use fields. Therefore, regional parks would more than offset the slight reduction in parkland of the proposed project compared to the approved project.
The proposed project, similar to the approved project, provides land use opportunities for public parks to be developed in line with future development. The Parks and Recreation (PR) Element contains relevant policies and programs to acquire additional parkland; integrate new park and recreation facilities with existing and future trails, bikeways, and easements; and conduct regular reviews and updates of the City’s parks and trails plans to keep pace with demographic trends and recreational needs of Ontario’s residents. The policies include:
PR-1.1: Access to Parks. In all new residential development areas, we strive to provide a park and/or recreational facility within walking distance (¼ mile) of every residence and prioritize the establishment of parks in environmental justice areas that do not have adequate access to parks.
PR-1.2: Adjacency to Schools. We examine locating parks adjacent to school sites to promote joint-use opportunities.
PR-1.3: Funding. We shall seek outside, one-time sources of funding for capital improvements and reserve ongoing City funds primarily for operations and maintenance.
PR-1.4: Joint-Use Opportunities. In areas where there is a need but no City recreational facility, we explore joint-use opportunities. (e.g., school sites). ■
■
■
■
2930
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
3 .16 RECR E AT ION
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .16 -19
PR-1.5: Acreage Standard. We strive to provide 5 acres of parkland (public and private) per 1,000 residents.
PR-1.6: Private Parks. We expect development to provide a minimum of 2 acres of developed private park space per 1,000 residents.
PR-1.12: Trails. We promote connections between parks and local trails including those managed by other public agencies.
PR-1.13: Equestrian Trails. We require the design, construction, and maintenance of equestrian trails in Rural Residential designated areas.
PR-1.15: Trail Connectivity. We strengthen and improve equestrian, bike, and multipurpose trail connections within the City and work to improve trail connections into adjacent jurisdictions.
PR-2.4: Access to Programs. We provide a range of recreational and physical exercise programs that are accessible to residents of all income levels throughout the community and prioritize establishing and maintaining equitable access for residents in environmental justice areas.
These policies and regulations are intended to support the City’s standard parkland acreage ratio and to address the need for recreation space and parkland, while also preserving natural assets and environmentally sensitive lands. Additionally, the Ontario Sports Empire would provide high-quality athletic facilities and recreational spaces, resulting in a net increase in the amount of publicly accessible recreational amenities within the City; however, the extent to which the City of Ontario can plan and implement parks, trails, and other recreational facilities is related to the availability of funding.
As a result, development of park facilities would keep pace with the anticipated increase in population from buildout of the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to the use of existing park and recreational facilities compared to the approved project. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Specific Plan
The EBPSP would result in the conversion of a site designated for residential/agricultural uses into a business park and open space – parkland development.
The Specific Plan provides for the development of 36.15 acres of the City’s public “Grand Park.” Grand Park is a planned 3.7-mile greenbelt extending between Haven Avenue and Campus ■
■
■
■
■
■
2931
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
3 .16 R ECR E AT ION
3 .16 - 20
Avenue and encompasses approximately 340 acres citywide. The Specific Plan would implement the southern half of a 1.25-mile stretch of the park, consistent with the City’s Grand Park Landscape Master Plan. The remaining 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 area.
Passive recreational opportunities for future employees, visitors, and residents of the City would be provided 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.
Development of the Specific Plan would not directly increase housing or population, which typically cause an increase in the demand for and use of existing neighborhood parks and other citywide recreational facilities. If employees of the business park uses were to occasionally use park facilities within the City, they would likely utilize those provided by the Specific Plan.
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, impacts related to the physical deterioration of existing parks or recreation facilities would be less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact REC-1: The proposed project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of recreational facilities.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant recreation impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
No new Mitigation Measures are required.
b) Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The Certified EIR found that buildout of the approved project’s land use plan would result in the development of additional parkland and recreational facilities, which could lead to the construction of new or expanded facilities that may have an adverse physical effect on the environment. However, implementation of existing federal, state, and local regulations, as well as the approved project’s policies, would help reduce potential adverse environmental impacts 2932
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
3 .16 RECR E AT ION
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .16 -21
associated with the expansion of parks, recreational facilities, and multiuse trails. As a result, these impacts were determined to be less than significant.
Policy Plan Amendment
The Policy Plan Amendment guides growth and development within the City and is not a development project. The Policy Plan Amendment project primarily involves modifying the currently permitted and planned TOP land use pattern across nearly 1,000 acres in southern Ontario. As described in impact discussion a), buildout of the proposed project would result in an increased demand of 80 acres of total parkland compared to the approved project (refer to Table 3.16-3).
As a result of these planned park facilities, the proposed project may result in the construction of new or expansion of existing recreational facilities in Ontario. The majority of these facilities would be in Ontario Ranch, including the Grand Park. Development and implementation of the Grand Park may have an adverse physical effect on the environment, such as lighting, biological resources, noise, traffic, and air quality. Environmental impacts associated with the construction of new and/or expansions of existing recreational facilities in accordance with the Proposed Land Use Plan are addressed separately. Construction-related air quality and noise impacts of the proposed project are described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, and Section 3.13, Noise. Existing federal, state, and local regulations as well as goals and policies in the Policy Plan Amendment would help reduce potential adverse impacts to the environment that may result from buildout of the proposed project. Furthermore, subsequent environmental review would be required for development of park projects under the Proposed Land Use Plan. Consequently, the proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to the use of existing park and recreational facilities compared to the approved project. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Specific Plan
The Specific Plan includes 36.15 acres of passive recreational opportunities for future employees and visitors through features such as pedestrian paths, gathering areas, turf areas, and botanical gardens. Future open space and recreational facility development in the Specific Plan area would be required to adhere to the Development Regulations and Design Guidelines of the EBPSP and the City’s Grand Park Landscape Master Plan. The construction of these recreational facilities would occur within the boundaries of the Specific Plan area and would be inherent to the EBPSP’s construction phase(s). The City shall be responsible for the design and construction of all park improvements within the EBPSP area. Construction impacts are analyzed throughout this SEIR in Section 3.3, Air Quality, and Section 3.12, Noise, and mitigation is incorporated where necessary.
2933
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
3 .16 R ECR E AT ION
3 .16 - 22
It is also noted that the recreational facilities provided by the EBPSP were assumed by and included in the City’s Recreation & Parks Master Plan. The Master Plan concluded that the City is currently underserved by park facilities, and that the proposed Grand Park would be needed to serve the City’s growing population (Ontario 2021). In this regard, the EBPSP would contribute to the overall provision of parkland within the City. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.
Based on the preceding, impacts associated with the EBPSP’s recreational facilities would be less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact REC-2: The proposed project would not result in adverse impacts associated with new or expanded recreational facilities within the City.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant recreation impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
No new Mitigation Measures are required.
3.16.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The area considered for cumulative impacts for recreation is the City of Ontario. As described above, the proposed project provides land use opportunities for public parks to be developed in line with future development. As described under impact discussion a), the Parks and Recreation Element contains relevant goals, policies, and programs that support a regular review of the City’s parks and trails plans to keep pace with demographic trends and recreational needs of Ontario’s residents (see Policies PR-1.1 through PR-1.16). In addition, Policy PR-1.5 strives to provide five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents in the Ontario Ranch, and Policy PR-1.6 provides a minimum of 2 acres of developed private park space per 1,000 residents in the City.
The Specific Plan does not propose residential uses that would result in an increase in population, thereby, increasing the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Employees and visitors of the Specific Plan land uses who do not already reside in the area are not anticipated to utilize local recreational facilities to the extent that physical deterioration would occur or be accelerated, even when considered in the context of 2934
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
3 .16 RECR E AT ION
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .16 -23
cumulative developments in the area. Given the proximity to planned business park uses, if future employees were to occasionally use park facilities within the City, they would likely utilize the public facilities provided by the Specific Plan.
Additionally, as previous discussed, the recreational facilities provided within the Specific Plan were assumed by and included in the City’s Recreation & Parks Master Plan. The Master Plan concluded that the City is currently underserved by park facilities. Recreational facilities implemented by the EBPSP and future developed allowed under the proposed land use plan would help to address the open space and park needs of the growing community.
As with the development allowed under the Policy Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, cumulative development projects would be required to comply with all applicable existing regulations, procedures, and policies that are intended to address impacts to park and recreation facilities. As a result, development of park facilities would keep pace with the anticipated increase in population from buildout of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts are less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable.
Cumulative Impacts: The proposed project would not result in cumulative impacts to recreation in the City.
3.16.7 References
DOF (California Department of Finance). 2025, May. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2025. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/ demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and -the-state-2020-2025/.
Ontario, City of. 2021, August. Ontario Recreation and Parks Master Plan (ORPM). https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-11/ORPMP_Final%20Report _20210806_opt.pdf.
Ontario. 2022. The Ontario Plan 2050. Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364. https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/communitydevelopment/planning/ontario-plan#environmental-impact-report.
Ontario. 2025a, August 19 (revised). Ontario Development Code. https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/community-development/planning/governingdocuments/development-code.
Ontario. 2025b. Development Impact Fees. Impact Fee Schedule: Ontario Ranch – Development Impact Fees Effective July 1, 2025 and General City – Development Impact Fees Effective 2935
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
3 .16 R ECR E AT ION
3 .16 - 24
July 1, 2025. https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/financial-services/developmentimpact-fees.
Ontario. 2025c (accessed). Parks. https://www.ontarioca.gov/Parks.
San Bernardino County. 2025, September (accessed). Regional Parks, Santa Ana River Trail & Pkwy. https://parks.sbcounty.gov/park/santa-ana-river-trail-pkwy/. 2936
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
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 7 -1
3.17 TRANSPORTATION
This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) examines the potential for implementation of Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP (proposed project) to impact transportation in the City of Ontario compared to the current TOP 2050 (approved project) and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. The analysis in this section is based on the following studies:
TOP Vehicle Miles Traveled Memorandum, Fehr & Peers (Appendix K1) EBPSP Vehicle Miles Traveled Memorandum, Fehr & Peers (Appendix K2) EBPSP Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads (Appendix K3) This SEIR evaluates the cumulative effect of the proposed project on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and uses the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority’s (SBCTA) San Bernardino Traffic Analysis Model Plus (SBTAM+) travel demand forecast model.
Terminology
Level of Service. Roadway capacity is generally limited by the ability to move vehicles through intersections. LOS is a standard performance measurement to describe the operating characteristics of a street system in terms of the level of congestion or the delay experienced by motorists. Service levels range from A through F, that is, traffic conditions from best (uncongested, free-flowing conditions) to worst (total breakdown with stop-and-go operation).
Vehicles Miles Traveled. VMT measures the number of trips and the lengths of those trips for the total number of miles that vehicles will travel on a roadway system. It is used to better assess traffic impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, and energy. The number of miles of vehicle travel is an indicator of the travel levels on the roadway system by motor vehicles.
Total VMT. Total VMT represents all VMT generated by a project or in a defined area, such as a traffic analysis zone or city boundary, on a typical day, weekday, or weekend.
VMT per Service Population. Service population (SP) counts residents and employees.
VMT/SP measures the transportation “efficiency” of a project or plan and is defined as VMT generated on a typical weekday per person who lives and/or works in the designated area. ■
■
■
■
■
■
2937
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 2
3.17.1 Regulatory Framework
STATE
Senate Bill 743
On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into law, starting a process that fundamentally changed transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. With the adoption of SB 375, the State signaled its commitment to encourage land use and transportation planning decisions and investments that reduce VMT and thereby contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill [AB] 32).
SB 743 eliminates auto delay, level of service, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the sole basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA. As part of the new CEQA Guidelines, the new criteria “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(1)).
Pursuant to SB 743, the Natural Resources Agency adopted revisions to the CEQA Guidelines to implement SB 743 on December 28, 2018. The revised CEQA Guidelines establish new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts. Under the new Guidelines, VMTrelated metric(s) were required beginning July 1, 2020, to evaluate the significance of transportation-related impacts under CEQA for development projects, land use plans, and transportation infrastructure projects. The legislation does not preclude the application of local general plan policies, zoning codes, conditions of approval, or any other planning requirements for evaluation of LOS, but such metrics may no longer constitute the sole basis for determining transportation impacts under CEQA.
AB 1358: California Complete Streets Act of 2008
The California Complete Streets Act of 2008 was signed into law on September 30, 2008.
Beginning January 1, 2011, AB 1358 required circulation elements to address the transportation system from a multimodal perspective. The bill states that streets, roads, and highways must “meet the needs of all users…in a manner suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan.” Essentially, this bill requires a circulation element to plan for all modes of transportation where appropriate—including walking, biking, car travel, and transit.
The Complete Streets Act also requires circulation elements to consider the various users of the transportation system, including children, adults, seniors, and the disabled. For further clarity, AB 1358 tasked the Office of Planning and Research (now the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation) to release guidelines for compliance, which it did in December 2010. 2938
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 7 -3
SB 375: Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act On December 11, 2008, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted its proposed Scoping Plan for AB 32, the Global Warming Act. This scoping plan included the approval of SB 375 as the means for achieving regional transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions targets.
SB 375 provides guidance on how curbing emissions from cars and light trucks can help the state comply with AB 32.
There are 5 major components to SB 375. First, it addresses regional greenhouse gas emission targets. CARB’s Regional Targets Advisory Committee guides the adoption of targets to be met by 2020 and 2035 for each metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in the state. These targets, which MPOs may propose themselves, are updated every eight years in conjunction with the revision schedule of housing and transportation elements.
Second, MPOs are required to create a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) that provides a plan for meeting regional targets. The SCS and the regional transportation plan (RTP) must be consistent with each other, including action items and financing decisions. If the SCS does not meet the regional target, the MPO must produce an Alternative Planning Strategy that details another plan to meet the target.
Third, SB 375 requires that regional housing elements and transportation plans be synchronized on 8-year schedules. In addition, Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation numbers must conform to the SCS. If local jurisdictions are required to rezone land as a result of changes in the housing element, rezoning must take place within 3 years.
Fourth, SB 375 provides CEQA streamlining incentives for preferred development types.
Residential or mixed-use projects qualify if they conform to the SCS. Transit-oriented developments also qualify if they 1) are at least 50 percent residential, 2) meet density requirements, and 3) are within one-half mile of a transit stop. The degree of CEQA streamlining is based on the degree of compliance with these development preferences.
Finally, MPOs must use transportation and air emission modeling techniques consistent with guidelines prepared by the California Transportation Commission. Regional transportation planning agencies, cities, and counties are encouraged, but not required, to use travel demand models consistent with the commission’s guidelines.
Senate Bill 99
SB 99 (Section 65302(g)(5) of the California Government Code) requires jurisdictions to review and update the safety element to include information identifying residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least 2 emergency evacuation routes. 2939
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 4
Assembly Bill 747
AB 747 added Section 65302.15 to the California Government Code (amended by AB 1409), which went into effect in January 2022. AB 747 requires local governments to identify the capacity, safety, and viability of evacuation routes and locations in their general plan safety element or local hazard mitigation plan.
REGIONAL
Southern California Association of Governments
SCAG is a regional council of governments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties, which encompass over 38,000 square miles.
SCAG is the federally recognized metropolitan planning organization for this region and a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG is also the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under federal and state law. In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to analyze their impacts on regional planning programs. As the Southern California region’s metropolitan planning organization, SCAG cooperates with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the California Department of Transportation, and other agencies in preparing regional planning documents. The City of Ontario is in the San Bernardino County Transportation Agency (SBCTA) subregion of SCAG.
Connect SoCal 2024
SCAG adopted its current RTP/SCS, “Connect SoCal 2024,” in April 2024 to provide a long-range vision for the SCAG region. Connect SoCal 2024 expands land use and transportation strategies established from previous cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. Connect SoCal 2024 contains plans and projections for the region’s future. Like other RTPs/SCSs, Connect SoCal 2024 provides a policy framework for preparing local plans and handling issues of regional significance, such as land use and housing, open space and biological habitats, water, energy, air quality, solid waste, transportation, security and emergency preparedness, economy, and education. Connect SoCal 2024 also strives to achieve broader regional objectives, such as encouraging diverse housing construction in areas supported by multiple transportation options; promoting development of complete streets that prioritize safe opportunities to walk, bike, and pursue other forms of active transportation; leveraging new transportation technologies and data-driven solution to efficient travel; and promoting conservation of natural lands. Connect SoCal 2024 advances regional planning by incorporating an integrated approach between SCAG, state and local governments, transportation commissions, resources agencies and conservation groups, the private sector, and the general public. See Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning, of this SEIR. 2940
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 7 -5
San Bernadino County Transportation Authority
Countywide Transportation Plan
The SBCTA, formerly known as the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), prepared an interim update, released in 2021, to the Countywide Transportation Plan. The plan lays out a strategy for long-term investment in and management of San Bernardino County’s regional transportation assets (SBCTA 2021).
Nonmotorized Transportation Plan
SBCTA updated the San Bernardino County Non-motorized Transportation Plan in June 2018.
The goal of the plan is to develop an integrate nonmotorized transportation systems and identify sources of funds to implement increased bicycle and pedestrian access, increased travel by cycling and walking, routine accommodation in transportation and land use planning, and improved bicycle and pedestrian safety. The plan lays out design guidelines, bikeway and pedestrian system recommendations, implementation strategies and priorities, and funding opportunities. It points out that local jurisdictions are ultimately responsible for implementing projects in the plan. SBCTA serves in an advisory role by identifying projects on the regional network, providing advisory support for project development, supporting local education and safety efforts, encouraging the incorporation of nonmotorized facilities into general and specific plans, working to identify grant opportunities, etc. (SBCTA 2018).
Short-Range Transit Plan
SBCTA developed a short-range transit plan to help guide transit service improvements in the region over the next 5 years. The plan identifies transit service plans and helps prioritize major capital improvement projects for the region’s transit needs. Goals of the short-range transit plan include connectivity between the various transit agencies in the county, facilitating transit travel between regions in the county and between the county and surrounding counties, and costeffective accessibility programs for seniors and persons with disabilities. The short-range transit plan was released in December 2016 (SBCTA 2016b).
Long-Range Transit Plan
SBCTA developed a long-range transit plan to address the county’s current and future travel challenges and create a transportation system that can increase the role of transit in the future.
The plan establishes a transit vision for the next 25 years, prioritizes goals and projects for transit growth, and prioritizes connecting land use and transportation strategies. The plan developed four alternatives—“baseline” (with existing transit services), “plan” (existing transit and currently planned improvements), “vision” (existing transit, planned improvements, and rapid bus and rail), and “sustainable land use” (redistributing growth to transit corridors and 2941
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 6
creating transit-oriented developments at station areas). The long-range transit plan was released in April 2010 (SBCTA 2010).
Points of Interest Pedestrian Plan
SBCTA developed a Countywide Points of Interest Pedestrian Plan to assist member agencies with the development of tools and guidelines for identifying and prioritizing pedestrian improvements. The project’s goals include connecting various SBCTA member agencies and synchronizing project planning and implementation, given that each agency has different pedestrian accommodations, capital improvement programs, and maintenance regimes. (SBCTA 2019).
Congestion Management Program for San Bernardino County The congestion management program for San Bernardino County, published and periodically updated by SBCTA, defines a network of state highways and arterials in the county and provides guidelines regarding LOS standards, impact criteria, and a process for mitigation of impacts on program facilities in the county. The congestion management program was last updated in June 2016 (SBCTA 2016a).
LOCAL
Development Impact Fees
The City of Ontario maintains development impact fees for projects in the City. The fees are updated periodically. They include fees assessed per dwelling unit, per hotel room, or per square foot and include fees for regional and local street improvements.
Traffic and Transportation Guidelines
The City engineer reviews proposed residential, commercial, and industrial development projects for consistency with the City’s Traffic and Transportation Guidelines (Ontario 2013) and provides engineering input as well as conditions of approval for proposed projects.
3.17.2 Existing Conditions
POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
Existing Roadway Network
The City of Ontario circulation system includes three freeways, an international airport, 2 main lines of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), one Metrolink rail line, and a system of arterial and local streets.
2942
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 7 -7
Roadway Classification
TOP 2050 Mobility Element roadway classifications are shown on Figure 5.17-1, Roadway Classifications. TOP 2050’s Functional Roadway Classification Plan shows the hierarchy of Ontario’s roadway system, consistent with the guidelines of the Federal Highway Administration:
Freeway. Freeways are limited-access, high-speed travel ways in the state and federal highway systems.
Other Principal Arterials. Other Principal Arterials serve the major centers and corridors of activity, carry the highest volumes of traffic, and serve the longest trips of all city roadways.
Other Principal Arterials typically accommodate 4 to 8 lanes of traffic and medians.
Minor Arterials. Minor arterials accommodate less traffic than Other Principal Arterials and are for trips of moderate length. Minor Arterials allow more access to abutting properties than Other Principal Arterials, so speeds are lower. Minor Arterials connect the community but ideally should not penetrate residential neighborhoods. The roadway configuration and right-ofway width vary depending on local conditions, but typically accommodate four to 6 lanes of traffic and medians.
Collector Streets. Collector streets provide access to abutting properties and traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods and business areas. Collector streets allow access to local and arterial roadways. The roadway configuration and right-of-way width vary depending on local conditions, but typically accommodate 2 to 4 lanes of traffic.
Local Streets. The primary function of a local street is to provide direct access to abutting properties. Local streets rarely have more than 2 travel lanes, and speed limits are generally low; they are not intended for through traffic. Local streets are not on the Functional Roadway Classifications map because they are not considered part of the backbone circulation system.
Enhanced Intersection. Enhanced Intersections may include additional lanes, reduced median width, increased right-of-way width, removal of on-street bike lanes, or reduction of parkway width to increase capacity, improve operations, and respond to local demands. Detailed engineering studies are necessary to identify the most effective and feasible types of improvements.
The ultimate number of lanes needed on each roadway as well as the right-of-way requirements are identified in the City’s Master Plan of Street and Highways. 2943
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 8
Traffic Management Center
The City of Ontario also maintains a traffic management center that enhances traffic signal coordination and monitoring in the City. Key functions include to:
Implement a dynamic selection of traffic signal timings.
Provide coordination among various agencies.
Monitor traffic signal equipment and dispatch resources to fix malfunctioning equipment.
Provide traffic detection and surveillance.
Modify arterial traffic signal timing when an incident happens on a freeway.
Manage incidents and special events or emergency evacuations.
Truck Routes
The City has designated certain roadways for the purpose of channeling large trucks through and within the City. In addition, the state of California has identified Mission Boulevard and parts of Milliken Avenue and Jurupa Street as extralegal load limit streets, as defined by the California Vehicle Code Section 320.5.1
Figure 2-8, Current Truck Routes, in Chapter 2, Project Description, illustrates the existing designated truck routes in Ontario and the connections to truck routes in adjacent cities.
Rail Lines and Crossings
Two major east-west freight lines traverse Ontario. A third east-west line runs just north of the northern boundary of the City. The northern route through the City is the UPRR Alhambra Subdivision Line, which begins at the Ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach and runs through Los Angeles, Pomona, Colton, and points farther east. The southern route is the UPRR Los Angeles Subdivision Line, which also begins at the Ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach and runs through Pomona, but travels southeast to Riverside and points farther east. 1 An extralegal load is a single unit or an assembled item which, due to its design, cannot be reasonably reduced or dismantled in size or weight so that it can be legally transported as a load without a permit. ■
■
■
■
■
■
2944
W FRANCIS ST ..
:
. . . PHILADELPHIA S
----
-- I -I
•
I
--I
I
I
I
I
_,_
-~-: . . .
. . . . . - - - .. - -w· - - - - ~ ·- - I > "
"'I
I ---1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
< :
o : a: . < • E P. i'HLAOELPHIA ST i:i" -- -- ---z 5 •
..,I
~ :
• . .
~ . · . ..
. ~I .
I
l I
I I
E I CHINO AVEI
I
I I
E SCHAEf ER AVE I
. . . I
:
. . I
E EDISON AVE I
.
-
. I I
E EUCALY~TUS AVE I I
.
- I I
: I I .
- I I
MERRIL L AVE
I
I
I
I
E RIVERSIDE D~
I I
I I
I I
>I ~<
.
i i
--- ~
,
<
.,..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---- . ... ._. .. :
:
--
___ i __
---w
~
a:
w
I
I
I
• z
ONTARIO RANCH RD ~
w
~
w
....
....
5 w
z
3 .,..
................................ --..... ,---
w
~
w
C)
- ~
z
5 "' County of
San Bemardmo
- /'~ County o1 R1versi~
3.17 TRAFFIC
Figure 3 .17 -1
Roadway Classifications
Cl Ontario City Boundary
Cl County Boundary
Rail Crossings
Existing At-Grade Crossing
■ Existing Grade-Separated Crossing
D Future Grade-Separated Crossing
Enhanced Intersections
Metrolink
Metrolink Station
Roadway Classification
- Principal Arterial 8 Lanes
- - Principal Arterial 6 Lanes
• • • • • Principal Arterial 4 Lanes
Minor Arterial 6 Lanes
Minor Arterial 4 Lanes
- Collector 4 Lanes
Collector 2 Lanes
D 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/lS
2945
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 10
This page intentionally left blank.
2946
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -11
The UPRR main lines run parallel to each other from the western boundary of the City to Campus Avenue. The Alhambra Subdivision Line continues east along the northern boundary of Ontario International Airport (ONT) north of Airport Drive, and the Los Angeles Subdivision Line turns southeast along the south side of ONT and the north side of Mission Avenue. Metrolink’s Riverside County Line runs on the southern tracks, and the Amtrak Sunset Limited runs on the northern tracks. The rail line that traverses north of the City is Metrolink’s San Bernardino Line.
The Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad has trackage rights on that line.
Both UPRR tracks are grade separated at Mountain Avenue and Euclid Avenue in the western part of the City. The northern tracks are grade separated at Grove Avenue, Vineyard Avenue, Archibald Avenue, Haven Avenue, and Milliken Avenue. The southern tracks are grade separated at Grove Avenue, Haven Avenue, and Milliken Avenue.
Existing Transit Facilities
Bus Transit
Omnitrans Transit Agency provides local transit service throughout San Bernardino County, including Ontario. Omnitrans provides countywide bus service and currently has 5 bus routes in the City that provide connections between rail stations, ONT, major employment and shopping centers, and residential areas.
Transit routes and transfer centers are shown on Figure 3.17-2, Public Transit Plan. There are 3 transfer centers in Ontario. The first is at the Civic Center on Sultana, between Holt and D; the second is at the Ontario Mills Mall; and the third is at ONT. Omnitrans provides connections to other regional bus services such as Foothill Transit, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Agency, and others.
Rail Facilities
Metrolink
Commuter train service in the City of Ontario is provided by Metrolink, which operates 6 commuter rail lines throughout southern California. The Riverside County Line runs between Los Angeles Union Station and downtown Riverside on Mondays through Fridays between 4:30 am and 8:00 pm, passing through Ontario. There is no Metrolink service on this line on Saturdays or Sundays. There is one Metrolink station in Ontario, off of Haven Avenue on Francis Street. This station is served by Omnitrans Bus Route 81. The Metrolink San Bernardino line is less than a mile north of the northern City limit of Ontario. Nearby stations on this line are at Milliken Avenue and Campus Avenue.
2947
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 12
Amtrak
Amtrak has one route that regularly stops in Ontario, the Sunset Limited route, which travels between Los Angeles and New Orleans, Louisiana. The Amtrak stop in Ontario is near the Ontario transfer center on Emporia and Lemon (about one block from Holt and Sultana). This service arrives and departs on Sunday, Wednesday, and Friday.
Existing Bicycle Facilities
There are 4 bicycle facility classifications recognized by the City of Ontario:
Class I Bikeways (Bike Paths). Class I bicycle facilities are bicycle trails or paths that are offstreet and separated from automobiles. They are a minimum of 8 feet in width for two-way travel and include bike lane signage and designated street crossings where needed. A Class I Bike Path may parallel a roadway (within the parkway) or may be a completely separate right-of-way that meanders through a neighborhood or along a flood control channel or utility right-of-way.
Class II Bikeways (Bike Lanes). Class II bicycle facilities are striped lanes that provide bike travel and can be located next to either a curb or parking lane. If next to a curb, a minimum width of 5 feet is recommended;. however, a bike lane adjacent to a parking lane can be 4 feet in width. Bike lanes are exclusively for the use of bicycles and include bike lane signage, special lane lines, and pavement markings. A painted buffer can also be added to provide additional separation between motorists and cyclists.
Class III Bikeways (Bike Routes). Class III Bikeways are streets providing for shared use by motor vehicles and bicyclists. While bicyclists have no exclusive use or priority, signage both by the side of the street and stenciled on the roadway surface alerts motorists to bicyclists sharing the roadway space and denotes that the street is an official bike route.
Class IV Bikeways (Cycle Tracks). Class IV bicycle facilities, sometimes called cycle tracks or separated bikeways, provide a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway and are protected from vehicular traffic via vertical separations (e.g., grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, on-street parking). California Assembly Bill 1193 (AB 1193) legalized and established design standards for Class IV bikeways in 2015. ■
■
■
■
2948
- --------c-1w_oF_- + ---~r-- I
I
1 ---111
E..f§i'G"j!fr,j!i:s~"'l'I"~ - - - - - - - - - - - @FrY·0F---RAN6HO -- UPLAND - w •• \ CUCAMONGA ii l--iiiiiiiiiiiiiii------ -;;;;;;;;;;a~~ .. _j ~
W FOURTH ST
w
~
2 w
> 1
w w > > < <
< V,
w
~
0 a:
~ w
z
\
--- ------ - - -=-.. J ,..
I
I
CITY OF
MONTCLAIR
z
0 1-
z
<
~ z ~ W G ST ;;!;
e z 3
<!J ~ ~
_,
'"' :::)
I V,
:::) > a.
~ z
< u I
'
'
··-··-··i
~ ~ ~- < ~ i z 9 ~ "' z z E G ST
z z :::)
~ W DST E D ST
[:1 z '-,....L----~-----"'!"'--+---------:---E.aH@l!oT- AV,E..., ---~------- ..
•· ,.J W M ISSION BLVD
I
I l <(
~ W PHILLIPS ST
,1j ::; E INIAND EMPIRE BLVD ~
:t: ::., ~~ -=:III!P:.~- --.::::=:s=:=.=a=<!i·===----------==~i=====-=eiii?ll-E------==--=~ @ f ~ ~ I I <1 • z 2
z • I 'ii:t::::1====•1·--·-·--··· I
E SANTA ANA ST I
w
> 'i!
~
CITY OF
FONTANA
'--·· z ~ -·r.. I ~ ~
_.,_J t_ ~ i ! i
w
~
E JURl'.JPA ST e
z
<(
~
~ UJ
~
~ :::i <(u J i ~ Vl ~ ~ W PHILADFI PH IA ST ~ E PHILADELPHIA ST 5 -.-1, .-•I~ V, =-=-=====i so\=---J~.!=..---~ r--1--~-------=-:===-=-=---;.;....=-...... ------==~--
CITY OF CHINO
w
> 0
a:
L?
E SCHAEFER AVE
E RIVERSIDE DR
E CHINO AV[
w
> <
a:
w
z
a:
:::)
IV,
w
> < >
C
_,
<(
cc
:i:
u
a:
<
V,
·--------._ __________ / ONTARIO RA
0 NCH RD
t--.... ------E--E-©IS@N• AV,E- - .
E EUCALYPTUS AVE
I
w
I
> 1
a: "" z
~
..:
:E
I
1 .J
••-••-•••ME,R·Rli.,L-AV{-••-.. -••1
--~-
_.,,,.,. .. .,,,.,. EASTVALE
'\ .,
\.
L .. --··
w
_,
_,
> w
z
w
L?
~ z
>
I I County of c San Bernardino IJ._1,_,,.......,.._11~-•1-,1 County of Riverside
JURUPA VALLEY
3.17 TRAFFIC
Figure 3.1 7-2
Public Transit Plan
[. ') County Boundary
[. ') Ontario City Boundary
Railroad
Transit Centers
E] Existing Bus Transfer Center
@ Existing Metrolink Station
Amtrak Station/Proposed Metrolink Station
@ Future Multimodal Transportation Center
- BRT Corridor
- • Metro Goldline Extension
Metrolink Line
• • • Ontario Airport Loop
2·0·5·0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
2,500 5,000
Source: The City of Ontario 2020
FT
10,000
Date: 1/5/26
2949
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 14
This page intentionally left blank.
2950
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -15
SPECIFIC PLAN
The existing roadway system, truck routes, transit service, and pedestrian facilities in the EBPSP study area are described below.
Existing Circulation System
State Route 60 (SR-60) is located approximately 2.2 miles north of the Specific Plan area and is accessible via the Grove Avenue on- and off-ramps. State Route 83 (SR-83) is located approximately 0.5 miles west of the Specific Plan area and is accessible via Ontario Ranch Road and Eucalyptus Avenue. Interstate 15 (I-15) is located approximately 4.5 miles east of the Specific Plan area and is accessible via the Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road on- and offramps or the Limonite Avenue on- and off- ramps.
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 access through the Specific Plan area in the north-south orientation.
Existing Truck Routes
Current City-designated truck routes within the Specific Plan area include Ontario Ranch Road, and Merrill Avenue in an east/west orientation, and Euclid Avenue and Archibald Avenue in a north/south orientation.
Existing Transit Services
The City of Ontario is currently served by Omnitrans, a public transit agency serving various jurisdictions within San Bernardino County. The following bus and transit facilities are located near the Specific Plan area:
Omnitrans Bus Route 83, located approximately 0.6 miles to the west along Euclid Avenue.
Omnitrans Bus Route 87, located approximately 1.8 miles to the north along Riverside Drive.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
There are limited pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area. Field observations indicated light pedestrian and bicycle activity in the area. ■
■
2951
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 16
3.17.3 Standards for Analysis
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to transportation if it would:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
d) Result in inadequate emergency access.
THRESHOLD GUIDANCE
VMT Thresholds
“City of Ontario Resolution Adopting Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds” (June 2020) outlines the methodology for VMT assessment for land use projects and defines adopted thresholds of significance for impact assessment, as shown below. This transportation impact assessment compares VMT generated by the Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP (proposed project) to VMT generated by the current TOP 2050 (approved project), reviewing total VMT and per capita VMT to provide a comprehensive assessment.
The Ontario thresholds of significance for use as part of the environmental review process under CEQA, as defined in the City’s VMT Impact Thresholds, are defined for General Plans and Specific Plans. The thresholds of significance are:
Project Threshold: Origin Destination (OD) Method VMT/SP. Any increase in the citywide average VMT per service population (VMT/SP) of the proposed project compared to the current TOP 2050 (approved project) would be considered a significant impact.
Cumulative Impact: Boundary Method Total VMT. Any increase in the total citywide daily VMT of the proposed project calculated using the Boundary Method compared to the current TOP (approved project) would be considered a significant impact. ■
■
2952
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -17
Multimodal Facility Impacts
A significant impact would occur to transit, bicycle, and/or pedestrian facilities if the project would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
METHODOLOGY
Policy Plan Amendment
The San Bernardino Traffic Analysis Model Plus (SBTAM+) was utilized to estimate VMT for the proposed project. The model has an updated base year land use that reflects a 2019 base year and a 2050 future year, consistent with the 2024 SCAG RTP/SCS. The future year land use datasets and roadway network in Ontario were updated to be consistent with a 2050 future year that reflects the buildout of the current TOP 2050 (approved project) and the proposed project, which includes all land use changes associated with the Policy Plan Amendment, including the EBPSP. Table 3.17-1, Approved TOP 2050 VMT, and Table 3.17-2, Proposed Project VMT, show the VMT of the approved project and proposed project, respectively, using 3 VMT methodologies (described below)—Project/Attraction (PA) VMT for informational purposes; VMT using the Origin-Destination (O-D) methodology for the Transportation (VMT/SP), Air Quality, Energy, GHG, and Noise sections; and Boundary method VMT to identify total VMT impacts under the City of Ontario VMT methodology.
Table 3.17-1 Approved TOP 2050 VMT
Scenario
Total Daily
VMT
VMT/Resident or
VMT/Employee VMT/SP
Origin-Destination VMT (Trucks + Autos) 27,526,298 — 38.74 Home-Based Production VMT (Residents) 5,087,850 12.37 — Home-Based-Work Attraction VMT (Employees) 6,551,999 21.90 — City Boundary VMT 11,416,710 — 16.07 Source: Appendix K1 (based on SBTAM+).
Note: The approved project scenario is based on a service population of 710,472 people (411,268 residents + 299,204 employees).
2953
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 18
Table 3.17-2 Proposed Project VMT
Scenario
Total Daily
VMT
VMT/Resident or
VMT/Employee VMT/SP
Origin-Destination VMT (Trucks + Autos) 28,279,218 — 38.80 Home-Based Production VMT (Residents) 5,444,093 12.73 — Home-Based-Work Attraction VMT (Employees) 6,660,586 22.13 — City Boundary VMT 11,758,292 — 16.13
Source: Appendix K1 (based on SBTAM+).
Note: The proposed project scenario is based on a service population of 728,776 people (427,741 residents + 301,035 employees).
Production/Attraction VMT
The Production/Attraction (PA) method for calculating VMT sums all weekday VMT generated by trips with at least one trip end in the study area by trip purpose. The PA method tracks trips with at least one trip end in the analysis area to/from their ultimate destination unless that destination is outside of the model boundary area. Productions are land use types that generate trips (residences), and attractions are land use types that attract trips (employment).
Productions and attractions are converted from person trips to vehicle trips for the purposes of calculating VMT for transportation impacts.
The PA method allows project VMT to be evaluated based on trip purpose (e.g., commute VMT), which is consistent with the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation’s (LCI) recommendations in a Technical Advisory (LCI 2018). PA matrices do not include truck trips or external trips that have one trip end outside of the model boundary, and therefore do not include these trips in the VMT estimates. This is not consistent with the LCI’s recommendations, which suggest full accounting of VMT.
Origin-Destination VMT
The O-D method for calculating VMT sums all weekday VMT generated by trips with at least one trip end in the study area and tracks those trips to their estimated origins/destinations within the model boundary. The O-D method is completed after the final loops of assignment in the travel demand model (after person trips have been converted to total vehicle trips). Origins are all vehicle trips that start in a specific traffic analysis zone, and destinations are all vehicle trips that end in a specific traffic analysis zone. The O-D method accounts for external and truck trips and therefore provides a more complete estimate of all VMT in the study area. This 2954
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -19
methodology is used to estimate VMT for the Air Quality, Noise, and Energy sections of this SEIR (see Appendix K1 for the Policy Plan Amendment and Appendix K2 for the EBPSP).2 Boundary Method VMT
The boundary method is the sum of all weekday VMT on a roadway network within a designated boundary. Boundary method VMT estimates VMT by multiplying the number of trips on each roadway segment by the length of that segment. This approach uses all trips, including those that do not begin or end in the designated boundary, and is another way to summarize VMT. This is the only VMT method that captures the effect of cut-through and/or displaced traffic. The boundary used in the VMT assessment is the Ontario city limits.
Specific Plan
The traffic modeling and forecasting was performed following the City’s TIA Guidelines. SBTAM+ was utilized to estimate VMT for the analysis scenarios. The SBTAM+ roadway network and socio-economic data within the City of Ontario were updated to be consistent with TOP, for the horizon year 2050. Outside of the City of Ontario, this model assumes datasets consistent with the 2024 SCAG Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) with a base year of 2019 and future year of 2050.
Socio-Economic Assumptions
The EBPSP site spans the southern half of two separate Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) (53653201 and 53669101). Socio-Economic Data (SED) was isolated into one TAZ (53653201) to ensure the overlapping residential-based uses (isolated into the other TAZ [53669101]) would not influence the EBPSP-level VMT assessments. Furthermore, the Policy Plan Amendment land use changes were also coded in the model to represent the With EBPSP conditions. SBTAM+ SED inputs include total change in forecasted households, residents, and employment that represent the No EBPSP and With EBPSP conditions.
Truck Forecasting and Model Post-Processing
While SBTAM+ is identified as the preferred tool to forecast VMT for transportation impact analyses, there are some limitations of the model that were accounted for following the model runs to improve accuracy and best reflect the EBPSP. Specifically, the truck model within SBTAM+ was overwritten to best reflect the detailed truck trip generation, distribution and 2 The air quality, energy, and GHG analyses also account for the recommendations of CARB’s Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC). Under the RTAC methodology, 100 percent of internal-to-internal trips and 50 percent of internal-to-external or external-to-internal trips are accounted for. RTAC forecasts are included in Appendix K1 (see Table 7, RTAC VMT Forecasts).
2955
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 20
assignment forecast that was prepared as part of the EBPSP Traffic Study Scoping Agreement (2025), which was determined as the most appropriate representation of the EBPSP.
In addition to the truck assignment, EBPSP truck VMT from SBTAM+ was reviewed to ensure that truck trip lengths accurately reflect the heavy vehicle distribution origins and destinations.
EBPSP truck trip lengths estimated in SBTAM+ were compared against statewide averages and were found to be underrepresenting truck VMT. Therefore, truck trip lengths were overwritten with City average truck trip length data extracted from the California Statewide Freight model to best estimate truck VMT.
As the EBPSP truck assignment was applied during post-processing, so was the accounting of the new City-wide truck routes. The net change in VMT was adjusted for trucks and autos between the future year no EBPSP truck routes and future year plus EBPSP truck routes. Since the latter prohibits trucks from operating along segments (i.e. Archibald Avenue between Merrill Avenue and SR-60, and Ontario Ranch Road Avenue between Euclid Avenue and Walker Avenue) trucks were rerouted, adding mileage to their journey. To calculate the net truck VMT increase, the total net increase in truck trips was multiplied by the average route net mileage increase for each route that would be impacted by the truck route prohibition. The auto backfill effect was calculated assuming one truck represents three Passenger Car Equivalents (PCE) at a 50 percent elasticity. Thus, auto trips would backfill onto more direct routes, now not allowable to trucks.
VMT Forecasts
VMT for the EBPSP using SBTAM+ is shown in Table 5.17-3, EBPSP VMT. Baseline EBPSP (year 2025) VMT was estimated by interpolating between VMT forecasted between the SBTAM+ base year model (year 2019) and future year model (year 2050). The City’s project-level and cumulative impact thresholds were then applied to appropriate metrics to understand the EBPSP’s effect on VMT.
2956
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -21
Table 3.17-3 EBPSP VMT
Scenario
Total
Daily VMT
VMT /
Employee VMT/SP
Year 2025
Origin-Destination VMT (Trucks + Autos) 134,223 — 84.43 Home-Based-Work Attraction VMT (Employees) 34,606 21.77 — City Boundary VMT 8,686,543 — 21.90
Year 2050
Origin-Destination VMT (Trucks + Autos) 132,565 — 83.39 Home-Based-Work Attraction VMT (Employees) 32,603 20.51 — City Boundary VMT 11,758,292 — 16.13
Source: Appendix K2.
Note: The EBPSP scenario is based on a service population of 1,590 people (0 residents and 1,590 employees).
EBPSP Traffic Impact Analysis
While SB 743 eliminated auto delay, level of service, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the sole basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA, a Traffic Impact Analysis was conducted for the EBPSP and is included as Appendix K3 to this Draft SEIR.
The purpose of the traffic study is to evaluate the potential circulation system deficiencies that may result when the EBPSP is developed and where circulation system improvements are needed to maintain acceptable levels of service consistent with the City’s General Plan level of service goals and policies. The results of the level of service (LOS) assessments for both Opening Year (2031) and Horizon Year (2050) traffic conditions are also summarized in Table 1-4 of Appendix K3. The traffic study included transportation infrastructure improvements recommendations to maintain Consistency with TOP 2050 mobility policies (see Table 1-5 and Table 1-6 in Appendix K3) and on-site circulation recommendations to maintain site access and acceptable peak hour operations for the EBPSP, which will be included as Conditions of Approval for the Specific Plan (see also Exhibits 1-5, 1-6, and 1-7 in Appendix K3). 2957
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 22
3.17.4 Relevant New and Modified General Plan Policies
The proposed project includes modifications to the following TOP 2050 policies related to transportation.
M-1.9 Safe Systems Approach. Implement a Safe Systems Approach into roadway design, evaluating roadway safety holistically to account for human behavior, vulnerable road users, and infrastructure design.
M-1.10 Priority Safety Corridors. Identify roadways with a higher concentration of collisions and prioritize safety improvements to reduce collisions, with an emphasis on pedestrians, and bicyclists.
M-3.1 Transit Partners. We maintain a proactive working partnership with transit providers to ensure that adequate public transit service is available, cost-efficient, and convenient, particularly for residents in environmental justice areas, and within housing element strategy areas where sites suitable for lower-income housing development were identified in the sites inventory.
M-4.1 Truck Routes. We designate and maintain a network of City truck routes that provide for the safe and efficient transport of goods while minimizing negative impacts on local circulation and noise- and- vibration- sensitive land uses, as shown on Exhibit M-04, Truck Routes. We will minimize conflicts on truck routes through the design and implementation of buffers between travel lanes and pedestrian and bicycle facilities on designated truck routes.
3.17.5 Environmental Impacts
2022 CERTIFIED EIR
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project is consistent with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and the performance and safety of such facilities and would not combine with other area projects to result in significant impacts to such facilities. Impacts associated with alternative transportation policies were identified as a less-than-significant impact. The Certified EIR identified that the approved project’s impacts on emergency response and evacuation are less than significant. The Certified EIR identified that the Mobility Element adequately addresses potentially hazardous conditions (sharp curves, etc.), potential conflicting uses, and emergency access.
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would result in a significant cumulative impact for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a result of a substantial increase in population in the City. The Certified EIR includes Mitigation Measure TRA-1-PP (former MM T-1), which requires ■
■
■
■
2958
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -23
discretionary projects in the City to demonstrate compliance with the City’s VMT Guidelines; however, cumulative impacts were identified as a significant and unavoidable impact of the approved project.
PROPOSED PROJECT
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? The Certified EIR found that the recommended circulation plan of the approved project would comply with adopted policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation. The proposed project includes additional goals and policies to address alternative transportation systems.
Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning, includes a consistency analysis with SCAG’s Connect SoCal.
Policy Plan Amendment
The Policy Plan Amendment includes an update to the City network of truck routes to comply with AB 98. In addition, the Policy Plan Amendment includes minor updates to the City’s multipurpose trails and bikeways, as shown on Figure 5.17-3, Multipurpose Trails & Bikeway Corridor Plan. Transit
The proposed project does not include any changes to the Public Transit Plan as included in TOP 2050 (see Figure 3.17-2, Public Transit). The Public Transit Plan would continue to focus on providing efficient connectivity and integration via coordinated bus transfer centers and multimodal terminals. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with or obstruct the implementation and usage of transit.
Nonmotorized Transportation
The proposed project would include minor updates to multipurpose trails and bikeways, as shown in Figure 3.17-3. The minor updates would not change any existing policies on nonmotorized transportation as included in TOP 2050. The updates to the multipurpose trails and bikeways would be a result of the updates to the truck network and would better align the trails and bikeways in the City. Therefore, implementation of proposed project would not interfere with or obstruct the implementation and usage of nonmotorized transportation.
Connect SoCal
TOP 2050 is consistent with Connect SoCal, as shown in Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning. The goals of the RTP/SCS focus on transit, transportation and mobility, and protection of the environment and health of residents.
2959
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 24
The proposed project is broadly consistent with the spirit of this plan because it encourages denser growth and more housing opportunities within a planned urban area and near existing and proposed transit, which is essential to the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Key goals and policies of the plan related to transportation were reviewed to verify consistency:
Mobility goals and policies focus on system preservation and resilience, complete streets, transit and multimodal integration, transportation system management, transportation demand management, technology integration, safety, and funding the system/user fees. The land use changes associated with the Policy Plan Amendment do not propose any transportation policies or conditions that would conflict with any of these policies. There is no proposal to expand roadways or any element that would conflict with regional transportation investment strategies. Lastly, the proposed truck routes aim to remove truck routes nearest to sensitive receptors, which tend to be areas of higher pedestrian activity, therefore resulting in improved safety. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with SCAG’s mobility goals and policies.
Communities goals and policies focus on Priority Development Areas, housing in the region, 15-minute communities, and equitable engagement and decision-making. The proposed project increases housing density and results in an increase in housing in Ontario, which is in sync with these goals and objectives. The proposed project also promotes “15-minute communities” as places with a mix of complementary land uses and accessible mobility options that align with and support the diversity of places (or communities) across the region. The proposed project supports the previous goals of TOP 2050 that promote accessibility and affordability to vulnerable communities. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with SCAG’s community goals and policies.
Environment goals and policies focus on sustainable development, air quality, clean transportation, natural and agricultural lands preservation, and climate resilience. The proposed truck routes (see Figure 2-9 in Chapter 2, Project Description) minimizes the number of people exposed to emissions along the City’s truck routes, thereby promoting local and regional efforts to improve air quality for vulnerable populations and sensitive receptors (as defined by AB 98 and SB 415). The land use changes associated with the Policy Plan Amendment do not propose any change to the transportation system or planning that would conflict with environmental policies. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with SCAG’s environmental goals and policies. ■
■
■
2960
CITY OF
MONTCLAIR
r
CITY OF
UPLAND
L ---- ..,..,._ ,w ---
~ W FOURTH ST o ~ --•illlli..,z -T- <
----- -~ -,-- § - ... - liliilii '•~ -..J- l ~
_.. ___ z_._.._ia!:""'~-
z ---- · .!l,....;.;,~;;.;... ... ~i- --.:.,,
w
~
z
0 VI
z
w
cc
VI
I
I
rt
l z
I -,.- ---r - .....
W MISS-ION BLVD I
UJ
~ W PHIL
z
~z I ..., I ~ ~ I
~ o I
VI z I
w
'T" ST ! l
W PHILA0ELPHIA ST ~
CITY OF CHINO
E El~HTH ST
I
w _ __ ,
~ \
' \
I
r - .. - _,_ - - - - E- HOLT AVE
.J
I
I
wl UJ I
~ · ~ f < I .,, I ~z l ~ I
. ~ ~ . < VI U
.,,I VI
I
- -- E PHILADELPH li ST
_______ ,.
'
CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
E FOURTH ST
-
w
~
2 w
~ :c:
z I
I
I I
I I
I I I
-------~~-~------~~-~
VI
EASTVALE
---
EMPIRE BLVD
E SANTA ANA ST
E JURUPA ST
----
VI
CITY OF
FONTANA
County of
San Bernardino
County ol Riverside
JURUPA VALLEY
3.17 TRAFFIC
Figure 3.17-3
Multipurpose Trails & Bikeway
Corridor Plan
I.. ·1 Ontario City Boundary
I.. "I County Boundary
Rail Network
Existing Trail & Bike Network
- Multipurpose Trail / Bike Path (Class I)
Bike Lane (Class 11)
Bike Route (Class 111)
Proposed Trail & Bike Network
- - • Multipurpose Trail / Bike Path (Class I)
Bike Lane (Class 11)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class II)
• Bike Lane (Class 11}/Bike Route (Class Ill)
- - - Bike Boulevard (Class 111)
Bike Route (Class 111)
• - - • Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)
Additional Studies Required
2·0·5·0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
0 0 2,500 5,000
Source: The City of Ontario 2026
FT
10,000
Date: 2/27/2026
2961
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 26
This page intentionally left blank.
2962
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -27
Economy goals and policies focus on goods movement, broadband, universal basic mobility, workforce development, and tourism. The proposed truck routes (see Figure 2-9) prioritize environmental justice concerns by limiting exposure of sensitive receptors. The focused higher density of the Policy Plan Amendment, specifically in Ontario Ranch, broadens safe and efficient access to a range of mobility services that improve connections to jobs, education, and basic services. The proposed land use changes associated with the Policy Plan Amendment do not propose any change to the transportation system or planning that would conflict with economic policies. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with SCAG’s economy goals and policies.
Summary
As described above, the proposed project supports Connect SoCal 2024’s VMT-reduction goals.
The proposed project would not result in a new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts related to consistency with transit, bicycle, and pedestrian plans compared to the approved project. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Specific Plan
Circulation system and mobility plans and policies applicable to the EBPSP include SCAG’s Connect SoCal, San Bernardino County CMP, and the City of Ontario Policy Plan Mobility Element. An analysis of the EBPSP’s potential to conflict with these plans is presented below.
SCAG 2024-2050 RTP/SCS
SCAG’s Connect SoCal seeks to improve mobility, promote sustainability, facilitate economic development, and preserve the quality of life for the residents in the region. Table 3.11-1, Policy Plan Amendment Consistency with SCAG Connect SoCal, presented in Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning, of this SEIR, addresses the Specific Plan’s consistency with SCAG’s Connect SoCal.
As shown, the EBPSP would not conflict with any applicable 2024-2050 Connect SoCal policies.
The Specific Plan would contribute to a safe, multimodal network and would include roadway improvements to accommodate site access. Consistency with Connect SoCal illustrates consistency with goals set forth for the region. As demonstrated, implementation of the EBPSP would not conflict with the goals and policies of SCAG’s regional planning program.
San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan
The intent of the CMP is to provide the analytical basis for transportation decisions. Although implementation of the CMP was made voluntary by the passage of AB 2419, the CMP requirement has been retained in all 5 urban counties within the SCAG region. The goals of the San Bernardino County CMP are to:
■
2963
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 28
Goal 1. Maintain or enhance the performance of the multimodal transportation system and minimize travel delay.
Goal 2. Assist in focusing available transportation funding on cost-effective responses to subregional and regional transportation needs.
Goal 3. Provide for technical consistency in multimodal transportation system analysis.
Goal 4. Help to coordinate development and implementation of subregional transportation strategies across jurisdictional boundaries.
Goal 5. Anticipate the impacts of proposed new development on the multimodal transportation system, provide consistent procedures to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures and provide for adequate funding of mitigations.
Goal 6. Promote air quality and improve mobility through implementation of land use and transportation alternatives or incentives that reduce both vehicle trips and miles traveled and vehicle emissions.
EBPSP would not impede the ability to maintain or enhance the performance of the multimodal transportation system. The EBPSP would include roadway improvements to serve internal circulation needs and minimize impacts to travel delay. None of the proposed roadway improvements would interfere with existing or potential future improvements to the County’s multimodal transportation system. The EBPSP would participate in the City’s Development Impact Fee program, which is coordinated with regional planning efforts to meet regional transportation needs and to provide for adequate funding of mitigation for impacts of new development, consistent with the CMP. The CMP System LOS Element and Performance Measures Element also contain LOS standards for CMP designated highways and roadways, which are reflected in the Traffic Analysis prepared for the EBPSP (SEIR Appendix K3).
Accordingly, the Specific Plan would not conflict with the San Bernardino County CMP.
City of Ontario Policy Plan Mobility Element
Table 3.11-3, EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis, presented in Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning, of this SEIR, addresses the Specific Plan’s consistency with the City of Ontario Policy Plan Mobility Element. Consistency with the City’s Mobility Element illustrates consistency with transportation goals set forth for the City. As demonstrated, implementation of the EBPSP would not conflict with the goals and policies of City of Ontario Policy Plan Mobility Element.
The EBPSP would also be consistent with the City-wide Active Transportation Master Plan, aiding in the development of planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 2964
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -29
Summary
As demonstrated above, the Specific Plan would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system. 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.
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
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.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant transportation impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts not already previously disclosed. No mitigation is required.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Policy Plan Amendment
Table 3.17-4, VMT Comparison of Policy Plan Amendment to the TOP 2050, shows the results of the VMT impact assessment for both the project-level and cumulative VMT analysis. A significant impact would occur if the project VMT/SP (for the land use plan) exceeds the citywide average for service population under general plan buildout conditions. The project increases Origin-Destination VMT/SP (OD VMT/SP) and therefore would result in a significant transportation impact. For the cumulative scenario, a significant impact would occur if the project caused total daily VMT in the City to be higher than the no-project alternative under cumulative conditions. Since there would be a net increase in total citywide VMT associated with the proposed project (i.e., cumulative: City boundary VMT), the proposed project is also anticipated to result in a significant cumulative VMT impact. 2965
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 30
Table 3.17-4 VMT Comparison of Policy Plan Amendment to the TOP 2050 Scenario
TOP 2050
(Approved
Project)
Proposed
Project Difference Significant
Project-Level: O-D Method (VMT/SP) 38.74 38.80 0.06 Yes Cumulative: City Boundary VMT 11,416,710 11,758,292 341,582 Yes Source: Appendix K1.
The following are relevant policies of TOP 2050 that may contribute to reducing potential transportation impacts as a result of implementation of the proposed project. They include VMT-reducing policies, such as land use planning policies that shorten trips between where people live, work, shop and recreate, and bicycle, pedestrian, and transit policies that increase mobility options and reduce dependency on automobiles.
LU-1.1 Strategic Growth. We concentrate growth in strategic locations that help create place and identify, maximize available and planned infrastructure, and foster the development of transit.
LU-1.2 Sustainable Community Strategy. We integrate state, regional and local Sustainable Community/Smart Growth principles into the development and entitlement process.
LU-1.4 Mobility. We require development and urban design, where appropriate, that reduces reliance on the automobile and capitalizes on multi-modal transportation opportunities. (Refer to Mobility Element Policy M3-3)
CD-2.5 Streetscapes. We design new and, when necessary, retrofit existing streets to improve walkability, bicycling, and transit integration, to strengthen connectivity, and enhance community identity through improvements to the public right of way such as sidewalks, street trees, parkways, curbs, street lighting, and street furniture.
CD-2.6 Connectivity. We promote development of street patterns and pedestrian networks that create and unify neighborhoods, rather than divide them, and create cohesive and continuous corridors, rather than independent “islands” through the following means (Link to Mobility): 1) Local street patterns that provide access between subdivisions, within a neighborhood and discourage through traffic; 2) A local street system that is logical and understandable for the user. A grid system is preferred to avoid circuitous and confusing travel paths between internal neighborhood areas and adjacent arterials; and 3) Neighborhoods, centers, public schools, and parks that are linked by pedestrian greenways/open space networks. These may also be used to establish clear boundaries between distinct neighborhoods and/or centers.
■
■
■
■
■
2966
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -31
CD-3.1 Design. We require that pedestrian, vehicular, bicycle, and equestrian circulation on both public and private property be coordinated and designed to maximize safety, comfort, and aesthetics.
CD-3.2 Connectivity Between Streets, Sidewalks, Walkways, and Plazas. We require landscaping and paving to be used to optimize visual connectivity between streets, sidewalks, walkways, and plazas for pedestrians.
CD-3.4 Ground Floor Usage of Commercial Buildings. We create lively pedestrian streetscapes by requiring the location of uses, such as shopping, galleries, restaurants, etc., on ground floors adjacent to sidewalks.
CD-3.7 Transit Stops. We require transit stops be well lit, safe, appealing to, and accessible by pedestrians.
CE-1.12 Circulation. We continuously plan and improve public transit and non-vehicular circulation for the mobility of all, including those with limited or no access to private automobiles. (Refer to Mobility Public Transit)
M-1.4 Complete Streets. We work to provide a balanced context sensitive, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods and users of public transportation. We prioritize implementation of complete streets improvements in environmental justice areas to facilitate opportunities for residents to use active transportation systems.
M-1.6 Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. We will strive to reduce VMT through a combination of land use, transportation projects, and travel demand management strategies in coordination with development projects and public capital improvement projects.
M-2.1 Active Transportation. We maintain our Active Transportation Master Plan to create a comprehensive system of on-and off-street bikeways and pedestrian facilities that is safe, comfortable, accessible, and connect residential areas, businesses, schools, parks, and other key destination points.
M-2.2 Bicycle System. We provide off-street multipurpose trails and Class II bikeways as our primary paths of travel and use the Class III for connectivity in constrained circumstances.
When truck routes and bicycle facilities share a right of way we prefer Class I or Class IV bicycle facilities. We require new development to include bicycle facilities, such as bicycle parking and secure storage areas.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2967
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 32
M-2.3 Pedestrian Walkways. We require streets to include sidewalks and visible crosswalks to promote safe and comfortable mobility between residential areas, businesses, schools, parks, recreation areas, and other key destination points. (Link to Community Design CD3-1) M-2.4 Network Opportunities. We use public rights of way and easements such as, utility easements, levees, drainage corridors, road rights-of-way, medians, and other potential options to maintain and expand our bicycle and pedestrian network.
M-3.1 Transit Partners. We maintain a proactive working partnership with transit providers to ensure that adequate public transit service is available, cost-efficient, and convenient, particularly for residents in environmental justice areas.
M-3.2 Alternative Transit Facilities at New Development. We require new development adjacent to an existing or planned transit stop to contribute to the creation of transit facilities, such as bus shelters, transit bays and turnouts, and bicycle facilities, such as secure storage areas.
M-3.3 Transit-Oriented Development. We may provide additional development-related incentives to those inherent in the Land Use Plan for projects that promote transit use and reduce vehicle miles traveled.
M-3.4 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Corridors. We work with regional transit agencies to implement BRT service and reduce vehicle miles traveled by targeting destinations and corridors with the highest number of potential riders.
M-3.5 Light Rail. We support the extension of the Metro Rail Gold Line to Ontario and will work to secure station locations adjacent to the Meredith site and at the proposed multimodal transit center.
M-3.6 Metrolink Expansion. We advocate expansion of Metrolink service to include the Downtown and the multimodal transit center.
M-3.7 High-Speed Rail. We encourage the development of high-speed rail systems that would enhance regional mobility in southern California and serve the City of Ontario.
M-3.8 Feeder Systems. We work with regional transit agencies to secure convenient feeder service from the Metrolink station and the proposed multimodal transit center to employment centers in Ontario.
M-3.9 Ontario Airport Metro Center Circulator. We will explore the development of a convenient mobility system, including but not limited to shuttle service, people mover, and shared car system for the Ontario Airport Metro Center. ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2968
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -33
M-3.10 Multimodal Transit Center. We intend to ensure the development of a multimodal transit center near ONT airport to serve as a transit hub with amenities for transit riders, pedestrians, and bicyclists transitioning to local buses, BRT, the Gold Line, high-speed rail, the proposed Ontario Airport Metro Center circulator, and other future transit modes. We support locations for the multimodal transportation center that are within the Ontario Airport Metro Center Growth Area.
M-3.11 Transit and Community Facilities. We require the future development of community-wide serving facilities to be sited in transit-ready areas that can be served and made accessible by public transit. Conversely, we plan (and coordinate with other transit agencies to plan) future transit routes to serve existing community facilities.
While these policies and measures could help reduce VMT in the City, the applicability of these mitigations would be dependent on the significance and context of the impact. As a result, these measures are not anticipated to reduce the impact of increased VMT/SP (project level) or increased total VMT (cumulative) below the City’s VMT thresholds. Therefore, the VMT impact is considered potentially significant. The Certified EIR identified less than significant impacts under the OD method (project-level) and significant impacts under the Boundary method (cumulative). The proposed project would result in a new project-level impact compared to the approved project. However, the proposed project would not result in a new or a substantial increase in magnitude of cumulative VMT compared to that identified in the Certified EIR.
Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant.
Specific Plan
The Origin-Destination (O-D) and Boundary VMT forecasts for the EBPSP project scenarios are shown in Table 3.17-5, VMT Comparison of the EBPSP to TOP 2050. Baseline (year 2025) VMT was estimated by interpolating between VMT forecasted between the SBTAM+ base year model (year 2019) and future year model (year 2050). This table compares the EBPSP O-D VMT/SP to the applicable threshold. A significant impact would occur if the EBPSP VMT/SP exceeds the Citywide average for Service Population under TOP 2050 Buildout Conditions. This table also compares the EBPSP’s cumulative VMT to the applicable threshold. A significant impact would occur if the EBPSP caused total daily VMT within the City to be higher than the No EBPSP alternative under cumulative conditions.
As shown in the table, the EBPSP would exceed the Citywide average for Service Population under TOP 2050 buildout conditions. Additionally, the total daily Citywide boundary VMT increases with the EBPSP. The Specific Plan is dominated by land uses that would potentially draw employees, visitors, and deliveries from a wide regional area rather than from nearby neighborhoods. As a result, many trips to and from the site could begin and end far from the Specific Plan area, which increases the miles traveled per trip. In addition, the area’s current development pattern and limited non-auto travel options mean most travel occurs by vehicle, ■
■
2969
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 34
and truck routing considerations can further extend travel distances by directing trucks to indirect routes. Further, because the EBPSP is employment-focused, the amount of vehicle travel associated with the site is spread over a smaller “service population,” which can make the VMT efficiency metric appear especially high.
Table 3.17-5 VMT Comparison of EBPSP to TOP 2050
Scenario
Citywide
(Approved
Project)
Year 2025 Scenario Year 2050 Scenario
EBPSP Significant EBPSP Significant
Project-Level:
O-D Method (VMT/SP)
38.74 84.43 Yes 83.39 Yes
Cumulative:
City Boundary VMT
11,416,710 8,686,543 No 11,758,292 Yes
Source: Appendix K1.
It is also noted that many of the EBPSP design features act to implement the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA)-recommended measures to reduce VMT, including:
CAPCOA Measure T-33 – Locate Project near Bike Path/Bike Lane. The Specific Plan area is located within a planned grid of multipurpose trails and bikeways, including proposed Class II bike lanes along Eucalyptus Avenue and parallel east–west streets, and proposed Class I multipurpose trail corridors on multiple north–south streets adjacent to the site. This integration with the City’s bikeway system is consistent with the intent of CAPCOA Measure T-33 and is expected to reduce EBPSP-generated VMT when compared to a similar employment project without such bikeway access. The dense spacing of planned Class I and Class II facilities around the site shortens bicycle travel distances to nearby residential neighborhoods and services, supports mode shift away from single-occupant vehicles, and therefore contributes to a net reduction in VMT per employee. While CAPCOA does not provide a specific, empirically derived VMT reduction factor for T-33, the EBPSP’s location and design clearly implement this measure and are reasonably expected to result in incremental VMT reductions.
CAPCOA Measure T-18 – Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements. The EBPSP includes a non-vehicular circulation system with continuous sidewalks, marked crossings, and pedestrian connections linking each Planning Area to Eucalyptus Avenue, New Public Street “A” and connections to parks and open space areas. These facilities are designed to provide direct, comfortable, and safe walking routes between building entries, parking areas, park areas, and nearby streets, which improves the practicality of walk trips for employees and visitors. By making it easier to walk within the site and to connect to adjacent uses, the EBPSP supports the shift away from drive alone vehicle trips for short commute, lunch, and ■
■
2970
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -35
other discretionary trips. As a result, the proposed pedestrian network is expected to reduce EBPSP-generated VMT compared to a comparable industrial project without these pedestrian improvements. CAPCOA Measure T-18 includes an empirical formula for estimating VMT reductions from enhanced pedestrian infrastructure; however, to maintain a conservative analysis and avoid introducing additional uncertainty related to input assumptions, the analysis does not quantify a numerical T-18 reduction. Instead, the VMT benefits of the EBPSP pedestrian improvements are acknowledged qualitatively.
CAPCOA Measure T-19 – Construct or Improve Bike Facility. Consistent with the intent of T33, the EBPSP’s non-vehicular circulation (sidewalks, multi-purpose trails, and Class II bikeways) is designed to directly connect employees and visitors to the City’s planned bikeway network identified in the General Plan. By tying each Planning Area to Eucalyptus Avenue and New Public Street “A,” which in turn connect to the broader system of Class I and Class II facilities in the Ontario Ranch area, the EBPSP provides a continuous, safe, and attractive bicycle and pedestrian network between surrounding neighborhoods and employment uses. This integrated network shortens trip distances for nearby residents, makes bicycle and walking trips a viable substitute for drive alone trips (particularly for commute, lunch, and other short discretionary trips), and is therefore expected to reduce VMT relative to a comparable industrial project without such facilities. CAPCOA Measure T19-A does include an empirical formula for estimating VMT reductions; however, to maintain a conservative analysis and avoid introducing additional uncertainty regarding input assumptions, the analysis does not quantify a numerical T-19-A reduction. Instead, the VMT benefits of the EBPSP’s network and its connections to the City bikeway system are acknowledged qualitatively.
CAPCOA Measure T-25 – Extend Transit Network Coverage. This measure will expand the local transit network by either adding or modifying existing transit service or extending the operation hours to enhance the service near a project area. Starting services earlier in the morning and/or extending services to late-night hours can accommodate the commuting times of alternative-shift workers. The EBPSP would construct a new bus stop along Grove Avenue at Eucalyptus Avenue to accommodate a future Omnitrans route serving the site and surrounding area. By providing a ready to use transit stop with appropriate frontage improvements, the EBPSP reduces the barriers for Omnitrans to implement or adjust service and shortens walk distances between employment uses and future transit. If a bus line is ultimately operated at this location, the stop would support a shift from drive alone commute and mid-day trips to transit, which would reduce VMT relative to a similar project without transit supportive infrastructure. However, because the decision to serve this stop and the level of future service are solely under the control of the transit agency and cannot be guaranteed, the analysis does not claim a quantitative VMT reduction under T-25. The VMT benefit of the constructed bus stop is therefore acknowledged qualitatively. ■
■
2971
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 36
As discussed above, CAPCOA Measures T-33, T-18, T-19-A, and T-25 are design features proposed as part of the EBPSP. Although no quantitative VMT reductions have been taken in the analysis, these features would implement CAPCOA measures aimed at reducing VMT. Despite these project design features of the EBPSP, the EBPSP would result in potentially significant project-level and cumulative VMT impacts. The Certified EIR identified less than significant impacts under the OD method (project-level) and significant impacts under the Boundary method (cumulative). The EBPSP would result in a new project-level impact compared to the approved project. However, the EBPSP would not result in a new or a substantial increase in magnitude of cumulative VMT compared to that identified in the Certified EIR.
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant.
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 projectlevel and cumulative VMT impacts.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The following mitigation measure was taken directly from the 2022 Certified EIR. Any modifications to the mitigation measure from the Certified EIR are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and underline for new, inserted text. The numbering of the mitigation measures has been updated for clarity, with the original mitigation number in the Certified EIR identified in parenthesis [Former MM].
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 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.
■
2972
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -37
Construct or Improve Bike Facilities: constructing new or enhancing a single existing Class I, II or IV bike facility that connects to a larger bike network.
Construct or Improve Bike Boulevards: implementing a Class III bike boulevard on a local or collector street that is one travel lane in each direction, has a design speed of 25 mph or less and a design volume of 5,000 ADT or less.
Expand Bikeway Networks: constructing a network of interconnected new Class I, II, or IV bike facilities.
Provide End of Trip Bicycle Facilities: constructing facilities that support cyclists such as bike parking, lockers, and showers.
Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments: funding infrastructure improvements such as traffic signal modifications and roadway signing and striping that are dedicated to improving transit travel times and reliability.
Transit Passes: proving discounted or free transit fare to a specific geographic area, population group, or to the general public.
Vanpool Program: providing groups of 5 to 15 people with direct shuttle service between their workplace and residence.
Carshare Program (conventional or EV): providing access to a shared fleet of on-demand vehicles for short-term use/rental. Best practice is to discount carshare membership and provide priority parking for carshare vehicles to encourage use of the service.
Bikeshare Program (conventional or EV): providing access to a shared fleet of on-demand bicycles for short-term use/rental. Best practice is to discount bikeshare membership and dedicate bikeshare parking to encourage use of the service.
Rideshare Program: providing access to and encouraging the use of a ridesharing platform or service. This could be an app, website, or other service that provides ride-matching coordination services.
Community-Based Travel Planning (CBTP): CBTP is a residential based approach to outreach, performed by trained advisors, that provides households within a targeted geographic area with customized information, ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2973
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 38
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
New Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would generate a substantial increase in VMT per service population and a substantial increase in total VMT compared to the approved project, resulting in significant project-level and cumulative VMT impacts. Mitigation Measure TRA-1-PPA [Former MM T-1] would be applied to the project to apply VMT reducing measures. Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would require that discretionary project provide a mitigation plans that identify TDM measures that would be required. The City requires pedestrian scale improvements at the time of project approval and maintains a Multipurpose Trails and Bikeway Corridor Plan as part of TOP 2050 to ensure a connected system of bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The City does not operate regional transit service. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are available to reduce project or cumulative VMT impacts of the proposed project.
Specific Plan
Consistent with Certified EIR measure MM TRA-1-PPA, a VMT Mitigation Strategy Assessment has been prepared for the EBPSP, and is provided as Appendix K2 of this SEIR. As presented therein, many potential measures are already incorporated into the design of the Specific Plan.
Specifically, the integration of the City’s bikeway system, the installation of pedestrian infrastructure, and the provision of a new transit stop all act to reduce VMT. Additionally, the EBPSP would be required to pay City Transportation Development Impact Fees which help fund Citywide circulation improvements. Additional reductions in VMT would be realized by the following measure:
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 ■
2974
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -39
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.
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.
Significance After Mitigation
Policy Plan Amendment
VMT/SP and total VMT would increase under the proposed project compared to the approved project. Mitigation Measure TRA-1-PPA would reduce potential impacts for future development projects to the extent feasible. Future development projects consistent with proposed project would need to consider transportation demand management (TDM) measures consistent with ■
■
■
■
2975
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 40
those identified in the Mobility Element. TDM techniques include incentives to use transit; incentives to form carpools rather than drive alone; and making home, work, and shopping closer together to shorten travel distances. Project-level and cumulative VMT impacts under the proposed project would remain. Therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Policy Plan Amendment Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
Specific Plan
VMT/SP and total VMT would increase under the EPBSP. Mitigation Measure TRA-1-SP, above, would reduce commute-related VMT by 7.2 percent. However, the City’s significance standard considers all trip types and does not isolate commute-related trips. Therefore, the 7.2 percent reduction applies only to a portion of the EBPSP’s total VMT and is not sufficient to fully mitigate the overall impact. Project-level and cumulative VMT impacts under the EBPSP would remain. Therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Specific Plan Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The 2022 Certified EIR found that circulation improvements under the recommended circulation plan would be designed to adequately address potential hazardous conditions, and potential conflicting uses.
Policy Plan Amendment
The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
The City of Ontario has adopted engineering standards to ensure consistency in the geometric design of their mobility facilities. Additionally, all plans undergo an extensive review process at the City to ensure consistency with these adopted standards. Given that all future projects will be subject to these reviews, this impact is less than significant. The proposed project would not result in a new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts related to safety hazards compared to the approved project
Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Specific Plan
Efficient and safe access within, and access to, the EBPSP land uses would be provided by the design concept, site access improvements, and site adjacent roadway improvements included as 2976
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -41
components of the Specific Plan. Driveways, on-site traffic signing and striping would be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the site. Sight distance at each access point would be reviewed to ensure conformance with City sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans.
Trucks accessing the Specific Plan area would be required to travel along City-designated truck routes. Mandatory use of truck routes would minimize potential conflicts between truck traffic and other motorized and non-motorized transportation modes.
The City of Ontario has adopted engineering standards to ensure consistency in the geometric design of their mobility facilities. All plans undergo an extensive review process at the City to ensure consistency with these adopted standards. Given that all future projects will be subject to these reviews, the EBPSP would be consistent with the City design standards.
The potential for the EBPSP to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses is considered 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.
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact TRA-3: The proposed project adequately addresses potentially hazardous conditions (sharp curves, etc.) and potential conflicting uses.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant transportation impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts not already previously disclosed. No mitigation is required.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The Certified EIR found that circulation improvements under the recommended circulation plan would be designed to adequately address inadequate emergency access. 2977
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 42
Policy Plan Amendment
The majority of the population growth associated with the proposed project would occur in Ontario Ranch. As identified in the City’s Roadway Classification map (see Figure 3.17-1), there are substantial improvements in transportation infrastructure planned to accommodate the increase in population in the City in the event of an emergency. The City has roadway classification standards in Policy M-1.1 that include roadway design standards as part of TOP 2050, precluding the construction of any unsafe features.
M-1.1. Roadway Design and Maintenance. We require our roadways to: 1) Comply with federal, state, and local design and safety standards; 2) Meet the needs of multiple transportation modes and users; 3) Handle the capacity envisioned in the City of Ontario Master Plan of Streets and Highways; 4) Be maintained in accordance with best practices; 5) Be compatible with the streetscape and surrounding land uses; and 6) Promote the efficient flow of all modes of traffic through the implementation of intelligent transportation systems and travel demand implementation strategies.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. A review of emergency access is included as part of the City’s Design Review process. According to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2018), interstate highways would serve as major emergency response and evacuation routes. Additionally, the fire department reviews all development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance. Since all future projects will undergo such reviews and requirements, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Specific Plan
The EBPSP does not propose elements or aspects that would obstruct or restrict emergency access to or through the area. Additionally, representatives of the Ontario Fire Department and Ontario Police Department would review all development plans to ensure that emergency access is provided consistent with applicable requirements.
Construction
All construction materials and equipment would be stored/staged within the Specific Plan area and would not interfere with emergency vehicles traveling adjacent to the site. Any construction activities that would occur within the public right-of-way and require a partial or full closure of a sidewalk or vehicle travel lane would require a traffic control plan that complies with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and that must be approved by City to ensure that emergency response is not adversely affected. ■
2978
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -43
Operation
The types of traffic generated during EBPSP operations (i.e., passenger cars and trucks) would be compatible with the type of traffic observed along surrounding roadways under existing conditions and would not interfere with the circulation of emergency vehicles along public streets adjacent to the site. As discussed above, development plans would be reviewed and approved by the fire and police departments to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided throughout the site.
Based on the preceding, the potential for the EBPSP to result in inadequate emergency access is considered 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.
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact TRA-4: The proposed project adequately addresses potentially inadequate emergency access.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant transportation impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts not already previously disclosed. No mitigation is required.
3.17.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The cumulative effect for transportation impacts is the SBCTA region. Cumulative traffic impacts consider the impacts of future growth and development in the SBCTA region. As identified above, the proposed project would result in a significant cumulative impact for VMT as a result of a substantial increase in population within the City. Therefore, VMT impacts of proposed project are cumulatively considerable.
The proposed project is consistent with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and the performance and safety of such facilities and would not combine with other area projects to result in significant impacts to such facilities. 2979
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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 44
The City of Ontario has adopted standards related to emergency accessibility. Additionally, the fire department reviews all development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance. Review of emergency access is also included as part of the City’s Design Review process.
Overall, because the proposed project would result in significant project-level and cumulative VMT impacts, cumulative impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. Cumulative Impacts: Implementation of the proposed project would result in significant cumulative impacts to transportation.
3.17.7 References
Fehr & Peers. 2026a. TOP Vehicle Miles Traveled Memorandum. (Appendix K1) Fehr & Peers. 2026b. EBPSP Vehicle Miles Traveled Memorandum. (Appendix K2) Ontario, City of. 2018. 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan.
SBCTA (San Bernardino County Transportation Authority). 2010, April. San Bernardino County Long-Range Transit Plan Final Report. Volume I. https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/longrange-transit-plan-2010/#:~:text=San%20Bernardino%20Associated%20Governments '%20Long,programming%20set%20by%20SB%20375.
SBCTA. 2016a. San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program. https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/congestion-management-plan-2016.
SBCTA. 2016b, December 19. Short-Range Transportation Plan (SRTP). https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/short-range-transportation-plan-srtp.
SBCTA. 2018, June. San Bernardino County Non-motorized Transportation Plan. https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/non-motorized-transportation-plan-2018.
SBCTA. 2019, August. SBCTA Points of Interest Pedestrian Plan. https://www.gosbcta.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/08/SBCTA-POI-PedestrianPlan.pdf.
SBCTA. 2021. San Bernardino Countywide Transportation Plan: Interim 2021 Update (Draft).
Introduction and Executive Summary. https://www.gosbcta.com/wp-content/uploads/ 2019/10/SBCTA_CTP_2021Update_ExecutiveSumFinal.pdf.
2980
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
M ARCH 2 026 3 .18 -1
3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Tribal cultural resources (TCR) include landscapes, sacred places, or objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP (proposed project) to impact TCRs in the City of Ontario compared to TOP 2050 (approved project) and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Potential impacts to other cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric, historic, archeological, and disturbance of human remains) are evaluated in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources.
The analysis in this section is based on the results of the Native American consultation conducted by the City in compliance with State Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52); a search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF); and a search of the California Historic Resources Information System. A complete copy of the records search is included as Appendix M1 of this SEIR.
Due to their sensitive and confidential nature, the maps and records of the California Historic Resources Information System search are omitted from the Draft EIR appendices. A compilation of Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) tribal consultation letter correspondence received by the City from Native American tribes is provided in Appendix M2.
The analysis for the EBPSP is also based on the “Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan Project” prepared by BFSA Environmental Services and considers both on-site and off-site impacts associated with the EBPSP (see Appendix E3).
3.18.1 Regulatory Framework
FEDERAL
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 regulates the protection of archaeological resources and sites which are on federal lands and Indian lands.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is a federal law passed in 1990 that provides a process for museums and federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items, such as human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony, to lineal descendants and culturally affiliated Indian tribes. 2981
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
3 .18 -2
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 coordinates public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect the nation’s historic and archaeological resources. The act authorized the National Register of Historic Places, which lists districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture.
Section 106 (Protection of Historic Properties) of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties.
Section 106 Review ensures that historic properties are considered during federal project planning and implementation. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent federal agency, administers the review process with assistance from state historic preservation offices.
National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the nation's official list of buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts worthy of preservation because of their significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The NRHP recognizes resources of local, state, and national significance which have been documented and evaluated according to uniform standards and criteria.
Authorized under the NHPA, the NRHP is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect historic and archeological resources.
The NHRP is administered by the National Park Service, which is part of the U.S. Department of the Interior.
To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria:
Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history
Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory Archaeological Resources Protection Act
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 regulates the protection of archaeological resources and sites on federal and Indian lands.
■
■
■
■
2982
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
M ARCH 2 026 3 .18 -3
American Indian Religious Freedom Act and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act recognizes that Native American religious practices, sacred sites, and sacred objects have not been properly protected under other statutes. It establishes as national policy that traditional practices and beliefs, sites (including right of access), and the use of sacred objects shall be protected and preserved. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is a federal law passed in 1990 that mandates museums and federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items—such as human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony—to lineal descendants or culturally affiliated Indian tribes.
STATE
California Public Resources Code
Archaeological resources are protected pursuant to a wide variety of state policies and regulations enumerated under the California Public Resources Code. Cultural resources are recognized as a nonrenewable resource and therefore receive protection under the California Public Resources Code (PRC) and CEQA.
PRC Sections 5097.9 to 5097.991 provide protection to Native American historical and cultural resources and sacred sites; identify the powers and duties of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC); require that descendants be notified when Native American human remains are discovered; and provide for treatment and disposition of human remains and associated grave goods.
California Health and Safety Code
The discovery of human remains is regulated by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states that:
In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation…until the coroner…has determined…that the remains are not subject to…provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible…. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and…has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall 2983
ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
3 .18 -4
contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.
California Register of Historical Resources
Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the CRHR is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (PRC Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1). Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP and California Historical Landmarks numbered 770 and higher, are automatically included in the CRHR. Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) program, identified as significant in historical resources surveys, or designated by local landmarks programs, may be nominated for inclusion in the CRHR.
Resources eligible for listing include buildings, sites, structures, objects, or historic districts that retain historical integrity and are historically significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria:
1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history.
Resources nominated to the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to convey the reasons for their significance. Resources whose historic integrity does not meet NRHP criteria may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR.
California Senate Bill 18
Existing law provides limited protection for Native American prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, and ceremonial places. These places may include sanctified cemeteries, religious, ceremonial sites, shrines, burial grounds, prehistoric ruins, archaeological or historic sites, Native American rock art inscriptions, or features of Native American historic, cultural, and sacred sites.
2984
ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR
CIT Y OF ONTARIO
3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
M ARCH 2 026 3 .18 -5
SB 18 was signed into law in September 2004 and went into effect on March 1, 2005. It placed new requirements on local governments for developments within or near “traditional tribal cultural places” (TTCP). Per SB 18, the law requires local jurisdictions to provide opportunities for involvement of California Native Americans tribes in the land planning process for the purpose of preserving traditional tribal cultural places. The Final Tribal Guidelines recommends that the NAHC provide written information as soon as possible but no later than 30 days after receiving a request to inform the lead agency if the proposed project is determined to be in proximity to a TTCP. The Final Tribal Guidelines recommends another 90 days for tribes to respond to a local government if they want to consult to determine whether the project would have an adverse impact on the TTCP. There is no statutory limit on the consultation duration.
Forty-five days before the action is publicly considered by the local government council, the local government refers action to agencies, following the CEQA public review time frame. The CEQA public distribution list may include tribes listed by the NAHC who have requested consultation or it may not. If the NAHC, the tribe, and interested parties agree upon the mitigation measures necessary for the proposed project, they are included in the project’s EIR.
If the lead agency and the tribe both agree that adequate mitigation or preservation measures cannot be taken, neither party is obligated to take action.
Per SB 18, a city or county is required to consult with the NAHC and any appropriate Native American tribe prior to the adoption, revision, amendment, or update of a its general plan.
Although SB 18 does not specifically mention consultation or notice requirements for adoption or amendment of specific plans, the Final Tribal Guidelines advises that SB 18 requirements extend to specific plans as well, because state planning law requires local governments to use the same process for amendment or adoption of specific plans as general plans (defined in Government Code sec. 65453). In addition, SB 18 provides a new definition of TTCP, requiring a traditional association of the site with Native American traditional beliefs, cultural practices, or ceremonies or the site must be shown to actually have been used for activities related to traditional beliefs, cultural practices, or ceremonies. (Previously, the site was defined to require only an association with traditional beliefs, practices, lifeways, and ceremonial activities.) SB 18 amended Civil Code Section 815.3 and adds California Native American tribes to the list of entities that can acquire and hold conservation easements for the purpose of protecting their cultural places.