Ontario City Council
June 16, 2026

Assembly Bill 52
AB 52 of 2014 amended PRC Section 5097.94 and added PRC Sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3.

Consultation with Native Americans
AB 52 formalizes the lead agency–tribal consultation process, requiring the lead agency to initiate consultation with California Native American groups that are traditionally and culturally 2985

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
3 .18 -6
affiliated with the project area, including tribes that may not be federally recognized. Lead agencies are required to begin consultation prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Section 4 of AB 52 adds Sections 21074 (a) and (b) to the PRC, which address tribal cultural resources and cultural landscapes. Section 21074 (a) defines tribal cultural resources as one of the following:

1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
a. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.

2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Section 1(a)(9) of AB 52 establishes that “a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource has a significant effect on the environment.” Effects on tribal cultural resources should be considered under CEQA. Section 6 of AB 52 adds Section 21080.3.2 to the PRC, which states that parties may propose mitigation measures “capable of avoiding or substantially lessening potential significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource or alternatives that would avoid significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource.” Further, if a California Native American tribe requests consultation regarding project alternatives, mitigation measures, or significant effects to tribal cultural resources, the consultation shall include those topics (PRC Section 21080.3.2[a]). The environmental document and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (where applicable) shall include any mitigation measures that are adopted (PRC Section 21082.3[a]).
2986

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 -7

3.18.2 Existing Conditions
Paleo Indian, Archaic Period Milling Stone Horizon, and the Late Prehistoric Shoshonean groups represent the three general cultural periods in San Bernardino County. The following discussion of the cultural history of San Bernardino County references the San Dieguito Complex, the Encinitas Tradition, the Milling Stone Horizon, the La Jolla Complex, the Pauma Complex, and the San Luis Rey Complex, since these culture sequences have been used to describe archaeological manifestations in the region (see also Appendix E3). The Late Prehistoric component in the southwestern area of San Bernardino County was represented by the Gabrielino and Serrano Indians.

PALEO INDIAN PERIOD (LATE PLEISTOCENE: 11,500 TO CIRCA 9,000 YBP) The Paleo Indian Period is associated with the terminus of the late Pleistocene (12,000 to 10,000 years before present [YBP]). Paleo Indians were likely attracted to multiple habitat types, including mountains, marshlands, estuaries, and lakeshores. These people likely subsisted using a more generalized hunting, gathering, and collecting adaptation, utilizing a variety of resources including birds, mollusks, and both large and small mammals.

ARCHAIC PERIOD (EARLY AND MIDDLE HOLOCENE: CIRCA 9,000 TO 1,300 YBP) The Archaic Period of prehistory began with the onset of the Holocene circa 9,000 YBP. The Archaic Period in southern California is associated with a number of different cultures, complexes, traditions, horizons, and periods, including San Dieguito, La Jolla, Encinitas, Milling Stone, Pauma, and Intermediate.

LATE PREHISTORIC PERIOD (LATE HOLOCENE: 1,300 YBP TO 1790) Approximately 1,350 YBP, a Shoshonean-speaking group from the Great Basin region moved into San Bernardino County, marking the transition to the Late Prehistoric Period. This period has been characterized by higher population densities and elaborations in social, political, and technological systems. Economic systems diversified and intensified during this period, with the continued elaboration of trade networks, the use of shell-bead currency, and the appearance of more labor-intensive, yet effective, technological innovations. Technological developments during this period included the introduction of the bow and arrow between A.D. 400 and 600 and the introduction of ceramics. Atlatl darts were replaced by smaller arrow darts, including the Cottonwood series points. Other hallmarks of the Late Prehistoric Period include extensive trade networks as far reaching as the Colorado River Basin and cremation of the dead. 2987

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
3 .18 -8
Traditional Tribal Cultural Territories
Gabrielino
The territory of the Gabrielino at the time of Spanish contact covered much of present-day Los Angeles and Orange counties. The southern extent of this culture area is bounded by Aliso Creek; the eastern extent is located east of present-day San Bernardino along the Santa Ana River; the northern extent includes the San Fernando Valley; and the western extent includes portions of the Santa Monica Mountains. The Gabrielino also occupied several Channel Islands, including Santa Barbara Island, Santa Catalina Island, San Nicholas Island, and San Clemente Island. Because of their access to certain resources, including a steatite source from Santa Catalina Island, this group was among the wealthiest and most populous aboriginal groups in all of southern California. Trade of materials and resources controlled by the Gabrielino extended as far north as the San Joaquin Valley, as far east as the Colorado River, and as far south as Baja California.

The Gabrielino lived in permanent villages and smaller resource gathering camps, which were occupied at various times of the year depending upon the seasonality of the resource. Larger villages were comprised of several families or clans, and smaller seasonal camps typically housed smaller family units. The coastal area between San Pedro and Topanga Canyon was the location of primary subsistence villages, and secondary sites were located near inland sage stands, oak groves, and pine forests. Permanent villages were located along rivers and streams, as well as in sheltered areas along the coast. As previously mentioned, the Channel Islands were also the locations of relatively large settlements.

Resources procured along the coast and on the islands were primarily marine in nature and included tuna, swordfish, ray, shark, California sea lion, Stellar sea lion, harbor seal, northern elephant seal, sea otter, dolphin, porpoise, various waterfowl species, numerous fish species, purple sea urchin, and mollusks such as rock scallop, California mussel, and limpet. Inland resources included oak acorn, pine nut, Mohave yucca, cacti, sage, grass nut, deer, rabbit, hare, rodent, quail, duck, and a variety of reptiles such as western pond turtle and snakes.

The social structure of the Gabrielino is little known; however, there appears to have been at least three social classes: 1) the elite, which included the rich, chiefs, and their immediate family; 2) a middle class, which included people of relatively high economic status or longestablished lineages; and 3) a class of people that included most other individuals in the society.

Villages were politically autonomous units comprised of several lineages. During times of the year when certain seasonal resources were available, the village would divide into lineage groups and move out to exploit them, returning to the village between forays.

Each lineage had its own leader, with the village chief coming from the dominant lineage.

Several villages might be allied under a paramount chief. Chiefly positions were of an ascribed 2988

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 -9
status, most often passed to the eldest son. Chiefly duties included providing village cohesion, leading warfare and peace negotiations with other groups, collecting tribute from the village(s) under his jurisdiction, and arbitrating disputes within the village(s). The status of the chief was legitimized by his safekeeping of the sacred bundle, which was a representation of the link between the material and spiritual realms and the embodiment of power.

Shamans were leaders in the spirit realm. The duties of the shaman included conducting healing and curing ceremonies, guarding the sacred bundle, locating lost items, identifying and collecting poisons for arrows, and making rain.

Marriages were made between individuals of equal social status and, in the case of powerful lineages, marriages were arranged to establish political ties between the lineages.

Men conducted the majority of the heavy labor, hunting, fishing, and trading with other groups.

Women’s duties included gathering and preparing plant and animal resources, and making baskets, pots, and clothing.

Gabrielino houses were domed, circular structures made of thatched vegetation. Houses varied in size and could accommodate anywhere from one to several families. Sweathouses (semicircular, earth-covered buildings) were public structures used in male social ceremonies.

Other structures included menstrual huts and a ceremonial structure called a yuvar, an open-air structure built near the chief’s house.

Clothing was minimal. Men and children most often went naked, while women wore deerskin or bark aprons. In cold weather, deerskin, rabbit fur, or bird skin (with feathers intact) cloaks were worn. Island and coastal groups used sea otter fur for cloaks. In areas of rough terrain, yucca fiber sandals were worn. Women often used red ochre on their faces and skin for adornment or protection from the sun. Adornment items included feathers, fur, shells, and beads.

Hunting implements included wood clubs, sinew-backed bows, slings, and throwing clubs.

Maritime implements included rafts, harpoons, spears, hook and line, and nets. A variety of other tools included deer scapulae saws, bone and shell needles, bone awls, scrapers, bone or shell flakers, wedges, stone knives and drills, metates, mullers, manos, shell spoons, bark platters, wood paddles and bowls. Baskets were made from rush, deer grass, and skunkbush.

Baskets were fashioned for hoppers, plates, trays, and winnowers for leaching, straining, and gathering. Baskets were also used for storing, preparing, and serving food, and for keeping personal and ceremonial items.

The Gabrielino had exclusive access to soapstone, or steatite, procured from Santa Catalina Island quarries. This highly prized material was used for making pipes, animal carvings, ritual objects, ornaments, and cooking utensils. The Gabrielino profited well from trading steatite, since it was highly valued by groups throughout southern California. 2989

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
3 .18 -10
Serrano
The Serrano occupied an area east of present-day Los Angeles. Definitive boundaries are difficult to place for the Serrano due to their sociopolitical organization and a lack of reliable data. However, researchers place the Serrano in the San Bernardino Mountains east of Cajon Pass, and at the base of and north of the mountains near Victorville, east to Twentynine Palms, and south to the Yucaipa Valley. Serrano has been broadly used for languages in the Takic family, including Serrano, Kitanemuk, Vanyume, and Tataviam.

The Serrano were part of exogamous clans, which in turn were affiliated with one of two exogamous moieties, tukwutam (Wildcat) and wahiiam (Coyote). Details such as number, structure, and function of the clans are unknown. Clans were not political, but were rather structured based upon economic, marital, or ceremonial reciprocity, a pattern common throughout Southern California. The Serrano formed alliances amongst their own clans and with Cahuilla, Chemehuevi, Gabrielino, and Cupeño clans. Clans were large, autonomous, political and landholding units organized patrilineally, with all males descending from a common male ancestor, including all wives and descendants of the males. However, even after marriage, women would still keep their original lineage and would still participate in those ceremonies.

The Serrano had a shaman, a person who acquired their powers through dreams, which were induced through ingestion of the hallucinogen datura. The shaman was mostly a curer/healer, using herbal remedies.

Serrano village locations were typically located near water sources. Individual family dwellings were likely circular, domed structures. Daily household activities would either take place outside of the house out in the open, or under a ramada constructed of a thatched willow pole roof held up by four or more poles inserted into the ground. Families could consist of a husband, wife/wives, unmarried female children, married male children, the husband’s parents, and/or widowed aunts and uncles. Rarely, an individual would occupy his own house, typically in the mountains. Serrano villages also included a large ceremonial house where the lineage leader would live, which served as the religious center for lineages or lineage-sets, granaries, and sweathouses.

The Serrano were primarily hunters and gatherers. Vegetal staples varied with locality. Acorns and piñon nuts were found in the foothills, and mesquite, yucca roots, cacti fruits, and piñon nuts were found in or near the desert regions. Diets were supplemented with other roots, bulbs, shoots, and seeds. Deer, mountain sheep, antelopes, rabbits, and other small rodents were among the principal food packages. Various game birds, especially quail, were also hunted.

The bow and arrow were used for large game, while smaller game and birds were killed with curved throwing sticks, traps, and snares. Occasionally, game was communally hunted, often during mourning ceremonies. Earth ovens were used to cook meat, bones were boiled to extract marrow, and blood was either drunk cold or cooked to a thicker consistency and then 2990

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 -11
eaten. Some meat and vegetables were sun-dried and stored. Food acquisition and processing required the manufacture of additional items such as knives, stone or bone scrapers, pottery trays and bowls, bone or horn spoons, and stirrers. Mortars, made of either stone or wood, and metates were also manufactured.

The Serrano were very similar technologically to the Cahuilla. In general, manufactured goods included baskets, some pottery, rabbit-skin blankets, awls, arrow straighteners, sinewbacked bows, arrows, fire drills, stone pipes, musical instruments (rattles, rasps, whistles, bullroarers, and flutes), feathered costumes, mats for floor and wall coverings, bags, storage pouches, cordage (usually comprised of yucca fiber), and nets.

Historic Period
The historic background in the vicinity of the proposed project began with the Spanish colonization of Alta California. The first Spanish colonizing expedition reached southern California in 1769 with the intention of converting and civilizing the indigenous populations, as well as expanding the knowledge of and access to new resources in the region. In the late eighteenth century, the San Gabriel (Los Angeles County), San Juan Capistrano (Orange County), and San Luis Rey (San Diego County) missions began colonizing southern California and gradually expanded their use of the interior valley (presently western Riverside County) for raising grain and cattle to support the missions. The San Gabriel Mission claimed lands in present-day areas of Jurupa, Riverside, San Jacinto, and the San Gorgonio Pass, and the San Luis Rey Mission claimed land in present-day areas of Lake Elsinore, Temecula, and Murrieta. The indigenous groups who occupied these lands were recruited by missionaries, converted, and put to work in the missions. Throughout this period, the Native American populations were decimated by introduced diseases, a drastic shift in diet resulting in poor nutrition, and social conflicts due to the introduction of an entirely new social order.

In the mid to late 1770s, Juan Bautista de Anza passed through much of what is now Riverside County while searching for an overland route from Sonora, Mexico to San Gabriel and Los Angeles, describing fertile valleys, lakes, and sub-desert areas. Spanish missionaries formed Mission San Gabriel in the San Bernardino Valley in the early nineteenth century. The mission established Rancho San Bernardino in 1819, which included the present-day areas of San Bernardino, Fontana, Rialto, Redlands, and Colton.

Since there was no reliable water source in the area, from 1819 to 1820, the missionaries developed a zanja through the use of Native American labor from the Guachama Rancheria. The creation of the zanja was implemented to divert waters from Mill Creek all the way through the city of Redlands, ending near the mission to assist with agricultural enterprises. The new water source allowed nearby ranching districts to develop during the nineteenth century.

Mexico gained independence in 1822 and desecularized the missions in 1832, signifying the end of the Mission Period. By this time, the missions owned some of the best and most fertile land 2991

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
3 .18 -12
in southern California. In order for California to develop, the land would have to be made productive enough to turn a profit. The new government began distributing the vast mission holdings to wealthy and politically connected Mexican citizens. The “grants” were called “ranchos,” and many of these ranchos have lent their names to modern-day locales.

The treatment of Native Americans grew worse during the Rancho Period. Most of the Native Americans were forced off of their land or put to work on the now privately owned ranchos, most often as slave labor. Native American culture had been disrupted to the point where they could no longer rely upon prehistoric subsistence and social patterns.

Spanish colonialism (missions) was based upon utilizing human resources while integrating them into their society. However, the Mexican and American ranchers did not accept Native Americans into their social order and used them specifically for the extraction of labor, resources, and profit. Rather than being incorporated, they were either subjugated or exterminated. In 1846, war erupted between Mexico and the United States. In 1848, with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the region was annexed as a territory of the United States, which led to California becoming a state in 1850. These events generated a steady flow of settlers into the area, including gold miners, entrepreneurs, health-seekers, speculators, politicians, adventurers, seekers of religious freedom, and individuals desiring to create utopian colonies.

Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill 52 Consultation
Pursuant to SB 18, the City of Ontario contacted the NAHC for a consultation list of tribes and a Sacred Lands File search for the Policy Plan Amendment and the EBPSP. Government Code Sections 65352.3 and 65352.4 require local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the NAHC for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places when creating or amending general plans, specific plans, and community plans. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource. An SLF search is another method of identifying the presence of Native American resources near or on the project area.

In accordance with AB 52 in PRC Section 21080.3.1(d), a lead agency is required to provide formal notification of intended development projects to Native American tribes that have requested to be on the lead agency’s list for receiving such notification. The formal notification is required to include a brief description of the proposed project and its location, lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation regarding potential impacts to tribal cultural resources.

On July 19, 2025, the NAHC responded with a negative SLF search, indicating no record for the presence of Native American resources within the City of Ontario. The NAHC also provided a list of 24 Native American tribes or individuals to contact for further information with traditional lands or cultural places in San Bernardino County (see Appendix M1). 2992

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 -13
The City of Ontario sent letters to the Native American contacts on August 19, 2025. The letters requested any information related to cultural resources or heritage sites within the City (see Appendix M2). The following summarizes all tribal letters received in response to the City’s invitations for AB 52/SB 18 consultation:

The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians responded on August 20, 2025, stating that the project is not in the tribe’s traditional use area and the tribe would defer comments to other tribes in the area.

The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation responded on August 20, 2025, stating that they do not have any comments and are okay with the project. The tribe requested to be notified of any future ground disturbances taking place.

The FT. Yuma Quechan Indians responded on August 20, 2025, stating that the tribe would defer comments to other tribes in the area. The tribe did not wish to comment further on this project.

The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) responded on September 10, 2025, stating that the project is outside the Serrano ancestral territory and that they did not wish to comment further on this project.

Several tribes responded to the NOP that was released for the proposed project (see Chapter 1, Introduction, for more details). The following summarizes the tribal comments that were received during the NOP:

The FT. Yuma Quechan Indians responded to the NOP on November 4, 2025, stating that the tribe would defer comments to other tribes in the area. The tribe did not wish to comment further on this project.

The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians responded to the NOP on November 4, 2025, stating that project is not located within the tribe’s traditional use area and the tribe would defer comments to other tribes in the area.

3.18.3 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 tribal cultural resources if it would:
■
■
■
■
■
■
2993

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
3 .18 -14
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k).
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

METHODOLOGY
Specific Plan
The Cultural Resources Assessment included background research, communication with the NAHC and local Native American groups, a cultural resource survey of the Specific Plan area, and resource documentation and evaluation. Additionally, City outreach letters were sent to local Native American tribal groups to elicit information regarding Native American cultural resources that may be in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area.

3.18.4 Relevant New and Modified General Plan Policies
There are no applicable policy changes.

3.18.5 Environmental Impacts
2022 CERTIFIED EIR
The Certified EIR identified impacts to prehistoric archeological resources, which include TCRs, as a potentially significant impact of the approved project. As part of the Certified EIR, the City of Ontario conducted tribal consultation pursuant to SB 18 to identify resources that may be of cultural value to California Native American tribes. Mitigation Measures TCR-1-PPA (former MM 5-3), TCR-2-PPA (former MM 5-4), TCR-3-PPA (former MM TCR-1), and TCR-4-PPA (former MM TCR-2) were incorporated into the Certified EIR to reduce impacts to TCRs to less than significant levels.
2994

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 -15

PROPOSED PROJECT
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k).
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? The 2022 Certified EIR found that the TOP 2050 would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to TCRs. Grading and construction activities in undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires deeper soil excavation than in the past could potentially disturb TCRs, but mitigation measures TCR-1-PP through TCR-4-PP provided in the 2022 Certified EIR would reduce potential impacts associated with TCRs to a level that is less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
The SLF search conducted by the NAHC did not indicate the presence of known tribal cultural resources within or immediately adjacent to the City boundaries. Four tribes responded to the City’s invitation for tribal resources consultation, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation, FT. Yuma Quechan Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (San Manuel Band of Mission Indians). As described above, all the tribes that responded deferred to other tribes or did not wish to consult.

The Policy Plan Amendment is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growth and development in the City and does not result in development in and of itself; however, future development as a result of the implementation of proposed project could include grading in portions of the City with sensitivity to TCRs. Though the proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to TCRs compared to the approved project, there is potential to uncover tribal cultural resources during construction, 2995

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
3 .18 -16
which would also include disturbing previously undisturbed soils. Since the proposed project could result in the discovery of subsurface TCRs, the disturbance of which could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the resource(s), impacts would be potentially significant. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant. However, the proposed project would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant Specific Plan
As discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, a records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) indicated that no cultural resources have previously been recorded within the Specific Plan area boundaries (see Appendix E3). Additionally, results of the NAHC SLF results were negative for the presence of Native American sacred sites or locations of ceremonial importance within the vicinity of the Specific Plan area. The field survey conducted as part of the Cultural Resources Survey did not identify any tribal resources.

AB 52, which became effective on July 1, 2015, requires lead agencies to provide notice to Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a project. SB 18 requires local (city and county) governments to consult with California Native American tribes to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places (“cultural places”) through local land use planning. The consultation and notice requirements apply to adoption and amendment of both general plans (defined in Government Code Section 65300 et seq.) and specific plans (defined in Government Code 65450 et seq.).

To this end, outreach letters were sent to the following local Native American tribal groups on August 29, 2025.

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Cahuilla Band of Indians
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council
Gabrielino/Tongva Nation
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
Quechan Indian Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2996

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 -17
Serrano Nation of Mission Indians
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
The outreach letters provided formal notification of the EBPSP, elicited information on Native American cultural resources that may be in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area, and offered formal consultation pursuant to AB 52/SB18.

Outreach responses received by the City are summarized below.

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians indicated that the Specific Plan area was outside of their ancestral territory and did not request consultation.

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians indicated that the Specific Plan area was outside of their ancestral territory and did not request consultation.

Quechan Indian Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation declined consultation.

Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation requested notification of ground disturbing activities.

The consultation period ended on November 17, 2025, with no tribes requesting formal consultation. Regardless, the Cultural Resources Study concluded that there is a potential for previously undiscovered archeological resources to exist within the Specific Plan area; this is a potentially significant impact. However, 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: Potentially significant Impact TCR-1: Tribal cultural resources could be adversely impacted by grading activities associated with the Proposed Project.

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 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 TCR-1-PPA [Former MM 5-3]: Upon receipt of an application for a proposed project subject to CEQA and is within the City’s jurisdiction, the City’s representative shall consult with the relevant tribe(s)’ representative(s) to determine if the proposed project is within a culturally sensitive area to the tribe. If sufficient ■
■
■
■
■
■
2997

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
3 .18 -18
evidence is provided to reasonably ascertain that the site is within a [tribal] culturally sensitive area, an archaeologist shall prepare a cultural resources assessment. The findings of the cultural resources assessment shall be incorporated into the CEQA documentation. A copy of the report shall be forwarded to the tribe(s). If mitigation is recommended in the CEQA document, the procedure described in Mitigation Measure 5-4 TCR-2-PPA shall be followed.

Mitigation Measure TCR-2-PPA [Former MM 5-4]: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for a proposed project for which the CEQA document defines cultural resource mitigation for potential tribal resources, the project applicant shall contact the designated tribe(s) to notify them of the grading, excavation, and monitoring program.

The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Ontario and the tribal representative(s) to develop mitigation measures that address the designation, responsibilities, and participation of tribal monitors during grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities; scheduling; terms of compensation; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The City of Ontario shall be the final arbiter of the conditions for projects within the City’s jurisdiction.

Mitigation Measure TCR-3-PPA [Former MM TCR-1]: Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring. The project archaeologist, in consultation with interested tribes, the developer, and the City of Ontario, shall develop an archaeological monitoring plan (AMP) to address the details, timing, and responsibility of archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. Details in the AMP shall include:

1. Project-related ground disturbance (including, but not limited to, brush clearing, grading, trenching, etc.) and development scheduling;

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

3. The protocols and stipulations that the developer, City, Tribes, and project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.
2998

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 -19
At least 30 days prior to application for a grading permit and before any brush clearance, grading, excavation, and/or ground disturbing activities on the site, the developer shall retain a tribal cultural monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources.

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

Mitigation Measure TCR-4-PPA [Former MM TCR-2]: Treatment and Disposition of Cultural Resources. In the event that Native American cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during the course of any ground-disturbing activities, including but not limited to brush clearance, grading, trenching, etc., for the proposed project, the following procedures will be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:

1. Temporary Curation and Storage: During the course of construction, all discovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure location on-site or at the offices of the project archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts from the project site will need to be thoroughly inventoried with tribal monitor oversight of the process;

2. Treatment and Final Disposition: The landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and nonhuman remains as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City of Ontario with evidence of same:
a. Accommodate the process for on-site reburial of the discovered items with the consulting Native American tribes or bands. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloging, basic analysis, other analyses as recommended by the project archaeologist and approved by consulting tribes, and basic recordation have been completed; all documentation should be at a level of standard professional practice to allow the writing of a report of professional quality;
b. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository in San Bernardino County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79, and therefore the resource would be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, 2999

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
3 .18 -20
to an appropriate curation facility in San Bernardino County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation;
c. For purposes of conflict resolution, if more than one Native American tribe or band is involved with the project and cannot come to an agreement as to the disposition of cultural materials, materials shall be curated at the San Bernardino County Museum by default; d. At the completion of grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities on the site, a Phase IV Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City documenting monitoring activities conducted by the project archaeologist and Native Tribal Monitors within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the impacts to the known resources on the property; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources; provide evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pregrade meeting; and, in a confidential appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the archaeologist. All reports produced will be submitted to the City, County Museum, and consulting tribes.

New Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
No additional mitigation measures are warranted.

Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure TCR-1-SP: The EBPSP shall implement MM TCR-2-PPA, MM TCR-3- PPA, MM TCR-4-PPA.

Significance After Mitigation
Policy Plan Amendment
In the event that subsurface TCRs are discovered, Mitigation Measures TCR-1-PPA, TCR-2-PPA, TCR-3-PPA, and TCR-4-PPA would reduce potential impacts associated with TCRs to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to TCRs remain.

Policy Plan Amendment Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant. 3000

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 -21
Specific Plan
Implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-2-PPA, TCR-3-PPA, and TCR-4-PPA would preclude significant impacts to any tribal cultural resources, in the event such resources are discovered within the Specific Plan area. Additionally, Mitigation Measure TCR-2-PPA would also ensure the notification requested by Kizh Nation is conducted.

Specific Plan Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant.

3.18.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources occur when the impacts of the proposed project, in conjunction with past, existing, and other foreseeable projects and development in the region, result in multiple and/or cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources in the area.

Projects in the City, including the EBPSP, future development would disturb soil and thus could potentially uncover tribal cultural resources. Future projects in the City of Ontario would comply with federal and state regulations and the Mitigation Measures in this SEIR to ensure that impacts to TCRs are less than significant and would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts: The proposed project, together with cumulative projects, would not have a substantial impact related to Tribal Cultural Resources.

3.18.7 References
BFSA (BFSA Environmental Services, Inc.). 2026, January. Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan Project. (Appendix E3) SCCIC (South Central Coastal Information Center). July 16, 2025. Record Search Results for The Ontario Plan 2050 Policy Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. 3001

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
3 .18 -22
This page intentionally left blank.
3002

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 9 -1

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems
This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) addresses the potential for implementation of the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP (proposed project) to impact utilities and service systems in the City of Ontario compared to the current TOP 2050 (approved project) and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

Utilities and service systems include water supply and distribution systems; wastewater (sewage) conveyance and treatment; storm drainage systems; solid waste collection and disposal services; electricity and natural gas, and telecommunication services. Impacts to hydrology (e.g., flooding) and water quality can be found in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality. The regulatory framework and existing conditions for electricity and natural gas facilities can be found in Section 3.6, Energy. Public services and utilities are provided in the City of Ontario by the providers listed in Table

3.19-1, Utility Providers. Table 3.19-1 Utility Providers Utility Agency Name
Water City of Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Chino Basin Desalter Authority
Inland Empire Utilities Agency
San Antonio Water Company
Water Facilities Authority
Wastewater Treatment City of Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (infrastructure)
Inland Empire Utilities Agency (treatment)
Regional Flood Control City of Ontario
San Bernardino County Flood Control District
Solid Waste Collection City of Ontario Integrated Waste Department Solid Waste Disposal (Landfills) USA Waste of California, a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc.

Riverside County Department of Waste Resources
Electricity Southern California Edison
Natural Gas Southern California Gas Company
Telecommunications OntarioNet, AT&T, Frontier, Spectrum, Earthlink Fiber
3003

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 2
Water demand and supply is based on the Water Supply evaluation in Appendix L1. The sitespecific analysis for the EBPSP is based on the “Preliminary Hydrology Study for Ontario Ranch” prepared by JLC Engineering & Consulting which considers both on-site and off-site impacts associated with the EBPSP (see Appendix H1) and the “EBPSP Water Supply Assessment” (see Appendix L2). In addition, the “Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan” for the EBPSP (Appendix H2) and the “Draft Eucalyptus Business Park Sewer Study” are also provided (Appendix L3).

Terminology
BMPs. best management practices
LID. low impact development
MS4. municipal separate storm sewer system
NPDES. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
OMUC. Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
SWPPP. stormwater pollution prevention plan
UWMP. urban water management plan
WSA. water supply assessment
WQMP. water quality management plan

3.19.1 Regulatory Framework

FEDERAL
Water
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act, the principal federal law intended to ensure safe drinking water to the public, was enacted in 1974 and has been amended several times since then. It authorizes the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set national standards for drinking water, called the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, to protect against both naturally occurring and human-made contaminants. These standards set enforceable maximum contaminant levels in drinking water and require all water providers in the United States to treat water to remove contaminants, except for private wells serving fewer than 25 people. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) conducts most enforcement ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
3004

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 9 -3
activities. If a water system does not meet standards, it is the water supplier’s responsibility to notify its customers.

America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018
America's Water Infrastructure Act was signed into law on October 23, 2018, and authorizes federal funding for water infrastructure projects; expands water storage capabilities; assists local communities in complying with the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act; reduces flooding risks for rural, western, and coastal communities; and addresses significant water infrastructure needs in tribal communities (Barasso 2018). Additionally, the act requires public water systems serving more than 3,300 people to develop or update risk assessments and emergency response plans every 5 years and certify them to the EPA within a deadline specified by America's Water Infrastructure Act.

Wastewater
Clean Water Act and National Pollution Elimination Discharge System The federal Clean Water Act requires that wastewater be treated before it is discharged to Waters of the United States (US Code Title 33, Sections 1251, et seq.). Requirements for waste discharges from publicly owned treatment works to navigable waters are addressed in National Pollution Elimination Discharge Systems (NPDES) regulations under the Clean Water Act. NPDES permits for such discharges in the project region are issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

NPDES permit regulations have been established for broad categories of discharges, including point-source municipal waste discharges and nonpoint-source stormwater runoff. NPDES permits generally identify effluent and receiving water limits on allowable connections and/or mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge; prohibitions on discharges not specifically allowed under the permit; and provisions that describe required actions by the discharger, including industrial pretreatment, pollution prevention, self-monitoring, and other activities. Wastewater discharge is regulated under the NPDES permit program for direct discharges into receiving waters and by the National Pretreatment Program for indirect discharges to a wastewater (sewage) treatment plant.

Stormwater
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Under the NPDES program, all facilities that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States are required to obtain an NPDES permit. Requirements for stormwater discharges are also regulated under this program. The NPDES permit regulates municipal and industrial 3005

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 4
discharges to surface water of the United States from their municipal separate storm water systems (MS4s). The MS4 permits are issued by the regional water quality control boards. The City of Ontario is regulated by the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit issued by the Santa Ana RWQCB. This is discussed in further detail under the San Bernardino County Regional MS4 Permit section.

Solid Waste
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 258), contains regulations for municipal solid waste landfills and requires states to implement their own permitting programs incorporating the federal landfill criteria.

The federal regulations address the location, operation, design (liners, leachate collection, runoff control, etc.), groundwater monitoring, and closure of landfills.

STATE
Water
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Water Code secs. 13000, et seq.) passed in California in 1969 and was amended in 2013. It is the basic water quality control law for California. Under this act, the SWRCB has authority over state water rights and water quality policy. The act divided the state into 9 regional jurisdictions, each under the SWRCB, and oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis at the local and regional levels. RWQCBs engage in various water quality functions in their respective regions and regulate all pollutant or nuisance discharges that may affect either surface water or groundwater. The City of Ontario is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB (Region 8).

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014
On September 16, 2014, a three-bill legislative package was signed into law collectively known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The Governor’s signing message states “a central feature of these bills is the recognition that groundwater management in California is best accomplished locally.” Under the roadmap laid out by the legislation, local and regional authorities in medium and high priority groundwater basins must form groundwater sustainability agencies (GSA) that oversee the preparation and implementation of groundwater sustainability plans (GSP). The City of Ontario is part of the Chino Basin, an adjudicated basin which is exempt from many requirements of SGMA including the need to prepare a GSP. 3006

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 9 -5
Urban Water Management Planning Act
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act and Section 10610, et seq., of the Water Code require that all urban water suppliers in California that provide water to more than 3,000 customers or supply more than 3,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) to prepare and adopt an urban water management plan (UWMP) and update it every 5 years. The act is intended to support efficient use of urban water supplies. The act requires the UWMP to compare water supply and demand over the next 20 years for normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry years and to determine current and potential recycled water uses. The UWMP also provides conservation measures to ensure the efficient use of water supplies and must include a water shortage contingency plan.

Senate Bills 610 and 221
Senate Bills 610 and SB 221 amended State law to ensure better coordination between local water supply and land use decisions and confirm that there is an adequate water supply for new development. Specific projects are required to prepare a water supply assessment (WSA). The WSA is composed of information regarding existing and forecast water demands as well as information pertaining to available water supplies for the new development. The following projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are required to prepare a WSA:

Residential developments consisting of more than 500 dwelling units.

Shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 people or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor area.

Commercial office building employing more than 1,000 people or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.

Hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms.

Industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park employing more than 1,000 people, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.

Mixed-use project that includes one or more of the uses specified above.

Project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required for 500 dwelling units.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
3007

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 6
SB 221 requires written verification that there is sufficient water supply available for new residential subdivisions that include over 500 dwelling units. The verification must be provided before commencement of construction for the project.

Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Senate Bill X7-7)
New mandatory requirements for increasing water use efficiency, per State law (SB X7-7), mandate the reduction of per capita water use and agricultural water use throughout the State by 20 percent by 2020. Effective in 2016, urban retail water suppliers who do not meet the water conservation requirements established by this bill are not eligible for State water grants or loans. SB X7-7 requires that urban water retail suppliers determine baseline water use and set reduction targets according to specified standards. Demonstration of compliance with this regulation is a required component of each water provider’s 2020 UWMP. The 2025 UWMPs will likely be prepared and approved in 2026.
2018 Water Conservation Legislation
In 2018, the California Legislature enacted two policy bills (SB 606 and Assembly Bill [AB] 1668) to establish long-term improvements in water conservation and drought planning to adapt to climate change and longer and more intense droughts in California (DWR 2025). The framework applies to both urban and agricultural water use. The Department of Water Resources and the SWRCB will develop new standards for:

Indoor residential water use
Outdoor residential water use
Commercial, industrial, and institutional water use for landscape irrigation with dedicated meters
Water loss
Urban water suppliers are required to stay within annual water budgets based on their standards for their service areas, and to calculate and report their urban water use objectives in an annual water use report. The indoor residential water use standard was established with the passage of SB 1157 in 2022. As a result, the California Water Code defines a 47-gallon-perperson daily standard for indoor residential use beginning in 2025 and further decreases to 42 gallons by 2030.

The outdoor residential and commercial water use standards are established as landscape efficiency factors (LEF) and become progressively more efficient over time, with an LEF for residential and commercial account of 0.80 until 2035, at which time it decreases to 0.63 until 2040, and then establishes a LEF for residential outdoor accounts of 0.55 and a LEF for commercial outdoor accounts of 0.45 after 2040. The water loss standard is the maximum allowable “real” water loss measured in gallons per connection per day for each water ■
■
■
■
3008

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 9 -7
purveyor’s service area. Real losses are defined as the volume of annual leakage from the water purveyor’s distribution system.

Collectively, the water use efficiency standards and local service area characteristics (such as population and landscape area) establish the Urban Water Use Objectives (UWUO) per urban retail water supplier that cannot be exceeded on an annual basis. Urban retail water suppliers are required to calculate and report their UWUOs alongside their actual usage in an annual report. The first reports were due to the SWRCB on January 1, 2024, and are required to be submitted every January 1 thereafter. The final proposed “Making Conservation a California Way of Life” regulation was adopted by the SWRCB on July 3, 2024, and became effective in January 1, 2025 (SWRCB 2025a).

The legislation also includes changes to UWMP preparation requirements. These changes include additional requirements for Water Shortage Contingency Plans (WSCP), expansion of dry year supply reliability assessments to a 5-year drought period, and establishment of annual drought risk assessment procedures and reporting.

Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006
The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act (AB 1881) requires cities and counties to adopt the State of California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) or a comparable landscape water conservation ordinance that is at least as effective as the State’s MWELO in conserving water.

The MWELO was revised in July 2015 via Executive Order B-29-15 to address the ongoing drought and to build resiliency for future droughts. The 2015 revisions to the MWELO increased water efficiency standards for new and retrofitted landscapes through more efficient irrigation systems, greywater usage, and on-site stormwater capture and by limiting the portion of landscapes that can be covered in turf. Each city and county is required to submit annual reports to DWR that document how the agency is achieving compliance with the State MWELO and how many projects were subject to the ordinance during the annual reporting period. MWELO went through a round of revisions in 2024 to reduce ambiguity and improve clarity of the requirements as well as reorganize the content to better adhere to the landscape design process. The 2024 revisions did not modify or add new requirements to MWELO.

The City of Ontario complies with the State’s current MWELO and has implemented landscape development standards. Developers are required to submit landscape plans and complete water efficient landscape worksheets prepared by a certified landscape architect prior to the start of construction.
3009

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 8
California Building Code: CALGreen
The California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards in July 2008, the California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 11), also known as CALGreen. CALGreen applies to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure in California unless otherwise indicated in the code. CALGreen establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development, including water conservation measures and requirements that new buildings reduce water consumption by 20 percent below a baseline. CALGreen is updated every three years to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new efficient technologies and methods.

The mandatory provisions of CALGreen became effective January 1, 2011, and the latest version, the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, became effective on January 1, 2023 (DGS 2025). The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local building permit process.

California Plumbing Code
The latest version of the California Plumbing Code (24 CCR Part 5) was issued in 2022 and became effective as of January 1, 2023. It specifies technical standards for the design, materials, workmanship, and maintenance of plumbing systems. One of the purposes of the plumbing code is to prevent conflicting plumbing codes within local jurisdictions. Among many topics covered in the code are water fixtures, potable and non-potable water systems, and recycled water systems.

Recycled Water Regulations
Planning and implementing water recycling projects entail numerous interactions with these regulatory agencies prior to project approval. The SWRCB, specifically the Division of Drinking Water, establishes the statewide effluent bacteriological and treatment reliability standards for recycled water uses in CCR, Title 22, Division 4, Environmental Health. Title 22 establishes standards for each general type of use based on the potential for human contact with recycled water. The SWRCB is responsible for establishing and enforcing requirements for the application and use of recycled water. Permits are required from the RWQCB for a water recycling operation. As part of the permit application process, applicants are required to demonstrate that the proposed recycled water operation will not exceed the ground and surface water quality objectives in the basin management plan and that the operation is compliant with Title 22 requirements.
3010

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 9 -9
California Health and Safety Code: California Safe Drinking Water Act The California Health and Safety Code (HSC) addresses water issues primarily through the California Safe Drinking Water Act. The Act establishes a regulatory program enforced by Division of Drinking Water to ensure the safety of public drinking water systems. The SWRCB adopts primary and secondary drinking water standards and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) develops public health goals (PHG). Public water systems are required to test their water for contaminants and notify customers if standards are exceeded or certain notification levels are met. The California HSC also establishes accreditation procedures for environmental laboratories, programs to certify operators of water treatment plants and water distribution systems, and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to assist small water systems serving disadvantaged communities.

California Water Code
The California Water Code states that the water resources of the State must be put to beneficial use and that waste or unreasonable use of water should be prevented. The code is divided into several sections that include provisions regarding water quality, formation of irrigation districts and water districts, safe drinking water, and water supply and infrastructure improvements. The California Water Code also addresses water shortage emergencies, drought planning, conservation mandates, potable water reuse. appropriation of water, and water rights.

Mandatory Water Conservation
Following the declaration of a state of emergency due to drought conditions on July 15, 2014, the SWRCB adopted Resolution No. 2014-0038 for emergency regulation of statewide water conservation efforts (SWRCB 2014). These regulations went into effect on August 1, 2014, to reduce outdoor urban water use and intended that all California households would voluntarily reduce their water consumption by 20 percent. Water companies with 3,000 or more service connections were required to report monthly water consumption to the SWRCB.

In January of 2022, following the Governor’s proclamation of a drought state of emergency for all counties, the SWRCB adopted the prohibited wasteful water uses emergency regulations.

These include the prohibition of the following wasteful water use practices: 1) the application of potable water to outdoor landscapes in a manner that causes excess runoff; 2) the washing of vehicles without an automatic shut-off nozzle; 3) the application of potable water to driveways and sidewalks; 4) the use of potable water in nonrecirculating ornamental fountains; and 5) the application of potable water to outdoor landscapes during and within 48 hours after at least

0.25 inch of rainfall. In June of 2022, additional emergency water conservation regulations were enacted prohibiting the irrigation of nonfunctional turf at commercial, industrial, and institutional accounts, and the implementation of conservation actions under Level 2 of urban water suppliers’ WSCPs. As of June 5, 2024, the emergency regulations expired. 3011

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 10
In October of 2023, AB 1572 was signed into law by the governor, prohibiting the irrigation of nonfunctional turf at commercial, industrial, and institutional sites (with exceptions for areas irrigated with recycled water or harvested rainwater). The irrigation prohibitions become effective in stages between 2027 and 2031, beginning with state and local government facilities.

Under the law, urban water suppliers must adopt the same irrigation prohibitions into their local regulations.

SWRCB Division of Drinking Water
Division of Drinking Water regulates public water systems within California; oversees water recycling projects; permits water treatment devices; and supports and promotes water system security. The Division of Financial Assistance provides funding opportunities for drinking water system improvements; provides support for small water systems and for improving technical, managerial, and financial capacity; and certifies drinking water treatment and distribution operators. The Field Operations Branch of the Division of Drinking Water is responsible for the enforcement of the federal and California Safe Drinking Water Acts and the regulatory oversight of approximately 7,500 public water systems to ensure the delivery of safe drinking water to all Californians. In this capacity, Field Operations Branch staff perform field inspections, issue operating permits and amendments, review plans and specifications for new facilities, take enforcement actions for noncompliance with laws and regulations, review water quality monitoring results, and support and promote water system security. All public water systems in San Bernardino County and the City of Ontario County are under the purview of the Division of Drinking Water.

Principles Governing CEQA Analysis of Water Supply
In Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc., v. City of Rancho Cordova (February 1, 2007), the California Supreme Court articulated the following principles for analysis of future water supplies for projects subject to CEQA:

To meet CEQA’s informational purposes, the EIR must present sufficient facts to decision makers to evaluate the pros and cons of supplying the necessary amount of water to the project.

CEQA analysis for large, multiphase projects must assume that all phases of the project will eventually be built, and the EIR must analyze, to the extent reasonably possible, the impacts of providing water to the entire project. Tiering cannot be used to defer water supply analysis until future phases of the project are built.

CEQA analysis cannot rely on “paper water.” The EIR must discuss why the identified water should reasonably be expected to be available. Future water supplies must be likely rather than speculative.
■
■
■
3012

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -11
When there is some uncertainty regarding future availability of water, an EIR should acknowledge the degree of uncertainty, include a discussion of possible alternative sources, and identify the environmental impacts of such alternative sources. Where a full discussion still leaves some uncertainty about long-term water supply, mitigation measures for curtailing future development if intended sources become unavailable may become a part of the EIR’s approach.

The EIR does not need to show that water supplies are ensured, because such a degree of certainty would be “unworkable, as it would require water planning to far outpace land use planning.” The requisite degree of certainty of a project’s water supply varies with the stage of project approval. CEQA does not require large projects, at the early planning phase, to provide a high degree of certainty regarding long-term future water supplies.

The EIR analysis may rely on existing urban water management plans, if the project’s demand was included in the water management plan’s demand accounting.

The ultimate question under CEQA is not whether an EIR establishes a likely source of water, but whether it adequately addresses the reasonably foreseeable impacts of supplying water to the project.

Wastewater
State Water Resources Control Board: General Waste Discharge Requirements On May 2, 2006, the SWRCB adopted Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements (Order No. 2006-0003) and a monitoring and reporting program (Order No. WQ-2013-0058-EXEC) for all publicly owned sanitary sewer collection systems in California with more than one mile of sewer pipes. The order provides a consistent statewide approach to reducing sanitary sewer overflows (SSO). The Waste Discharge Requirements require public agencies that own or operate sanitary sewer systems to develop and implement a sewer system management plan (SSMP) and report all SSOs to the California Integrated Water Quality System Project (CIWQS).

The SWRCB has delegated authority to 9 RWQCBs to enforce these requirements within their regions. The Santa Ana RWQCB (Region 8) issues and enforces NPDES permits in the portion of San Bernardino County that includes Ontario. NPDES permits allow the RWQCB to regulate where and how waste is disposed, including the discharge volume and effluent limits of waste and the monitoring and reporting responsibilities of the discharge. The RWQCB is also charged with conducting inspections of permitted discharges and monitoring permit compliance. ■
■
■
3013

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 12
Storm Drainage System
SWRCB General Construction Permit
Construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land that could impact hydrologic resources must comply with the requirements of the newly reissued SWRCB Construction General Permit (Order WQ 2022-0057-DWQ). Under the terms of the permit, applicants must file Permit Registration Documents (PRD) with the SWRCB prior to the start of construction. The PRDs include a Notice of Intent, risk assessment, site map, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee, and a signed certification statement. The PRDs are submitted electronically to the SWRCB via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) website.

Applicants must also demonstrate conformance with applicable best management practices (BMP) and prepare a SWPPP containing a site map that shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project site. The SWPPP must list BMPs that would be implemented to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction-related pollutants that could contaminate nearby water resources. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program, a sampling program to ensure compliance with water quality standards, and on-site collection of samples and inspection of BMPs during a qualifying precipitation event.

SWRCB General Industrial Permit
The Statewide General permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities, Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ and amended by 2015-0122-DWQ (2018) implements the federally required stormwater regulations in California for stormwater associated with industrial activities that discharge to Waters of the United States. This regulation covers facilities that are required by federal regulations or by the RWQCBs to obtain an NPDES permit. Dischargers are required to eliminate non-storm water discharges, develop SWPPPs that include BMPs, conduct monitoring of stormwater runoff, and submit all compliance documents via the SWRCB’s SMARTS program SWRCB Trash Amendment
On April 7, 2015, the SWRCB adopted an amendment to “Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California” to control trash. In addition, “Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California” added “Part 1, Trash Provisions.” Together, they are collectively referred to as the "Trash Amendments." The Trash Amendments provide statewide consistency for the RWQCBs in their regulatory approach to protect aquatic life and public health beneficial uses, reduce environmental issues associated with trash in State waters, and focus limited resources on high-trash-generating areas (SWRCB 2015). 3014

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -13
The Trash Amendments apply to all Phase I and II permittees under the NPDES municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) permits. Compliance with the Trash Amendment requires municipalities to install certified trash treatment control systems on all catch basins no later than December 2, 2030 (SWRCB 2025b). The Santa Ana RWQCB implements the statewide Trash Amendments through Water Code Section 13383 Orders that contain region-specific requirements.

Solid Waste
California Integrated Waste Management Act
California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) set a requirement for cities and counties throughout the state to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills by January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling, and composting. In 2008, the requirements were modified to reflect a per capita requirement rather than tonnage. To help achieve this, the act requires that each city and county prepare and submit a source reduction and recycling element. AB 939 also established the goal for all California counties to provide at least 15 years of ongoing landfill capacity. In 2007, SB 1016 amended AB 939 to establish a per-capita disposal measurement system based on two factors: a jurisdiction’s reported total disposal of solid waste divided by the jurisdiction’s population. CalRecycle sets a per-capita disposal rate target for each jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction must submit an annual report to CalRecycle with an update of its progress in implementing diversion programs and its current per-capita disposal rate.

California Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Act
SB 1383 focuses on the elimination of methane gas created by organic materials in landfills and set targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the statewide disposal of organic waste by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. Organic waste makes up half of what Californians send to landfills. SB 1383 requires all businesses and residents to divert organic materials (including food waste, yard waste, and soiled paper products) from the landfill. The regulation took effect on January 1, 2022, and requires that organics collection service be provided to all residents and businesses. The collected organic waste must be recycled into new products, such as compost, mulch, biofuel, and electricity. Each city and county have an annual procurement target based on its population. Also, an edible food recovery program must be established by 2025 with the goal of recovering 20 percent of currently disposed edible food that would otherwise be sent to landfills to feed people in need. Mandated food donors and food recovery organizations and services must keep records of the amount and dates of food donations and acceptances.

Mandatory Commercial and Multifamily Residential Recycling Requirements AB 341 (Chapter 476) set a statewide solid waste diversion goal of 75 percent by 2020. AB 341, which was passed in 2011 and took effect July 1, 2012, mandates recycling for businesses 3015

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 14
producing four or more cubic yards of solid waste per week or multifamily residential dwellings of five or more units. Under AB 341, businesses and multifamily dwellings of 5 or more units in the proposed project must separate recyclables from trash and either subscribe to recycling services, self-haul their recyclables, or contract with a permitted private recycler.

Mandatory Organics Recycling Act
AB 1826, which was enacted in 2014, mandates organic waste recycling for all businesses and multifamily dwellings with 5 or more units. Starting January 1, 2020, all generators of 2 cubic yards or more of garbage, recycling, and compost combined per week must recycle organic waste. Organic waste includes food scraps, food-soiled paper waste, yard trimmings, and landscape materials. Organic waste can be recycled through composting, mulching, and anaerobic digestion which produces renewable energy and fuel. In addition to recycling food scraps, donating surplus food to local food banks can be part of the AB 1826 compliance effort.

California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act
The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act requires development projects to set aside areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials. This act required CalRecycle to develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local agency to provide adequate areas for the collection and loading of recyclable materials as part of development projects. Local agencies are required to adopt a model or an ordinance of their own that establishes standards, including space allocation, for the collection and loading of recyclable materials.

California Green Building Standards Code
Sections 4.408 and 5.408 of CALGreen pertain to construction waste reduction disposal and recycling. The requirements mandate that, in the absence of a more stringent local ordinance, a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste generated during most new construction must be recycled or salvaged. CALGreen requires developers to prepare and submit a waste management plan for on-site sorting of construction debris, which is submitted to the City for approval, or use a waste management company with verifiable documentation. The waste management plan must:

Identify the materials to be diverted from disposal by recycling, reuse on the project, or salvage for future use or sale.

Specify if materials will be sorted on-site or mixed for transportation to a diversion facility.

Identify the diversion facility where the material collected can be taken.

Identify construction methods employed to reduce the amount of waste generated. ■
■
■
■
3016

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -15
Specify that the amount of materials diverted shall be calculated by weight or volume, but not by both.

The 2025 CALGreen Code is scheduled for adoption in 2025 and will become effective January 1, 2026, as part of California’s triennial building code cycle. The California Building Standards Commission adopts updates to CALGreen as part of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

REGIONAL
Wastewater
Inland Empire Utilities Agency NPDES Permit
The City of Ontario conveys its wastewater via regional trunk sewers to regional wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) operated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). The IEUA operates under an NPDES permit issued by the Santa Ana RWQCB (Order No. R8-2022-0041) that covers three of its regional water recycling plants (Nos. 1, 4, and 5) and the Carbon Canyon Water Recycling Facility. The permit sets forth discharge points, effluent limitations, receiving water limitation, and monitoring and reporting requirements (Santa Ana RWQCB 2022).

Inland Empire Utilities Agency Sewer System Management Plan The IEUA maintains and regularly updates its Sewer System Management Plan to assess infrastructure capacity and plan for necessary capacity increases with future buildout conditions. The Plan was most recently updated in March 2025, and the latest audit report is dated 2024. A key element of the program is the System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan, which establishes the steps necessary to address identified hydraulic deficiencies, including prioritization, alternatives analysis, and schedules (IEUA 2025a; IEUA 2024).

Stormwater
San Bernardino County Regional MS4 Permit
The Santa Ana RWQCB regulates stormwater discharges through separate MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) permits for each of the three counties in the Santa Ana River watershed (Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino) since the 1990s. The City is currently subject to the requirements of the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit (Order No. R8-2010-0036, NPDES Permit No. CAS618036). The RWQCB is in the process of revising the MS4 permit to include Orange County, Riverside County, and San Bernardino County under one regional permit covering all counties and cities in the watershed (Santa Ana RWQCB 2025). ■
3017

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 16
Solid Waste
San Bernardino Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires each county to prepare and adopt a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP). The plan identifies solid waste facilities in San Bernardino County and describes the countywide plan for reaching the State-mandated 50 percent recycling goal. Waste reduction and disposal facilities in the county that require solid waste facility permits must conform to policies and siting criteria in the CIWMP. The CIWMP includes, by reference, source reduction and recycling elements, household hazardous waste elements, and nondisposal facility elements as well as a plan that describes countywide diversion programs and landfill disposal needs. The elements must be reviewed every 5 years and revised if necessary. The latest 5-year review report for the CIWMP was submitted by San Bernardino County Solid Waste Management Division on April 2018. The latest CIWMP states that the County has 5 landfills that have the capacity to accept all solid waste from its customers for a period in excess of 15 years (San Bernardino County 2018).

In addition, each city, county, or regional agency must prepare an annual report for submittal to CalRecycle that summarizes its progress in reducing solid waste, as required by Public Resources Code Section 41821. Once every 2 or 4 years (depending on the compliance schedule), CalRecycle conducts its own jurisdictional review of the annual reports to determine if the jurisdiction has met the Integrated Waste Management Act goals.

San Bernardino Recycling Market Development Zone
The San Bernardino Recycling Market Development Zone (RMDZ) includes the unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County and various cities within the county, including parts of Ontario.

The County Economic Development Agency administers the RMDZ in collaboration with participating cities and solid waste providers. Materials targeted in the RMDZ include mixed waste paper, glass, tires and rubber, plastic, yard waste, and inert solids. The goal of the zone is to attract businesses that can process these materials in the RMDZ.

LOCAL
Water
City of Ontario Water Master Plan
The City of Ontario Water Master Plan (WMP) was prepared by AKM Consulting Engineers to document a multi-year capital improvement program to maintain the City’s water utility infrastructure in a sound operable condition and to meet the level of service expectations of the 3018

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -17
City through 2035. The WMP describes the water distribution system in the City of Ontario, identifies system deficiencies, and recommends improvements (Ontario 2012a).

City of Ontario Water Master Plan Update Draft
The City’s latest Water Master Plan was completed in 2012. The 2020 Water Master Plan Update Draft aims to update the City’s water model, perform hydraulic analyses, and develop capital improvement project recommendations based on the latest available information. The capacity of the City’s potable water system was assessed through an initial survey of the water infrastructure, including water supply pipes, pumps, and storage facilities in March 2019. A computer model (Innovyze Infowater) was subsequently developed to model existing flows and proposed future flows. Proposed flows were based on a combination of land use information, including the existing 2020 General Plan and specific plans; previous water studies and plans; and a City buildout table completed in 2015 (Ontario 2020a).

City of Ontario Recycled Water Master Plan
The City recognizes the need to provide customers with the most economically feasible source of water supply. With the decreasing supply and escalating costs of imported water, Recycled Water provides an alternate and more economical source of water supply for irrigation and some industrial processes. The study area aligns with the City boundary, excluding two regions served by Cucamonga Valley Water District. The City is primarily split into the Old Model Colony (OMC) in the north and Ontario Ranch in the south, with Riverside Avenue as the general divider, although a section of the OMC is located south of Riverside Avenue between Archibald Ave and the Edison Power Lines to Schaffer Avenue. The Recycled Water Master Plan builds on previous Water and Recycled Water Master Plan and aims to catalogue users, identify potential future users, assess the economic feasibility of infrastructure development, size future pipelines, and outline a long-term Capital Improvement Plan. The data model used is based on information from IEUA as of November 2010 (Ontario 2012b).

City of Ontario Recycled Water Master Plan Update Draft The Recycled Water Master Plan is a planning tool to guide future recycled water use and expansion of the existing system for the City of Ontario. The report assesses the recycled water system for 2 phases: the near term and future buildout. The near-term phase, which would take place over the next 5 years, considered the following (Ontario 2020b):

Recycled water system in the Ontario Ranch service area Recycled water to the Creekside conversion project areas Conversion of large irrigation meters/users to recycled water Conversion of parks and schools to recycled water
Conversion of current agricultural land to recycled water ■
■
■
■
■
3019

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 18
The future phase considered full buildout in Ontario Ranch and all potential conversion areas in the Original Model Colony (OMC). The Euclid Avenue conversion areas are also considered as future phase improvements (Ontario 2020b).

City of Ontario Urban Water Management Plan
The City of Ontario has an approved UWMP updated in 2020. The UWMP provides current water usage by residential and nonresidential customers, and it projects future water use for a normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry years over a 25-year planning period. The UWMP was prepared with information from the City’s Water Master Plan and 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan, the San Bernardino County’s 2017 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, and the UWMPs from the various agencies that supply water to the City, including the IEUA (Ontario 2021).

The City is currently preparing its 2025 UWMP update, which is scheduled for adoption in 2026.

As such, the proposed project’s water demand analysis is based on the most current planning information and is consistent with the City’s ongoing long-range water resource planning efforts.

City of Ontario Water Shortage Contingency Plan
The City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan, which is provided in Chapter 8 of the 2020 UWMP, provides a detailed approach to how the City would respond in the case of a water shortage.

The plan also includes an annual water supply and demand assessment, which reviews the water demands for the current years and for a potential upcoming single dry year prior to any response actions taken by the City. The water shortage contingency plan also contains a summary of the Emergency Response Plan, which provides the actions and responses that would be implemented during a catastrophic water shortage resulting from natural disasters, system failure, or other unforeseen circumstances. Per Water Code Section 10632 (a)(3)(A), the City must include the 6 standard water shortage levels from the normal reliability, as determined by an annual assessment of water demand and supply. The 6 standard water shortage levels correspond to progressively increasing estimated shortage conditions and align with the response actions the supplier would implement to meet the severity of the impending shortages. As part of the 2025 UWMP Update, the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan will be updated and scheduled for adoption in 2026.

City of Ontario Water Connection and Water Usage Fees
The City imposes water connection fees and water usage fees in order to maintain and expand the water supply infrastructure that supplies potable and recycled water to residential and nonresidential customers. The rate structure has 2 components: a Readiness-to-Serve charge, 3020

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -19
which is based on the size of the meter, and a monthly usage charge, which is based on the amount of water used. There are separate tier structures for potable water and recycled water.

In addition, the City collects water service connection fees for new service connections.

Wastewater
City of Ontario Sewer System Management Plan
Ontario’s current Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) is dated February 2025 and was prepared pursuant to SWRCB’s Order No. 2022-0103 DWQ and its amendment. The SSMP provides a plan and schedule to properly manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the sanitary sewer system, to reduce and prevent any SSOs, and to mitigate any SSOs that occur.

The SSMP demonstrates the City’s ability to comply with the State requirements through collection system use ordinances, service agreements, or other legally binding procedures. It also outlines the measures taken to prevent illicit discharges into the wastewater collection system and steps taken to minimize infiltration and inflow, stormwater, chemical dumping, and unauthorized debris. The SSMP describes the design criteria for proper construction of sewers and connections; the City’s operation and maintenance program; description of cleaning methods; sewer rehabilitation and replacement program; training; and an overflow emergency response plan (OMUC 2025a).

City of Ontario Sewer Master Plan Update
The City’s Sewer Master Plan analyzes the age and status of the sewer infrastructure and the capacity of the sewer collection system for existing and future peak flows under both dry- and wet-weather conditions. The Ontario Ranch area was reassessed in this document for consistency with planning documents (Ontario 2012c).

Stormwater
City of Ontario Master Plan of Drainage
The City of Ontario’s Master Plan of Drainage (MPD) was updated in 2012 to analyze existing storm drain infrastructure capacity and to determine future storm drain facility needs for buildout conditions (Ontario 2012d).

City of Ontario Capital Improvements Program
The Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) regularly updates its CIP to prepare and budget for upcoming infrastructure improvements across a five-year planning horizon. The Engineering Department also prepares a budget for upcoming infrastructure improvements over a 5-year planning period.
3021

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 20
All Utilities and Service Systems
City of Ontario Standard Conditions of Approval for New Development The City’s standard conditions of approval for new development include the following regulations that pertain to utilities and service systems (Ontario 2017).

SC 3.33 (OMC), 3.34. All refusers must be kept in proper containers within a City-approved trash enclosure that includes a solid roof to prevent rainwater contact, consistent with the City’s Refuse and Recycling Planning Manual. The enclosure and roof must match the building’s architectural design, and architectural details of the roofed enclosure must be included in both the Development Plan submittal and the Water Quality Management Plan.

SC 3.42 (OMC), 3.43 Private sewer, domestic water, and storm drainage systems, shall be designed in accordance with CPC/UPC requirements, including but not limited to, the sizing of pipes. These systems must be reviewed, approved, and inspected by the Building Department. Design standards used by other departments for public sewer, water, and storm drainage systems shall not be used for such private systems.

SC 3.48 (OMC), 3.49. For non-residential projects, the applicant must complete an Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit and comply with all relevant local, state, and federal wastewater regulations. The permit application is available online.

SC 3.65 (OMC), 3.66. A hydrology study and drainage analysis, prepared in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual and the City of Ontario's Standards and Guidelines, and signed by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California, shall be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to Grading Plan approval. Additional drainage facilities may be required as a result of the findings of the study.

SC 3.67 (OMC), 3.68. Prior to Grading Plan approval and the issuance of a grading permit, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Engineering Department. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall identify the BMPs that would be implemented by development projects during construction in order to reduce the discharge of sediment and other pollutants into the City's storm drain system.

SC 3.9 (OMC), 3.10. The project shall comply with the adopted California Energy Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6).

City of Ontario Municipal Code
The City of Ontario Municipal Code includes various directives that pertain to utilities as codified in Title 6, Sanitation and Health:
■
■
■
■
■
■
3022

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -21
Chapter 3, Integrated Solid Waste Management. This chapter describes the requirements and regulations for the users of the City’s solid waste collection services, including nonorganic waste, recycling, green waste, and other organic waste. It also requires owners and occupants of residential and commercial buildings to pay monthly integrated waste service charges. The code describes the business recycling requirements and construction and demolition diversion requirements that must be implemented for compliance with State recycling and diversion laws. Business recycling plans must be submitted for new development and certain redevelopment projects that plan to use commercial collection services. Construction and demolition recycling plans must be submitted for the construction, addition, or alteration of residential and nonresidential structures. The code also specifies mandatory business recycling and mandatory commercial business organics recycling services.

Chapter 6, Stormwater Drainage System. This chapter specifies prohibited discharges to the storm drain system, required compliance with Best Management Practices (BMPs), and residential, commercial and industrial requirements. Other sections of the chapter govern discharges into stormwater from construction activities and the requirements for preparation of a stormwater quality management plan for qualifying new development and redevelopment projects. Article 8 provides the basis for establishing the stormwater pollution abatement charges that are collected for developed parcels within the City to fund future storm drain improvements and the fees imposed for business inspections to ensure compliance with the MS4 permit requirements.

Chapter 7, Public Sewer System. Article 2 contains prohibited discharges and limitations on industrial waste discharges, and Article 3 provides the requirements for industrial wastewater permits. Article 4 has specifications for pretreatment and monitoring facilities, and Article 5 provides monitoring, reporting, and inspection requirements. Article 6 covers enforcement, and Article 7 provides a schedule of fees and charges for sewer connections and for maintaining service with the City’s sewer system.

Chapter 8A, Water Conservation Plan. This section of the code provides the steps to be taken to minimize the potential for a water shortage through water conservation and the enactment of policies to be implemented during various stages of water shortages.

Chapter 8B, Water Services. This section of the code provides the rules for the collection and payment of water, refuse, storm water abatement, and wastewater services; service disconnection; service fees and charges; water service; water meters; and the use of fire hydrants.

Chapter 8C, Recycled Water Use. The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures, specifications, and limitations on the development and operation of recycled water facilities and ■
■
■
■
3023

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 22
systems within the City’s service area and adopt rules and regulations controlling such use. The section includes rates, fees, charges, and deposits for obtaining recycled water service.

Chapter 8D, Potable Water Facilities. This section defines the roles and responsibilities of applicants, developers, contractors, the City, and customers and provides standards and procedures for the design, construction, monitoring, inspection, and management of potable water facilities.

Chapter 8E, Cross-Connection Control. This chapter establishes the City’s authority to protect the public drinking water system from contamination caused by cross-connections and backflow. It provides control mechanisms to water users through inspection, testing, notification, reporting, and enforcement. The City of Ontario Municipal Code includes the following regulation that pertain to utilities, as codified in Title 7, Public Works:

Chapter 6, Underground Utility Service Connections. This section of the code requires that all utility lines and related facilities, including, but not limited to, wires for supplying and distributing electrical energy and services, including street lighting, telephone, telegraph, and cable television service, to be constructed within the City upon property which is yet undeveloped shall be placed underground.

3.19.2 Existing Conditions
WATER
Policy Plan Amendment
The City of Ontario and its associated Water Utility (OMUC) provides water service within a 49- square mile service area. The service area includes most of the City of Ontario; however, the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) operates water lines that serve 2 areas in the northeastern portion of the City, including 1) North of 4th Street and East of Vineyard Avenue, and 2) North of I-10 and East of I-15. In addition, Inland Empire Utility Agency (IEUA) maintains water lines that carry the wholesale recycled water from RP-1 that is sold to the City for distribution to customers. Finally, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) also has delivery/conveyance lines that run through the City (Fuscoe and PlaceWorks 2021a).

The City's distribution system consists of approximately 584 miles of water mains, between 2 and 42 inches in diameter. There are 12 active reservoirs with a total capacity of 75 million gallons (MG). Additionally, the City has 6 pumping stations and 18 groundwater wells, with a total production capacity of approximately 56 million gallons per day (MGD). The City provides an average supply of 33.14 MGD of water to its service area.

The City receives its water supply from:
■
3024

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -23
Groundwater pumped from the Chino Basin.

Treated groundwater from the Chino Basin produced by the Chino Basin Desalter Authority.

Purchased surface water from the State Water Project from IEUA and supplied by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. This water is treated locally by the Water Facilities Authority.

Groundwater purchased from San Antonio Water Company.

Recycled water purchased from IEUA. (Ontario 2021)
Chino Basin Groundwater
Approximately 38 percent of Ontario’s water supply is groundwater pumped by the City from the Chino Groundwater Basin, which is adjudicated and managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster. The 1978 Chino Basin Judgment initially estimated the “safe yield” of the basin at approximately 140,000 AFY. The safe yield is the amount of water that can be pumped from the aquifer annually and for a number of years without depleting the source beyond its ability to be replenished naturally through recharge. The safe yield is recalculated every 10 years, and the safe yield was reset to 131,000 AFY for the next 10 years (2020 to 2030). There are 3 stakeholder groups, designated as Pools, that are governed by the Chino Basin Judgment:

Appropriative Pool, consisting of local cities, public water districts, and private water companies
Overlying Agricultural Pool, representing dairymen, farmers, and the State of California.

Overlying Non-agricultural Pool, representing area industries.

Pursuant to the judgment, the City of Ontario is in the Appropriative Pool and has a “base water right,” which is a percentage of the safe yield. The City has appropriative rights of approximately 21 percent of the safe operating yield from the Appropriative Pool. This amounted to 8,470 AFY in 2020 (Ontario 2021) and varies from year to year based on the safe yield; however, the judgment stipulates that water producers can pump more than their appropriative right if they either pay for replenishment water that is recharged back into the groundwater basin or purchase water rights from other users. Stakeholders in the different Pools can also transfer or lease groundwater rights. By 2020, the City had purchased rights to 3,921 AFY of “overlying nonagricultural” pool water.

In addition, the judgment provides that as agricultural uses convert to urban uses, water rights in the Overlying Agricultural Pool can be converted at 2 acre-feet per acre to the water agency that serves the urban area. As of 2025, the City had obtained an additional 7,488 AFY from land use conversions (Chino Basin Watermaster 2025).

The City is also entitled to water rights due to groundwater recharge with stormwater and recycled water in the Chino Basin, and the City has rights to store water in the Chino Basin. As of ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
3025

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 24
June 30, 2025, the City has 148,935 AF in storage pursuant to appropriative rights and zero AF in storage pursuant to overlying non-agricultural rights (Ontario 2021; Chino Basin Watermaster 2025). The availability of additional storage in the basin allows the City to take advantage of wet years by storing additional water for use in dry years.

Chino Desalter Authority
The City of Ontario also receives treated groundwater for potable uses from the Chino Desalter Authority (CDA). The CDA is a joint powers authority consisting of the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Norco, and Ontario; the Jurupa Community Services District; the Santa Ana River Water Company; IEUA; and Western Municipal Water District. The CDA operates and manages Chino Desalters I and II. These desalter facilities remove salts from brackish groundwater extracted from the lower Chino Basin. The City has an agreement to receive 8,533 AFY of treated water from the CDA (Ontario 2021). In 2024, the City received 8,064 AF from CDA, which is approximately 20 percent of its water supply (OMUC 2025b).

MWD Imported Water
In addition, the City purchases treated, imported surface water from the Water Facilities Authority (WFA). The WFA is a joint powers authority consisting of the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Ontario, and Upland and the Monte Vista Water District. The WFA purchases untreated imported water from MWD through IEUA. The surface water is treated at the WFA-operated Agua de Lejos Treatment Plant in Upland.

In 2024, the City purchased 6,517 AF of treated water from the WFA, which is approximately 16 percent of its total water supply (OMUC 2025). The imported water supplies from the WFA may be impacted during multi-year drought conditions, which limits MWD from delivering sufficient water supplies to all its member agencies. In anticipation of a reduction in supplies, MWD developed a Water Supply Allocation Plan, which provides a means of equitably providing reduced water supplies during drought conditions.

Other Purchased Water
The City also purchases water from the San Antonio Water Company (SAWCo), which delivers domestic and irrigation water to a variety of shareholders. The City has an entitlement of 600 AF based on the active share entitlements. SAWCo’s water supply sources include surface water from San Antonio Canyon, water from the San Antonio tunnel, and groundwater sources from the Chino Basin, Six Basins, and Cucamonga Basin. Most of SAWCo’s water supplies are obtained from groundwater produced in the Cucamonga Basin. In 2024, the City purchased 496 AF of water from SAWCo, which is approximately 1.2 percent of its total water supply (OMUC 2025). 3026

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -25
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 3.19-2, UWMP Existing and Projected Supply and Demand: Normal Year, provides the annual average water supply and demand projections from the City’s UWMP under normal conditions through year 2045.

Table 3.19-2 UWMP Existing and Projected Supply and Demand: Normal Year Supply/Demand
(Acre-Feet/Year)
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Groundwater Pumped
from Chino Basin
18,395 20,249 22,915 24,943 31,476 31,476
Chino Desalter Authority 6,626 11,000 13,000 15,000 17,000 17,000 Water Facilities Authority 6,513 8,533 8,533 8,533 8,533 8,533 San Antonio Water
Company
565 600 600 600 600 600
Recycled Water – IEUA 7,812 12,168 13,465 14,762 16,059 16,059 Total Supplies 39,921 52,550 58,513 63,838 73,668 73,668 Average Annual Demand 39,921 52,550 58,513 63,838 73,668 73,668 Source: Ontario 2021.

The 2020 UWMP also reports the City’s daily per capita water demand of 161 gallons per capita per day in 2020. This demand is well below the minimum water use reduction target of 196 gallons per capita per day required by the Water Conservation Bill of 2009 (SB X7-7). Therefore, the City is in compliance with SB X7-7 (Ontario 2021).

According to the 2020 UWMP, the City would increase local groundwater production, surface water purchases from Chino Basin Desalter and imported surface water providers, and the use of recycled water from IEUA to meet its future water supply needs. The supply capacity from additional storage upgrades would add between 2,000 and 5,000 AFY for groundwater sources.

Overall, the City plans on increasing its total water supply from 39,921 AFY in 2020 to 73,668 AFY in 2045 (Ontario 2021).

Recycled Water
The City’s recycled water system is an important component of its total water supplies. In 2024, the City obtained 9,994 AF from IEUA, which is approximately 25 percent of the total water supply (OMUC 2025). Recycled water is received from IEUA’s water recycling plants RP-1 and RP--5, and then distributed through the City’s purple pipe system. The recycled water received from IEUA is used for industrial uses, landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, and golf course 3027

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 26
irrigation. The recycled pipelines operated and maintained by the City currently totals approximately 65.2 miles.

The City’s Recycled Water Master Plan identifies potential future recycled water customers in the City as well as plans to expand the recycled water system to additional parks, schools, nurseries, and commercial landscaping areas. The City also plans to continue retrofitting landscape irrigation systems to use recycled water where available. Economic incentives for customers to convert to recycled water are being explored, since the monthly charge for recycled water is approximately 60 percent of the charge for potable water. The City is also investigating the viability of making conversion to recycled water mandatory for customers with non-potable uses that are in proximity to an existing or planned recycled water pipeline. In 2020, recycled water demands and projected near-term and future recycled water demands were reanalyzed and are summarized in Table 3.19-3, Recycled Water Demands. Table 3.19-3 Recycled Water Demands Service Area
2020 Recycled
Water Demands
(AFY)
Near Term Recycled
Water Demands
(AFY)
Future Recycled
Water Demands
(AFY)
Ontario Ranch 4,465 6,740 8,158
Original Model Colony (OMC) 5,190 5,428 7,901
Total 9,655 12,168 16,059
Source: Ontario 2020.

Specific Plan
The 2022 Certified EIR evaluated the projected water demand and the needed infrastructure expansion for the Specific Plan area. The proposed EBPSP includes several land use changes compared to what was previously evaluated in the 2022 Certified EIR. The EBPSP establishes nine planning areas that would provide for development of the site with approximately 2,939,000 square feet of Business Park uses on 138.01 acres and 36.15 acres of Open Space. A publicly operated animal shelter that would not exceed 35,000 square feet may also be included in any of the Business Park planning areas. The remaining 14.50 acres would be utilized for roadway improvements. A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared for the EBPSP and is included in Appendix L2.

Potable Water Facilities
The OMUC provides water service to residents, businesses, and other users in the City, including the Specific Plan area. As previously stated above the City’s water supply sources include:
groundwater pumped from the Chino Basin; treated groundwater from the Chino Basin produced by the Chino Basin Desalter Authority; treated, imported water purchased from MWD 3028

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -27
through IEUA and treated by WFA; groundwater purchased from San Antonio Water Company; and recycled water purchased from IEUA (OMUC 2021)
The Specific Plan area lies within the 925 Pressure Zone (PZ). Existing potable water lines are located within Eucalyptus Avenue (16-inch and 24-inch) and Grove Avenue (30-inch). Additional lines are located south of the Specific Plan area within Walker Avenue (16-inch).

Recycled Water Facilities
Recycled water lines are currently located within Eucalyptus Avenue (30-inch and 12-inch) and Bon View Avenue (30-inch). Additionally, 8-inch lines are located south of the Specific Plan area within Campus Avenue, Grove Avenue, and Walker Avenue.

WASTEWATER
Policy Plan Amendment
The City operates and maintains the sewer collection system, which currently serves the Original Model Colony area and portions of the Ontario Ranch area. The sewer collection system consists of approximately 425 miles of sewer mains. The system operates largely by gravity but also includes 4 primary pump stations and approximately 11,000 feet of associated force mains.

The existing wastewater flow is approximately 10.4 MGD. The sewer lines range in size from 4 inches up to 48 inches in diameter (Fuscoe and PlaceWorks 2021b).

Inland Empire Utilities Agency Sewer Collection System and Treatment Plants IEUA operates four WWTPs that provide recycled water to the western part of San Bernardino County. IEUA also maintains a series of regional trunk lines that transport wastewater flows from Ontario to one of IEUA’s regional treatment plants, described below (Fuscoe and PlaceWorks 2021).

Regional Water Recycling Plant #1 (RP-1). This WWTP serves the cities of Ontario, Chino, Fontana, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga, and Upland. It features two separate treatment sections, one for liquids and one for solids, and has a treatment capacity of 44 MGD. The wastewater flows are treated to Drinking Water Title 22 standards; therefore, the recycled water from the plant is suitable for distribution and use for landscape irrigation and industrial processes. The plant is in the City of Ontario at 2662 East Walnut Street.

Regional Water Recycling Plant #5 (RP-5). This WWTP is in Chino and serves Chino, Chino Hills, and Ontario. The plant has a current capacity of 16.3 MGD, which will increase to 22.5 MGD with its planned expansion project that is currently under construction. Wastewater treated by this facility is either discharged to Chino Creek, delivered to industrial users, or pumped to basins for groundwater recharge.
■
■
3029

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 28
IEUA also operates a system for non-reclaimable wastewater (NRW) that consists of industrial waste, groundwater treatment, and other high-strength wastewaters and brines. This system enables IEUA to prevent high-strength wastewater from entering the water-recycling facilities so that they can meet their NPDES permit limits and wastewater quality goals. IEUA operates 3 trunk lines that are part of the NRW system, one of which passes through Ontario. The NRW system conveys wastewater to large-scale treatment facilities in Los Angeles under the jurisdiction of the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, where it is treated and ultimately discharged into the Pacific Ocean.

Specific Plan
Sanitary sewer and wastewater collection for the Specific Plan area are provided by the OMUC, which conveys wastewater to the IEUA for transmission and treatment. Under existing conditions, sanitary sewer lines are located south of the Specific Plan area within Campus Avenue (15-inch), Bon View Avenue (18-inch), Grove Avenue (21-inch), and Walker Avenue (21- inch). No sanitary sewer infrastructure is currently provided within the Specific Plan area.

Wastewater generated from the Ontario Ranch area is conveyed to the IEUA Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 5. RP-5 currently treats about 9 MGD, with a total treatment capacity of 16.3 MGD. RP-5 is currently undergoing an expansion to include solids handling infrastructure, which will increase capacity to 22.5 MGD. Ultimately, RP-5 will treat 30 MGD with a peak flow of 60 MGD (IEUA 2025a).

STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
Policy Plan Amendment
The City owns and maintains over 136 miles of storm drains. The existing storm drain system is shown on Figure 3.19-1, Existing Storm Drain System. In addition, Caltrans has storm drains along Interstate 10 and State Route 60 corridors. All of the storm drains convey runoff to several regional backbone facilities owned and operated by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD). The City is in Zone 1 of the SBCFCD. The following list shows the 3 major regional channels that convey stormwater from the City (Ontario 2012c).

San Antonio Channel. The northwest portion of the City drains to San Antonio Channel via the city of Montclair’s San Bernardino Avenue Storm Drain, SBCFCD’s West State Street Storm Drain, and SBCFCD’s Chino Storm Drain. San Antonio Channel runs along the western boundary of San Bernardino County through the cities of Montclair, Chino, and Chino Hills.

Cucamonga Channel. This channel and a number of its tributary systems convey runoff from the central portion of the City. The regional SBCFCD storm drain systems that are tributary to Cucamonga Channel are:
■
■
3030

O HILLS
C
Y OF
TCLAIR
Y OF
OF
ND

CITY OF UPLAND

CITY OF

FONTANA

CITY OF CHINO

CITY OF RANCHO

CUCAMONGA
Ontario Ranch
Great Park
Corridor
Historic
Downtown &
West Holt Civic Center
Corridor
Ontario
Airport
Metro Center
East Holt
Corridor
E

FONTANA
SPHERE
E Riversi de Dr
E G St
W Phillips 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
W Francis St
E Jurupa St
E Airport Dr
a nd Empire Bl vd
E Mission Blvd
E Edison
E Santa Ana
E Holt
E Eucalyptus
E Schaefer
E Merrill
E Chino

CITY OF

EASTVALE

CITY OF

JURUPA VALLEY
West
Francis Street Storm Drain
East
60''
51''
54''
48''
52''
42''
36''
60''
54''
42''
54''
36''
60''
54''
33''
36''
42''
30''
42''
24''
60''
54''
60''
36''
54''
30''
48''
24'' 42''
30''
27''
60''
48''
54''
51''
45''
30''
30''
30''
24''
24''
18''
60''
30''
30''
24''
48''
60''
48''
39''
30''
36''
60''
57''
57''
54''
42''
24''
36''
36''
18''
12''
24''
36''
45''
42''
24''
42''
30''
24''
54''
54''
36''
48''
42''
36''
36''
27''
24''
8th Street Basin 2
Turner
Basin 3
Chris Basin
Turner
Basin 1
Turner Basin 2
Guasti
Basin 2
Ely
Basin 2
Cucamonga
Spreading
Ground
Grove Avenue
Basin
Wineville
Basin
Ely
Basin 3

ONTARIO

INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT
1!.
. ,7 T~ .. -j
j l I
<II
>
<{
V>
J 4
® ~-L-'r-"
I
l
0 C
B
.c
u 'r
I I 11 I I J' I i •
<II
~
I
I I
1 <II
~
V,
:::,
a.

E
u "'
VI
"'
J
1-
....
<II
> , l I I
<{
..____. .. r
L
i!:====--- ~===~ - cn::::1- •••••
• -
• -
• -
i
\r
....i..
,,
J
I
\
\
I
j
L.J
~
I
t ·•~lifi
~ ----.. .. """""""

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Figure 3.19-1
Existing Storm Drain System
EBPSP Boundary
County Flood Control Channel
City Storm Drain - Open Channel
City Storm Drain - Underground
12" - 42"
-
•••••
42" - 120"
Detention Basins
Proposed Growth Areas
Ontario City Boundary
Newly Constructed City Storm Drain
(accepted by City)
Newly Constructed City Storm Drain
(not yet accepted by City)
Note, Does not show the SBCFCD Grove Basin Outlet Storm Drain Improvement Project along Grove Avenue, between the Grove Basin and Edison Avenue. 2 · 0 · 5 · 0
THE ONTARI.O PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 0 2,500
Source: Fuscoe 2021
5,000
FT
10,000
Date: 3/3/2022
3031

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 30
This page intentionally left blank.
3032

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -31
West Cucamonga Channel System, including the 8th Street Basins, Princeton Basin, East State Street Storm Drain, Francis Street Storm Drain, and Ely Basin Riverside Drive Storm Drain #2 and Lower Cucamonga Spreading Grounds Deer Creek Channel and Turner Basins
Lower Deer Creek Channel, Commerce Center Storm Drain, and Chris Basin County Line Channel
Day Creek Channel. The eastern portion of the City drains to this channel system and includes the following tributaries: Lower Etiwanda Creek Channel, Wineville Basin, and Riverside Basin.

Areas in the southwest portion of the City that do not drain to the three areas listed above instead drain to the Prado Flood Control Basin via other regional and backbone facilities in Chino, including the three listed here (Chino 2022).

Cypress Channel. The channel system, which is owned and operated by the SBCFCD, includes Magnolia Storm Drain and Sultana-Cypress Storm Drain, which drain south through Chino to the Prado Flood Control Basin.

City of Chino, Line I. As per Chino’s Master Drainage Plan, Line I is a proposed double 10- foot by 8-foot reinforced concrete culvert (RCB) that will convey offsite runoff from the City of Ontario through a future storm drain system located at the intersection of Euclid Avenue and Merrill Avenue and eventually discharge into Prado Lakes.

City of Chino, Line J. Line J currently receives runoff from the City of Ontario at the intersection of Grove Avenue and Merrill Avenue with flows routed to Kimball Basins and eventually into Prado Lakes.

SBCFCD is planning improvements to the Grove Basin outlet to address flooding issues along Grove Avenue, between Chino Avenue and Edison Avenue (SBCFCD 2025). The project includes a new 84-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) and 96-inch RCP from Edison Avenue to Chino Avenue. From the Grove Basin outlet to Chino Avenue, the existing 66-inch RCP will be replaced with a 72-inch RCP. This storm drain system ultimately discharges into the Prado Basin.

Specific Plan
The existing topography within the Specific Plan area is relatively flat with a north-to-south sheet flow drainage pattern. The Specific Plan area is located within three City of Ontario Master Drainage Plan areas, including Area XII-1, Area XIII-1, Area XIV-1 and Area XIV-2. Existing storm drain infrastructure within the Specific Plan area includes portions of Eucalyptus Avenue (24-inch and 36-inch). Additional lines are located south of the Specific Plan area within Campus Avenue (60-inch), Bon View Avenue (102-inch), and Grove Avenue (120-inch). ■
■
■
■
•
•
•
•
•
3033

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 32

SOLID WASTE
Policy Plan Amendment
Solid Waste Collection
The City of Ontario provides its own solid waste collection service. The Integrated Waste Department, which is part of the OMUC, provides its customers with blue containers for recyclables, green containers for grass clippings, leaves, and brush; and black containers for all nonrecyclable materials. The department has also developed a Refuse and Recycling Planning Manual to assist developers with meeting the City’s requirements for refuse and recycling storage and access for service and addressing the City’s recycling goals. The manual provides standards for residential, commercial, and industrial container storage and vehicle access, minimum weekly service requirements, and Ontario and San Bernardino County code requirements. The City also provides a household hazardous waste facility for residents at 1430 S. Cucamonga Avenue. Residents can recycle used computers, televisions, and other electronic waste free of charge.

Landfills
Household and business refuse, green waste, and recycling collected in Ontario are sent to the West Valley Materials Recovery Facility in Fontana for processing, recycling, or landfilling; the facility is operated by Burrtec. According to the most recent CalRecycle data, over 92 percent of the solid waste collected from the City was taken to either Badlands Sanitary Landfill or El Sobrante Landfill (CalRecycle 2025a). El Sobrante Landfill in Corona is owned and operated by USA Waste of California, a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. The Badlands Sanitary Landfill in Moreno Valley is owned and operated by the Riverside County Department of Waste Resources. The local enforcement agency for both landfills is the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health. Information regarding these landfills is provided in Table

3.19-4, Landfills Serving the City of Ontario.
3034

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -33
Table 3.19-4 Landfills Serving the City of Ontario
Badlands Sanitary
Landfill
El Sobrante Landfill
Total waste received in 2019 (tons) 886,389 3,419,460
Total waste received from Ontario in 2019 (tons) 47,574 218,454 Percentage of total waste from Ontario 5.4% 6.4%
Maximum permitted throughput (TPD) 5,000 16,054
Average daily disposal rate in 2024 (TPD) 2,964 10,441
Excess daily capacity (TPD) 2,036 5,613
Remaining capacity (cubic yards) 4,900,00 121,083,583
Estimate closing date 2059 2051
Sources: CalRecycle 2025a, 2025b, 2025c, 2025d.

Note: TPD = tons per day
Solid Waste Diversion and Recycling
Compliance with AB 939 is measured by comparing the CalRecycle target disposal rates for residents and employees to actual disposal rates. The latest target disposal rates for Ontario are

9.9 pounds per day (PPD) for residents and 16.4 PPD for employees. Actual disposal rates in 2024 were 10 PPD for residents and 14 PPD for employees (CalRecycle 2025e). Therefore, solid waste diversion goals for Ontario for employment are in compliance with AB 939. However, the diversion rate for residents is slightly over the target goal of 9.9 PPD.

Specific Plan
The City collects solid waste from residential, commercial, and industrial facilities, including the Specific Plan area. Based on data reported to CalRecycle, a large majority (approximately 76 percent in 2019) of the City’s solid waste disposed of at landfills is transported to the El Sobrante Sanitary Landfill in the City of Corona at 10919 Dawson Canyon Road (CalRecycle 2025a)
Solid waste generated during the operation of the Specific Plan is anticipated to be collected by the City of Ontario and is anticipated to be hauled to either Badlands Sanitary Landfill or El Sobrante Landfill. As shown in Table 3.19-4, the Badlands Sanitary Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 5,000 tons per day with a remaining capacity of 4,900,000 cubic yards and the El Sobrante Landfill is permitted to receive 16,054 tons of solid waste per day with a remaining capacity of 121,083,583.
3035

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 34

OTHER UTILITIES
Policy Plan Amendment
Telecommunications services include wireless internet, cell phone and land line telephone, cable television, and satellite television. There are numerous telecommunication and internet providers that serve the City, including the City’s own OntarioNet. Additional telecommunication providers include AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and others. Internet providers include Spectrum, Xfinity, AT&T, Frontier, T-Mobile, and others. Multiple choices give city residents and businesses a variety of options when choosing telecommunication providers. The current infrastructure is in place and sufficient to serve existing and future customers in Ontario and the surrounding area.

Specific Plan
OntarioNet and Frontier Communications provide telecommunication services to the Specific Plan area. Existing fiber optic lines exist south of Specific Plan area in Campus Avenue, Bon View Avenue, Grove Avenue, and Walker Avenue.

3.19.3 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) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
3036

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -35
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

METHODOLOGY
Specific Plan
EBPSP-specific information regarding water supply and demand was obtained from the Water Supply Assessment (WSA). Water demand and wastewater generation were calculated using demand factors provided in the City’s 2024 Water Demand and Sewer Flow Factors Technical Memorandum. The Specific Plan’s solid waste generation was calculated using the California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) estimated solid waste generation rates.

3.19.4 Relevant New and Modified General Plan Policies
There are no applicable policy changes.

3.19.5 Environmental Impacts
2022 CERTIFIED EIR
Water
Water Infrastructure
The Certified EIR determined that the approved project would increase residential and nonresidential development, leading to a higher demand for both potable and recycled water.

Most of this increased demand would come from designated growth areas, with the largest share in the OMC. The Certified EIR determined that the Water Master Plan and Capital Improvement Plan developed by the City would address the growth and guide infrastructure upgrades and expansions. In addition, the City would manage growth through the requirement of development impact fees, water connection fees, and site-specific capacity studies to ensure new projects contribute fairly to the cost of expanding the water system. With these measures in place, and coordinated planning with the regional water agency, the expected impact of the proposed growth under the approved project on water infrastructure would not be significant.

Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Water Demand
The Certified EIR found that the approved project would increase water demand beyond projections in the City of Ontario’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for 2040– 3037

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 36
2045; however, this estimate was conservative and did not account for future water-saving measures, such as updated plumbing codes, greater use of recycled water, and state-mandated efficiency standards (e.g., SB 606 and AB 1668). With these measures in place—including reduced per capita water use and improved building standards—actual demand would likely remain below UWMP projections. City policies also promote water efficiency and require that infrastructure be in place before or during development. The 2020 UWMP confirms that water supplies are sufficient through 2045, even in dry years. As a result, the Certified EIR concluded that the City would meet the approved project’s water needs with a less than significant impact on water supply.

Wastewater
Sewer Infrastructure
The Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would increase residential and nonresidential development, resulting in higher wastewater generation throughout the City of Ontario and its surrounding growth areas. While some locations are expected to see greater increases in sewer flow, the City has already planned and sized its sewer infrastructure to accommodate this growth. Existing policies require that necessary sewer improvements be implemented alongside new development, and the City routinely updates its Sewer Master Plan and Capital Improvement Program to maintain system capacity. In addition, site-specific studies and developer-funded fees help support ongoing upgrades. As a result, the Certified EIR found that the project would not cause a new or substantial impact on sewer infrastructure and determined the impact to be less than significant.

Wastewater Treatment Capacity
The City is served by 2 wastewater treatment facilities operated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency. The Certified EIR concluded that these facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate both existing and future wastewater flows associated with the approved project.

Planned facility expansions and ongoing infrastructure investments are in place to support anticipated regional growth, with funding provided through usage and connection fees.

Additionally, water conservation efforts and compliance with modern building codes have led to a reduction in per-household wastewater generation. Regulatory agencies continue to ensure that treated water meets all applicable state and regional quality standards. Based on these factors, the Certified EIR determined that the approved project would not result in any significant impacts on wastewater collection or treatment systems. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Stormwater
The Certified EIR determined that potential future development under the approved project would increase impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff, potentially causing higher peak 3038

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -37
flows and localized flooding. However, since much of the new development would occur on already paved infill sites, large increases in impervious surfaces are not expected. The City has planned storm drain improvements, especially in areas like Ontario Ranch where current drainage is limited, through its Master Plan Document (MPD) and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). In addition, future projects under the approved project would still need to comply with stormwater regulations requiring treatment measures to control runoff and prevent increases in peak flows. City policies also require hydrological studies and adequate infrastructure to be in place before or during development. Developers must prepare drainage and water quality management plans to minimize runoff impacts. Development fees fund necessary storm drain upgrades, and ongoing maintenance and improvements will continue. Overall, compliance with these policies and plans means stormwater impacts from the approved project would be less than significant.

Solid Waste
The Certified EIR determined that the approved project would increase population and reduce employment, resulting in a net increase in solid waste generation. However, this additional waste would represent only a small fraction of the available landfill capacity, which is expected to remain sufficient well beyond 2050. The analysis assumes conservative waste generation rates and does not account for likely increases in recycling. State laws and City policies require recycling and waste diversion for construction, commercial, and organic waste, further reducing impacts. Therefore, the project would not cause significant impacts to solid waste facilities or services. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Other Utilities
The Certified EIR determined that the approved project would expand electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure. Overall compliance with State laws, the City’s municipal code, and the approved project policies would reduce impacts due to the expansion of energy and telecommunications infrastructure. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.
3039

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 38

PROPOSED PROJECT
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
WATER
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would result in an overall increase in the number of residential dwelling units and nonresidential square footage compared to the approved project. The breakdown for the increase in water demand is provided in Table 3.19-5, Projected Water Demand Rates. Full implementation of the proposed project has the potential to increase water demand by. 1,317 AFY of potable water and 68 AFY of recycled water.

Table 3.19-5 Projected Water Demand Rates
Potable (AFY) Recycled (AFY)
Land Use
Approved
Project Proposed Approved Proposed
Residential 27,761 29,076 9,075 9,047
Mixed Use 7,477 7,109 2,104 2,036
Retail/Service 2,555 2,366 1,568 1,476
Employment 6,166 6,737 7,539 7,926
Other 1,358 1,346 9,125 8,994
Total 45,318 46,634 29,410 29,478
Increase in Water
Demand
1,317 68
Source: Appendix L1.

Notes: AFY = acre-feet-per-year.

Demand factors used to calculate water demands were from the City’s 2024 Demand Factor Technical Memorandum (Ontario 2024a).

Water Infrastructure
To accommodate needed infrastructure expansion and improvements, the City has prepared a WMP and CIP. It also requires development impact fees and has construction requirements based on an evaluation of existing and projected water demands. The potable water demand 3040

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -39
factors in the WMP are conservative and are used for sizing water pipes to convey average and peak daily flow rates. Therefore, they do not reflect the State’s requirements to reduce residential indoor water demand to 47 gallons per person per day by 2025 and 42 gallons per person per day after 2030 (DWR 2021).

Because the planned development in the City for the current proposed project would result in an increase in demand for potable and recycled water, the City and the IEUA have made plans for infrastructure expansion and improvement. As part of the land development approval process, the City determines a project’s fair-share costs and connection fees. Through the use of connection fees and agreements, the City maintains and expands its water distribution system as necessary and is able to ensure that new developments pay their fair-share costs. The City has the discretion to require water capacity studies associated with new development and redevelopment and currently requires site-specific studies to determine a project’s impact throughout the water system. Therefore, impacts related to infrastructure expansion and improvement caused by the implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts.

Water Demand
Total water demand (potable plus recycled water) associated with the proposed project would be 76,112 AFY, which is an increase of approximately 3 percent compared to the 2020 UWMP calculated water demand of 73,688 AFY for the years 2040 and 2045 (Ontario 2021). The proposed project would result in an approximately 2 percent increase compared to the approved project of 74,728 AFY (potable plus recycled water).

The water demand factors used in the 2020 UWMP are conservative because they are based on the City’s water demand factors from the WMP, which do not consider reductions in per capita water use in future years, the City’s continuing conservation efforts, and the increased use of recycled water. Recent State laws, changes in the building code, and water service costs are anticipated to substantially lower water demand rates in the future:

SB 606 and AB 1668 establish indoor water use standards (55 gallons per capita per day [GPCD] until 2025, 47 GPCD from 2025 to 2030, and 42 GPCD after 2030), outdoor water standards, and water loss standards that water suppliers must meet by 2028.

New construction is subject to the latest CALGreen building code, which typically results in a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use.

SB 407 requires all buildings in California to meet current plumbing fixture standards within this decade, which will require retrofitting of existing homes and businesses.

Increases in water service costs, which will provide an incentive for additional water-saving practices and the use of recycled water, which is less costly, for nonpotable uses. ■
■
■
■
3041

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 40
Therefore, applying these more conservative water demand factors by implementing a future water demand factor of 47 to 42 GPCD for all residential uses and a 20 percent reduction in nonresidential uses (compliance with CALGreen and new building code requirements) would reduce future water demand under the proposed project.

In addition, TOP 2050 includes policies that would further alleviate water demands from the proposed project such as:

Policy LU-1.3 Adequate Capacity. We require adequate infrastructure and services for all development.

Policy LU-4.3 Infrastructure Timing. We require that the necessary infrastructure and services be in place prior to or concurrently with development.

Policy ER-1.1 Local Water Supply. We increase local water supplies to reduce our dependence on imported water. New and redevelopment projects are aligned with our available water supply and/or to enhance our available water supply.

Policy ER-1.2 Matching Supply to Use. We match water supply and quality to the appropriate use.

Policy 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 Policy ER-1.4 Supply-Demand Balance. We require that available water supply and demands be balanced.

Policy 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.

Policy S-3.7 Water Supply and System Redundancy. We monitor our water system to manage and ensure adequate firefighting water supplies.

The 2020 UWMP states that there are sufficient water supplies through 2045 to meet projected demands in normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry years through 2045. Although the proposed project at buildout is estimated to generate a 3 percent increase in water demand compared to the 2020 UWMP using conservative water demand factors, new State requirements as listed above and City policies and code requirements would result in enhanced water efficiency and conservation. Applying these measures to the proposed project water demand estimates would result in total water demand below the projections in the 2020 ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
3042

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -41
UWMP for year 2045. Therefore, there would be sufficient water supplies to meet the demand for the proposed project buildout.

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. Therefore, impacts to water infrastructure and water demand are less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
Water Demand
As part of the Policy Plan Amendment being processed in conjunction with the EBPSP, a Policy Plan designation would be processed for the Specific Plan area. The Policy Plan land use designation would be changed from Medium Density Residential (with an Affordable Housing Overlay) (MDR-AH), Mixed Use (with an Affordable Housing Overlay) (MU-BC-AH), and Open Space–Parkland (OS-R) to Business Park (BP) and Open Space–Parkland (OS-R). The water demand for the EBPSP is provided in the WSA (Appendix L2) and summarized in Table 3.19-6, EBPSP Water Demand. Table 3.19-6 EBPSP Water Demand
Land Use Units
Water Demand
Factor
Water Demand
(GPD) Water Demand (AFY)
Potable Water Demand
Office Park 137.9 AC 1,800 GPD/AC 248,220 278.0
Open Space 36.15 AC 100 GPD/AC 3,615 4.0
Animal Shelter Up to 35,000 SF 0.1 GPD/SF 3,500 3.9
POTABLE - Sub Total (AFY) 286.0
Recycled Water Demand
Office Park 137.9 AC 1,200 GPD/AC 165,480 185.4
Open Space 36.15 AC 2,500 GPD/AC 90,375 101.2
RECYCLED - Sub Total (AFY) 286.6
TOTAL EBPSP WATER DEMAND 572.6
Sources: Ontario 2024a; LACSD 2025.

Notes: AC = acre; SF = square feet; GPD = gallons per day; AFY = acre-feet per year.

Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Animal shelter water demand assumed to be 100 percent of wastewater generated from the proposed facility. Animal kennel wastewater generation rate from Los Angeles County Sanitation District (2025). 3043

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 42
The total water demand for the EBPSP is estimated to be 572.6 AFY, which is less than the baseline water demand of 765.3 AFY for the previous land uses estimated in the 2022 Certified EIR (Appendix L2). The net reduction in water demand is 193 AFY, largely due to the removal of the residential land uses from the Specific Plan area and evaluated as part of the 2022 Certified EIR.

Water Infrastructure
As illustrated in Figure 3.19-2, EBPSP Potable Water Infrastructure Plan, new potable water lines would be installed in Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue to serve the Specific Plan area.

Additional potable water lines would be installed in Bon View Avenue and Public Street A between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue. These lines would connect to existing potable water facilities located adjacent to the Specific Plan area. In accordance with Ontario Municipal Code Chapter 8C, Recycled Water Use, recycled water infrastructure would be installed to serve the Specific Plan area.

As illustrated in Figure 3.19-3, EBPSP Recycled Water Infrastructure Plan, new recycled water lines would be installed in Grove Avenue and Walker Avenue to serve the Specific Plan area. An additional recycled water line would be installed in Campus Avenue and Public Street A between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue, at the City’s discretion. These lines would connect to existing recycled water facilities located adjacent to the Specific Plan area.

Construction of the water lines would occur within dedicated public easements/right-of-way or within the boundaries of the Specific Plan. All water system improvements would be designed and constructed consistently with City requirements. Final sizing of utility mains shall be dependent on hydraulic studies done at the time of development. Through the use of connection fees and agreements, the City maintains and expands its water distribution system as necessary and ensures that new developments pay their fair-share costs.

As described in the City’s 2020 UWMP, the City has adequate supplies to serve 100 percent of its customers during normal, dry year, and multiple dry year demand through 2045 with projected population increases and future development projects. Also, the City has the flexibility to increase groundwater production from the Chino Basin and increase the amount of imported water in wet and normal years. Completion of a new ion exchange treatment facility in 2024 that treats groundwater from two existing City groundwater wells would help ensure that the City’s need for safe drinking water is met. The rest of the City’s water supplies are purchased from various sources. The OMUC Water Master Plan and Recycled Water Master Plan are currently being updated. The EBPSP water infrastructure would be consistent with the master plans at the time of project approval, with final sizing and design determined upon submittal of development plans.
3044
, - ----PA 7------
0PEN SPACE

8.0SAC. 12"
AA1 ~I AA2
~t ___ B_U-~N_.fo_si_r_~R_K _ _ ---------!~ ;.._-. -------B-U_~~-~i_is_:c_~R-K _ _______ --------l ~ •"■
5:lir- PA4 ~ ir- PAS ~ BUSINESS PARK - BUSINESS PARK

18.19AC. 37.76AC.
~6 "'( ' ~:is; """
e ilr:
i
" I ------------- !EtJCAl!YP,TUSrAVE
Legend
--
Note: Final sizing of utility mains shall be dependent
on hydraulic studies done at the time of development.

OPEN SPACE l l" 14.00AC.

PA3

BUSINESS PARK

18.21 AC.

PA6

BUSINESS PARK

37.71 AC.
'
I
§! _ !91 -
I '° r-I
24~-----------~
1 • • 7 EBPSP Boundary
_____
• - • Existing Potable Water Line ,
Point of Connection ---• Proposed Potable Water Line

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Figure 3.19-2
EBPSP Potable Water
Infrastructure Plan
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPP L EMENTAL EIR
·8 0 ~ 27 5 550 Feet
Source: T&B 2025 Date: 02/24/2026
3045

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 44
This page intentionally left blank.
3046
PA 1 PA2
t: BUSINESS PARK BUSINESS PARK

7.70AC. 18.33 AC.
s:=
PA4 PAS

BUSINESS PARK BUSINESS PARK

18.19AC. 37.76AC. ■
II
Legend
' : --7 EBPSP Boundary
Point of Connection
Recycled Water Line that may be Required (at the City's Discretion) I
G)
Q'::
(!)
Note: Final sizing of utility mains shall be dependent
on hydraulic studies done at the time of development
----------Jii:9 ___________ 7
OPEN SPACE 811

14.00AC.

PA3

BUSINESS PARK

18.21 AC.
-
co
PA6

BUSINESS PARK

37.71 AC.
--------
Ef!ICAliY.~TUS"AVE
• - • Existing City Recycled Water Line
• - • Existing IEUA Recycled Water Line
Proposed Recycled Water Line

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Figure 3.19-3
EBPSP Recycled Water
Infrastructure Plan
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
G
0 ~ 27 5 550 Feet
Source: T&B 2025 Date: 02/24/2026
3047

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 46
This page intentionally left blank.
3048

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -47
Although the EBPSP would result in new water connections, these connections would be part of the construction phase evaluated throughout this SEIR. The construction of the water lines necessary to serve the Specific Plan would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed throughout this SEIR. 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 USS-1: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities which would cause a significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant water infrastructure impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

New Mitigation Measures
No new mitigation measures are necessary.

WASTEWATER
Policy Plan Amendment
The 2022 Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would generate additional wastewater that would be treated in accordance with the Santa Ana RWQCB and California Department of Public Health requirements.

The proposed project would result in an overall increase in the number of residential dwellings and nonresidential square footage compared to the approved project. The breakdown for the increases in wastewater flows is provided in Table 3.19-7, Projected Wastewater Flow Rates. 3049

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 48
Table 3.19-7 Projected Wastewater Flow Rates
Land Use
Approved Project
(GPD)
Proposed Project
(GPD)
Change in Sewer
Flow (GPD) Percent Change
Residential 15,911,428 17,226,404 1,314,976 8.3
Mixed Use 5,721,159 5,396,954 -324,205 -5.7
Retail/Service 1,547,299 1,439,336 -107,963 -7.0
Employment 3,613,182 3,938,768 325,586 9.0
Other 974,359 966,218 -8,141 -0.8
Total (GPD) 27,767,427 28,967,680 1,200,253 4.3
Total (MGD) 27.8 29.0 1.2 4.3
Notes: GPD = gallons per day; MGD = millions of gallons per day.

Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Sewer Infrastructure
The proposed project would have the potential to increase wastewater flows by 1.2 MGD within the City. The largest increase would happen in the residential land use category. Mixed use and retail/service categories would see a reduction in wastewater flow rates as compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

The proposed project would continue implementation of the four previously approved capital improvement projects, including construction of a new sewer main to divert flow from Vineyard Avenue. Final sizing of utility mains shall be dependent on hydraulic studies done at the time of development. The City has confirmed that the existing sewer infrastructure is adequately sized to accommodate the projected increase in flows under the proposed project; therefore, no adverse impacts on sewer infrastructure are anticipated.

Additionally, TOP 2050 includes policies that ensure sewer infrastructure improvements are implemented in coordination with new development or redevelopment. These requirements, which would continue with the proposed project, ensure that adequate capacity and proper timing of infrastructure are maintained to support growth. Relevant policies include:

Policy LU-1.3 Adequate Capacity. We require adequate infrastructure and services for all development.

Policy LU-4.3 Infrastructure Timing. We require that the necessary infrastructure and services be in place prior to or concurrently with development.

Policy 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.
■
■
■
3050

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -49
The City also has the discretion to require additional sewer capacity studies for new development and redevelopment and is currently performing site-specific studies of certain areas of the sewer system. The City can require development fees to fund infrastructure improvements that are required for the proposed new developments.

The City regularly updates its Sewer Master Plan and CIP and has a process to assess local sewer impacts on a project-by-project basis. The Sewer Master Plan serves as an infrastructure planning tool to make decisions as to when CIP projects are warranted. The OMUC regularly provides and prioritizes sewer projects for inclusion in the latest CIP, which includes a budget for wastewater infrastructure improvements over a five-year planning horizon.

Wastewater Treatment Capacity
The City is served by 2 wastewater treatment facilities (RP-1 and RP-5) operated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). IEUA can route flows to either of the 2 facilities as needed.

RP-1 has a hydraulic design capacity of 44 MGD but the current design treatment loading capacity for liquids is 32 MGD. Currently RP-1 is treating wastewater flows of 28 MGD (IEUA 2025b). RP-5 has a design capacity of 16.3 MGD and is currently treating wastewater flows of 9 MGD (IEUA 2025b). RP-5 is currently undergoing expansion to increase its capacity to

22.5 MGD with a projected completion date of 2026. Future expansions of the facilities will result in a total treatment capacity of 70 MGD. The current and future capacities of these treatment facilities are provided in Table 3.19-8, IEUA WWTP Flow Rates and Capacities. Table 3.19-8 IEUA WWTP Flow Rates and Capacities Wastewater Treatment
Plant
Current Capacity
(MGD)
2025 Capacity with
RP-5 Expansion (MGD)
Scheduled Expansions
(MGD)
RP-1 32132 40
RP-5 16.3 22.5 30
Total Capacity 48.3 54.5270
Current Flow Rates 37 37
Excess Capacity 11.3 17.5 -- Source: IEUA 2025b.

Notes: MGD = millions of gallons per day

1. RP-1 total hydraulic capacity without loading treatment limitations is 44 MGD.

2. The RP-5 Liquids Expansion to 30 MGD and Biosolids Facility will be substantially completed by June 30, 2026. RP1 Liquids Treatment Recovery is anticipated to start FY 28/29; the project will recover liquids treatment capacity to 40 MGD.
3051

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 50
Upon completion of the expansion, the total capacity of the treatment facilities will be

54.5 MGD with average flows of 37 MGD. The residual capacity will be 17.5 MGD (IEUA 2025b).

The proposed increase in wastewater with implementation of the proposed project would be

1.2 MGD as compared to the 2022 Certified EIR (See Table 3.19-7), which is about 6.9 percent of the residual capacity. Therefore, the wastewater treatment facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate both existing and future wastewater flows associated with the proposed project.

Anticipated future regional growth will be accommodated by additional facility expansions and ongoing infrastructure investments, with funding provided through usage and connection fees.

Additionally, water conservation efforts and compliance with modern building codes have led to a reduction in per-household wastewater generation.

In summary, the City’s wastewater collection system and regional wastewater treatment facilities are adequate to convey the additional 1.2 MGD that would occur with implementation of the proposed project. With funding from sewer connection/usage fees and the CIP budget, the City would continue to expand and improve the sewer infrastructure to accommodate new development and future growth. Therefore, the impact on wastewater infrastructure is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
As part of the Policy Plan Amendment being processed in conjunction with the EBPSP, a Policy Plan designation would be processed for the Specific Plan area. The Policy Plan land use designation would be changed from Medium Density Residential (with an Affordable Housing Overlay) (MDR-AH), Mixed Use (with an Affordable Housing Overlay) (MU-BC-AH), and Open Space–Parkland (OS-R) to Business Park (BP) and Open Space–Parkland (OS-R). Using the wastewater demand factors provided in the City’s 2024 Water Demand and Sewer Flow Factors Technical Memorandum, the previous wastewater demand for the project and the new wastewater demand for the project were calculated, as shown in Table 3.19-9, Projected Wastewater Flow Rates for Specific Plan Area.
3052

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -51
Table 3.19-9 Projected Wastewater Flow Rates for Specific Plan Area Land Use
Approved Project
(GPD)
Proposed Project
(GPD)
Change in Sewer Flow
(GPD)
MDR 168,160 -- -168,160
HDR 160,160 -- -160,160
Commercial 8,919 -- -8,919
Office 17,839 -- -17,839
Industrial 6,980 -- -6,980
Business Park -- 158,585 158,585
Open Space 4,604 3,254 -1,351
Animal Shelter -- 3,500 3,500
Total 366,663 165,339 -201,325
Source: Ontario 2024a; Appendix L2.

Wastewater Treatment Capacity
With the removal of residential land uses in the currently proposed EBPSP, the projected wastewater demand has decreased significantly, with an estimated wastewater generation rate of 165,339 GPD. The wastewater demand for the EBPSP has been included in the calculations for the proposed project (see Table 3-19-7). As identified above, the two treatment facilities that serve the City of Ontario and the EBPSP area have adequate capacity to accommodate existing and future wastewater flows.

Sewer Infrastructure
As illustrated in Figure 3.19-4, EBPSP Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Plan, new sewer lines would be installed to support the Specific Plan land uses. Sewer lines would be installed in Campus Avenue, Bon View Avenue, Grove Avenue, Walker Avenue, and Public Street A between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue. Additional sewer improvements may also be required along Eucalyptus Avenue and ‘A’ Street within the EBPSP frontage where future development would not front an existing public master-planned main (see Appendix L3). Final sizing of utility mains shall be dependent on hydraulic studies done at the time of development. These lines would connect to existing sewer facilities located adjacent to the Specific Plan area.

Construction of sewer lines would occur within dedicated public easements/right-of-way or within the boundaries of the Specific Plan. Sewer system improvements would be designed and constructed consistent with City requirements. Final sizing of utility mains shall be dependent on hydraulic studies done at the time of development. Through the use of connection fees and agreements, the City maintains and expands its sanitary sewer system as necessary and ensures that new developments pay their fair-share costs. TOP 2050 policies will ensure that sewer 3053

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 52
infrastructure improvements are implemented in coordination with new development or redevelopment.

Although the EBPSP would result in new sewer connections, these connections would be part of the construction phase evaluated throughout this SEIR. The construction of the sewer lines necessary to serve the Specific Plan would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed throughout this SEIR. 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 USS-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities which would cause a significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant wastewater infrastructure impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

New Mitigation Measures
No new mitigation measures are needed.

STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
Policy Plan Amendment
Potential future development as part of the proposed project and the change in land uses could result in an increase in impervious surfaces, which in turn could result in an increase in stormwater runoff, higher peak discharges to drainage channels, and the potential to cause nuisance flooding in areas without adequate drainage facilities.

Most projects in Ontario Ranch would not be exempt from hydromodification requirements.

Therefore, in this area and other portions of the City that are not exempt, all future projects would be required to install stormwater treatment measures to ensure that post-project runoff does not exceed pre-project runoff for the two-year, 24-hour storm event. This would also minimize the potential for increases in peak runoff from newly developed sites. 3054
-----
PA7

PEN SPACE

8.0SAC. 8"
Note: Final sizing of utility mains shall be dependent
on hydraulic studies done at the time of development.

M2 M3

BUSINESS PARK BUSINESS PARK
PA 1

BUSINESS PARK

7.70AC. _________ 18_.3_3_M_. _ _______ _ ~ t : --------1_8_.2_1A_C_. _ ______ __ -.1 i r- ~ N PA4

BUSINESS PARK

18.19AC.

Legend
~. ·-1 EBPSP Boundary ·----
~ Flow Direction
Point of Connection
PAS

BUSINESS PARK

37.76AC.

I
(!)

EUCALYPTUS AVE
• - • Existing Sanitary Sewer Line
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Line
PA6

BUSINESS PARK

37.71 AC.

Optional Sewer Line that may be required (at the City's Discretion)

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Figure 3.19-4
EBPSP Sanitary Sewer
Infrastructure Plan
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPP L EMENTAL EIR
·8 0 ~ 27 5 550 Feet
Source: T&B 2025 Date: 02/24/2026
3055

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 54
This page intentionally left blank.
3056

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -55
In addition, TOP 2050 includes policies that would reduce stormwater impacts from the proposed project. Specific policies include:

Policy LU-4.3 Infrastructure Timing. We require that the necessary infrastructure and services be in place prior to or concurrently with development.

Policy 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.

Policy ER-1.7 Urban Run-off Quality. We require the control and management of urban runoff, consistent with Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations.

Policy S-2.1: Entitlement and Permitting Process. We require hydrological studies prepared by a state-certified engineer when new development is located in a 100-year or 500-year floodplain to assess the impact that the new development will have on the flooding potential of existing development down-gradient.

Policy S-2.2 Floodplain Mapping. We require any new development partially or entirely in 100-year flood zones to provide detailed floodplain mapping for 100- and 200-year storm events as part of the development approval process.

Policy S-2.5 Stormwater Management. We maintain the storm drain system to convey a 100-year storm, when feasible, and encourage environmental site design practices to minimize flooding and increase groundwater recharge, including natural drainage, green infrastructure, and permeable ground surfaces
Policy S-2.6 Use of Flood Control Facilities. We encourage joint use of flood control facilities as open space or other types of recreational facilities.

Compliance with these policies will ultimately reduce discharge volumes to the storm drain system. The proposed project would continue to implement these policies.

Each future project in the OMC and Ontario Ranch would be required to comply with the City’s storm drain policies and the MS4 permit. This would require the preparation of hydrology reports and drainage plans for review and approval by the City to ensure that there are no adverse impacts to the City’s storm drain system with the addition of stormwater from the project sites. Also, the developers would need to prepare a WQMP that addresses stormwater runoff and requires the construction of stormwater treatment facilities for temporary on-site retention of stormwater runoff. These requirements would minimize the amount of stormwater runoff from potential future development in these areas. Revenue from the City’s development impact fees are used to fund infrastructure projects, including storm drain improvements. And ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
3057

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 56
the City would continue to implement the proposed improvements to the storm drain infrastructure, as documented in the MPD and the CIP.

Compliance with the City’s policies and programs that ensure adequate infrastructure and the regulatory provisions in the MS4 permit that limit runoff from new development would ensure that implementation of proposed would not result in significant increases in runoff that would contribute to the construction or expansion of new storm drains beyond what is already planned. In addition, the City would continue to repair, rehabilitate, and upgrade the storm drain system through implementation of the CIP program, and potential future development would be required to pay storm drainage fees per the City’s municipal code. Therefore, impacts with respect to stormwater infrastructure would be less than significant. 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
New stormwater infrastructure would be installed within the Specific Plan area to accommodate area stormwater flows. Specifically, stormwater lines would be installed in Campus Avenue, Bon View Avenue, Grove Avenue, and Walker Avenue. A storm drain line of varying diameter would be installed in Public Street A between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue. The final sizing of utility mains shall be dependent on hydraulic studies done at the time of development. These lines would connect to existing stormwater facilities located adjacent to the Specific Plan area.

Please refer to Figure 3.19-5, EBPSP Storm Drainage Infrastructure Plan. Construction of all stormwater infrastructure would occur within dedicated public easements/ right-of-way or within the boundaries of the Specific Plan. All stormwater improvements would be designed and constructed consistent with City requirements. Through the use of connection fees and agreements, the City maintains and expands its stormwater system as necessary and ensures that new developments pay their fair-share costs.

Although the EBPSP would result in new stormwater connections, these connections would be part of the construction phase evaluated throughout this SEIR. The construction of the stormwater facilities necessary to serve the Specific Plan would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed throughout this SEIR. 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. 3058
L __ J
<<
PA4

BUSINESS PARK

18.19 AC.

EBPSP Boundary
Flow Direction
Point of Connection
3_6"
PA2

BUSINESS PARK

18.33 AC.

PAS

BUSINESS PARK

37.76AC.
- ■
-
-

UCALYPTUS ----- AVE
Existing Storm Drain Line
Proposed Master Planned Storm Drain Line
Proposed Project Specific Storm Drain Line
OPEN SPACE 36" 14.00AC.

PA3

BUSINESS PARK

18.21 AC.

PA6

BUSINESS PARK

37.71 AC.
---~••-~------

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Figure 3.19-5
EBPSP Storm Drain
Infrastructure Plan
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
G
0 ~ 27 5 800 Feet
Source: T&B 2025 Date: 01/29/2026
3059

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 58
This page intentionally left blank.
3060

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -59
Impact USS-3: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm drainage facilities which would cause a significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant stormwater infrastructure impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

New Mitigation Measures
No new mitigation measures are proposed for the Policy Plan Amendment or Specific Plan.

ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE
Policy Plan Amendment
Electricity
The proposed project is in Southern California Edison’s (SCE) service area, which spans much of southern California from Orange and Riverside counties on the south to Santa Barbara County on the west to Mono County on the north. Total electricity consumption in SCE’s service area was approximately 91,912 gigawatt-hours (GWh) in 2024 (CEC 2025a).

Electrical service to the City is provided by SCE through connections to existing off-site electrical lines and new on-site infrastructure. As shown in Table 3.19-10, Year 2050 Forecast Electricity Consumption, electricity use in the City due to the proposed project would increase by 92 GWh per year. The increase due to the proposed project is approximately 0.1 percent of the total electricity consumption for SCE in 2024 of 91,912 GWh.

Table 3.19-10 Year 2050 Forecast Electricity Consumption Area
Electricity Usage, GWh per Year
Approved Project Proposed Project Net Change
Nonresidential 2,859 2,906 47
Residential 816 861 45
Total 3,674 3,766 92
Note: GWh = gigawatt=hours
3061

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 60
Additionally, all new development as a result of the proposed project would be required to demonstrate compliance with the current Energy Code and CALGreen standards in effect at the time the individual development applications are submitted and can therefore be expected to be more energy-efficient than the current uses being replaced. This would result in reductions in electricity consumption per dwelling unit and per square foot when compared to existing development. Therefore, the proposed project would not require SCE to obtain new or expanded electricity supplies, and impacts would be less than significant.

Natural Gas
The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas to the City of Ontario.

SoCalGas’ service area spans much of the southern half of California, from Imperial County on the southeast to San Luis Obispo County on the northwest, to part of Fresno County on the north, to Riverside County and most of San Bernardino County on the east (CEC 2022). Total natural gas consumption in SoCalGas’s service area was approximately 495.93 trillion British thermal units (BTU) in 2024 (CEC 2025b).

Natural gas service to the City is provided by SoCalGas through connections to existing off-site natural gas pipelines and new on-site infrastructure. As shown in Table 3.19-11, Year 2050 Forecast Natural Gas Consumption, natural gas use in the City due to the proposed project would increase by 341,697 million BTU (MMBTU) per year. The increase due to the proposed project is less than 0.1 percent of the total natural gas consumption for SoCalGas in 2024 of 495.93 trillion BTU per year.

Table 3.19-11 Year 2050 Forecast Natural Gas Consumption Area
Natural Gas Consumption, MMBTU per Year
Approved Project Proposed Project Net Change
Nonresidential 6,021,469 6,120,395 98,926
Residential 4,365,943 4,608,714 242,771
Total 10,387,412 10,729,109 341,697
Note: MMBTU = million British thermal units
Summary
Future developments implemented under the proposed project would be required to comply with the current and future updates to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, which would contribute to reducing the energy demands shown in Tables 3.19-10 and 3.19-11.

New and replacement buildings in compliance with these standards would generally have greater energy efficiency than existing buildings. It is anticipated that each update to the 3062

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -61
Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen would result in greater building energy efficiency.

In addition to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, the approved project includes the goals and policies to increase energy efficiency and reduce wasteful, inefficient use of energy resources (see Section 3.6, Energy). The Environmental Resources Element policies focus on coordinating with agencies to pursue energy-efficient goals and strategies, promoting energy-efficient development patterns and site designs, and expanding renewable energy strategies (Environmental Resources Element policies ER-3.2, ER-3.3, ER-3.4, and ER-3.6). Policy ER-3.3 would require energy-efficient building and site design strategies for future development projects. Policy ER-3.4 would require all new and substantially renovated City buildings of 10,000 square feet and greater to achieve LEED Silver Certification standard. Encouraging sustainable and energy-efficient building practices and using more renewable energy strategies will further reduce energy consumption in the City. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
Energy infrastructure to serve the Specific Plan area would be installed underground or in accordance with applicable public utility standards and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer (see Figure 3.19-6, EBPSP Dry Utilities Infrastructure Plan). Connections to the existing energy networks are available in the vicinity, and any off-site improvements would occur within improved rights-of-way. The locations of other lateral connections, transformers, switches, pull boxes, and dry utility manholes would be determined at the time buildings are positioned and uses are established in each planning area in conjunction with implementing development. Because the Specific Plan area currently consists of agricultural and residential uses that require energy services, implementation of the EBPSP is not anticipated to limit the ability of service providers to provide service to area.

Although the EBPSP would result in new energy infrastructure connections, these connections would be part of the construction phase evaluated throughout this SEIR. The construction of the energy facilities necessary to serve the Specific Plan would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed throughout this SEIR.

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. 3063

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 62
Impact USS-4: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power or natural gas facilities which would cause a significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant energy infrastructure impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

New Mitigation Measures
No new mitigation measures are needed.

OTHER UTILITIES
Policy Plan Amendment
Infrastructure supporting telecommunications services associated with the proposed project would be provided and installed in compliance with all State and local regulations. Furthermore, a number of franchised telecommunications providers are available in the region, including OntarioNet, and no significant expansion or construction of the telecommunications network is anticipated as a result of implementation of the proposed project. Additionally, TOP 2050 Policy LU-4.3 would ensure the necessary telecommunications infrastructure would be in place prior to future development because of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not require new or expanded telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
Connections to other utilities, such as telecommunications and fiber optic networks, are available in the vicinity as shown in Figure 3.19-7, EBPSP Fiber Optics Plan. Infrastructure supporting telecommunications services associated with the EBPSP would be provided and installed in compliance with all State and local regulations. Telecommunication services for EBPSP would be similar as for the City, and would include OntarioNet, AT&T, Spectrum, Xfinity, Frontier, T-Mobile, and others. Dry utilities internal to the Specific Plan area would be installed underground in conjunction with the development in accordance with applicable public utility standards and specifications and to the satisfaction of the Ontario City Engineer. 3064
I :s
,q: "'
ft:l~ o
a:
©
I
I
opr:s~CE OPr:S~cE I I l -- OPEN SPACE I

8.0SAC. ,t ......__ _______ _;1;_;_4.~10:;_;,A;.;:.; C.;...__ I 14.00AC. ,; PA 1 I PA 2 I PA 3 ! I IJ!I "' BUSINESS PARK ~ BUSINESS PARK BUSINESS PARK 1 ~ 7.70AC. f 1----------1_8_.33_A_C. _________ ---1 ~ 1----------1_8_.2_1 A_C_. ---------1 i ~ ~ ~ ,q:

Cl!. = !S ~ a: 1 ~ PA 4 t PA s r~ PA 6 , ~ @ BUSINESS PARK lg BUSINESS PARK I(!) BUSINESS PARK 1j '

18.19 AC. 37.76AC. 37.71 AC.

I I
-- -----., ..;; 3-,-~&- -ii-"E--G;;~VE- ~~~~~ ~--_.,,_. 11.::-~- - - - - - Legend
C, ~ ~] EBPSP Boundary Proposed Gas Utility Line
• - • Existing Gas Utility Line Proposed SCE and Telecom Lines

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Figure 3.19-6
EBPSP Dry Utilities
Infrastructure Plan
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPP L EMENTAL EIR
·8 0 ~ 27 5 550 Feet
Source: T&B 2025 Date: 01/29/2026
3065

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 64
This page intentionally left blank.
3066
PA7

OPEN SPACE

8.05 AC.

PA 1

BUSINESS PARK

7.70AC.

PA4

BUSINESS PARK

18.19 AC.

PAS

OPEN SPACE

14.lOAC.
----------PA9 ___________ 7
~~~~~~~ "PEN SPACE
~-.:::::::~!!!!-!!14!!i!.o!!o A!!i!c!!. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~ PA2 PA3
§ BUSINESS PARK o1\ 18.33 AC. "'· ~,-1--------------------~s [il, ~ ~ ~ :2! PAS ®
1 Bus1NEss PARK m

37.i6AC.

EBPSP Boundary • - • Existing Fiber Optic Line
Point of Connection Proposed Fiber Optic Line

BUSINESS PARK

18.MAC.

PA6

BUSINESS PARK

37.ilAC.

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Figure 3.19-7
EBPSP Fiber Optics Plan
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPP L EMENTAL EIR
·8 0 ~ 27 5 550 Feet
Source: T&B 2025 Date: 01/29/2026
3067

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 66
This page intentionally left blank.
3068

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -67
Construction of any other utility network connections would occur within dedicated public easements/ right-of-way or within the boundaries of the Specific Plan. All connections would be designed and constructed consistent with City/purveyor requirements. The locations of other lateral connections, transformers, switches, pull boxes, and dry utility manholes would be determined at the time buildings are positioned and uses are established in each planning area in conjunction with implementing development. Although the EBPSP would result in new utility connections, these connections would be part of the construction phase evaluated throughout this SEIR. The construction of utility connections necessary to serve the Specific Plan would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed throughout this SEIR. 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 USS-5: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities which would cause a significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant infrastructure impacts from telecommunication facilities and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

New Mitigation Measures
No new mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Policy Plan Amendment
As discussed under Impact (a), the proposed project would increase potable and recycled water demand compared to the approved project by approximately 1,317 AFY and 68 AFY, respectively. Total water demand at buildout would be approximately 76,112 AFY, representing an approximately 3 percent increase over the 73,688 AFY projected for 2040 and 2045 in the City’s 2020 UWMP and a 2 percent increase over the approved project (74,728 AFY). 3069

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 68
As detailed in Impact (a), the demand factors used in the City’s WMP and 2020 UWMP are conservative and do not account for declining per-capita water use, continuing conservation efforts, increased recycled water use, or State-mandated water efficiency standards. State laws, CALGreen building code requirements, and SB 407 plumbing fixture retrofits will further reduce long-term water demand. Applying updated efficiency assumptions, such as 47 to 42 GPCD for residential uses and a 20 percent reduction in nonresidential uses, would reduce future water demand associated with the proposed project below levels estimated in the UWMP.

The City also implements TOP 2050 policies requiring adequate water supply, infrastructure timing, conservation, supply–demand balance, and water system redundancy (Policies LU-1.3, LU-4.3, ER-1.1 through ER-1.5, and S-3.7). As described under Impact (a), the City and IEUA have planned to expand the water infrastructure, apply connection fees and fair-share cost requirements, and conduct site-specific water capacity analyses for new development to ensure the system can meet future needs.

The 2020 UWMP concludes that sufficient water supplies are available through 2045 under normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry year conditions. Even with the proposed project’s incremental increase in demand, updated State efficiency requirements and City policies would reduce actual water use below the conservative projections of the UWMP.

Therefore, consistent with the conclusions in Impact a), sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the proposed project and other foreseeable development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
As shown in Table 3.19-6, the proposed EBPSP would have a water demand of approximately 572.6 AFY, consisting of 286 AFY of potable water and 286.6 AFY of recycled water. This is less than the 765.3 AFY that was determined for the previous land uses provided in the 2022 Certified EIR, largely due to the removal of the residential land use components (Appendix L2).

As described in the City’s 2020 UWMP, the City has adequate supplies to serve 100 percent of its customers during normal, dry year, and multiple dry year demand through 2045 with projected population increases and future development projects. The City has the flexibility to increase groundwater production from the Chino Basin during drought conditions and increase the amount of imported water in wet and normal years. Implementation of the proposed EBPSP will not require new water treatment facilities and there will be sufficient supplies to serve this project and future development within the City. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 3070

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -69
Impact USS-6: The City has sufficient water supplies to serve the proposed project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant water supply impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

New Mitigation Measures
No new mitigation measures are proposed for the Policy Plan Amendment or Specific Plan. c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Policy Plan Amendment
As discussed in Impact (a), IEUA has two wastewater facilities that serve the City of Ontario:

RP-1 and RP-5. As provided in Table 3.19-8, the current combined capacity of these 2 facilities is

48.3 MGD and would increase to 54.5 MGD by 2026 once the expansion project for RP-5 is completed. In the future, the combined capacity of both wastewater treatment facilities will be 70 MGD.

Currently, RP-1 treats an average wastewater flow of 28 MGD and RP-5 treats an average wastewater flow of 9 MGD for a combined total of 37 MGD (IEUA 2025). The future expansion of these 2 facilities will result in a total treatment capacity of 70 MGD (IEUA 2025c). As shown in Table 3.19-7, the 2022 Certified EIR shows a wastewater demand of 27.8 MGD at buildout, and there will be an additional 1.2 MGD with implementation of the proposed project for a total wastewater flow of 29.0 MGD.

Combining the future project buildout of the proposed project of 29 MGD with the existing demand of 37 MGD, the total flow rate in the future would be 66 MGD. This is less than the total treatment capacity of 70 MGD, and therefore the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of the wastewater treatment facilities. Although the proposed project would result in a

1.2 MGD increase as compared to the approved project, this does not result in a significant increase as compared to the approved project.

IEUA continually invests in upgrades and expansion of their wastewater treatment facilities, as documented in the Ten-Year Sewer Capital Forecast report (IEUA 2025c). Over the next 10 years, 3071

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 70
the IEUA is expected to spend 1.65 billion dollars on facility expansions and upgrades to the system. Wastewater flow forecasts are conducted annually based on future growth projections, with funding provided through usage and connection fees. Additionally, water conservation efforts and compliance with modern building codes have led to a reduction in per-household wastewater generation. IEUA has seen a decrease in the total volume of wastewater flows by 10 percent since 2010 due to an increase in indoor water use efficiency, even with an increase in the population served (IEUA 2025c).

In summary, IEUA’s regional wastewater treatment facilities are adequate to convey the additional 1.2 MGD that would occur with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of the wastewater treatment providers, and this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
As discussed in Impact (a), implementation of the EBPSP would result in a decrease in the projected wastewater demand as compared to the approved project. This is primarily due to the removal of residential land use from the proposed Specific Plan and the replacement with business park and open space land uses. The estimated wastewater generation rate of 165,339 GPD for the EBPSP has been included in the calculations for the proposed project (Table 3.19-9).

As reported in the proposed project discussion above, there is sufficient capacity at the wastewater treatment facilities to treat the future wastewater flows for the buildout of both the EBPSP and Policy Plan Amendment.

Additionally, the EBPSP would pay applicable sewer connection fees and service fees, which act to fund wastewater treatment/reclamation improvement plans, operations, and maintenance generally. The City, in consultation with the IEUA, would determine when and in what manner area-serving facilities would be constructed and/or upgraded to meet increasing demands of area-wide development.

Lastly, the projected wastewater flows for the EBPSP area are conservative and will be lower than is estimated with the implementation of additional water conservation efforts and compliance with modern building codes that result in a reduction in wastewater generation.

There is sufficient capacity for the wastewater providers to serve the EBPSP without exceeding existing and future wastewater demands. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 3072

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -71
Impact USS-7: The wastewater treatment provider has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant wastewater provider impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

New Mitigation Measures
No new mitigation measures are proposed for the Policy Plan Amendment or Specific Plan. d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would result in an increase in population of 16,473 residents and 1,831 employees compared to the approved project. This increase in population and employment would result in more solid waste generation and could impact the capacity of the receiving landfills. Table 3.19-12, Additional Solid Waste Generated by Policy Plan Amendment, provides an estimate of the amount of solid waste that would be generated with the proposed project.

Table 3.19-12 Additional Solid Waste Generated by Policy Plan Amendment Residents Employees
Increase in population and jobs with Policy Plan
Amendment
16,473 1,831
Per capita waste generation rate (PPD) 10 14
Per capita waste generation rate (TPY) 1.83 2.56
Additional waste generated by Policy Plan Amendment
(TPY)
30,146 4,687
Sources: CalRecycle 2025a, 2025b, 2025c, 2025d.

Note: PPD = pounds per day; TPY = tons per year
As shown in this table, the proposed project would generate an additional 30,146 tons per year (TPY) of solid waste from residents and 4,687 TPY from employees. This would result in a net increase in solid waste generation at buildout of the proposed project of 34,833 TPY. 3073

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 72
This equates to about 112 TPD (assuming 312 disposal days per year). As provided in Table 3.19,4 the excess daily capacities of the Badlands Sanitary Landfill and the El Sobrante Landfill are 2,964 TPD and 10,441 TPD, respectively. The combined daily capacity for both landfills is 13,405 TPD. Therefore, these landfills would easily accommodate the additional 112 TPD from the proposed project, which is less than 1 percent of the landfills’ excess capacity, and both landfills have closure dates beyond the year 2050. Additionally, these calculations conservatively assume that there is no increased diversion rate for recycling. In the future, other neighboring landfills would also be available to accept solid waste from the City, if needed. The latest update of the San Bernardino County CIWMP indicates that there is sufficient landfill capacity to meet the needs of the county for at least the next 15 years (San Bernardino County 2018).

Furthermore, future development pursuant to the proposed project would comply with Section

4.408 of the 2022 CALGreen building code, which requires that at least 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. Development would also comply with AB 341, which mandates recycling for commercial and multifamily residential land uses. Additionally, future businesses that generate organic waste in amounts over a certain threshold would be mandated to recycle organic matter in accordance with AB 1826. Therefore, solid waste facilities would be able to accommodate project-generated solid waste associated with the proposed project.

TOP 2050 also includes policies that describe solid waste diversion requirements, which include:

Policy ER-2.1 Waste Diversion. We shall meet or exceed AB 939 requirements.

Policy ER-2.2 Hazardous and Electronic Waste. We prohibit the disposal of hazardous and electronic waste into the municipal waste stream pursuant to state law.

Policy ER-2.3 Purchase Products Made from Recycled Materials. We purchase recycledcontent products where it is cost effective.

With continued compliance with the applicable regulations, leading to increased recycling and waste diversion, anticipated rates of solid waste disposal from the proposed project would be less than significant. The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project and impacts in the 2022 Certified EIR.

Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
Solid waste generated during the operation of the Specific Plan land uses is anticipated to be collected by the City of Ontario and is anticipated to be hauled to either the El Sobrante Landfill ■
■
■
3074

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -73
or the Badlands Sanitary Landfill. Construction and operation of the EBPSP land uses would be required to comply with State and local solid waste reduction, diversion, and recycling policies and regulations. Land uses implemented pursuant to the Specific Plan would not generate volumes or types of waste not already considered and addressed under existing policies, regulations, and infrastructure systems.

The Specific Plan would result in a building square footage of 2,939,000 square feet. Therefore, using US EPA’s construction waste generation factor of 4.34 pounds per square feet for nonresidential uses would result in approximately 12,755,2601 pounds or 6,377.632 tons would be generated during the building construction phase. Additional waste would be expected from infrastructure installation and other related construction activities (EPA 2009).

During operations, based on CalRecycle’s estimated waste generation rate of 1.42 pounds per 100 square feet per day for manufacturing/warehousing uses, the Specific plan land uses would generate approximately 41,733.803
pounds of solid waste per day or 20.8 tons per day
(CalRecycle 2019).

The EBPSP’s estimated solid waste generation represents 0.13 percent of the El Sobrante Landfill’s daily capacity and 0.42 percent of the Badlands Sanitary Landfill daily capacity; as such, the Specific Plan would not contribute significantly to the daily throughput. Additionally, consistent with CALGreen, at least 65 percent of non-hazardous construction waste would be diverted from landfills through recycling, salvaging, or reuse. The EBPSP has also committed to providing sufficient space for storage and collection of green waste, organic waste, and recyclables, acting to help reduce solid waste generation. Accordingly, the potential for the EBPSP to generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure 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 USS-8: Implementation of the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, and would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

Mitigation Measures 1
2,939,000 SF x 4.34 lbs/SF =12,755,260 lbs 2
12,755,260 lbs x 1 ton/2000 lbs = 6,377.63 tons 3
2,939,000 SF x 1.42 lbs/100sf per day = 41,733.80 lbs per day 3075

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 74
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant solid waste disposal impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

New Mitigation Measures
No new mitigation measures are proposed for the Policy Plan Amendment or Specific Plan. e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Policy Plan Amendment
As discussed above, the City complies with all State requirements to reduce the volume of solid waste through recycling and organic waste diversion. In addition, all potential future development pursuant to the proposed project would comply with Division 4.4, Material Conservation and Resource Efficiency, of the CALGreen Code, which requires that at least 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. Potential future development would also comply with AB 341, which mandates recycling for commercial and multifamily residential land uses as well as schools and school districts. All jurisdictions in California are required to provide organic waste collection services to all residents and businesses, in accordance with SB 1383.

The City currently complies with all applicable federal, State, and local solid waste regulations, and solid waste, recycling, and green waste collection services are available to all residents and commercial businesses in Ontario. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with all current and future regulatory requirements, and impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
The Specific Plan would be required to comply with applicable City and State waste diversion and recycling mandates, including implementing the requirements of the City’s Integrated Waste Department's Refuse & Recycling Planning Manual, which assists developers in meeting the City of Ontario's requirements for refuse and recycling (Ontario 2024b).

Moreover, the EBPSP would implement conventional land uses and would not establish uses or activities that would conflict with or obstruct local, State and federal solid waste management regulations. All solid waste generated by the EBPSP would be collected and disposed of as part of the City’s municipal waste stream. In this latter regard, solid waste management services are 3076

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -75
provided throughout the City including collection and transfer of refuse, green waste, and bulky items. Recycling services are also provided. The potential for the EBPSP conflict with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste 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 USS-9: The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant solid waste compliance impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

New Mitigation Measures
No new mitigation measures are proposed for the Policy Plan Amendment or Specific Plan.

3.19.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis
WATER
The area considered for cumulative impacts for water supply and treatment is the City of Ontario, IEUA, and CVWD service areas. The OMUC service area includes most of the City of Ontario and will serve the Ontario Ranch. The CVWD serves two small areas in the northeastern portion of the City and the IEUA provides recycled water that is distributed by OMUC.

The 2020 UWMPs for the City, IEUA, and CVWD all state that there are sufficient water supplies through 2045 to meet projected demands in normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry years. Although the proposed project at buildout is estimated to generate an approximately 3 percent increase in water demand compared to the 2020 UWMP using conservative water demand factors, new State requirements for indoor water usage and City policies and code requirements would result in enhanced water efficiency and conservation efforts which would likely reduce the total water demand below the projections in the 2020 UWMP for year 2045.

Overall, cumulative water demands would neither exceed planned levels of supply nor require building new water treatment facilities or expanding existing facilities beyond what is currently planned. In addition, future development would be required to pay connection fees, which would offset the costs of system maintenance and capital upgrades to support the new 3077

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 76
development in the service areas. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant and impacts of the project would not be cumulatively considerable.

WASTEWATER
The area considered for cumulative impacts for wastewater is the IEUA service area. Cumulative projects in the IEUA service area could cause significant impacts if they exceed the combined capacities of the wastewater treatment plants.

Although the IEUA anticipates a significant increase in the growth of its service area in the next ten years, this will be accommodated by upgrades and expansion of their wastewater treatment facilities, as documented in the Ten-Year Sewer Capital Forecast report (IEUA 2025c). Capacity projects to address increasing demand over the next 10 years include the expansion at RP-5, the relocation of RP-2 solids handling to RP-5, and the beginning of the RP-1 liquid capacity recovery and solids treatment expansion. Over the next 10 years, the IEUA is expected to spend 1.65 billion dollars on facility expansions and upgrades to the system.

Wastewater flow forecasts are conducted annually based on future growth projections, with funding provided through usage and connection fees. Additionally, IEUA has experienced a decrease in the volume of sewage flow of approximately 10 percent since 2010 due to a decrease in indoor water consumption with compliance requirements for new development in accordance with the CALGreen and water conservation efforts. The ultimate capacity for wastewater flows to the IEUA WWTPs will be 80 MGD by 2060, with a future combined capacity of 70 MGD for RP-1 and RP-5, which serve the City of Ontario (IEUA 2025c).

Also, future development within the service area would be required to comply with all applicable regulations and ordinances issued by IEUA. The cities that discharge wastewater to the IEUA WWTPs are required to prepare SSMPs to ensure that the sewer infrastructure and treatment facilities can handle the wastewater flows within their service area. The IEUA and the cities within its service area plan for increased demand with future development. Therefore, with continued compliance with local and regional regulations, cumulative impacts would be less than significant and impacts of the project would not be cumulatively considerable.

STORM DRAINAGE
The area considered for cumulative impacts is the Chino Creek and the Middle Santa Ana River subwatershed. Other projects in this area would increase impervious areas, thus increasing runoff and flows into the storm drain systems. Within San Bernardino County, other projects would also 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, future projects would be required to comply with the MS4 permits applicable to those 3078

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -77
watersheds. The Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 permit applies to portions of three counties in the Santa Ana Basin. Most projects would meet criteria in the MS4 permits that require LID measures and on-site stormwater bioretention facilities that would reduce the amount of runoff entering public storm drain systems. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable.

SOLID WASTE
The area considered for cumulative impacts to solid waste disposal includes all the cities and counties that dispose of their solid waste in Badlands Sanitary Landfill or El Sobrante Landfill.

These landfills currently have a combined excess daily capacity of 13,405 TPD and have a remaining landfill capacity of 4,900,000 cubic yards for Badlands Sanitary Landfill and 121,083,583 cubic yards for El Sobrante Landfill. Both landfills have closure dates beyond 2050.

In addition, State and local regulations and ordinances regarding the recycling of construction debris and organic waste will further reduce the amount of solid waste transported to these landfills in the future. Therefore, with continued compliance with the applicable regulations, in combination with reasonably foreseeable future development, cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

OTHER UTILITIES
The area considered for cumulative impacts are the service areas of SCE for electricity and SoCalGas for natural gas. Other projects within the service areas would increase electricity and natural gas demands. The cumulative impacts of energy consumption and efficiency are provided in Section 3.6, Energy. All future projects developed within the SCE and SoCalGas service areas would implement the requirements of the California Energy Code and CALGreen Building Code. New buildings would also use new energy-efficient appliances and equipment, pursuant to the Appliance Efficiency Regulations. Counties and cities review project design plans against these codes and ensure compliance before issuing construction permits. These measures would reduce the overall consumption of electricity and natural gas.

The energy and telecommunications service providers that serve the EIR Study Area indicate that they have the capability to serve future increases in population within their service areas without significant changes to the existing infrastructure. In addition, the proposed project includes goals, policies, and actions that would contribute to minimizing inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy consumption and ensure compliance with State, regional, or local plans for renewable energy, therefore avoiding the need for new or expanded electric power and natural gas facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, cumulative impacts are less than significant. 3079

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 78
Cumulative Impact: Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with other developments in the city, would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative utility and service systems impacts.

3.19.7 References
Barasso, John. 2018. Congress Passes America’s Water Infrastructure Act. https://www.barrasso.senate.gov/newsroom-news-releases-congress-passes-americas -water-infrastructure-act/.

CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2019. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates CalRecycle. 2025a. Jurisdiction Disposal and Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) Tons by Facility.

Accessed December 3, 2025.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFa cility.

CalRecycle. 2025b. Facility Reports. Accessed December 3, 2025. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Origin/FacilitySummary.

CalRecycle. 2025c. SWIS Facility/Site Search. Accessed December 3, 2025. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search.

CalRecycle. 2025d. Landfill Tonnage Reports. Accessed December 3, 2025. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LandfillTipFees/.

CalRecycle. 2025e. Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Progress Report. Accessed December 3, 2025.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DiversionDisposal.

CEC (California Energy Commission). 2022, January 24. Natural Gas Utility Service Area, California 2020. Accessed November 12, 2025. https://cecgis-caenergy.opendata .arcgis.com/documents/142ff453ebba49b88e07b51a08c215a7/explore.

CEC. 2025a. Electricity Consumption. Accessed November 11, 2025. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity -data/california-energy-consumption-dashboards-0.

CEC. 2025b. Natural Gas Consumption. Accessed November 21, 2025. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity -data/california-energy-consumption-dashboards-1.
3080

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -79
Chino, City of. 2022. Storm Drain Master Plan Update Subarea No.2: The Preserve. https://www.cityofchino.org/DocumentCenter/View/3203/Preserve-Storm-Drain -Master-Plan-of-Drainage---Final_2022-PDF.

Chino Basin Watermaster. 2025, October 20. Draft 2025-26 Assessment Package (Production Year 2024/2025).

DGS (Department of General Services). 2025. CALGreen. Accessed November 22, 2025. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/calgreen.

DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2025. 2018 Water Conservation Legislation.

Accessed November 22, 2025. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And -Efficiency/2018-Water-Conservation-Legislation.

DWR. 2021. State Agencies Recommend Indoor Residential Water Use Standard to Legislature. https://water.ca.gov/News/News-Releases/2021/Nov-21/State-Agencies-RecommendIndoor-Residential-Water-UseStandard#:~:text=SACRAMENTO%20%E2%80%93%20The%20Department%20of%20Wat er,objectives%20for%20their%20service%20areas.

EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 200. Estimating 2003 Building Related Construction and Demolition Materials. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017- 09/documents/estimating2003buildingrelatedcanddmaterialsamounts.pdf Fuscoe and PlaceWorks. 2021a. Water Distribution.
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/6d225f15fa80422598971b35f8c34ade.

Fuscoe and PlaceWorks. 2021b. Existing Conditions.
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/22c0a02611cd41e992790ae5d88ce23f.

IEUA (Inland Empire Utilities Agency). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.ieua.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Final-IEUA-2020-UWMP.pdf.

IEUA. 2024. Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) Audit (May 2021 to May 2024). https://www.ieua.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/
2024-IEUA-SSMP-Audit.pdf
IEUA. 2025a, March 27 (signed). Sewer System Management Plan, 2025 Update. https://www.ieua.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/IEUA-2025-SSMP-Final.pdf.

IEUA. 2025b. IEUA Facilities. Accessed November 22, 2025. https://www.ieua.org/facilities/.

IEUA. 2025c. Ten-Year Sewer Capital Forecast: Fiscal Year 2024/2025. https://www.ieua.org/ wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Ten-Year-Sewer-Capital-Forecast-FY-2024-2025.pdf. 3081

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 80
LACSD (Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts). 2025. Loadings for Each Class of Land Use.

Table 1 of Will Serve Program. Accessed November 22, 2025. https://www.lacsd.org/services/wastewater-programs-permits/will-serve-program.

OMUC (Ontario Municipal Utilities Company). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fuwmp_attachments%2F793 7833487%2FFINAL%20City%20of%20Ontario%202020%20UWMP.pdf OMUC. 2025. 2024 Water Production Summary. Ontario, City of. 2012a. Water Master Plan. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/Master%20Plan%20- %20Water.pdf.

Ontario. 2012b. Recycled Water Master Plan.
https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/Master%20Plan%20- %20Recycled%20Water.pdf.

Ontario. 2012c. Sewer Master Plan Update. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/Master%20Plan%20- %20Sewer.pdf
Ontario. 2012d. Master Plan of Drainage. 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%20April%2018%2C%202017.pdf.

Ontario. 2020a. Draft Water Master Plan Update.

Ontario. 2020. Recycled Water Master Plan.

Ontario. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.

Ontario. 2024a. City of Ontario Demand Factor Technical Memorandum. Prepared by AKM Consulting Engineers.

Ontario. 2024b. Mandatory Recycling Programs.
https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/migrated-files/Ontario-Files/OntarioWaterWise/IWPM%2520-%25203.26.2024.pdf PlaceWorks. 2025. Ontario Municipal Utilities Company, Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment. (Appendix L2)
3082

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -81
San Bernardino County. 2018. Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. https://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/DPW/docs/SB-County-Final-Draft-Summary-Plan-SP -for-SWAT-07-2018r.pdf.

Santa Ana RWQCB (Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2022. Waste Discharge Requirements and Master Recycling Permit for Inland Empire Utilities Agency Regional Water Recycling Facilities.

Santa Ana RWQCB. 2025. Proposed Regional MS4 Permit. California Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Accessed December 2, 2025.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/stormwater/#:~:text =CAS618000)%20%E2%80%93%20On%20March%201%2C%202024%2C%20staff,San%20 Bernardino%20Counties%20on%20a%20regionwide%20basis.

SBCFCD (San Bernardino County Flood Control District). 2025, June. Grove Basin Outlet Storm Drain Improvement Project Between East Riverside Drive and Edison Avenue, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by SummitWest Environmental, Inc. https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2025060512.

SWRCB (California State Water Resources Control Board). 2014, April 25. Resolution No. 2014-0038 to Adopt an Emergency Regulation for Statewide Urban Water Conservation. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/resolutions/2014/ rs2014_0038_regs.pdf.

SWRCB. 2015, April 7. Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Ocean Waters of California to Control Trash and Part 1 Trash Provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/trash_control/docs/trash_sr_ 040715.pdf.

SWRCB. 2025a. Making Conservation a California Way of Life Regulation. Accessed December 4, 2025. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/conservation/regs/water_efficiency _legislation.html#facts.

SWRCB. 2025b. Storm Water Program: Trash Implementation Program. Accessed November 22, 2025. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/ trash_implementation.html.
3083

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 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 82
This page intentionally left blank.
3084

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO
MARCH 2026 3.20-1

3.20 WILDFIRE
This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) evaluates the potential wildfire impacts associated with implementation of the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP (proposed project) in comparison to TOP (approved project) and the impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

3.20.1 Regulatory Framework

FEDERAL
National Cohesive Wildfire Management Strategy
In the Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act of 2009 (FLAME Act), Congress mandated the development of a National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy for all lands in the United States. Wildfire management is guided by the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, which has three primary goals—resilient landscapes, fire-adapted communities, and safe and effective wildfire response. These 3 goals enable land managers to manage vegetation and fuels; protect homes, communities, and other values at risk; manage human-caused ignitions; and effectively and efficiently respond to wildfires. California is part of the Western Regional Strategy Committee, chartered to support and facilitate the implementation of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy.

National Fire Protection Association Standards
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) codes, standards, recommended practices, and guides are developed through a consensus standards development process approved by the American National Standards Institute. NFPA standards are recommended (advisory) guidelines for fire protection that are referenced in the California Fire Code, which is adopted by Contra Costa County every 3 years. Specific standards applicable wildland fire hazards include, but are not limited to:

NFPA 1141, Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land Development in Wildlands NFPA 1142, Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting NFPA 1143, Wildland Fire Management
NFPA 1144, Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations
■
■
■
■
■
3085

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
3 .20 -2
STATE
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is dedicated to the fire protection and stewardship of over 31 million acres of California’s wildlands. CAL FIRE provides fire assessment and firefighting services for land in State Responsibility Areas (SRA), conducts educational and training programs, provides fire planning guidance and mapping, and reviews general plan safety elements to ensure compliance with State fire safety requirements. CAL FIRE staff, or a designee, also reviews building permit applications, parcel maps, and use permits for construction or development in SRAs and Local Responsibility Areas (LRA).

The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection is a government-appointed approval body within CAL FIRE. It is responsible for developing the general forest policy of the state, determining the guidance policies of CAL FIRE, and representing the state’s interest in federal forestland in California. The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection also promulgates regulations and approves general plan safety elements that are adopted by local governments for compliance with State statutes.

The California Office of the State Fire Marshal supports the mission of CAL FIRE by focusing on fire prevention. These responsibilities include regulating buildings in which people live, congregate, or are confined; controlling substances and products that may, in and of themselves or by their misuse, cause injuries, death, and destruction by fire; providing statewide direction for fire prevention within wildland areas; regulating hazardous liquid pipelines; developing and renewing regulations and building standards; and providing training and education in fire protection methods and responsibilities. These are accomplished through major programs, including engineering, education, enforcement, and support from the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Together, the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, Office of State Fire Marshal, and CAL FIRE protect and enhance the forest resources of all wildland areas of California that are not under federal jurisdiction.

Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Responsibility Areas
CAL FIRE designates Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) as authorized under California Government Code Sections 51175, et seq. FHSZs may be designated Very High, High, or Moderate. CAL FIRE considers many factors when designating FHSZs, including fire history, existing and potential vegetation fuel, flame length, blowing embers, terrain, and weather patterns for the area. CAL FIRE designates FHSZs in 2 types of areas depending on which level of government is financially responsible for fire protection. 3086

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .20 -3
Local Responsibility Area (LRA). Incorporated communities are financially responsible for wildfire protection.

State Responsibility Area (SRA). CAL FIRE and contracted counties are financially responsible for wildfire protection.

California Code of Regulations Section 1299.02
California Code of Regulations Section 1299.02 defines defensible space as the buffer landowners are required to create on their property between a "Building or Structure" and the plants, brush, and trees or other items surrounding the "Building or Structure" that could ignite in the event of a fire. A building or structure are defined as anything constructed that is designed or intended for support, enclosure, shelter, or protection of persons, animals, or property, having a permanent roof that is supported by walls or posts that connect to, or rest on the ground.

Public Resources Code Section 4291
Public Resources Code Section 4291, Mountainous, Forest-, Brush- and Grass-Covered Lands, is intended for any person who owns, lease, controls, operates, or maintains a building or structure in a mountainous area, forest-covered lands, shrub-covered lands, grass-covered lands, or land that is covered with flammable material, regardless of whether the property is in an SRA or Very High FHSZ. This section requires defensible space to be maintained within 100 feet from each side of a structure. An ember-resistant zone is required within 5 feet of a structure and more intense fuel reduction between 5 and 30 feet of a structure.

California Building Code
The California Buildings Standards Code (CCR Title 24) provides 12 different codes for construction and buildings in California. This code is updated every 3 years, with the most recent version effective January 1, 2023. The City of Ontario regularly adopts the most recent version of the California Building Standards Code, with local amendments, through Ontario Municipal Code Title 8, Chapter 1, Administrative and Building Code.

Building Design Standards
The California Building Code (CBC), Part 2 of 24 CCR, identifies building design standards, including those for fire safety. It is effective statewide, but a local jurisdiction may adopt more restrictive standards based on local conditions under specific amendment rules prescribed by the State Building Standards Commission. Commercial and residential buildings are plan checked by local city and county building officials for compliance with the CBC and any applicable local edits. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC include the installation of sprinklers in buildings and other facilities; the establishment of fire-resistance standards for fire ■
■
3087

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
3 .20 -4
doors and building materials; requirements for smoke-detection systems; exiting requirements; and the clearance of debris.

California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC) incorporates, by adoption, the International Fire Code of the International Code Council, with California amendments. This is the official fire code for the state and all political subdivisions. It is found in 24 CCR Part 9 and, like the CBC, it is revised and published every 3 years by the California Building Standards Commission. Also like the CBC, the CFC is effective statewide, but a local jurisdiction may adopt more restrictive standards based on local conditions. The CFC is a model code that regulates minimum fire safety regulations for new and existing buildings; facilities; storage; processes, including emergency planning and preparedness; fire service features; fire protection systems; hazardous materials; fire flow requirements; and fire hydrant locations and distribution. Typical fire safety requirements include installation of sprinklers in all buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction; and the clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.

Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition
Chapter 33 of the CFC, Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition, provides requirements for fire safety precautions during construction and demolition of a development project. The purpose of this chapter is to provide reasonable safety to life and property from fire during construction and demolition operations, including those in underground locations. Specific requirements include prohibiting smoking on-site, except for in approved areas; management of combustible materials and debris; cutting and welding; electrical wiring; and cooking. Additional requirements include the preparation of site safety plans prior to building permit issuance, providing fire watch during nonworking hours, and maintaining water supply for fire protection as soon as combustible materials arrive on a project site.

California Public Utilities Commission
In 2007, wildfires in southern California were ignited by overhead utility power lines and aerial communication facilities near power lines. In response, the California Public Utilities Commission began considering and adopting regulations to protect the public from fire hazards posed by overhead power lines and nearby aerial communication facilities. The commission published a fire threat map—under Rulemaking 15-05-006, following procedures in Decision 17- 01-009, revised by Decision 17-06-024—that adopted a work plan for the development of a utility high-fire-threat district where enhanced fire safety regulations in Decision 17-12-024 apply (CPUC 2025). The fire regulations require electrical utilities to:
3088

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .20 -5
Prioritize the correction of safety hazards.

Correct nonimmediate fire risks in “Tier 2” (elevated fire threat) areas in the high fire-threat district within 12 months, and in “Tier 3” (extreme fire threat) areas within 6 months.

Maintain increased clearances between vegetation and power lines in the high fire-threat district.

Maintain stricter wire-to-wire clearances for new and reconstructed facilities in Tier 3 areas.

Conduct annual inspections of overhead distribution facilities in rural areas of Tier 2 and Tier 3 areas.

Prepare a fire prevention plan annually if overhead facilities exist in the high fire-threat district. (CPUC 2017)
Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation’s Fire Hazard Technical Advisory
LCI (formerly the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research) published the Fire Hazard Technical Advisory in 2015 and revised it in 2022 as a planning guide for addressing fire hazards, reducing risk, and increasing resilience across California’s diverse communities and landscapes.

The guide provides a range of goals, policies, and programs for fire hazard prevention and mitigation, disaster preparedness, and emergency response and recovery. The 2022 update includes specific land use strategies to reduce fire risk to buildings, infrastructure, and communities.

LOCAL
The Ontario Plan 2050
The Safety Element of TOP 2050 includes nine sections: 1) Seismic and Geologic Hazards, 2) Flood Hazards, 3) Fire and Rescue Hazards, 4) Noise Hazards, 5) Wind-Related Hazards, 6) Hazardous Materials and Waste, 7) Law Enforcement, 8) Emergency Management, and 9) Energy Resiliency. Chapter 3, Fire and Rescue Hazards, analyzes the City’s risk from wildfires and structural fires as well as its firefighting capabilities, water supply, roadway standards, and emergency evacuation routes. This chapter contains specific requirements for complying with the CBC and CFC, maintaining sufficient fire services, maintaining an effective emergency notifications system, water supply redundancy, and fire prevention through environmental design.
■
■
■
■
■
■
3089

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
3 .20 -6
City of Ontario Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
In 2023, the City of Ontario prepared a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to identify local hazards, review and assess past disaster events, estimate the probability of future occurrences, and establish goals to reduce or eliminate long-term risks to people and property from natural and human-caused hazards. The City is not in an FHSZ or Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI).

Consequently, wildfire was not identified as a hazard of concern in the LHMP; instead, urban fire represents the City’s primary fire-related risk. The LHMP includes a comprehensive set of mitigation actions (see Table 5-3: Mitigation Action Implementation Plan) designed to enhance community resilience to hazard events. The LHMP is required to be updated and readopted by FEMA and the City of Ontario every 5 years, with the next update scheduled for November 2028.

City of Ontario Emergency Operations Plan
The City of Ontario Emergency Operations Plan, adopted in 2024, addresses the City’s planned response to natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies. The plan does not address normal day-to-day emergencies or the well-established and routine procedures used in coping with such emergencies. Its operational concepts focus on potential large-scale disasters that can generate unique situations requiring unusual, large, and/or coordinated emergency responses.

City of Ontario Municipal Code
The Ontario Municipal Code includes various directives to minimize adverse impacts associated with wildfires. Most provisions related to wildfire and evacuation are in the following chapters:

Title 4, Chapter 4, Fire Code. This chapter adopts the CFC by references and establishes local amendments to the CFC.

Title 8, Chapter 13, Flood Damage Prevention Program. This chapter applies to any lands within areas of special flood hazards or areas of flood-related erosion hazards. This chapter provides specific development standards for development in flood hazard areas to promote public health, safety, and general welfare, and minimize losses due to flooding.

3.20.2 Existing Conditions

POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
Wildfire Background
The term “wildfire” refers to fires that usually result from the ignition of dry grass, brush, or timber. Historically, wildfires commonly occurred in areas that are characterized by steep or ■
■
3090

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .20 -7
heavily vegetated areas, which make suppression of the fire difficult. More recently, wildfires have been encroaching into more urban areas, or the wildland-urban interface, threatening homes, businesses, and essential infrastructure. While wildfires play an important role in the ecology of many natural habitats, as urban development moves into areas susceptible to wildfire hazards, risks to human safety and property increase.

Wildfire Causes
Although the term “wildfire” suggests natural origins, a 2017 study that evaluated 1.5 million wildfires in the United States between 1992 and 2012 found that humans were responsible for igniting 84 percent of wildfires, accounting for 44 percent of acreage burned (Balch et al. 2017).

The three most common initiators of human-caused wildfires are debris burning (logging slash, farm fields, trash, etc.), arson, and equipment use (Pacific Biodiversity Institute 2007). Lightning is the most common cause of nature-induced wildfire, with more than 40 percent of wildfires in the western United States caused by lightning between 1992 and 2015 (Balch et al. 2017; Cart 2023).

Power lines can ignite wildfires several ways, including:

Downed lines. Downed power lines can produce arcing that can cause the powerlines to spark and ignite vegetation.

Vegetation contact. A branch contacting two conductors for a sufficient duration may ignite the branch; a tree falling on a line can cause a downed line.

High winds and severe weather. Conductors can slap together during high winds and severe weather, creating arcing of the powerlines and ejecting hot metal particles that can ignite flammable matter on the ground.

Equipment failures. As circuit components deteriorate, they can arc and spark and thus ignite nearby flammable matter. (TWMP 2018)
Wildfires ignite structures in three ways: embers landing on the structure or flammable material next to the structure, direct flame contact, and radiant heat from fire close to the structure.

Embers are the most common cause of home ignition. Embers ignite structures by entering through attic vents, igniting flammable materials around the home (litter in the roof gutter; wood stacks; or wood fencing), or finding their way under roofing materials (California Chaparral Institute 2025).

CAL FIRE estimated in 2017 that there were about three million housing units in California in FHSZs and potentially at risk from wildland fire—that is, just over 20 percent of all housing units in the state (CAL FIRE 2018).
■
■
■
■
3091

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
3 .20 -8
Secondary Effects
Secondary effects of wildfire include debris flows postfire and air pollution from the smoke generated by fires. The following sections describe the hazardous conditions created by these secondary wildfire effects.

Postfire Debris Flows
Postfire landslide hazards include fast-moving, highly destructive debris flows that can happen soon after wildfires in response to high intensity rainfall events, and flows that are generated over a longer time because of root decay and loss of soil strength. Fires increase the potential for debris flows by increasing the imperviousness of soil so that it repels water, and by destroying vegetation that would slow and absorb rainfall, and whose roots would help stabilize soil (USGS 2018). The burning of vegetation and soil on slopes more than doubles the rate that water will run off into watercourses (CGS 2025). Postfire debris flows are particularly hazardous because they can occur with little warning, exert great impulsive loads on objects in their paths, strip vegetation, block drainage ways, damage structures, and endanger human life. Debris flows differ from mudflows in that debris flows are composed of larger particles. Postfire debris flows are most common in the 2 years after a fire; they are usually triggered by heavy rainfall. It takes much less rainfall to trigger debris flows from burned basins than from unburned areas.

Air Pollution
Smoke is made up of a complex mixture of gases and fine particles produced when wood and other organic materials burn. The biggest health threat from smoke is from fine particles (PM2.5), which are microscopic particles that can penetrate the lungs and cause a range of health problems, from burning eyes and a runny nose to aggravated chronic heart and lung diseases. Exposure to particulate pollution is even linked to premature death. Some populations are more sensitive than others to smoke—for instance, people with heart or lung diseases, the elderly, children, people with diabetes, and pregnant women (USEPA 2021).

Wildfire in Ontario
CAL FIRE establishes FHSZs, designating each as moderate, high, or very high severity.

Incorporated areas such as Ontario are considered local responsibility areas (Government Code 51178).

According to the California Office of Emergency Services, a WUI is defined as any area where structures and other human development meet or intermingle within wildland vegetation (Cal OES 2023). According to CAL FIRE, the WUI is subdivided into the “interface” zone (housing adjacent to wildland vegetation, but not mingled with it), the “intermix” zone (where houses and wildland vegetation directly mingle), and the “influence” zone (areas of wildfire-susceptible vegetation surrounding the other zones). The interface and intermix zones carry the highest risk 3092

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .20 -9
for wildfires affecting developed areas. Unlike wildfire in wildland areas, fires in WUI areas are more likely to damage or destroy buildings and infrastructure that support populations, the economy, and key services in the city.

The City is not located within a FHSZ or WUI; however, moderate, high, and very high FHSZs are to the north of the City, outside its boundaries in the San Bernardino Mountains. Although Ontario itself is not classified within an FHSZ, wildfires originating in these nearby areas could still pose a potential threat to the City’s developed areas.

Wildfire History
CAL FIRE maintains a list of historic fires throughout the State. According to CAL FIRE, several wildfires outside the boundaries of the City of Ontario have occurred. The County of San Bernardino MJHMP lists wildfire events in the county from 2017 to 2022 (San Bernardino County 2022), none of which were in Ontario. Two historical wildfires in the City were the 1958 Pole Line fire that burned 3,960 acres and the 2007 Walker fire that burned 166 acres of pastureland (Ontario 2018).

Table 3.20-1, Historic Wildfires in and Surrounding Ontario, lists historic wildfire incidents surrounding Ontario from 1970 to 2024.

Table 3.20-1 Historic Wildfires in and Surrounding Ontario Year Fire Name Acres Burned
1970 FPD #92 499
1974 Sunnyslope Fire 1,819
1979 Millie Fire 1,996
1979 Los Sarranos Fire 171
1980 Owl Fire 18,332
1988 Texas Fire 12,095
1990 Webb Fire II 339
1990 Yorba Fire 7,883
1996 Union Fire 269
1996 Philadelphia Fire 1,834
1998 Leroy Fire 171
3093

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
3 .20 -10
Table 3.20-1 Historic Wildfires in and Surrounding Ontario Year Fire Name Acres Burned
1998 Country Fire 1,111
2003 Padua Fire 10,457
2003 Grand Prix Fire 50,617
2007 Walker Fire 166
2014 Etiwanda Fire 2,141
2020 Blue Ridge Fire 13,694
2024 Bridge Fire 55,724
2024 Vista Fire 2,935
2024 Line Fire 43,975
Source: CAL FIRE 2025a.

Factors Influencing Wildfire
Several factors influence wildfire conditions and facilitate the spread of wildfires, including fuels, topography, weather conditions, and climate change. Human actions are also the leading cause of wildfires in California, increasing the risk of wildfire devastating natural lands and communities. This section describes these 5 factors in the context of the City of Ontario.

Fuel
Native habitats and vegetation communities are mostly absent throughout Ontario. According to Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of this Draft SEIR, natural vegetation in Ontario consists of California walnut woodland, Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub, Southern California arroyo chub/Santa Ana sucker stream, southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, southern sycamore alder riparian forest, and southern willow scrub (CDFW 2025). Each type of vegetation contributes to fire hazard severity to varying degrees. The qualities of vegetation that directly influence fire risk include fuel type and size, loading, arrangement, chemical composition, and dead and live fuel moisture, which contribute to the flammability characteristics of the vegetation. Grass and brush fuel types react quickly to changes in weather such as low humidity or high wind speeds. Fires in areas covered by this vegetation type can spread quickly in gusty wind conditions. Low humidity, high wind, and fuel buildup conditions can also lead to crown fires in woodland fuel types, which can be fast moving and difficult to suppress. 3094

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .20 -11
Topography
Steep terrain or slope plays a key role in the rate and direction that wildfires spread, since fires will normally burn much faster uphill. When the gradient of a slope doubles, the rate of spread of a fire will also likely double. Terrain that forms a funneling effect, such as chimneys, chutes, or saddles on the landscape, can result in especially intense fire behavior. Conversely, flat terrain tends to have little effect on fire spread, resulting in fires that are driven by vegetation and wind. The city’s topography is characterized by a mix of flat and gently rolling terrain. Ontario is part of the Inland Empire Valley, a large valley region surrounded by mountain ranges, contributing to a mix of plains and hills.

Weather and Wind
The climate in Ontario is influenced by the Pacific Ocean and a seasonal, migratory subtropical high-pressure cell. The area experiences wet winters and dry summers, with mild seasonal changes, and an average of approximately 20.78 inches of precipitation annually, with the wettest months being January and February (USA.com 2025). July and August are typically considered the hottest months of the year, with average high temperatures of 92 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (USA.com 2025). Because the summer months are generally hot and dry, the risk of wildfires has historically been greatest in summer and fall. Relative humidity is also an important fire-related weather factor. As humidity levels drop, the dry air causes vegetation moisture levels to decrease, increasing the likelihood that plant material will readily ignite and burn; the risk of wildfire increases when lightning strikes occur during dry periods.

Wind is a primary weather factor in wildfire behavior. Santa Ana winds are warm easterly winds that flow from the Great Basin through the desert and through the passes of the San Bernardino Mountains. These winds have reported speeds of up to 80 miles per hour with sustained wind speeds of 40 miles per hour. As wind speeds increase, the rates of fire spread, intensity, and ember spread potential also increase. Gusty and erratic wind conditions, like those of the Santa Ana winds, can cause a wildfire to spread irregularly, making it difficult to predict its path and effectively deploy fire suppression forces. Santa Ana winds are especially dangerous because they are accompanied by low humidity that can dry out fuel. This can increase wildfire conditions in the area. Wind can also shift suddenly due to temperature changes, causing fires to spread unpredictably. Fall has historically been one of the most dangerous times for wildfire risk because it has periods of very high temperatures, low humidity, and strong wind increases that cause red flag warnings and extreme fire danger.

Additionally, wind hazards can occur with destructive impacts to trees, power lines, and utility services, which could spark potential wildfires.

Human Actions
Most wildfires are ignited by human action, the result of direct acts of arson, carelessness, or accidents. Many fires originate in populated areas along roads and around homes and are often 3095

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
3 .20 -12
the result of the careless disposal of cigarettes, mowing of dead grass, electrical equipment malfunction, use of equipment, or burning of debris. Recreation areas with increased human activity that are in high or very high fire hazard areas also increase the potential for wildfires.

Climate Change
Climate change is likely to increase annual average maximum temperatures in Ontario from a historical annual average of 78.5°F to 84.2°F by 2050 and 87.3°F by 2100 (Cal-Adapt 2025a). This will likely create warmer temperatures earlier and later in the year. Precipitation levels are projected to increase slightly over the course of the century, changing from a historical annual average of 13.2 inches to an annual average of 14.8 inches by 2099 (Cal-Adapt 2025a).

Variations in precipitation patterns will also lead to an increase in frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events as well as prolonged periods of drought. The combination of extreme heat and droughts can cause soils and vegetation to dry out, creating more fuel for wildfires.

These factors are expected to increase wildfire conditions, creating the risk of more frequent and intense wildfires. Because wildfires burn the trees and other vegetation that help stabilize hillsides and absorb water, more areas burned by fire may also lead to an increase in landslides and floods. Historically, an average of 46.8 acres burned annually in the City of Ontario (CalAdapt 2025b). Wildfires are projected to decrease to an annual average in the city of 20.9 acres burned by 2050 and an annual average of 16.1 acres burned by 2100 (Cal-Adapt 2025b).

Fire Protection Services
Fire protection services in the plan area are provided by the Ontario Fire Department (OFD).

OFD operates 11 fire stations throughout the City, including the Ontario International Airport fire station. 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, a fire investigation supervisor, and 2 battalion chiefs (OFD 2025).

Evacuation and Access
Evacuation routes are designated roadways that allow many people to quickly leave an area due to a potential or imminent disaster. These routes should have sufficient capacity to accommodate the needs of the community, be safely and easily accessible, and allow people to travel far enough away to be safe from emergency conditions.

Primary emergency access and evacuation routes in the City of Ontario include State Route (SR-) 60, which traverses the City from west to east; SR-83, which extends from south to north through the western portion of the City; Interstate (I-) 10, which runs west to east across the northern portion of the City; and I-15, which extends south to north along the eastern portion of the City. These highways and a network of local arterial and collector roadways that connect to them, provide the City’s primary evacuation routes.
3096

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .20 -13
As shown in the adopted General Plan Safety Element Figure S-09, Evacuation Constrained Areas, evacuation-constrained residential development in Ontario primarily consist of cul-desac-style neighborhoods along SR-60, in the downtown area, and along I-10. These areas are not in fire-prone areas, but may experience delays in evacuating due to the single ingress/egress nature of the neighborhoods.

SPECIFIC PLAN
The Specific Plan area is located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA), but outside of a FHSZ or WUI area, similar to the rest of the City. The topography of the EBPSP is generally flat with existing agricultural uses and nonnative vegetation. The Specific Plan area experiences similar Santa Ana winds compared to the larger Ontario area.

Fire protection services are provided by the Ontario Fire Department. The nearest stations that serve the Specific Plan area include Fire Station 11, directly south of the Specific Plan area, located at 7721 Eucalyptus Avenue and Fire Station 9, located approximately 1.35 miles east of the Specific Plan area, at 2661 East Grand Park Street (OFD 2025).

Primary evacuation routes to the EBPSP include East Eucalyptus Avenue and South Grove Avenue. As shown in the adopted General Plan Safety Element Figure S-09, Evacuation Constrained Areas, the EBPSP does not contain residential evacuation constrained parcels.

3.20.3 Standards for Analysis

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that, “If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,” the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to wildfire if it would:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.
3097

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
3 .20 -14
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

3.20.4 Relevant New and Modified General Plan Policies
The proposed project does not include new or modified policies relevant to wildfire.

3.20.5 Environmental Impacts
2022 CERTIFIED EIR
The City is outside of the SRA and does not contain lands within a LRA Very High FHSZ, and CAL FIRE has determined that the City contains no areas subject to very high wildfire risk. The City recognizes that even though fuel loading is light in Ontario and fire risk comes primarily from urban fires, not wildfires, there is some risk related to wildfires. The City has implemented policies as part of the approved project to help reduce risk of wildfire. Therefore, the Certified EIR concluded that impacts to wildfire, resulting from implementation of the approved project, would be less than significant.

PROPOSED PROJECT
a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The 2022 Certified EIR concluded that implementation of the approved project would not substantially impair emergency response or evacuation because the City’s circulation system has been planned and designed to meet long-term safety and accessibility needs. Specifically, the majority of future population growth under the approved project would occur in Ontario Ranch, where extensive roadway improvements are planned to accommodate increased travel demand, enhance regional connectivity, and support emergency response capabilities.

As documented in the 2022 Certified EIR, Policy M-1.1, Roadway Design and Maintenance, ensures that all City roadways comply with applicable federal, State, and local safety standards; provide adequate multimodal access; and are designed to handle capacities identified in the City’s Master Plan of Streets and Highways. This policy also requires maintenance consistent with best practices and promotes efficient traffic flow through intelligent transportation systems and travel demand management strategies. Emergency access and circulation consistency are further ensured through the City’s design review process, during which the Ontario Fire 3098

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .20 -15
Department reviews proposed development plans to verify compliance with local and State emergency access standards.

The 2022 Certified EIR also noted that the City’s 2018 LHMP identifies Interstates 10 and 15 and State Route 60 as major emergency response and evacuation routes that provide regional egress capacity in the event of large-scale emergencies. These facilities, along with the City’s arterial network, are critical components of Ontario’s coordinated emergency management framework. Based on these factors, the 2022 Certified EIR found that the approved project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to transportation hazards or emergency access, and impacts would remain less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project involves adjustments to land use designations and corresponding updates to the Policy Plan elements while maintaining the overall circulation framework established under the approved project. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this Draft SEIR, the proposed project would increase population and employees in Ontario, which would add additional vehicles to roadways in the event of an evacuation. As shown in Figure 3.17-1, Roadway Classifications, substantial improvements to the City’s transportation infrastructure are planned to accommodate population growth and maintain safe, efficient travel during emergencies. The proposed project would not introduce new roadways or modify existing ones in a manner that would impede emergency vehicle access or evacuation operations.

Furthermore, continued implementation of Policy M-1.1 and City design review procedures would ensure that all roadway and site designs maintain compliance with emergency access standards and the City’s adopted emergency response plans.

Accordingly, the proposed project would result in no new or more severe impacts related to impairment of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan compared to the approved project. The circulation network, policy framework, and interagency review mechanisms that were found to be adequate in the 2022 Certified EIR remain in place, and the proposed project would not impede implementation of an emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts for wildfire compared to the approved project and that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
The proposed Specific Plan involves adjustments to land use designations and roadway improvements consistent with federal, State, and local design and safety standards, acting to improve emergency circulation in the area. The proposed project would not, however, introduce new roadways or modify existing ones in a manner that would impede emergency vehicle 3099

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
3 .20 -16
access or evacuation operations. Additionally, the City and Fire Department would review development applications to ensure adequate emergency access is provided in compliance with emergency access standards and the City’s adopted emergency response plans. Compliance with existing regulations, City policies, and Fire Department recommendations would ensure impacts to emergency response plans and evacuation plans would be less than significant. Accordingly, the proposed Specific Plan would result in no new or more severe impacts related to impairment of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan compared to the approved project. The circulation network, policy framework, and interagency review mechanisms found to be adequate in the 2022 Certified EIR remain in place, and the proposed Specific Plan would not impede implementation of an emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The proposed Specific Plan would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts for emergency response and evacuation compared to the approved project and that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

EBPSP Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact WIL-1: Implementation of the proposed project would not impair or otherwise interfere with the City’s adopted emergency response or evacuation plans.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant emergency evacuation impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

New Mitigation Measures
Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. b Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? The 2022 Certified EIR found that implementation of the approved project would not exacerbate wildfire risks. The City of Ontario lies outside of CAL FIRE’s State Responsibility Area and contains no areas designated as Very High FHSZs. Consequently, fire risk within the planning area is predominantly urban in nature, associated with localized ignition sources rather than wildland conditions.
3100

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .20 -17
The 2022 Certified EIR determined that compliance with applicable State and local fire-safety regulations, including CAL FIRE’s 2019 Strategic Fire Plan for California, the California Fire Code, and the City’s LHMP, would ensure that new development and infrastructure are designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize ignition potential, facilitate emergency response, and prevent post-fire slope or drainage instability. The 2022 Certified EIR also found that continued implementation of City policies promoting fire prevention, interagency coordination, emergency preparedness and training, and data-driven resource allocation would further reduce wildfirerelated risks. These measures collectively minimize the potential for wildfire ignition or spread and limit exposure to pollutant concentrations from wildfire smoke. Based on these factors, the 2022 Certified EIR concluded that wildfire-related impacts under the approved project would be less than significant and would not result in new or more severe impacts compared to previously evaluated conditions.

Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project modifies the land-use pattern and updates related Policy Plan elements while maintaining the overall planning and regulatory framework established by the approved project. The 2025 adopted CAL FIRE Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone map do not identify areas in Ontario within a FHSZ. Although vegetation and fuel loading are light and fire hazards are primarily urban, the City acknowledges some residual risk from wildfire events.

Ontario is supported by multiple local and regional programs for fire prevention and response, including the California Building Code, the California Fire Code, the City’s LHMP, and fire protection and emergency services provided by the Ontario Fire Department. Continued adherence to these regulations and practices would ensure that future development and infrastructure associated with the proposed project do not exacerbate wildfire hazards.

In addition, implementation of the following policies would directly reduce wildfire and emergency-related risks:

S-3.8: Fire Prevention through Environmental Design. We require new development to incorporate fire prevention considerations in the design of streetscapes, sites, open spaces, and buildings.

S-3.9: Resource Allocation. We analyze fire data to evaluate the effectiveness of our fire prevention and reduction strategies and allocate resources accordingly.

S-8.5: Interdepartmental Coordination. We utilize all City departments to help support emergency/disaster mitigation, preparedness, response, mitigation, and recovery.

CD-2.8: Safe Design. We incorporate defensible space design into new and existing developments to ensure the maximum safe travel and visibility on pathways, corridors, and ■
■
■
■
3101

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
3 .20 -18
open space and at building entrances and parking areas by avoiding physically and visually isolated spaces, maintaining visibility and accessibility, and using lighting.

These policies collectively promote fire-resilient development and reduce the potential for secondary hazards such as flooding or slope instability following fire events.

Because the proposed Policy Plan Amendment does not alter topography, slope conditions, or emergency infrastructure design standards and would continue to implement existing fire-safety programs and policies, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Additionally, development under the proposed Policy Plan would be subject to the most recent version of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, which have more stringent requirements for new development than previous versions of the code. Accordingly, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to the approved project impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR, and wildfire-related impacts would remain less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
As previously discussed in Section 3.20.2, Existing Conditions, the EBPSP is in a relatively flat area, and there are no steep slopes where high winds would exacerbate fire risks. Adjacent areas are urbanized and lack vegetation.

Further, uses implemented pursuant to the EBPSP would comply with the California Building Code, California Fire Code, and City policies, including Policy Plan policies S-3.8, S-3.9, S-8.5, and CD-2.8, acting to minimize wildfire hazards, thereby minimizing exposure to pollutant concentrations from wildfires. Based on the preceding, the potential for the EBPSP to exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire is considered less than significant.

Because the proposed EBPSP does not alter topography, slope conditions, or emergency infrastructure design standards and would continue to implement existing fire-safety programs and policies, the proposed Specific Plan would not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.

Accordingly, the proposed EBPSP would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to the approved project impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 3102

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .20 -19
Impact WIL-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risk, require infrastructure that could increase fire hazards, or expose people or structures to secondary post-fire hazards such as flooding, landslides, or drainage changes.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant wildfire impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

New Mitigation Measures
No impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required. c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environments?
The 2022 Certified EIR found that implementation of the approved project would not require infrastructure that could increase fire hazard potential. The City of Ontario lies outside of CAL FIRE’s State Responsibility Area and contains no areas designated as very high FHSZ.

Consequently, fire risk within the planning area is predominantly urban in nature, associated with localized ignition sources rather than wildland conditions.

Policy Plan Amendment
The 2025 adopted CAL FIRE Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone map does not identify areas in Ontario within a FHSZ. While the proposed Policy Plan Amendment would facilitate future development that includes installation of new infrastructure (e.g., roads, utilities, and related improvements), such improvements would occur in an area without very high wildfire risk and would not, in and of themselves, introduce or exacerbate wildfire risk.

Development under the proposed Policy Plan would be subject to the most recent version of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, which have more stringent requirements for new development than previous versions of the code. Additionally, implementation of Policies S-3.8, S-3.9, S-8.5, and CD-2.8 would directly reduce wildfire and emergency-related risks. These policies collectively promote fire-resilient development and reduce the potential for secondary hazards such as flooding or slope instability following fire events. 3103

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
3 .20 -20
Accordingly, although new infrastructure would be constructed under the proposed Policy Plan, it would not increase wildfire hazards. Additionally, such infrastructure and maintenance activities would also be required to comply with the adopted State regulations, Ontario Municipal Code standards, and TOP policies to mitigate the impact of infrastructure on the environment. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to the approved project and that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR, and wildfire-related impacts would remain less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
The EBPSP would facilitate future development that would require the installation of new roads, utilities, and related improvements; however, infrastructure improvements proposed by the Specific Plan would be implemented in areas not within a FHSZ. Water, sewer, storm drain, and dry utility improvements under the proposed EBPSP would be installed underground.

Infrastructure and utility plans would be reviewed by the City and Fire Department to ensure conformance with California Building Code, California Fire Code, Municipal Code, and TOP 2050 requirements to reduce the risk of wildfire and impacts of infrastructure on the environment.

Accordingly, although new infrastructure would be constructed under the proposed EBPSP, it would not increase wildfire hazards. The proposed EBPSP would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to the approved project and that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR and impacts would remain less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact WIL-3: Implementation of the proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environments.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant wildfire impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

New Mitigation Measures
No impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required. 3104

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .20 -21
d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The 2022 Certified EIR found that implementation of the approved project would not expose people or structures to post-fire hazards such as landslides, mudflows, or flooding. The City of Ontario lies outside of CAL FIRE’s State Responsibility Area and contains no areas designated as very high FHSZ. With respect to geologic and hydrologic conditions, the Certified EIR notes that the City of Ontario is in the Upper Santa Ana River Valley, which exhibits a gentle southerly slope of approximately 1 percent, with elevations ranging from 1,150 feet in the north to 640 feet in the south. Due to this broad and gradual topography, the city does not contain steep slopes that would be susceptible to significant landslide or post-fire slope failure hazards.

Additionally, the Certified EIR notes that large portions of the City are outside the 100-year floodplain, and only limited areas adjacent to flood control channels, detention basins, and creeks fall within the 100-year flood zone. A portion of the Ontario Ranch area is designated Zone D, representing areas where flood hazards are undetermined and no formal analysis has been completed.

Policy Plan Amendment
The 2025 adopted CAL FIRE Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone map does not identify areas in Ontario within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Additionally, the City does not contain steep slopes that would be susceptible to postfire slope failure or landslides. The Policy Plan Amendment would not introduce development into steeper terrain or areas with elevated postfire runoff risk, nor would it modify land use patterns in a manner that could increase exposure to downslope or downstream flooding hazards following a wildfire.

The Policy Plan Amendment does not involve physical improvements or changes to drainage patterns, and future development would continue to be subject to City regulations that manage erosion, grading, and flooding hazards. This includes the requirement for an erosion and sediment control plan prior to grading plan approval and issuance of a grading permit, as well as compliance with Title 8, Chapter 13 (Flood Damage Prevention Program) of the Ontario Municipal Code, which establishes standards for development in flood-prone areas.

Development under the amended Policy Plan would also remain subject to the most recent California Building Code and California Fire Code standards. These requirements ensure proper site drainage, erosion control, and flood protection, and therefore reduce the potential for downslope or downstream flooding, landslides, or other hazards associated with runoff or postfire slope instability. Accordingly, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to the approved project and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR, and wildfire-related impacts would remain less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 3105

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
3 .20 -22
Specific Plan
The Specific Plan area is in the southern portion of the City, where largely flat agricultural fields dominate the topography. The flat topography of the site does not present any potential risks related to landslides or other slope instability. Additionally, as detailed in SEIR Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed EBPSP would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern or result in substantial runoff when compared to existing conditions. The EBPSP’s stormwater management system, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) would act to avoid or minimize flooding, slope instability, or adverse drainage changes.

Uses implemented pursuant to the EBPSP would also be required to comply with the recommendations identified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (see Appendix F1 and Appendix F2), which would ensure that the site and structures are engineered and constructed to maximize stability and preclude safety hazards. Additionally, future development would continue to be subject to City regulations that manage erosion, grading, and flooding hazards.

This includes the requirement for an erosion and sediment control plan prior to grading plan approval and issuance of a grading permit, as well as compliance with Title 8, Chapter 13 (Flood Damage Prevention Program) of the Ontario Municipal Code, which establishes standards for development in flood-prone areas. Development under the proposed EBPSP would also remain subject to the most recent California Building Code and California Fire Code standards. These requirements ensure proper site drainage, erosion control, and flood protection, and therefore reduce the potential for downslope or downstream flooding, landslides, or other hazards associated with runoff or postfire slope instability.

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, this impact is less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant Impact WIL-4: Implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant wildfire impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
3106

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .20 -23
New Mitigation Measures
No impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required.

3.20.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The cumulative setting for wildfire includes potential future development within San Bernardino, surrounding cities, and unincorporated County areas that may exacerbate wildfire risks. Future development over the buildout horizon of the proposed project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and would not result in new or substantially more severe wildfire impacts compared to the approved project.

Cumulative development in the surrounding local jurisdictions and State lands in Fire Hazard Severity Zones would be subject to the same State regulations applicable to future projects, including the California Building Code, California Fire Code, California Public Resources Code Sections 4291, and SRA or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Fire Safe Regulations. Continued implementation of approved project policies related to fire prevention and hazard reduction would further minimize wildfire risk. Accordingly, the proposed project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative wildfire impacts, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts: Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with other development in the city, would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative wildfire or emergency response impacts.

3.20.7 References
Balch, Jennifer, Bethany Bradley, and John Abatzoglou. 2017, March 14. Human-Started Wildfires Expand the Fire Niche Across the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS): Volume 114 No. 11.
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/114/11/2946.full.pdf.

Cal-Adapt. 2025a, September 8 (accessed). Annual Averages. https://cmip5.caladapt.org/tools/annual-averages.

Cal-Adapt. 2025b, June 13 (accessed). Wildfire. https://cmip5.cal-adapt.org/tools/wildfire.

CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 1999. Learning to Live with Fire.

CAL FIRE. 2018. California’s Forests and Rangelands 2017 Assessment. https://34c031f8-c9fd4018-8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/calfire-website/what3107

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
3 .20 -24
we-do/fire-resource-assessment-program---frap/assessment/forest-and-range-2017- assessment.pdf.

CAL FIRE. 2020. 2020 Incident Archive. https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2020.

CAL FIRE. 2021. 2021 Incident Archive. https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2021.

CAL FIRE. 2022. 2022 Incident Archive. https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2022.

CAL FIRE. 2023. 2023 Incidents Archive. https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2023.

CAL FIRE. 2025a, October 7 (accessed). California State Geoportal: California Fire Perimeters. https://www.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/fire-resource-assessment-program/fireperimeters.

CAL FIRE. 2025b, October 7 (accessed). Statistics. https://www.fire.ca.gov/our-impact/statistics.

California Chaparral Institute. 2025, October 7 (accessed). Protecting Your Home from Fire. https://www.californiachaparral.org/fire/protecting-your-home/.

Cal OES (California Office of Emergency Services). 2023. California State Hazard Mitigation Plan.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2025, October 7 (accessed). BIOS Viewer. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios6/?tool=cnddbqv.

CGS (California Geological Survey). 2025, October 7 (accessed). Post-fire Debris Flow Facts. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/index/Pages/Fact-sheets/ Post-Fire-Debris-Flow-Facts.aspx.

CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission). 2017, December 14. CPUC Adopts New Fire-Safety Regulations. Press release. Docket #: R.15-05-006. http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/ PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M201/K352/201352402.PDF.

CPUC. 2025, October 7 (accessed). CPUC High Fire Threat District (HFTD). https://ia.cpuc.ca.gov/firemap/.

Cart, Julie. 2023, May 24 (updated). Lightning Could Spark More California Fire as World Warms.

CAL MATTERS website. Originally published December 24, 2021. https://calmatters.org/environment/2021/09/california-fires-lightning/.

NRC (Natural Resources Canada). 2025. Fire Behavior. https://natural-resources.canada.ca/ forest-forestry/wildland-fires/fire-behaviour.

Ontario, City of. 2018. 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan.
3108

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
M ARCH 2 026 3 .20 -25
Ontario Fire Department (OFD). 2025, October 7 (accessed). Fire. https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/fire.

San Bernardino County. 2022. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/SBCFire/documents/EmergencyServices/ Hazard-Mitigation-Plan-202212.pdf.

USA.com. 2025, November 2 (accessed). Ontario, CA Weather. http://www.usa.com/ ontario-ca-weather.htm.

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). May 2021. How Smoke from Fires Can Affect Your Health. https://www.airnow.gov/sites/default/files/2021-08/how-smoke -from-fire-can-affect-your-health-2021-v1-d1.pdf.

USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2012. Why Are Biologists Studying Housing Loss from Wildfires? https://www.usgs.gov/center-news/why-are-biologists-studying-housing-loss -wildfires.

USGS. 2018, November 13. New Post-wildfire Resource Guide Now Available to Help Communities Cope with Flood and Debris Flow Danger. https://www.usgs.gov/center -news/post-wildfire-playbook?qt-news_science_products=1#qt-news_science_products. 3109

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
3 .20 -26
This page intentionally left blank.
3110
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4- 1

4. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the alternatives analysis for the proposed project, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires that an environmental impact report (EIR) include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines sec. 15126.6[a]).

The discussion includes an explanation of the methodology used to select alternatives to the proposed project, with the intent of identifying potentially feasible alternatives that could avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts identified for the proposed project while still meeting most of the basic project objectives, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a).

This chapter identifies a reasonable range of alternatives that meet these criteria, and these alternatives are evaluated with respect to minimizing adverse environmental effects as compared to the proposed project. It also describes other alternatives and alternative concepts that were considered but eliminated from detailed consideration and the reasons for their elimination. For the alternatives selected for analysis, this chapter evaluates the impacts of the alternatives against approved project and compares the potential impacts of the alternatives with those of the proposed project. Finally, as required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e), based on this analysis, this chapter then discusses the environmentally superior alternative.

The discussion in this chapter is intended to inform the public and decision makers of feasible alternatives to the proposed project that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project. Section 15126.6, “Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project,” of the CEQA Guidelines states that:

An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.

An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for 3111

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
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -2
selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. (sec. 15126.6[a])

4.2 FACTORS CONSIDERED WHEN DEVELOPING

ALTERNATIVES
This section describes the basis for determining the range of CEQA alternatives and identifies the specific alternatives that are analyzed in this Draft EIR. The primary factors considered when determining feasible alternatives to the proposed project are the identified project objectives and the significant impacts that have been identified for the proposed project.

4.2.1 Project Objectives
Chapter 2, Section 2.3, Statement of Project Objectives, lists the objectives that have been established for the proposed project and will aid decision makers in their review of the project, the project alternatives, and associated environmental impacts.

4.2.2 Significant Impacts
Apart from the No Project Alternative, alternatives to a project should be evaluated because of their ability to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project and avoid or lessen the project’s identified significant impacts. The proposed project would result in 6 potentially significant impacts that would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation and 14 significant unavoidable impacts.

LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WITH MITIGATION
The following impacts were found to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures:

Impact BIO-1 (PPA + EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project could impact specialstatus species, as well as nesting birds, burrowing owls, and roosting bat species.

Impact BIO-4 (PPA + EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project could affect wildlife movement.

Impact CUL-2 (PPA + EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project could impact archeological resources in the City.
■
■
■
3112

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
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4- 3
Impact GEO-6 (PPA + EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource.

Impact HAZ-2 (PPA + EBPSP): Existing regulations and policies of TOP 2050 would ensure that development associated with the Policy Plan Amendment would not exacerbate the potential release of hazardous materials into the environment. However, development of the EBPSP, as well as existing site conditions, may reveal unknown soil or soil vapor contamination or unknown subsurface structures.

Impact TCR-1 (PPA + EBPSP): Tribal cultural resources could be adversely impacted by grading activities associated with the proposed project.

SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The following impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation measures:

Impact AQ-1 (PPA + EBPSP): The additional population growth forecast for the Policy Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and the associated emissions would exceed the assumptions of the South Coast AQMD’s AQMP.

Impact AQ-2 (PPA): Construction activities associated with future development that would be accommodated under the Policy Plan Amendment could generate short-term emissions in exceedance of the South Coast AQMD’s threshold criteria.

Impact AQ-3 (PPA + EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project would generate additional, long-term emissions in exceedance of South Coast AQMD’s threshold criteria and cumulatively contribute to the South Coast Air Basin’s nonattainment designations.

Impact AQ-4 (PPA): Construction activities associated with the Policy Plan Amendment could expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations.

Impact AQ-5 (PPA): Operation of industrial and warehousing land uses accommodated under the Policy Plan Amendment would cumulative contribute to elevated levels of toxic air contaminants in the South Coast AQMD region.

Impact CUL-1 (PPA): Implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment could impact historical resources.

Impact GHG-1 (PPA + EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in GHG emissions compared to the approved project and would not achieve the carbon neutrality threshold of AB 1279.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
3113

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
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -4
Impact GHG-2 (PPA + EBPSP): The proposed project would be inconsistent with the Community Climate Action Plan’s objective of reducing citywide GHG emissions and the State’s carbon neutrality goals.

Impact NOI-1 (PPA): 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.

Impact NOI-2 (PPA + EBPSP): Implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP would expose sensitive receptors to substantial permanent traffic noise increases.

Impact NOI-3 (PPA): Construction activities associated with buildout of the Policy Plan Amendment may expose sensitive uses to excessive levels of groundborne vibration.

Impact NOI-4 (PPA): 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.

Impact NOI-5 (PPA): Implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment could expose noise sensitive uses to excessive noise levels from the Ontario International Airport (ONT).

Impact TRA-2 (PPA + EBPSP): The proposed project would generate a substantial increase in VMT per service population and total VMT compared to the approved project, resulting in significant project-level and cumulative VMT impacts.

4.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED
CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(c) requires EIRs to identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(c) provides that among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in the EIR are (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. Following is a discussion of alternatives considered and rejected, along with the reasons that alternative was not included in the analysis.

4.3.1 Alternative Development Areas Outside of the City CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. The key question and first step in the analysis is whether any of the significant effects of ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
3114

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
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4- 5
the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[5][B][1]). The City does not have land use authority outside of the City’s boundaries.

Therefore, an alternative development area would be infeasible and was not analyzed.

4.3.2 Alternate EBPSP Sites Alternative
As identified above, CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to a project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. The key question and first step in the analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. In addition, an alternative site need not be considered when implementation is “remote and speculative,” such as when the alternative site is beyond the control of a project applicant.

Given the scope of the EBPSP, a similarly sized project and land use elsewhere in the City of Ontario would result in similar impacts. Significant and unavoidable regional air quality emission impacts of the EBPSP are largely due to mobile emissions during operation and are not site specific; therefore, relocation of the EBPSP would not substantially reduce these impacts. The EBPSP’s location is preferrable for business park development because of its proximity to the regional transportation network and major infrastructure, helping to reduce VMT and off-site traffic noise. Therefore, analysis of an alternative site for the EBPSP is neither meaningful nor necessary because the significant impacts resulting from the EBPSP would not be avoided or substantially lessened by its implementation in an alternate location.

Moreover, there are no existing, undeveloped sites for sale that are a similar size as the EBPSP area within close proximity to key freeway infrastructure (i.e., I-15, SR-83, and SR-60) and that could reasonably be controlled by the Applicant for the purpose of developing the EBPSP.

Furthermore, the Applicant does not hold ownership control over any other parcels of land in or near the Specific Plan area that could be used as an alternative location for the proposed EBPSP.

Therefore, because an alternate location is not available that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the EBPSP, and because the Applicant does not have ownership control over and cannot reasonably obtain ownership control over any other parcels of land in the jurisdiction of the City that could accommodate the EBPSP, an alternate site is not feasible. As a result, this alternative was rejected from further consideration.

4.3.3 Alternative Housing Element Sites Alternative
The City received several NOP comment letters on land use and planning impacts as a result of areas in the Ontario Ranch where high density residential (HDR) land uses are proposed. The 3115

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
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -6
locations are identified as Housing Element that fulfill the City’s lower income RHNA obligations.

Because these sites are being rezoned, specifically to make up for a shortfall of lower income sites, State law requires that these sites establish a minimum density of 20 du/ac. The City evaluated alternative locations in Ontario Ranch for opportunities to upzone from low density residential (LDR) to HDR to accommodate the City’s RHNA obligations. However, locations in Ontario Ranch designated for LDR are not adjacent to proposed infrastructure, such as water and sewer, which are needed to accommodate the HDR land uses. According to OMUC, infrastructure in these areas would not be constructed until post-2030 horizon. Therefore, these sites do not meet the criteria for alternative housing site. Additionally, CEQA only requires locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[5][B][1]). Since the City is obligated to maintain the RHNA, shifting the location of the HDR unit to alternative areas within Ontario Ranch would not reduce or eliminate the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, an alternative housing element sites within Ontario Ranch were not analyzed.

4.3.4 Truck Route Scenario 1 Alternative
In summer 2025, the City conducted outreach and initiated an evaluation of its existing truck routes, which evaluated changes to truck routes in northern Ontario, including in the Original Model Colony. Truck Route Scenario 1 retained all existing truck routes and added an additional route along Eucalyptus Avenue. This scenario was rejected because it would increase truck volumes on designated routes, substantially worsen conditions at Grand Park, and require additional mitigation measures and funding. This alternative was considered but rejected.

4.3.5 Truck Route Scenario 2 Alternative
In summer 2025, the City conducted outreach and initiated an evaluation of its existing truck routes, which evaluated changes to truck routes in northern Ontario, including in the Original Model Colony. Truck Route Scenario 2 retained all existing truck routes and added additional routes along Eucalyptus Avenue and Walker Avenue. This scenario was rejected because it would make mitigation measures for noise, vibration, and air quality more challenging; result in significantly higher truck volumes than Truck Route Scenarios 1 and 3; and introduced new truck traffic through low-density neighborhoods. Therefore, this alternative was considered but rejected.

4.4 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS
The following alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives that have the potential to feasibly attain most of the objectives of the proposed 3116

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
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4- 7
project and that may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed project.

No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050
Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) Alternative
Truck Route Scenario 3 Alternative
Reduced Intensity Alternative

4.5 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE/CURRENT TOP 2050
In the No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050, the Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP project would not be implemented by the City. The current TOP 2050 would remain in effect and would apply to land uses within the City and land uses on the EBPSP project site. Buildout statistics for Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP compared to the No Project Alternative are shown in Table 4-1, No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 vs. Growth Projections at Buildout.

Table 4-1 No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 vs. Growth Projections at Buildout Category Proposed Project
No Project Alternative/
Current TOP 2050 Difference
Policy Plan Amendment
Population 427,741 411,268 -16,473
Housing Units 137,177 129,951 -7,226
Non-residential SQFT 268,162,895 263,828,479 -4,334,416 Jobs 301,035 299,204 -1,831
EBPSP Site
Population 0 6,335 6,335
Housing Units 0 2,195 2,195
Non-residential SQFT 2,939,000 1,632,143 -1,306,857
Jobs 1,590 3,126 1,536
Note: SQFT = square feet
As shown in this table, the No Project Alternative would result in a reduction in population, housing units, and non-residential square footage but an increase in employment. In addition, the proposed project includes updated policies to comply with State laws, including AB 98. This alternative would not include revisions to the City’s truck routes, which are proposed to minimize impacts to sensitive receptors.

The TOP 2050 designates the Specific Plan area for Medium Density Residential (MDR), MixedUse (Eucalyptus/Chino Airport) (MU-BC); and Open Space Parkland (OS-C). Buildout under these ■
■
■
■
3117

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
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -8
designations would allow for up to 2,195 residential units and 1,632,143 square feet of nonresidential land uses within the Specific Plan area. As shown in the table, the No Project Alternative would result in an increase in population, units, and employment but a decrease in non-residential square feet.

4.5.1 Aesthetics
Policy Plan Amendment
In this alternative, the entire City would be developed under the existing TOP 2050 land use plan and would involve new development and redevelopment in the same areas as the proposed project. The City’s Municipal Code identifies development standards to ensure quality development in the City. Aesthetic impacts would be similar to the proposed project and would be less than significant.

Specific Plan
The Specific Plan area is not in an area identified for scenic preservation. There are no scenic vistas in the Specific Plan area, nor would development of the site adversely affect a designated scenic vista. The No Project Alternative would cover the same development impact area as the EBPSP and result in similar less than significant impacts.

4.5.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Policy Plan Amendment
In this alternative, the entire City would be developed under the existing TOP 2050 land use plan and would involve new development and redevelopment in similar areas as the proposed project. At the time of the 2022 Certified EIR there was no land zoned for agriculture in the City.

Therefore, the impacts from rezoning lands from agricultural to non-agricultural have already occurred. This alternative would have similar impacts to Farmland and lands currently under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, impacts on agriculture and forestry resources would be similar to the proposed project and would be less than significant.

Specific Plan
Similar to the EBPSP, the existing on-site agricultural uses would be removed from the Specific Plan area under this alternative. The City of Ontario no longer has land designated for agricultural use, and impacts associated with the implementation of the EBPSP, including the conversion of grazing land and Prime Farmland to a non-agricultural use, would not result in impacts not already disclosed. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would result in the same impacts to agricultural resources that would occur from implementation of the EBPSP. 3118

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
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4- 9

4.5.3 Air Quality
Policy Plan Amendment
As identified in Section 3.3, Air Quality, the proposed project would result in an increase in NOx, CO, PM10, PM2.5, and reactive organic gasses (ROG) emissions. Under this alternative, the buildout would remain the same as the existing TOP 2050. Therefore, although the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, they would be slightly less than those of the proposed project. Impacts regarding consistency with the AQMP, cumulatively considerable net increase of pollutants for which the project region is in nonattainment, and exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be similar to the proposed project. This alternative would also result in less industrial warehouse development; therefore, there would be fewer diesel trucks. However, this alternative would not include the revisions to the truck route map that routes trucks away from sensitive receptors on Archibald Avenue. In comparison to the proposed project, this alternative would have slightly less impact, and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Specific Plan
As with the EBPSP, construction of the No Project Alternative has the potential to create air quality impacts through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment and through vehicle trips generated from construction workers traveling to and from the Specific Plan area. In addition, fugitive dust emissions would result from construction activities. Under this alternative, the development impact area would be the same as the EBPSP. Therefore, although the type of construction would be different under this alternative due to the proposed uses, implementation of this alternative would result in similar impacts from construction-related air quality that would occur from implementation of the EBPSP, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operational activities associated with either the EBPSP or this alternative would result in emissions of ROGs, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Emissions calculated for the EBPSP under the No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 are shown in Table 4-2, EPBPSP No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 Air Pollutant Emissions.
3119

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
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -1 0
Table 4-2 EBPSP No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 Air Pollutant Emissions Emissions (lbs/day)
Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Summer Mobile 92 125 1,073 3 308 80
Area 117 38 210 0.24 3 3
Stationary 1 21 14 0.13 2 2
On-Site Equipment 2 5 5 0.01 0.27 0.27
Maximum Daily Emissions 212 192 1,398 4 313 85
South Coast AQMD Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? YES YES YES NO YES YES
Winter Mobile 87 133 882 3 308 80
Area 94 36 15 0.23 3 3
Stationary 2 5 5 0.01 0.27 0.27
On-Site Equipment 1 2 97 0 0.18 0.16
Maximum Daily Emissions 185 198 1,013 3 313 85
South Coast AQMD Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? YES YES YES NO YES YES
Source: Appendix N
As shown above, operations of the No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the South Coast AQMD for emissions of VOCs, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The PM2.5 exceedance occurring under this alternative would not occur under the EBPSP buildout conditions. Additionally, while both scenarios would exceed the CO threshold, emissions under this alternative (1,399/1,013) would be substantially greater when compared to the EBPSP (759/563). This is primarily due to the increased trip generation under this alternative, as discussed subsequently in Section 4.5.17. Overall, impacts would be greater than the EBPSP and would remain significant and unavoidable.

4.5.4 Biological Resources
Policy Plan Amendment
Under this alternative, biological resource impacts would be the same as the proposed project.

A number of special status plant species and special status wildlife species are known to occur within or immediately adjacent to the City or are known to occur in the region based on historical data. Federal and state regulations require development projects to assess and mitigate potential biological resources within a project site. The proposed project would be 3120

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
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4 - 11
within the same footprint as the approved project. Mitigation measures identified for the proposed project would be applicable to this alternative. Therefore, impacts on biological resources would be the same as the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Specific Plan
The No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 e would have the same overall impact area as the EBPSP. Potential impacts to sensitive wildlife species and migratory and nesting birds would continue to occur, and mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts to such resources to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, impacts would be similar to the EBPSP.

4.5.5 Cultural Resources
Policy Plan Amendment
Cultural resource impacts are primarily associated with potential ground disturbance and development of previously undisturbed areas, or impacts to potential historic structures (building additions, demolition, etc.). Development under this alternative would be the same as the proposed project because the development footprint would be the same. Mitigation measures for the proposed project would be applicable to this alternative and would mitigate potential impacts to archeological resources; however, like the proposed project, this alternative would have the potential to impact historic buildings as a result of redevelopment.

Therefore, impacts to potential cultural resources would be the same as the proposed project and would remain significant and unavoidable.

Specific Plan
The No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would result in a similar development impact area as the EBPSP and would therefore result in a similar potential to adversely affect any undiscovered archaeological resources in the Specific Plan area. Like the EBPSP, mitigation measures would be required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Therefore, impacts to cultural resources from this alternative would be similar to those associated with the EBPSP.

4.5.6 Energy
Policy Plan Amendment
As identified in Section 3.6, Energy, this alternative would result in similar energy impacts. In general, impacts to energy use under this alternative would be slightly reduced as compared to the proposed project as development would be reduced, and would be less than significant. 3121

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
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -1 2
Specific Plan
The No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would reduce the amount of non-residential building square footage but would increase the number of residential units, residents, and employees. In general, business park uses have a higher energy demand than residential.

Therefore, building energy demand would be reduced compared to the EBPSP; however, this alternative would result in a substantial increase in vehicle trips compared to the EBPSP (17,378 additional trips when compared to the EBPSP). Therefore, fuel consumption would increase under this alternative. Impacts under either the EBPSP or this alternative would be less than significant.

4.5.7 Geology and Soils
Policy Plan Amendment
As with proposed project, individual development projects under the No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would be required to prepare site-specific geotechnical investigations to evaluate seismic, liquefaction, ground settlement, paleontological resources, and/or soil expansion hazards. All development projects would be required to comply with existing federal, state, and local regulations, such as the California Building Code and statewide Construction General Permit. The proposed project would also be within the same development footprint as the current TOP 2050. Impacts would be the same as proposed project and would be less than significant.

Specific Plan
Grading and development of the Specific Plan area would still occur under the No Project Alternative, and therefore, impacts to geology and soils would be similar to those that would result from the EBPSP. This alternative would also have a similar potential to impact undiscovered paleontological resources during grading. Development realized under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Therefore, impacts from under this alternative would be similar to those of the EBPSP.

4.5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Policy Plan Amendment
As identified in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would result in 3 percent emissions increase above the current 2050 TOP. As a result, this alternative would result in lesser impacts compared to the proposed project, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
3122

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
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4 - 13
Specific Plan
The No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would have the same development impact area as the EBPSP. Although the type of construction would be different under this alternative due to the proposed uses, implementation of this alternative would result in similar impacts from construction related GHG emissions that would occur from implementation of the EBPSP. GHG emissions that could be expected from operations of the No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 are presented in Table 4-3, EBPSP No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 GHG Emissions. Table 4-3 EBPSP No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 GHG Emissions Source
Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e
Mobile 46,233 2 3 41 47,071
Area 594 0.01 0 0 595
Energy 8,812 1 0.08 0 8,859
Water 423 12 0.30 0 819
Waste 278 28 0 0 973
Refrigeration 0 0 0 3 3
Stationary 21 0 0 0 21
On-site Equipment 284
Total CO2e (All Sources) 58,625
Source: Appendix N
The No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would result in an increase in residential units and a decrease in business park uses. As shown in the table, emissions associated with the land use mix under this alternative are estimated at 58,625 MTCO2e/yr. When compared to the emissions associated with the EBPSP (45,539 MTCO2e/yr), this alternative would result in an increase of 13,086 MTCO2e. Both the EBPSP and this alternative would result in significant and unavoidable GHG emissions impacts.

4.5.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Policy Plan Amendment
In both this alternative and proposed project, land uses throughout the City would be required to comply with existing federal, state, and local regulations governing use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Structures would be required to comply with building standards in the California Building Code and the California Fire Code. The proposed project would also be within the same development footprint as the current TOP 2050. Impacts would be the same as proposed project and would be less than significant. 3123

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
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -1 4
Specific Plan
Uses implemented under the No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would be subject to the same federal, state, and local regulations and permitting requirements as are applicable to the EBPSP. In addition, this alternative would also include mitigation of potentially contaminated soils that may exist on the site during construction activities. Similar to the EBPSP, this alternative would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation measures incorporated.

4.5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Policy Plan Amendment
This alternative would have the same hydrology and water quality impacts as the proposed project. Future project-specific water quality management plans (WQMPs), preliminary and/or final, will be prepared consistent with the prevailing terms and conditions of the City Local Implementation Plan (LIP) and Model WQMP at the time of project application. Moreover, low impact development (LID) and water quality treatment solutions prescribed in project-specific WQMPs would be designed to support or enhance the regional BMPs and efforts implemented by the City as part of Citywide efforts to improve water quality. During construction, projectspecific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) are required to be prepared in accordance with the site-specific sediment risk analyses based on the grading plans. The SWPPP must describe construction best management practices (BMP) that address pollutant source reduction, and provide measures/controls necessary to mitigate potential pollutant sources.

Therefore, impacts would be similar and remain less than significant.

Specific Plan
The No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would result in the same area of impervious surfaces compared to the EBPSP. This alternative would introduce new sources of water pollutants from construction and operational activities. Similar to the EBPSP, this alternative would be required to include storm drain facility improvements as well as source control, site design, and treatment control BMPs. Therefore, this alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts to hydrology and water quality.

4.5.11 Land Use and Planning
Policy Plan Amendment
This alternative would leave the current TOP 2050 in place. As a result, there would not be a need to upzone parcels within Ontario Ranch to High Density Residential (HDR). Because the changes to the land use plan would replace areas planned for residential use with nonresidential uses, the loss in residential capacity must be offset by increasing the residential 3124

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
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4 - 15
capacity by an equal amount elsewhere in the city to comply with SB 330, which mandates no net loss of residential capacity citywide. Additionally, land uses within the airport influence area identified in the land use plan are generally consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Chino Airport and Ontario International Airport (ONT). Because this alternative would not trigger SB 330 or SB 166 and the associated need for additional HDR land use, this alternative would reduce land use and planning impacts of the proposed project and would be less than significant.

Specific Plan
Uses constructed under the No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would be consistent with the existing land use designations of the site. Comparative land use and planning impacts under this alternative would be reduced when compared to the EBPSP.

4.5.12 Mineral Resources
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project and this alternative would result in similar impacts to mineral resources.

The proposed project would also be within the same development footprint as the current TOP 2050. Impacts would be the same as proposed project and would be less than significant.

Specific Plan
The Specific Plan area is designated as MRZ-3 and does not contain known mineral resource deposits. The City’s Policy Plan does not identify any locally important mineral resource recovery sites on or within proximity to the Specific Plan area. Therefore, like the EBPSP, the No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would have no potential to impact the availability of known mineral resources or a mineral resource recovery site.

4.5.13 Noise
Policy Plan Amendment
Construction and operational noise impacts would be the same as the proposed project under this alternative. Like the proposed project, construction activities under this alternative could occur close to sensitive receptors, and impacts would be significant. This alternative would have similar operational noise impacts. Therefore, noise impacts would be the same under this alternative in comparison to the proposed project and would be significant (construction noise). 3125

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
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -1 6
Specific Plan
Under this alternative, the types of construction activities and equipment employed would be similar to those associated with construction of the EBPSP. Additionally, this alternative would have the same development impact area as the EBPSP. Maximum construction-source noise/vibration levels would be unchanged.

Stationary operational noise could decrease under this alternative compared to the EBPSP due to the reduced scope of the business park uses. The No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would generate approximately 28,836 daily vehicle trips, primarily passenger vehicles, compared to 9,596 daily trips under the EBPSP, which would include 1,218 daily truck trips.

Although this alternative would substantially increase overall traffic volumes, the reduction in heavy-duty truck activity is an important consideration for traffic noise. Heavy-duty trucks contribute disproportionately to roadway noise compared to passenger vehicles due to higher engine, exhaust, and tire-pavement noise characteristics. As a result, increases in traffic volumes dominated by passenger vehicles typically result in smaller incremental noise increases than traffic streams with a higher truck component. As such, despite the substantial increase in trips, off-site vehicular noise impacts are assumed to be comparable to the EBPSP.

4.5.14 Population and Housing
Policy Plan Amendment
This alternative would result in a decrease in residential units, jobs, and population compared to the proposed project (see Table 2-4 in Chapter 2, Project Description) and would result in growth that is in line with that identified by SCAG for the City of Ontario. Although 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. Therefore, population and housing impacts of this alternative would be similar to the proposed project but would remain less than significant.

Specific Plan
Buildout under the no project alternative would allow for up to 2,195 residential units and 1,632,143 square feet of non-residential land uses. Under TOP 2050, on-site population was estimated to be 6,335 and employment opportunities were estimated to be 3,126. As such, under this alternative, on-site employees would increase by 1,536 employees when compared to the EBPSP’s estimated 1,590 employees. As shown in Table 3.14-7, SCAG estimated a total of 95,500 housing units and 187,700 jobs in 2050 and the TOP 2050 estimated a total of 411,268 residents, 129,551 housing units, and 296,204 jobs in 2050. Buildout of the Specific Plan area as forecast under the Current TOP would be consistent with the City’s and SCAG’s growth projections. Nevertheless, growth under this alternative would be consistent with the City’s and SCAG’s growth projections, and impacts would be similar and less than significant. 3126

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
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4 - 17

4.5.15 Public Services
Policy Plan Amendment
This alternative would result in a decrease in population compared to proposed project. As a result, the impacts on public services, including fire, police, school, and library services, would be reduced under this alternative and would be less than significant.

Specific Plan
Under the No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050, buildout would result in a total of 6,335 new residents and 3,126 new employees, an increase of 1,536 employees compared to the EBPSP. Therefore, demand for fire and police protection services would increase under this alternative. In addition to the increased demands for fire and police protection services, the residential uses developed under this alternative would result in an increased population of school-aged children. This would result in an increased demand for school services that would not occur under the EBPSP. As such, public service demands would be greater than those under the EBPSP but would remain less than significant.

4.5.16 Recreation
Policy Plan Amendment
This alternative would result in a reduction in population compared to proposed project. As a result, the demand for recreation and recreational services in the City would be less. Impacts under this alternative, would be less than the proposed project, and would be less than significant.

Specific Plan
The No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would result in the development of residential uses not proposed by the EBPSP. The increased population caused by this alternative would result in an increased demand for recreational facilities. Development under this alternative would include 51.16 acres of Open Space Parkland to support the recreational demand from future residents, employees and visitors. Although impacts are not anticipated to be significant, they would be increased when compared to the EBPSP.

4.5.17 Transportation
Policy Plan Amendment
As identified in Section 3.17, Transportation, this alternative results in a slight decrease in total VMT and VMT per service population (VMT/SP) compared to proposed project. As a result, this 3127

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
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -1 8
alternative would reduce the project’s significant VMT impact; however, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Specific Plan
Using the assumptions from the TOP 2050 EIR for the site (2,195 residential units and approximately 1.6 million square feet of non-residential mixed use) the trip generation that would be expected under the No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 was developed and compared to the EBPSP, as shown in Table 4-4, EBPSP No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050. As shown, traffic under this alternative would increase by 17,378 trips when compared to the EBPSP. Given the increase in trip generation, it can reasonably be expected that the No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would also increase VMT. Therefore, VMT impacts would be greater than the EBPSP and would remain a significant and unavoidable impact.

Table 4-4 EBPSP No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 Trip Generation Land Use
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Actual Vehicle Business Park (ITE 770) 1,225 269 1,494 368 901 1,269 16,016 Internal Capture -14 0 -14 -17 -17 -34 -406
Multi-Family Residential
(ITE 220) 216 684 900 708 434 1,142 13,632
Internal Capture 0 -14 -14 -17 -17 -34 -406
Total Trips 1,427 939 2,366 1,042 1,301 2,343 28,836
EBPSP Trips 696 249 945 448 750 1,198 11,458
Net Change 731 690 1,421 594 551 1,145 17,378

4.5.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Policy Plan Amendment
Impacts to tribal cultural resources would primarily be associated with potential ground disturbance and development of previously undisturbed areas. Development under proposed project and this alternative would be similar, as the TOP 2050 and proposed project would have the same development footprint. Mitigation measures for the protection of tribal cultural resources would be applicable to this alternative. Additionally, both the proposed project and this alternative would comply with federal and state regulations pertaining to the protection and preservation tribal cultural resources. Therefore, impacts to potential tribal cultural resources would be similar to the proposed project and would be less than significant. 3128

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
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4 - 19
Specific Plan
The No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would result in a similar potential to adversely affect buried tribal cultural resources as the EBPSP, since the development impact area would be the same. As with the EBPSP, this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Potential impacts to tribal cultural resources under this alternative would be similar to those associated with the EBPSP.

4.5.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Policy Plan Amendment
This alternative would result in a decrease in population compared to TOP 2050; therefore, the impact on the City’s infrastructure systems would be reduced, including the demand on water supply. Overall, impacts would be reduced under this alternative compared to the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant.

Specific Plan
Like the EBPSP, the No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would implement all necessary onsite and off-site utilities and service infrastructure system improvements. In general, residential uses and commercial uses have greater water and sewer demands compared to business park uses. Based on the increased scope and intensity of development under this alternative, demands for utilities and services under this alternative would be increased. However, no significant impacts would result from either the EBPSP or this alternative

4.5.20 Wildfire
Policy Plan Amendment
The City of Ontario is not in a very high fire hazards severity zone. Additionally, the development footprint of the TOP 2050 and proposed project are the same. As a result, this alternative would result in similar risk associated with wildfire events. Overall, this alternative would have similar impacts compared to the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant.

Specific Plan
According to the City’s 2023 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), no high fire severity zones exist within the City, nor does the City have any wildland-urban interface areas. The No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would result in a similar development impact area to the EBPSP and would therefore result in similar potential for wildfire. The impacts related to wildfire would be less than significant for both the EBPSP and this alternative. 3129

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
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -2 0

4.5.21 Summary
Policy Plan Amendment
Impacts of the No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would be similar for aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, population and housing, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. This alternative would reduce the proposed project’s air quality, energy, GHG, land use and planning, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems impacts. This alternative would not meet some of the objectives of the proposed project.

Specific Plan
The No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would result in greater impacts to energy, construction noise, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems. This alternative would exacerbate significant and unavoidable impacts related to operational air quality, GHG, off-site traffic-related noise, and transportation. Impacts related to aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, construction air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, onsite noise, population and housing, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire would be similar compared to the EBPSP. Additionally, impacts to land use and planning would decrease under this alternative.

As compared with the EBPSP, this alternative would not meet the following objectives to the same extent due to the change in the proposed land uses from business park to residential and mixed-use:

To provide a land use plan that implements The Ontario Plan’s vision and appropriately positions business park and public parkland uses north of Eucalyptus Avenue, between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue.

To facilitate the development of a variety of employment-generating uses in a business park setting.

To provide business park uses that are compatible with surrounding land uses.

4.6 TRUCK ROUTE SCENARIO 3 ALTERNATIVE
In summer 2025, the City conducted outreach and initiated an evaluation of its existing truck routes, which evaluated changes to truck routes in northern Ontario, including in the Original Model Colony. Changes in southern Ontario were evaluated as part of the Policy Plan Amendment concurrent with land use changes. The City received comments regarding heavy ■
■
■
3130

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
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4 - 21
truck traffic passing by residential areas, especially along Ontario Ranch Road and Archibald Avenue. Specific issues identified by the public from truck travel include noise, vibration, and air quality impacts on homes and schools; safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists; road damage from heavy vehicles; and the need for better enforcement of truck routes. Based on feedback from the public, the City identified four truck routes concepts for Ontario Ranch.

Figure 2-9, Proposed Truck Routes, identifies the proposed truck routes selected by the City to move forward for the Policy Plan Amendment and to address the requirements of AB 98.

The Truck Route Scenario 3 is one of the four concepts evaluated by the City. Truck Route Scenario 3 Alternative would not remove Archibald Avenue as a designated truck route, as proposed under the project, and would add additional truck routes along Eucalyptus Avenue, Walker Avenue, and Hellman Avenue. The Truck Route Scenario 3 Alternative was chosen as an alternative to the proposed project because these additional routes would disperse truck traffic throughout the Ontario Ranch area to a greater extent. While the total number of trucks in the City and the Ontario Ranch area would remain the same, impacts would be spread across a broader area rather than concentrated along two specific routes. This alternative would increase impacts along Archibald Avenue and Edison Avenue while decreasing impacts along Ontario Ranch Road. See Figure 4-1, Truck Route Scenario 3 Alternative.

This alternative would not affect the land uses proposed for the EBPSP. Therefore, a separate analysis of this alternative for the Specific Plan component is not included below as it would be the same as that of the Policy Plan Amendment.

4.6.1 Aesthetics
In this alternative, the entire City would be developed in the same areas as TOP 2050 but with truck routes dispersed across the Ontario Ranch area. The City’s Municipal Code identifies development standards to ensure quality development in the City. Aesthetic impacts would be similar to the proposed project and would be less than significant.

4.6.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
In this alternative, the City would be developed in similar areas as the proposed project. The alternative truck routes would be on existing roadways within the Ontario Ranch area and would have similar impacts to Farmland (City) and lands currently under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, impacts on agriculture and forestry resources would be similar to the proposed project and would be less than significant.
3131

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
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -2 2

4.6.3 Air Quality
The proposed project results in increases in diesel particulate matter (DPM) concentration and health risk along some truck route in Ontario Ranch as a result of changes to the City’s truck routes in accordance with AB 98. While these changes are designed to reduce the number of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, there are some truck routes that would experience an increase in trucks when compared to the current TOP. Under this alternative, trucks would be dispersed on several north-south and east-west truck routes, including Archibald Avenue. Because Archibald Avenue would remain a truck route, localized concentrations of air pollutants would be slightly reduced at some sensitive receptors, in particular along Ontario Ranch Road, compared to the proposed project. Localized impacts associated with the revisions to the truck routes would be similar and would remain less than significant.

Regional emissions would be the same as the proposed project because the changes to the truck routes would not generate new truck trips or warehouses that have the potential to generate additional area and stationary sources of air pollutant emissions, which cumulative contribute to health risk impacts in the air basin. Therefore, like the proposed project, implementation of this alternative would be the same and also result in significant and unavoidable impacts regarding consistency with the AQMP, cumulatively considerable net increase of pollutants for which the project region is in nonattainment, and exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. In comparison to the proposed project, this alternative would have similar, significant and unavoidable impacts.

4.6.4 Biological Resources
Under this alternative, biological resource impacts would be the same as the proposed project.

A number of special status plant species and special status wildlife species are known to occur within or immediately adjacent to the City or are known to occur in the region based on historical data. Federal and state regulations require development projects to assess and mitigate potential biological resources within a project site. This alternative would be within the same footprint as the proposed project. Mitigation measures identified for the proposed project would be applicable to this alternative. Therefore, impacts on biological resources would be the same as the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
3132
Truck
Propo
--
a••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
._ __ __ I
I
I
--~ I ~
(lJ "' ::,
,: ::,
C ~ "' <l:
~ 0
C: ·2
-~ B <: C
::, <l: 0 C: :::,: <J) "'
--- --
I ~~
1 I ~-----,----- ~
I ~ I
I
I -
.,
:,
C:
l
31 3
w
-
Holt Boulevard
City of Ontario
! ------~----===---==-1l,"'--..::::i _____ .. ~
Chino Avenue
City of Chino
C:
>
ta
Edison Avenue
r .. ::,
1 C
ell
E
'ii
Merrill Averiue
-
Riverslde Drive
Ontario Ranch Road
Llmonlte Avenue
I
'
I
Fourth Street
-
- Alrport Drive
--
I
- --
City of Eastvale
--
I
I
,.

4. ALTERNATIVES
Figure 4-1
Truck Route
Scenario 3 Alternative
c:::J EBPSP Boundary
Truck Routes
- City Trruck Routes
Adjacent Agency Truck Routes
- State DOT Network
Proposed Changes
- Truck Route Removal
- - Truck Route Addition
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0~ Miles
Source: Fehr & Peers 2025 Date: 01/21/2026
3133

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
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -2 4
This page intentionally left blank.
3134

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
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4 - 25

4.6.5 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources impacts are primarily associated with potential ground disturbance and development of previously undisturbed areas, or impacts to potential historic structures (building additions, demolition, etc.). Development under this alternative would be the same as the proposed project because the development footprint would be the same. The alternative truck routes would be on existing roadways within the Ontario Ranch area. Mitigation measures for the proposed project would be applicable to this alternative and would mitigate potential impacts to archeological resources; however, like the proposed project, this alternative would have the potential to impact historic buildings as a result of redevelopment. Therefore, impacts to potential cultural resources would be the same as the proposed project and would remain significant and unavoidable.

4.6.6 Energy
This alternative would result in the same energy use compared to the proposed project as in does not change buildout as compared to the proposed project. In general, impacts to energy use under this alternative would be the same as the proposed project and would be less than significant.

4.6.7 Geology and Soils
As with proposed project, individual development projects under this alternative would be required to prepare site-specific geotechnical investigations to evaluate seismic, liquefaction, ground settlement, paleontological resources, and/or soil expansion hazards similar to that of the proposed project. All development projects would be required to comply with existing federal, state, and local regulations, such as the California Building Code and statewide General Construction Permit. Impacts be the same as proposed project and would be less than significant.

4.6.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This alternative would result in the same buildout and a similar VMT compared to the proposed project. As a result, this alternative would also have the same GHG emissions as of the proposed project, but they would be dispersed through the Ontario Ranch area. Therefore, impacts of this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.
3135

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
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -2 6

4.6.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
In this alternative, land uses throughout the City would be required to comply with existing federal, state, and local regulations governing use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Since truck routes would spread throughout the Ontario Ranch area, transport hazardous materials would remain the same citywide, but would be dispersed throughout residential areas, posing a slight increase of transport of hazardous materials to additional residents. Structures would be required to comply with building standards in the California Building Code and the California Fire Code. This alternative would result in similar impacts compared to the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant.

4.6.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
This alternative would have the same hydrology and water quality impacts as the proposed project. Future project-specific WQMPs, preliminary and/or final, will be prepared consistent with the prevailing terms and conditions of the City LIP, and Model WQMP at the time of project application. Moreover, LID and water quality treatment solutions prescribed in project-specific WQMPs would be designed to support or enhance the regional BMPs and efforts implemented by the City as part of its citywide efforts to improve water quality. During construction, projectspecific SWPPPs are required to be prepared in accordance with the site-specific sediment risk analyses based on the grading plans. The SWPPP must describe construction BMPs that address pollutant source reduction and provide measures/controls necessary to mitigate potential pollutant sources. Therefore, impacts would be similar and remain less than significant.

4.6.11 Land Use and Planning
This alternative would result in dispersed truck routes in the Ontario Ranch area, but truck trips in the City would remain consistent with the proposed project. The truck routes under the alternative would be through residential areas and would not be consistent with land uses, as such impacts associated with this alternative would be higher than the proposed project but would remain less than significant. Neither this alternative nor the proposed project would divide an established community. Therefore, the land use impacts would be the same and, like the proposed project, would be less than significant.

4.6.12 Mineral Resources
The proposed project and this alternative would result in similar impacts to mineral resources.

The alternative truck routes would be on existing roadways within the Ontario Ranch area.

Impacts would be the same as the proposed project and would be less than significant. 3136

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
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4 - 27

4.6.13 Noise
Construction and operational noise impacts would be the same as the proposed project under this alternative. Like the proposed project, construction activities under this alternative could occur close to sensitive receptors, and impacts would be significant. This alternative would have slightly reduced operational noise and vibration impacts from a reduction in truck traffic while also increasing traffic noise levels along alternate roadways, however overall traffic noise would be reduced along major arterials in the City. Noise and vibration impacts would be slightly reduced under this alternative in comparison to the proposed project but would remain significant.

4.6.14 Population and Housing
This alternative would result in the same buildout as the proposed project. Therefore, population and housing impacts of this alternative would be similar to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.

4.6.15 Public Services
This alternative would result in the same buildout as the proposed project. As a result, the impacts on public services, including fire, police, school, and library services, would be the same as the proposed project under this alternative and would be less than significant.

4.6.16 Recreation
This alternative would result in the same buildout as the proposed project. As a result, the demand for recreation and recreational services in the City would be the same. Impacts under this alternative would be the same as the proposed project and would be less than significant.

4.6.17 Transportation
This alternative would result in the same total VMT as the truck traffic would remain the same within the City, although truck routes would be spread throughout the Ontario Ranch area. This alternative would have a similar VMT per service population (VMT/SP) compared to proposed project. Impacts would be the same under this alternative and would not eliminate the significant unavoidable VMT impact under criterion 2. Overall, this alternative would have similar VMT impacts compared to the proposed project, and the VMT impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
3137

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
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -2 8

4.6.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Impacts to tribal cultural resources would primarily be associated with potential ground disturbance and development of previously undisturbed areas. Development under this alternative would be similar, as this alternative and proposed project would have the same development footprint. Mitigation measures for the protection of tribal cultural resources would be applicable to this alternative. Additionally, both the proposed project and this alternative would comply with federal and state regulations pertaining to the protection and preservation tribal cultural resources. Therefore, impacts to potential tribal cultural resources would be similar to the proposed project and would be less than significant.

4.6.19 Utilities and Service Systems
This alternative would result in the same buildout as the proposed project; therefore, the impact on the City’s infrastructure systems would be the same. Overall, impacts would be similar under this alternative compared to the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant.

4.6.20 Wildfire
The City of Ontario is not in a very high fire hazards severity zone. Additionally, the development footprint of this alternative and the proposed project are the same. As a result, this alternative would result in similar risk associated with wildfire events. Overall, this alternative would have similar impacts compared to the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant.

4.6.21 Summary
This alternative would be similar for aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, GHG, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and system services, and wildfire. This alternative would reduce the proposed project’s air quality and noise impacts.

This alternative would meet all the objectives of the Policy Plan Amendment with the exception of objectives on truck routes and circulation changes. As compared with the proposed project, this alternative would not meet the following objectives:

Update the City’s truck routes based on proposed land use changes to ensure the City continues to comply with state law and ensures a safe and efficient goods movement network while minimizing the exposure of existing and future sensitive receptors to noise, vibration, and air pollution generated by heavy trucks. ■
3138

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
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4 - 29
Update the Policy Plan component of TOP 2050 for internal consistency with proposed land use and circulation changes.

4.7 REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
The proposed land use plan would result in a net increase of 6,370,304 square feet of industrial and business park land use compared to the approved TOP 2050. The EBPSP represents 2,939,000 square feet of the growth in industrial and business park land uses under the proposed project (46 percent). Therefore, this alternative considers a reduced intensity alternative for the EBPSP area. The Reduced Intensity Alternative was selected to reduce overall impacts associated with air quality, noise, and transportation.

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in a 30 percent reduction in building area on the EBPSP project site. The buildout intensity of the remaining portions of the proposed project would remain the same; however, overall, the buildout of the proposed project would be reduced. Under this alternative, a total of 2,057,300 square feet of non-residential square feet would be developed, a reduction of 881,700 square feet. The total development impact area would remain the same as the EBPSP. Park areas are assumed to remain as proposed. Access to the site would be similar to the EBPSP, with a proportional reduction in the number of parking spaces. Table 4-5, Reduced Intensity Alternative, provides the buildout statistics of this alternative for the proposed project and EBPSP.

Table 4-5 Reduced Intensity Alternative
Category Proposed Project
Reduced Intensity
Alternative Difference
Policy Plan Amendment
Population 427,741 427,741 0
Housing Units 137,177 137,177 0
Non-residential SQFT 268,162,895 267,281,195 -881,700
Jobs 301,035 300,558 -477
EBPSP Site
Non-residential SQFT 2,939,000 2,057,300 -881,700
Jobs 1,590 1,113 -477
Note: SQFT = square feet

4.7.1 Aesthetics
Under this alternative, land uses within the City would be built out in accordance with the proposed project, with the exception of the EBPSP, where the intensity would be reduced.

Though this alternative would result in a slight reduction in land use intensity in Ontario Ranch ■
3139

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
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -3 0
for the EBPSP, overall the aesthetics of the site would be similar to those of the proposed project.

The Specific Plan area is not in an area identified for scenic preservation. There are no scenic vistas in the Specific Plan area; nor would the development of the site adversely affect a designated scenic vista. The existing land uses would still be replaced with business park and open space – parkland uses, although the building square footage would be reduced. Site design and architectural features would be similar to the project under this alternative. Walls and fences would be provided for screening, buffering, and security purposes along building site perimeters and interior to building sites. Landscaping would include a variety of trees, shrubs, vines, and accent plants along the site’s perimeter. Thus, impacts under this alternative would be the less than significant, similar to the EBPSP. Impacts to the remaining portions of the proposed project would remain the same and would be less than significant.

4.7.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
In this alternative, the City would be developed in similar areas as the proposed project. The reduction in land use intensity would be within the EBPSP, and the remaining portions of the City would have similar impacts to Farmland (City) and lands currently under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, impacts on agriculture and forestry resources would be similar to the proposed project and would be less than significant.

Similar to the EBPSP, development realized under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would remove the existing agricultural uses from the site. The City of Ontario no longer has land designated for agricultural use, and impacts associated with the implementation of the EBPSP, including the conversion of grazing land and Prime Farmland to a non-agricultural use, would not result in significant impacts. Therefore, implementation of the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in the same impacts to agricultural resources that would occur from implementation of the EBPSP.

4.7.3 Air Quality
This alternative would result in a less than 1 percent decrease in non-residential development citywide, but approximately 30 percent decrease in non-residential development within the EBPSP. Therefore, the citywide air pollution emission impacts and local impacts would be slightly reduced. Like the proposed project, implementation of this alternative would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts regarding consistency with the AQMP, cumulatively considerable net increase of pollutants for which the project region is in nonattainment, and exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. In comparison to the proposed project, this alternative would have slightly less impact, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
3140

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
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4 - 31
Although the development impact area would be similar to the EBPSP, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in an approximate 30 percent reduction of allowable building square footage. Therefore, this alternative would slightly reduce the EBPSP’s already less than significant construction-related air quality impacts.

At buildout, the EBPSP’s operational emissions of ROGs, NOX, CO, and PM10 emissions would exceed the applicable South Coast AQMD regional thresholds for these pollutants and would therefore contribute to the violation of an air quality standard and result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of an ozone precursor. No feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce the EBPSP’s emissions to levels that are less than significant.

The 30 percent reduction in development intensity under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would translate to an approximate 30 percent reduction in operational-source air pollutant emissions when compared to the EBPSP. Table 4-6, Reduced Intensity Alternative Operation Emission Comparison at Buildout, compares operational-source air pollutant emissions under the EBPSP and Reduced Intensity Alternative.

Table 4-6 Reduced Intensity Alternative Operational Emissions Comparison at Buildout Pollutant
SCAQMD
Threshold
EBPSP
Reduced Intensity
Alternative
Maximum1 Daily
Emissions
Threshold
Exceeded?
Maximum2
Daily
Emissions
Threshold
Exceeded?
ROG - Summer
55 129 YES 91 YES
ROG - Winter 107 YES 75 YES
NOX - Summer
55 196 YES 138 YES
NOX - Winter 205 YES 143 YES
CO - Summer
550
759 YES 531 NO
CO - Winter 563 YES 394 NO
SO2 - Summer
150
3 NO 2 NO
SO2 - Winter 2 NO 2 NO
PM10 - Summer
150
170 YES 119 NO
PM10 - Winter 170 YES 119 NO
PM2.5 - Summer
55 47 NO 33 NO
PM2.5 - Winter 46 NO 33 NO

1. See Table 3.3-18.

2. Reflects a 30 percent reduction.
3141

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
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -3 2
As shown above, although the reduction in intensity realized under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be sufficient to alleviate the EBPSP’s CO and PM10 exceedances, this alternative would still result in operational exceedances of South Coast AQMD thresholds for ROG and NOX. Therefore, significant and unavoidable air quality impacts would persist under the Reduced Intensity Alternative but would be slightly reduced compared to the proposed project.

4.7.4 Biological Resources
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would involve the same development impact area as the proposed project and EBPSP. As such, this alternative would result in the same potential impacts to biological resources (including sensitive raptors, migratory birds, nesting birds, burrowing owl, and roosting bat species) as the EBPSP. As with the EBPSP, mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce impacts. Impacts to biological resources under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be comparable to the EBPSP. Impacts on biological resources would be the same as the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

4.7.5 Cultural Resources
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would have the same development impact area as the EBPSP and the proposed project. No known historical or archaeological resources, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, are present in the EBPSP area; however, there is a remote potential for the EBPSP site to contain unidentified surface or subsurface archaeological resources. Like the EBPSP, this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts. Therefore, impacts to potential cultural resources would be the same as the proposed project and would remain significant and unavoidable. Impacts to cultural resources from the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be similar to those of the EBPSP.

4.7.6 Energy
Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the total building square footage would be reduced by approximately less than 1 percent citywide but 29 percent with a proportional decrease in construction energy demands, operational building energy consumption, and vehicle fuel within the EBPSP. This alternative would result in a slight decrease in energy impacts and a decrease in buildout. In general, impacts to energy use under this alternative would be slightly decreased compared to the proposed project because development would be reduced, but would remain less than significant. This alternative would further reduce the EBPSP’s already less than significant energy impacts.
3142

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
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4 - 33

4.7.7 Geology and Soils
This alternative would result in the same development footprint as the proposed project. As with proposed project, individual development projects under this alternative would be required to prepare site-specific geotechnical investigations to evaluate seismic, liquefaction, ground settlement, paleontological resources, and/or soil expansion hazards similar to that of the proposed project. All development projects would be required to comply with existing federal, state, and local regulations, such as the California Building Code and statewide Construction General Permit. Impacts would be the same as proposed project and would be less than significant.

Grading and development of the entire EBPSP area would still occur under the Reduced Intensity Alternative; therefore, impacts to geology and soils would be similar to those generated by the EBPSP. This alternative would also result in a similar potential to impact undiscovered paleontological resources during grading. Development realized under this alternative, like the EBPSP, would be required to implement mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts. Therefore, impacts from the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be similar to those of the EBPSP.

4.7.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This alternative would result in a decrease in buildout compared to the proposed project. As a result, this alternative would also have a slight decrease in GHG emissions compared to the proposed project. Therefore, impacts of this alternative would be slightly decreased compared to the proposed project, but would remain significant and unavoidable.

With the reduced scope of facilities realized under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced. At buildout and with mitigation, the EBPSP’s greenhouse gas emissions of 45,539 MTCO2e/yr would exceed the applicable numeric threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced to 31,877 MTCO2e/yr. No feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce these emissions to levels that are less than significant. Therefore, although greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced under this alternative, impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable.

4.7.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
In this alternative, land uses throughout the City would still be required to comply with existing federal, state, and local regulations governing use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Structures would be required to comply with building standards 3143

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
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -3 4
in the California Building Code and the California Fire Code. This alternative would result in similar impacts compared to the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would develop the same types of land uses as the EBPSP, but on a reduced scale. The use and storage of potentially hazardous materials would be subject to the same federal, state, and local regulations and permitting requirements as would occur with the EBPSP. As with the EBPSP, development of the site under this alternative would address the potentially contaminated soils that may be present within the site. This alternative would be required to implement the same type of mitigation measures that are included in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Similar to the EBPSP, with mitigation incorporated, hazards and hazardous materials impacts under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be less than significant.

4.7.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
This alternative would have the same hydrology and water quality impacts as the proposed project. Future project-specific WQMPs, preliminary and/or final, will be prepared consistent with the prevailing terms and conditions of the City LIP, and Model WQMP at the time of project application. Moreover, LID and water quality treatment solutions prescribed in project-specific WQMPs would be designed to support or enhance the regional BMPs and efforts implemented as part of citywide efforts to improve water quality. During construction, project-specific SWPPPs are required to be prepared in accordance with the site-specific sediment risk analyses based on the grading plans. The SWPPP must describe construction BMPs that address pollutant source reduction and provide measures/controls necessary to mitigate potential pollutant sources. Therefore, impacts would be similar and remain less than significant.

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in a slight reduction in the amount of impervious surfaces when compared to the EBPSP. Regardless, this alternative would introduce new sources of water pollutants from construction and operational activities, and result in similar runoff and potential for impacts to drainage, erosion, and water quality as the EBPSP.

Similar to the EBPSP, this alternative would be required to include storm drain facility improvements, source control, site design, and treatment control BMPs. Therefore, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts to hydrology and water quality.

4.7.11 Land Use and Planning
The land uses identified in the proposed project would remain the same under this alternative, with the exception of the EBPSP. 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. Uses under the Reduced 3144

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
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4 - 35
Intensity Alternative would not be consistent with these designations. Like the EBPSP, 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. Similarly, no conflicts with TOP 2050 policies, the City’s Development Code, or SCAG’s Connect SoCal would occur. Both the EBPSP and the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in less than significant impacts related to land use and planning. Neither this alternative nor the proposed project would divide an established community. Therefore, the land use impacts would be the same and, like the proposed project, would be less than significant.

4.7.12 Mineral Resources
The proposed project and this alternative would result in similar impacts to mineral resources as the footprint would remain the same. Impacts would be the same as the proposed project and would be less than significant.

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in a similar development impact area as the EBPSP and would therefore result in similar potential to adversely affect any mineral resources in the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan area is designated MRZ-3 and does not contain known mineral resource deposits. The City’s Policy Plan does not identify any locally important mineral resource recovery sites on or within proximity to the site. Therefore, like the EBPSP, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would have no potential to impact the availability of known mineral resources or a mineral resource recovery site.

4.7.13 Noise
Construction noise impacts would be the same as the proposed project under this alternative for both the Policy Plan Amendment and the EBPSP. Under this alternative, the types of construction activities and equipment employed would be similar to those associated with construction of the EBPSP. Maximum received construction-source noise/vibration levels at receptors near the EBPSP would be unchanged, but the duration may be decreased. For the Policy Plan Amendment, construction activities would continue to occur close to sensitive receptors, and impacts would continue to be significant. No significant construction noise impacts were identified for the EBPSP so impacts for the Specific Plan would remain less than significant.

This alternative would have slightly decrease in operational noise impacts associated with the reduction in nonresidential square feet and associated reduction in truck trips. However, the 29 percent reduction in the nonresidential square footage within the Specific Plan would not be sufficient to reduce the significant off-site vehicular noise for either the EBPSP or the Policy Plan 3145

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
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -3 6
Amendment. Overall operational noise and vibration impacts would be slightly reduced under this alternative in comparison to the proposed project and would remain significant.

4.7.14 Population and Housing
This alternative would result in decrease in buildout, as shown in Table 4-5, compared to the proposed project. Therefore, population and housing impacts of this alternative would be slightly decreased compared to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.

As with the EBPSP, no housing would be developed under the Reduced Intensity Alternative. As such, no increase in population would occur. Buildout of this alternative would result in a reduction of employment opportunities on-site. While the EBPSP would employ an estimated 1,590 employees, this alternative would reduce the number of employees to 1,113. Similar to the EBPSP, development implemented under this alternative would be within the growth projections for the area, and impacts to population and housing would be less than significant.

4.7.15 Public Services
This alternative would result in decrease in non-residential square footage, as shown in Table 4- 5, compared to the proposed project. Therefore, public services impacts of this alternative would be slightly decreased compared to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.

The reduction in overall scope under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in slightly less demand for public services, including fire protection and law enforcement. This alternative would further reduce the EBPSP’s already less than significant impacts to public services.

4.7.16 Recreation
This alternative would result in a decrease in non-residential square footage, as shown in Table 4-5, compared to the proposed project. Therefore, recreation impacts of this alternative would be slightly decreased compared to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.

The EBPSP introduces 36.15 acres planned for development of the City’s public “Grand Park.” The amount of Open-Space-Parkland under this alternative is assumed to be the same as proposed under the EBPSP. Similarly, development of the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not directly increase housing or population, both of which typically cause an increase in the demand for and use of existing neighborhood parks and other citywide recreational facilities.

Therefore, impacts associated with recreation under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be less than significant and similar to the EBPSP.
3146

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
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4 - 37

4.7.17 Transportation
This alternative would result in decreased dwelling units as compared to the proposed project.

As such this would decrease VMT in the City and would result in a decrease in VMT impacts compared to the proposed project; however the VMT impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in reduced total VMT when compared to the EBPSP. Because the intensity and scope of uses would be decreased under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the service population would also be decreased. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would therefore not substantially alter the VMT/SP ratio otherwise resulting from the EBPSP. As with the EBPSP, VMT impacts under this alternative would remain significant and unavoidable.

4.7.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Impacts to tribal cultural resources would primarily be associated with potential ground disturbance and development of previously undisturbed areas. Development under this alternative would be similar, as this alternative and proposed project would have the same development footprint. Mitigation measures for the protection of tribal cultural resources would be applicable to this alternative. Additionally, both the proposed project and this alternative would comply with federal and state regulations pertaining to the protection and preservation tribal cultural resources. Therefore, impacts to potential tribal cultural resources would be similar to the proposed project and would be less than significant.

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in a similar potential to adversely affect buried tribal cultural resources as the EBPSP, since the development impact area would be the same.

As with the EBPSP, this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Potential impacts to tribal cultural resources under this alternative would be similar to those associated with the EBPSP.

4.7.19 Utilities and Service Systems
This alternative would result in decrease in buildout, as shown in Table 4-5, compared to the proposed project. Therefore, utilities and system services impacts of this alternative would be slightly decreased compared to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.

Like the EBPSP, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would implement all necessary on-site and off-site utilities and service infrastructure system improvements. Based on the decreased scope and intensity of development under this alternative, demands for utilities and services under 3147

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
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -3 8
this alternative would be slightly reduced. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would further reduce the EBPSP’s already less than significant impacts.

4.7.20 Wildfire
The City of Ontario is not in a very high fire hazards severity zone. Additionally, the development footprint of this alternative and the proposed project are the same. As a result, this alternative would result in similar risk associated with wildfire events. Overall, this alternative would have similar impacts compared to the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant.

According to the City’s 2023 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), no high fire severity zones exist within the City, nor does the City have any wildland-urban interface areas. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in a similar development impact area as the EBPSP and would therefore result in similar potential for wildfire.

4.7.21 Summary
Policy Plan Amendment
This alternative would be similar for aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, mineral resources, population and housing, recreation, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. This alternative would reduce the proposed project’s air quality, energy, GHG, noise, public services, transportation, and utilities and system services impacts. This alternative would meet all the objectives of the Policy Plan Amendment.

Specific Plan
This alternative would be similar for aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, mineral resources, population and housing, recreation, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. This alternative would reduce the proposed project’s air quality, energy, GHG, noise, public services, transportation, and utilities and system services impacts.

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would meet most of the EBPSP objectives; however, this alternative would not meet the following objectives to the same extent as the EBPSP due to the reduced square footage and proportional reduction in employees.

To provide a land use plan that implements The Ontario Plan’s vision and appropriately positions business park and public parkland uses north of Eucalyptus Avenue, between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue.
■
3148

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
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4 - 39
To facilitate the development of a variety of employment-generating uses in a business park setting.

To provide opportunities for positive economic benefit to the City, including new net revenues to the General Fund that can be used for vital City services.

Use of the Specific Plan area would not be maximized under the Reduced Intensity Alternative.

Additionally, the 30 percent reduction would reduce the amount of potential employment opportunities for community residents; therefore, the alternative would not be fully maximizing the economic benefit to the City.

4.8 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the proposed project and the alternatives, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an “environmentally superior” alternative be selected and the reasons for such a selection be disclosed. In general, the environmentally superior alternative is the alternative to the proposed project that has the potential to reduce the proposed project’s significant impacts on the environment to the greatest extent feasible.

Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure, and the alternative to the proposed project selected may not be the alternative to the proposed project that best meets the goals or needs of the City of Ontario. Because CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) requires an evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project, the proposed project under consideration cannot be identified as the environmentally superior alternative. Additionally, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives.

The following alternative has been identified as “environmentally superior” to the proposed project:

Reduced Intensity Alternative
The Reduced Intensity Alternative has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative because it would either lessen or result in similar impacts as the proposed project; however, it would not avoid any significant and unavoidable impacts. As shown in Table 4-7, Comparison of Project Alternative Impacts, and Table 4-8, Ability to Meet Proposed Project Objectives, the Reduced Intensity Alternative lessens impacts to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, noise, public services, transportation, and utilities and system services while partially achieving the benefits of the project objectives.
■
■
■
3149

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
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -4 0
Table 4-7 Comparison of Project Alternative Impacts
Environmental Topic
Proposed
Project1 No Project Alternative/ Current TOP 2050
Truck Route Scenario 3
Alternative
Reduced Intensity
Alternative

3.1 Aesthetics LTS PPA: =
SP: = = = 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources LTS PPA: = SP: = = =

3.3 Air Quality SU PPA:

SP:

3.4 Biological Resources LTS/M PPA: =
SP: =
= = 3.5 Cultural Resources PPA: SU
EBPSP: LTS/M
PPA: =
SP: =
= = 3.6 Energy LTS PPA:

SP: = 3.7 Geology and Soils LTS/M PPA: =
SP: = = =

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions SU PPA:

SP: = 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS/M
PPA:

SP: = = 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality LTS PPA:

SP: = = 3.11 Land Use and Planning LTS PPA:

SP: = = 3.12 Mineral Resources PPA: LTS
EBPSP: NI
PPA:

SP: = = +- +- +- +- +-
3150

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
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4- 4 1
Table 4-7 Comparison of Project Alternative Impacts
Environmental Topic
Proposed
Project1 No Project Alternative/ Current TOP 2050
Truck Route Scenario 3
Alternative
Reduced Intensity
Alternative

3.13 Noise PPA:SU
EBPSP: LTS
PPA:

SP: =

3.14 Population and Housing LTS PPA: =
SP: = = =

3.15 Public Services LTS PPA:

SP: = 3.16 Recreation LTS PPA:

SP: = = 3.17 Transportation SU PPA:

SP: = 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources LTS/M PPA:

SP: = = 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems LTS PPA:

SP: = 3.20 Wildfire LTS PPA:

SP: = = Notes:

PPA Policy Plan Amendment Reduced impact in comparison to the proposed project SP Specific Plan = Similar impact in comparison to the proposed project NI No Impact Greater impact in comparison to the proposed project LTS Less than Significant
LTS/M Less than Significant with Mitigation
SU Significant and Unavoidable

1. The impacts listed in this column represent the highest significance determination for each respective topic. +- +- +- +- +- 3151

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
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -4 2
Table 4-8 Ability to Meet Proposed Project Objectives
Objective
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative/
Current TOP
2050
Truck Route
Scenario 3
Alternative
Reduced
Intensity
Alternative
Policy Plan Amendment
Comprehensively plan for and assess land use changes requested by property owners while ensuring compliance with state laws and maintaining the vision and objectives of current TOP 2050.

Yes Yes Yes Yes
Reposition the planned employment center in southwest Ontario from a mix of office, retail, and residential uses to a concentration of business park uses.

Yes No Yes Yes
Ensure there is no net loss in overall housing capacity within the City, consistent with the requirements of state law. Yes Yes Yes Yes Plan for adequate housing capacity to ensure the City continues to meet the requirements of the City’s sixth-cycle RHNA obligation. Yes Yes Yes Yes Update the City’s truck routes based on proposed land use changes to ensure the City continues to comply with state law and ensures a safe and efficient goods movement network while minimizing the exposure of existing and future sensitive receptors to noise, vibration, and air pollution generated by heavy trucks.

Yes No No Yes
Update the Policy Plan component of TOP 2050 for internal consistency with proposed land use and circulation changes. Yes No No Yes 3152

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
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4- 4 3
Table 4-8 Ability to Meet Proposed Project Objectives
Objective
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative/
Current TOP
2050
Truck Route
Scenario 3
Alternative
Reduced
Intensity
Alternative
Specific Plan
To provide a land use plan that implements The Ontario Plan’s vision and appropriately positions business park and public parkland uses north of Eucalyptus Avenue, between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue.

Yes No NA Partial
To facilitate the development of a variety of employment-generating uses in a business park setting. Yes No NA Partial
To provide business park uses that are compatible with surrounding land uses.

Yes No NA Yes
To provide opportunities for positive economic benefit to the City, including new net revenues to the General Fund that can be used for vital City services.

Yes No NA Partial
To provide opportunities for the development of passive use parks consistent with the City of Ontario’s Grand Park Master Plan. Yes No NA Yes To provide landscaped open space within the Specific Plan area, including pedestrian trails adjacent to public arterial and collector streets. Yes No NA Yes To improve connectivity in the area by providing pedestrian paths, bicycle routes, and comfort amenities such as bike racks that encourage circulation by means not dependent on a motorized vehicle.

Yes No NA Yes
To identify and construct capital improvements for water, recycled water, sewer, storm drain, and circulation facilities that serve planned land uses within and adjacent to the Specific Plan area.

Yes No NA Yes
3153

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
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -4 4
Table 4-8 Ability to Meet Proposed Project Objectives
Objective
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative/
Current TOP
2050
Truck Route
Scenario 3
Alternative
Reduced
Intensity
Alternative
To set forth a development phasing sequence that allows for logical development and aligns with installation of on-site and off-site infrastructure.

Yes No NA Yes
To define guidelines and standards that provide a cohesive design for architecture, landscaping, streetscapes, entry monuments, corner treatments, walls and fencing, lighting, and signage within the Specific Plan area.

Yes No NA Yes
3154
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 5- 1

5. OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
This chapter provides a discussion of the effects of the proposed project based on the analyses in Sections 3.1 through 3.20 of this Draft SEIR. The topics covered in this chapter include effects not found to be significant, significant and unavoidable impacts, significant irreversible changes to the environment, and growth-inducing effects. A more detailed analysis of the effects that the proposed project would have on the environment and proposed mitigation measures to minimize significant impacts are provided in Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft SEIR.

5.1 EFFECTS NOT FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15128, “Effects Not Found to Be Significant,” allows environmental issues for which there is no likelihood of significant impact to be “scoped out” and not analyzed further in the SEIR.

As described in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix A), the City of Ontario determined a full-scope SEIR would be required to evaluate all impacts in the 20 environmental categories; therefore, all categories are evaluated in Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, of this SEIR.

5.2 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a) requires that “Direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environment shall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short- and long-term effects.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c) requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Table ES-3, Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, in the Executive Summary of this Draft EIR summarizes the significant impacts, mitigation measures, and levels of significance with and without mitigation.

Though mitigation measures, where feasible, would reduce the level of impact of the proposed project, the following impacts would remain significant and unavoidable:

AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-1 (PPA + EBPSP): The additional population growth forecast for the Policy Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and the associated emissions would exceed the assumptions of the South Coast AQMD’s AQMP.
■
3155

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
5 . OT HER CE QA CON SI DE RATI ON S
5 -2
Impact AQ-2 (PPA): Construction activities associated with future development that would be accommodated under the Policy Plan Amendment could generate short-term emissions in exceedance of the South Coast AQMD’s threshold criteria.

Impact AQ-3 (PPA + EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project would generate additional, long-term emissions in exceedance of South Coast AQMD’s threshold criteria and cumulatively contribute to the South Coast Air Basin’s nonattainment designations.

Impact AQ-4 (PPA): Construction activities associated with the Policy Plan Amendment could expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations.

Impact AQ-5 (PPA): Operation of industrial and warehousing land uses accommodated under the Policy Plan Amendment would cumulatively contribute to elevated levels of toxic air contaminants in the South Coast AQMD region.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CUL-1 (PPA): Implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment could impact historical resources.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact GHG-1 (PPA + EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in GHG emissions compared to the approved project and would not achieve the carbon neutrality threshold of AB 1279.

Impact GHG-2 (PPA + EBPSP): The proposed project would be inconsistent with the Community Climate Action Plan’s objective of reducing citywide GHG emissions and the State’s carbon neutrality goals.

NOISE
Impact NOI-1 (PPA): 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.

Impact NOI-2 (PPA + EBPSP): Implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP would expose sensitive receptors to substantial permanent traffic noise increases.

Impact NOI-3 (PPA): Construction activities associated with buildout of the Policy Plan Amendment may expose sensitive uses to excessive levels of groundborne vibration. ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
3156

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
5 . OT HER CEQ A CON SIDER ATI O NS
FE BRUARY 2 0 26 5- 3
Impact NOI-4 (PPA): 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.

Impact NOI-5 (PPA): Implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment could expose noise sensitive uses to excessive noise levels from the Ontario International Airport (ONT).

TRANSPORTATION
Impact TRA-2 (PPA + EBPSP): The proposed project would generate a substantial increase in VMT per service population and total VMT compared to the approved project resulting in significant project-level and cumulative VMT impacts.

5.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss whether “Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely.” The discussion shall consider primary and secondary impacts that generally commit future generations to similar uses, irreversible damage from environmental accidents, and irretrievable commitments of resources.

Implementation of the proposed project would include construction activities that would entail the commitment of nonrenewable and/or slowly renewable energy resources; human resources; and natural resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, other metals, water, and fossil fuels. Future developments in accordance with the proposed project would require the use of natural gas and electricity, fossil fuels, and water. The commitment of resources required for the construction and operation of the proposed project would limit the availability of such resources for future generations or for other uses during the life of the project.

An increased commitment of social services and public maintenance services (e.g., police, fire, schools, libraries, and sewer and water services) would also be required. The energy and social service commitments would be long-term obligations in view of the low likelihood of returning the land to its original condition once it has been developed.

Population growth related to the proposed project compared to the approved project would increase vehicle miles traveled and volatile organic compound emissions associated with consumer product use. The proposed project would cumulatively contribute to the South Coast Air Basin’s nonattainment designation for ozone (O3). ■
■
■
■
■
■
3157

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
5 . OT HER CE QA CON SI DE RATI ON S
5 -4

5.4 GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS
Section 15126.2(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Typical factors may include the removal of obstacles to population growth, such as through a major expansion of a wastewater plant.

This section evaluates the proposed project’s potential to create such growth inducements. As CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e) states, “It must not be assumed that growth in an area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.” In other words, negative impacts associated with growth inducement occur only where the projected growth would cause significant adverse environmental impacts.

Approval and implementation of proposed project would not remove obstacles to growth.

Development in the City is guided by TOP 2050. Changes to the approved project are identified in Section 2.4.1, Project Characteristics, and would not result in changes to existing regulations that would remove barriers to growth in the City. Portions of the City are already served by infrastructure. Like the approved project, implementation of proposed project would allow for development of currently undeveloped land and redevelopment of existing land uses. This would induce construction of infrastructure extensions and improvements, such as roadways, storms drains, water pipes, solid waste collection systems, and energy/communication extensions toward undeveloped areas of the City. In addition, the proposed project would increase demand for electricity and natural gas that could require expansion of energy infrastructure, as provided by Southern California Edison and the Southern California Gas Company. Impacts to existing utilities and service systems and potential needs for future improvements are discussed further in Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems. TOP 2050 and the proposed project accommodate the additional population growth required to accommodate the South California Association of Governments’ Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Buildout of the proposed project may require additional firefighting and police personnel and construction of new and/or expanded facilities to improve response times, if necessary. Buildout may also require future construction of new and/or expanded schools in the school districts that serve Ontario (e.g., Chaffey Joint Union High School District, Chino Valley Unified School District, Cucamonga School District, Ontario-Montclair School District, and Mountain View School District). Impacts from the proposed project on public services facilities are discussed in detail in Section 3.15, Public Services. 3158
M ARCH 2 026 6 -1

6. REPORT PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS

CONSULTED
This Draft SEIR was prepared by the City of Ontario in consultation with the following organizations, consultants, and individuals.

LEAD AGENCY
City of Ontario
Rudy Zeledon ............................................................ Executive Director Community Development Henry Noh ............................................................................................................. Planning Director Kimberly Ruddins, AICP .......................................................................... Assistant Planning Director Thomas Grahn........................................................................................................ Principal Planner David F. Eoff IV........................................................................................................ Principal Planner Robert Morales ..................................................................................................... Associate Planner Jay Bautista................................................................................................. Transportation Manager

REPORT PREPARERS
PlaceWorks
Nicole Vermillion................................................................................................................. Principal Emma Haines ..................................................................................................................... Associate Emily Parks ......................................................................................................................... Associate Vivian Kha ........................................................................................................................... Associate Chris Shields ............................................................................................................ Senior Associate Lance Park ............................................................................................................... Senior Associate Jessica Mendoza ........................................................................................................ Project Planner Lexie Zimny......................................................................................................................... Associate Chris Hazel .................................................................................................................................... GIS Cary Nakama ....................................................................................................................... Graphics Gina Froelich ........................................................................................................... Technical Editing Laura Munoz .......................................................................................................... Word Processing 3159

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

6. REP ORT PRE PARERS AND ORGANIZATI ONS CONSULTED
6 -2
T&B Planning
Nicole Morse, Esq. .............................................................................................................. Principal Amy Flores................................................................................................... Senior Project Manager Tracy Chu................................................................................................................. Project Manager Justin Nguyen................................................................................................ Environmental Analyst Jessica Sofian................................................................................................. Environmental Analyst Cristina Maxey................................................................................... Senior GIS/Graphics Specialist Rhea Smith .................................................................................................. GIS/Graphics Technician Fehr & Peers
Jolene Hayes, AICP .............................................................................................................. Principal Paul Herrmann, PE .................................................................................................. Senior Associate Trevor Lien.................................................................................................. Senior Engineer/Planner Marsha Phillips ...................................................................................................... Engineer/Planner Cathy Fitzgerald, Inc.

Cathy Fitzgerald, DEnv, PE, QSP ........................................................................... Principal Engineer Urban Crossroads
Aric Evett ............................................................................................................................ President Charlene So, PE ................................................................................................................... Principal Haseeb Quereshi................................................................................................................. Principal Bill Lawson........................................................................................................................... Principal Alex So ..................................................................................................................... Senior Associate Jared Brawner ........................................................................................... Assistant Traffic Engineer Michael Tirohn ............................................................................................ Environmental Scientist ELMT Consulting
Tom McGill ............................................................................ Senior Biologist/Regulatory Specialist Travis McGill .............................................................................. Senior Biologist/Managing Director Rachael Lyons...................................................................................................... Associate Biologist Megan Peukert .................................................................................................... Associate Biologist BFSA Environmental Services
Jennifer Stropes ................................Vice President of Cultural Resources/Principal Archaeologist Tracy Stropes........................................ Vice President of California Operations/Principal Historian 3160

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

6. REPORT PRE PARERS AND ORGANIZATI ONS CONSULTED
M ARCH 2 026 6 -3
Southern California Geotechnical, Inc.

Daniel Nielsen .......................................................................................................... Senior Engineer Robert Trazo ......................................................................................................... Principal Engineer JLC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.

Joseph Castaneda......................................................................................................... Civil Engineer Roux Associates, Inc.

Mauricio Escobar ........................................................................Principal Geologist/Vice President Kasia Anderson.......................................................................................................Project Geologist

ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
City of Ontario Police Department
Chief Rudy Lopez............................................................................................................. Police Chief City of Ontario Fire Department
Sagar Patel............................................................................................. Fire Administrative Director Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Alexis Mascarinas, P.E. ............................................................................. Senior Associate Engineer Mountain View School District
Jeremy Currier..............................................................................................Deputy Superintendent Chaffey Joint Union High School District
Mathew Holton, Ed.D. .............................................................................................. Superintendent Ontario-Montclair School District
James Q. Hammond, Ed.D........................................................................................ Superintendent Cucamonga School District
Michael Chaix, Ed. D................................................................................................. Superintendent 3161

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

6. REP ORT PRE PARERS AND ORGANIZATI ONS CONSULTED
6 -4
Chino Valley Unified School District
Dr. Norm Enfield....................................................................................................... Superintendent Ontario International Airport
Jacqueline Meraz .....................................................................................Capital Program Specialist Native American Tribes

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
Lacy Padilla.......................... Director of Historic Preservation/ Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

CAHUILLA BAND OF INDIANS
BobbyRay Esparza ................................................................................................... Cultural Director Anthony Madrigal ...................................................................... Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Erica Schenk ................................................................................................................... Chairperson

GABRIELENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS - KIZH NATION
Christina Swindall Martinez ............................................................................................... Secretary Andrew Salas.................................................................................................................. Chairperson

GABRIELENO/TONGVA SAN GABRIEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
Anthony Morales............................................................................................................ Chairperson

GABRIELINO TONGVA INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA TRIBAL COUNCIL
Robert Dorame............................................................................................................... Chairperson Christina Conley ............................................................................. Cultural Resource Administrator

GABRIELINO/TONGVA NATION
Sandonne Goad .............................................................................................................. Chairperson

GABRIELINO-TONGVA TRIBE
Sam Dunlap ............................................................................................. Cultural Resource Director Charles Alvarez............................................................................................................... Chairperson 3162

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

6. REPORT PRE PARERS AND ORGANIZATI ONS CONSULTED
M ARCH 2 026 6 -5

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
Ann Brierty ................................................................................. Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Robert Martin ................................................................................................................ Chairperson

QUECHAN INDIAN TRIBE OF THE FORT YUMA RESERVATION
Jill McCormick ......................................................................................Historic Preservation Officer Jonathan Koteen ......................................................................... President, Quechan Tribal Council

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
Alexandra McCleary ....................................... Senior Manager of Cultural Resources Management

SANTA ROSA BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
Mercedes Estrada ................................................................................................... Cultural Director Steven Estrada.......................................................................................................... Tribal Chairman Vanessa Minott ................................................................................................. Tribal Administrator

SERRANO NATION OF MISSION INDIANS
Wayne Walker .......................................................................................................... Co-Chairperson Mark Cochrane ......................................................................................................... Co-Chairperson

SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
Joseph Ontiveros........................................................................ Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Jessica Valdez ........................................................................................ Cultural Resource Specialist 3163

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

6. REP ORT PRE PARERS AND ORGANIZATI ONS CONSULTED
6 -6
This page intentionally left blank.
3164
3165
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, CA 92707
714.966.9220
www.placeworks.com
3166
City of Ontario

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
June 2026 | Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2025110102
3167

3168
June 2026 | Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2025110102

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
City of Ontario
Lead Agency
Contact: Thomas Grahn, Principal Planner
303 East B Street
Ontario, California 91764
909.395.2036
Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
Contact: Nicole Vermilion, Principal
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
www.placeworks.com
3169
3170
JUNE 2026 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

1.1 Final EIR Organization .......................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Environmental Review Process............................................................................ 1-2

2. Response to Comments.................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 List of Commenters.............................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses................................ 2-2

2.3 Comments and Responses................................................................................... 2-3

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR ............................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Draft EIR Revisions............................................................................................... 3-1 Appendices
Appendix A Draft SEIR Comments Received
Appendix B Revised Draft SEIR Figures
Appendix C Buildout Methodology
Appendix D Friant Ranch Whitepaper and Co-Benefits Risk Assessment 3171

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

TABLE OF CONTENTS
i i PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
3172
JUNE 2026 1-1

1. INTRODUCTION
This Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq.).

According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR shall consist of:
(a ) The draft EIR or a revision of the draft.
(b) Comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR either verbatim or in summary.
(c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies comments on the draft EIR.
(d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.
(e) Any other information added by the lead agency.

This document contains responses to comments received on the Draft SEIR for The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Policy Plan Amendment during the public review period, which began March 5, 2026, and closed April 20, 2026. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. This document and the circulated Draft SEIR comprise the Final SEIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132.

1.1 FINAL EIR ORGANIZATION
Chapter 1, Introduction. This chapter describes CEQA requirements and the content of this Final EIR.

Chapter 2, Response to Comments. This chapter provides a list of agencies, organizations, and individuals commenting on the Draft SEIR; comments received during the public review period; and responses to comments.

Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. This chapter contains revisions to the Draft SEIR as a result of the comments received by agencies and interested persons, as described in Section 2, 3173

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

1. INTRODUCTION
1-2
and/or errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the Draft SEIR for public review.

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

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

1.2.1 Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting
The City of Ontario has determined that a Supplemental EIR would be required for this project and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on November 4, 2025. The NOP and comments received during the NOP’s public review period, from November 4 to December 5, 2025, are in Appendix A, Notice of Preparation, of the Draft SEIR. The NOP process is used to help determine the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft SEIR. There were a total of 16 unique agencies/organizations/residents that responded to the NOP. This SEIR has taken those responses into consideration.

SCOPING MEETING
Prior to preparation of the SEIR, the City of Ontario hosted a public scoping meeting on November 20, 2025, to determine the concerns of responsible and trustee agencies and the community regarding the proposed project. The scoping meeting identified concerns related to truck routes, warehousing, and associated air quality, noise, and vibration impacts; loss of agricultural resources; and increased housing density.

1.2.2 Final EIR Certification
The Draft SEIR was circulated for public review for 45 days from March 5, 2026, to April 20, 2026. Interested agencies and members of the public were invited to provide written comments on the Draft SEIR to the City. Upon completion of the 45-day review period, the City of Ontario has reviewed all written comments received and prepared written responses for each, see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. The Final SEIR incorporates the comments received during the NOA public review period, responses to the comments, and any changes to the SEIR that 3174

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

1. INTRODUCTION
JUNE 2026 1-3
result from comments. The Final SEIR will be presented to the City of Ontario for potential certification as the environmental document for the project. All persons who comment on the SEIR will be notified of the availability of the Final SEIR and the date of the public hearing before the City.

The SEIR was available to the general public for review at various locations:
 City of Ontario, City Hall, Planning Department, 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764  Ovitt Family Community Library, 215 East C Street, Ontario, CA 91764  Lewis Family Branch, 3850 East Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA 91761  Online at: https://www.ontarioca.gov/Planning/Reports/EnvironmentalImpact Public agencies that submitted comments during the 45-day public review period on the SEIR will receive written responses to their comments at least 10 days prior to final action on the proposed project. If the City Council decides to certify the Final SEIR, it will make the necessary findings required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines regarding the extent and nature of the impacts presented in the Final SEIR. The Final SEIR must be certified by the City prior to making a decision to approve the proposed project. Public input is encouraged at all public hearings and meetings before the Planning Commission and City Council concerning the proposed project. 3175

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

1. INTRODUCTION
1-4
This page intentionally left blank.
3176
JUNE 2026 2-1

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires the lead agency to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and to prepare written responses.

This chapter provides all comments received on the Draft SEIR and the lead agency’s responses to each comment. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of the Draft SEIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the Draft SEIR text are shown in double underlined text for additions and strikeout for deletions.

2.1 LIST OF COMMENTERS
Table 2-1, List of Commenters, lists the agencies, organizations, and residents that provided comments on the Draft SEIR during the public review period.

Table 2-1 List of Commenters
Number
Reference Commenter
Date of
Comment
Agencies
A1 San Bernardino County March 9, 2026
A2 Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) March 18, 2026 A3 Omnitrans April 10, 2026
A4 South Coast Air Quality Management District (South
Coast AQMD) April 16, 2026
A5 City of Chino April 20, 2026
A6 San Bernadino County Land Use Services Department April 20, 2026 A7 California Department of Transportation April 20, 2026 Organizations
O1 Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA) April 16, 2026 O2 Center for Biological Diversity April 20, 2026
O3 Fair Ontario April 20, 2026
3177

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-2 PlaceWorks
Table 2-1 List of Commenters
Number
Reference Commenter
Date of
Comment
Residents
R1 Alejandra Barajas March 5, 2026
R2 Yesenia Varela March 6, 2026
R3 Annjanet Cruz March 9, 2026
R4 Ray Smith April 15, 2026
R5 Randi Campbell April 17, 2026
R6 Tina Silva April 20, 2026
R7 Marty McBride April 20, 2026

2.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
CEQA Guidelines section 15204(a) outlines parameters for submitting comments and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review of and comment on Draft EIRs should be . . . on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible. . . . CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.

The CEQA Guidelines further advises,
Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. (sec. 15204[c])
3178

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-3
Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility. (sec. 15204[d])
This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section. (sec. 15204[e]) In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies will be provided to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying the EIR.

2.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This section includes a reproduction of and response to each comment received during the public review period for the Draft SEIR. Comments are presented in their original form in Appendix A, Draft SEIR Comments Received, and annotated to identify each comment number.

Responses to individual comments are provided in this chapter following the text of each corresponding comment. Comments are arranged by category, date received, and name.

Categories and their corresponding abbreviations are:
 Agencies (A)
 Organizations (O)
 Residents (R)
3179

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-4 PlaceWorks

2.3.1 Comments from Agencies
A1. San Bernadino County, Land Use Services Department – March 9, 2026
Comment A1-1
The County of San Bernardino has received the attached Notice of Availability (NOA) for The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Could you please provide a map identifying the sites proposed for land use changes, including any sites within the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan, in addition to those addressed in the Policy Plan? I understand that the proposed amendment could result in up to 7,225 additional residential units and approximately 4.3 million square feet of additional nonresidential uses.

While I was able to locate the proposed zoning map on the City’s EIR webpage, it is difficult to determine which specific sites are proposed for change and their new designations without a before-and-after comparison. If a comparison map is not readily available, could you instead provide a list of the affected sites, including their addresses or APNs, acreage, and current and proposed land use/zoning designations?
Additionally, could you please confirm whether any truck routes are proposed to be modified, or whether the update is limited to adding vibration-related impact considerations to Policy M4.1 to address potential impacts from truck traffic? Response A1-1
The City replied to the San Bernardino County Land Use Services Department on March 10, 2026. As noted in the City’s reply, the Draft SEIR Section 2.0, Project Description, identifies all the parcels in the EBPSP (see Draft SEIR Section 2.1.1) and the parcels affected by the Policy Plan Amendment (see Draft SEIR Section 2.4.1).

The Draft SEIR addresses AB 98 and shows both the City’s Current Truck Routes (see Draft SEIR Figure 2-8, Current Truck Routes) and Proposed Truck Routes (see Draft SEIR Figure 2-9, Proposed Truck Routes).
3180

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-5
A2. Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) – March 18, 2026
Comment A2-Intro
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Ontario Plan 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Project). The proposed Project is a Policy Plan Amendment to The Ontario Plan (TOP). The Policy Plan Amendment project component primarily involves modifying the currently permitted and planned TOP land use pattern across more than 1,300 acres in southern Ontario. These proposed changes to TOP are driven by requests from property owners and developers who seek to alter the allowable type or intensity of land use on their properties as well as land use changes required to improve land use compatibility, maintain compliance with state laws, uphold long-term planning goals, and plan for a cohesive land use pattern that repositions the southwest portion of the city as a regional employment and logistics center. A critical aspect of these proposed Policy Plan Amendments is to ensure compliance with state laws. DTSC recommends and requests consideration of the following comments:

Response A2-Intro
The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) overview of project description is acknowledged. Responses to DTSC’s comments are provided in responses A2-1 through A2-2 below.

Comment A2-1

1. There are several areas of which DTSC has regulatory oversight over that are within the Ontario Plan 2050 Policy Plan, whether they are listed as having documented contamination, land use restrictions, are subject to a Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, or the potential for the Project site to be included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, DTSC recommends further coordination with the Department in the event that the proposed Project may impact any of the areas that may fall under DTSC's oversight. Please review the project area in Ontario, CA EnviroStor[https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=Ontario+++Californi a&__cf_chl_rt_tk=ePdg4aJ2Yb.54whfA3flnIE10lZX2zDtGOiWD3RPI4I-1776720557-1.0.1.1- qJPN1yCsDeghShDDHEtvfsfcgpcKxgHrZW5zpC9nX1k]; DTSC’s public-facing database and coordinate with the Department if any suspected decisions may impact these areas of which DTSC oversees.
3181

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-6 PlaceWorks
Response A2-1
The comment notes that DTSC has regulatory oversight in certain areas of the project area and recommends coordinating with DTSC if the proposed project could affect any areas under its jurisdiction. Table 3.9-1, Hazardous Materials Sites in the City of Ontario, and Figure 3.9-1, Hazardous Materials Cleanup Sites in Ontario (Open Cases), of the Draft SEIR describes the hazardous material sites based on Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Toxics Tracker, EnviroStor, and GeoTracker in Ontario. Future development on sites listed in Table 3.9-1, would be required to comply with applicable federal and state regulations and City ordinances, including coordination with DTSC where applicable, to minimize potential release and exposure of hazardous materials.

Comment A2-2

2. DTSC recommends all imported soil/fill material be tested to ensure all COCs meet screening levels as outlined in DTSC's Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual [https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2023/06/PEA_Guidance_Manual.pdf].

Furthermore, DTSC advises referencing the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet [https://dtsc.ca.gov/information-advisory-clean-imported-fill-materialfact-sheet/]if importing soil/fill is necessary. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil/fill material, there should be documentation of the origins of the soil/fill material and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil/fill material is suitable for the intended land use. The sampling should include analysis based on the source of the soil/fill and knowledge of prior land use.

Response A2-2
The EBPSP would require import of up to 150,000 cubic yards (CY) of soil. In accordance with the requirements of the EBPSP geotechnical evaluation, the imported soil would be required to be suitable for the proposed uses. Additionally, it is a construction management best practice to test imported soils prior to transport to ensure that they are suitable for the proposed use.

Likewise, future projects constructed in accordance with the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment, like the approved TOP 2050 would also implement similar construction management best practices regarding soil import. The City of Ontario requires submission of a soil engineering and engineering geology evaluation prior to issuance of a grading permit and requirements for testing of soil may be required as part of this process. The proposed project would comply with all applicable federal and state regulations governing the importation and use of soil and fill material.
3182

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-7
Comment A2-3
DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the Ontario Plan 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or would like clarification on DTSC’s comments, please respond to this letter or via the for additional guidance.

Response A2-3
This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft SEIR and no further response is necessary.
3183

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-8 PlaceWorks
A3. OmniTrans – April 14, 2026
Comment A3-Intro
Omnitrans appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Ontario Plan 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Our comments focus on transit considerations as Ontario Ranch continues to experience significant growth:

Response A3-Intro
Responses to OmniTrans’ comments are provided in Responses A3-1 through A3-4. The City is committed to continuing to work with OmniTrans on transit planning, implementation, and service in the Ontario Ranch area.

Comment A3-1
Omnitrans is supportive of the increased densities along Edison Avenue—which is identified as a transit priority corridor in SBCTA’s Long Range Multimodal Transportation Plan (LRMTP) [https://www.gosbcta.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/LRMTP-Appendix-B-TransitVision.pdf], particularly as Ontario Ranch becomes more developed. The levels of density that Edison is proposed to see meet the threshold of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service. We also note that Euclid Avenue and Haven Avenue are also designated as a transit priority corridors in the LRMTP. Identifying connectivity with future Housing Element sites will be an important consideration for both Omnitrans and the City of Ontario as growth continues.

Response A3-1
OmniTrans’ support of the increase in density of the transit priority corridor to support future BRT are noted. The City looks forward to continuing support and coordination with Omnitrans to provide excellent service to existing and future Ontario Ranch residents, increase transit service in the region, and complete regional housing goals.

Comment A3-2
As several roadways that are anticipated to absorb the impact of upzoned housing sites will be widened as envisioned in the City’s adopted Mobility Element, Omnitrans requests continued and structured coordination with the City to identify BRT/transit supportive features to improved roadways. These features include, but are not limited to:
- Safe, signalized pedestrian crossings at bus stop locations - Curb space accommodations for future bus stops and amenities 3184

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-9
- Transit Signal Priority (TSP) and other operational treatments at Enhanced Intersection locations
- Potential for dedicated transit lanes on BRT corridors - Transit-supportive active transportation infrastructure such as Class IV and Class II+ buffered bike lanes, Leading Pedestrian Intervals, and other traffic calming measures.

Response A3-2
OmniTrans’ comments on the TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Mobility do not address the adequacy of the analysis in the SEIR. The City will continue to coordinate with Omnitrans to ensure BRT/transit supportive features along future roadways within the Ontario Ranch, as noted by OmniTrans, facilitate safe and efficient access to regional transit. The City will continue to implement its Active Transportation Plan to provide and improve access to bus stops, including future BRT stops.

Comment A3-3
Omnitrans also strongly supports rerouting existing truck routes away from concentrations of high-density housing and future transit priority corridors. Changes to truck circulation patterns significantly affect transit viability and user safety, particularly regarding stop accessibility, curb space, and pedestrian or bike conflicts with truck traffic. These considerations are particularly important in Ontario Ranch as the area continues to add housing and employment and the demand for transit continues to grow. However, if truck volumes, driveway conflicts, and corridor congestion increase without proactive mitigation, transit service can become slower, less reliable, and more expensive to operate. Logistics facilities are more difficult to integrate well with transit, but with early coordination (particularly on stop access, sidewalks, crossings, and employer participation), transit service will have a higher chance of success in this new region.

Response A3-3
OmniTrans’ comments in support of changes to the City’s Truck Routes to reroute existing truck routes away from high-density housing and transit priority corridors are noted. As stated in Chapter 2, Project Description, under “Transportation Updates” (see sections starting on page 2- 38), the SEIR identifies the factors considered in selecting the proposed Truck Routes identified in Figure 2-9, Proposed Truck Routes. The City is actively responding to AB 98/SB 415 requirements to promote truck travel on appropriate truck routes and avoid existing and future sensitive receptors to the best extent possible.

Section 3.17, Transportation, evaluates potential hazards associated with traffic movements. As noted in this section, all plans undergo an extensive review process at the City to ensure 3185

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-10 PlaceWorks
consistency with these adopted standards. At the time of project review for warehouse project/truck intensive projects, the City Engineer will review ingress/egress points for potential compatibility issues with OmniTrans BRT/transit service. The City is committed to continuing to work with OmniTrans on transit planning, implementation, and service in the Ontario Ranch area.

Comment A3-4
Omnitrans appreciates the City’s commitment to the expansion of Bus Rapid Transit, as demonstrated through its partnership on the sbX Purple Line. Omnitrans requests to remain an active stakeholder in the developmental planning process, particularly as it relates to Ontario Ranch and its growth, potential, and regional significance. <Photo>
Response A3-4
The City is committed to continuing to work with OmniTrans on transit planning, implementation, and service in the Ontario Ranch area.
3186

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-11
A4. South Coast Air Quality Management District – April 16, 2026 Comment A4-Intro
South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The City of Ontario is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Lead Agency for the Proposed Project. To provide context, South Coast AQMD staff have provided a brief summary of the project information and prepared the following comments, organized by topic of concern.

Summary of Project Information in the Draft SEIR
Based on the Draft SEIR, the Proposed Project consists of two primary components: The Ontario Plan (TOP) Policy Plan Amendment (PPA) and the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (EBPSP).

The PPA component would modify the existing and planned land use pattern within the TOP area, encompassing more than 1,300 acres in the southern portion of the City of Ontario.1 In addition, the PPA includes updates to the City’s designated truck route network to ensure consistency with Assembly Bill 98 (AB 98).2 Specifically, two roadway segments would be removed from, and three segments added to, the City’s official truck route system.3 The EBPSP component would establish a specific plan over approximately 189 acres, consisting of nine Planning Areas (PAs).4 Land uses would include approximately 137.9 acres designated for Business Park uses, 36.15 acres for Open Space–Parkland, and 14.97 acres for roadway and circulation improvements.5 Development within PAs 1 through 6 would accommodate up to approximately 2,939,000 square feet (sf) of industrial/business park uses. Individual building sizes would not exceed 560,000 sf, and cold storage uses would be prohibited.6 PAs 7 through 9 would be developed as Open Space–Parkland.7 Additionally, the Specific Plan allows for the potential development of a 35,000 sf publicly operated animal resource center, should the City elect to include it in the Specific Plan areas.8 The EBPSP site is generally bounded by Campus Avenue to the west, Eucalyptus Avenue to the south, and Walker Avenue to the east.9 Based on a review of aerial imagery, the nearest sensitive receptor is located approximately 100 feet north of the EBPSP site.

The EBPSP construction is anticipated to commence in January 2027 and continue through June 2031,10 and would occur in three phases,11 with the details12 as follows:
 Phase 1 (2028)
o 340,700 sf industrial park
o 553,300 sf warehousing
3187

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-12 PlaceWorks
o 326,200 sf high-cube fulfillment center (sort)
o 33.8-acre park
 Phase 2 (2029)
o 273,700 sf industrial park
o 553,300 sf warehousing
o 261,000 sf high-cube fulfillment center (sort)
o 5,000 sf retail
o 5,000 sf fast-food restaurant with drive-thru
o 35,000 sf public animal shelter
o 37.7-acre park
 Phase 3 (2031)
o 162,600 sf industrial park
o 211,700 sf manufacturing
o 163,600 sf warehousing
o 47,900 sf high-cube fulfillment center (sort)
o 21-acre park
1 Draft SEIR. p. 2-17.
2 Ibid. p. 2-20.
3 Ibid. p. 2-54.
4 Ibid. p. 2-20.
5 Ibid. p. 2.49.
6 Ibid. p. 2-50.
7 Ibid. p. 2-53.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid. p. 2-54.
10 Ibid. p. 2-75.
11 Ibid. p. 2-77.
12 Appendix C3: EBPSP AQ Study. p. C3-17.
3188

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-13
Response A4-Intro
The South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (South Coast AQMD) overview of project description is acknowledged. Responses to South Coast AQMD’s comments are provided in responses A4-1 through A4-11 below.

Comment A4-1
South Coast AQMD Comments
Truck Idling Duration and Emissions Modeling
Appendix C4 (EBPSP HRA) of the Draft SEIR evaluates truck emissions with 15 minutes of idling per truck per day to estimate diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions for the health risk assessment (HRA).13 However, the actual idling times may be longer in duration since the EBPSP is anticipated to involve a total of 1,218 two-way truck trips per day.14 Moreover, it is reasonable to expect that individual trucks may experience extended periods of idling due to on-site queuing, security checks, staging, loading, and unloading operations, among other factors, particularly during peak hours or in congested circulation areas. As such, a 15-minute idling duration may underestimate actual on-site idling behavior and, consequently, DPM emissions, which are a key contributor to localized health risks.

While the California Air Resources Board (CARB) limits diesel truck idling to five minutes as set forth in the Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM), an exemption from this requirement is allowed for trucks equipped with engines that meet the optional low-NOx idle emission standard, which is typically applicable to model year 2008 and newer trucks. These vehicles, often referred to as “clean idle” certified, are permitted to idle longer than five minutes when situated more than 100 feet from sensitive land uses such as homes and schools.15 Furthermore, CARB’s EMFAC2021 Volume III Technical Document (Table 4.4.2-5) indicates that heavy-duty trucks may idle for up to five hours at a single location under certain conditions.16 For these aforementioned reasons, as a practical matter, the idling duration for onsite heavyduty trucks visiting the Proposed Project site could idle for a much longer duration than what was analyzed in the Draft EIR. Thus, the HRA may have substantially underestimated the full extent of operational health risks associated with the DPM emissions from the anticipated onsite heavy-duty truck activities.

Accurate characterization of idling activity is essential to fully assess the potential health risk impacts, particularly for nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, to ensure the HRA provides an accurate and health-protective estimate of potential exposure, the Lead Agency is recommended to either: 1) revise the operational emissions modeling in the Final SEIR to assume a minimum of 30 minutes of idling per truck per day, unless site-specific data or operational constraints justify a shorter duration; or 2) provide empirical evidence, such as 3189

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-14 PlaceWorks
facility-specific queuing and processing time studies, vehicle circulation modeling, or comparable industry data, to substantiate the 15-minute assumption as representative of expected operations of the Proposed Project.
13 Appendix C4: EBPSP HRA. p. C4-19.
14 Appendix C4: EBPSP HRA. p. C4-20.
15 CARB, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling was promulgated in Chapter 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485:

Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling, available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-06/13_CCR_2485_OAL_06222022- 2_ADA_06272022_0.pdf
16 CARB, EMFAC2021 Volume III Technical Document, Table 4.4.2-5, p. 161., available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
03/emfac2021_volume_3_technical_document.pdf
Response A4-1
The City acknowledges this comment and has reviewed the idling assumptions contained in Appendix C4 (EBPSP HRA). The EBPSP HRA applies a 15-minute onsite idling duration consistent with South Coast AQMD guidance for CEQA health risk assessments, which is specifically intended to capture the cumulative time associated with truck queuing, check-in, staging, and loading/unloading at logistics facilities. This assumption is inherently conservative in that it exceeds CARB’s 5-minute regulatory limit under the ATCM and thereby encompasses any idling that could occur under the “clean idle” certified truck exemption. The 15-minute figure represents a worst-case operational scenario derived from South Coast AQMD-recommended methodology for evaluating mobile source health risk.

The comment references CARB’s EMFAC2021 Technical Document (Table 4.4.2-5) as evidence that trucks may idle up to 5 hours under certain conditions. The City notes that this reference reflects absolute maximum idling durations under a range of conditions for the entire EMFAC modeling framework and is not representative of average or expected onsite idling behavior at a business park/industrial project of this type. Applying a 5-hour or even 30-minute idling assumption, as recommended by South Coast AQMD, across the entire truck fleet without sitespecific empirical support would itself be speculative and inconsistent with the project’s operational characteristics.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, and consistent with the approach taken in other comparable CEQA documents for warehouse and industrial projects in the South Coast Air Basin, the City would require the Applicant to implement an enhanced idling restriction as a project condition 3190

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-15
via Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR-3-SP. Specifically, based on comments received on the Draft SEIR, MM AIR-3-SP would require the limiting of all onsite heavy-duty diesel truck idling to a maximum of 2 minutes, enforceable through signage at loading dock facilities and the project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This condition further reduces actual idling below the conservative modeling assumption already used in the HRA and ensures that DPM emissions from onsite truck activity are minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Accordingly, the HRA does not underestimate operational health risk, and the conclusions of the Draft SEIR remain valid. Changes to MM AIR-3-SP to reflect the two minute idle time requirement can be found in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR.

Comment A4-2
Completion of the Overlapped Emissions Analysis
Appendix C3 (EBPSP Air Quality Study) of the Draft SEIR includes a discussion of the temporal overlap between construction and operational activities.17 However, the analysis presents combined emissions without a corresponding determination of significance.18 While the South Coast AQMD has not established specific thresholds of significance for overlapping construction and operational emissions, a standard practice is to conservatively compare the combined (overlapping) emissions to the applicable operational significance thresholds to evaluate potential impacts. Therefore, the Lead Agency is recommended to revise the air quality analysis to include a determination for overlapping construction and operational emissions using South Coast AQMD’s air quality operational significance thresholds. Where exceedances of applicable thresholds are identified, the analysis should identify, evaluate, and incorporate all available and feasible mitigation measures to reduce emissions to the maximum extent practicable. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, enhanced equipment emissions controls, construction scheduling refinements to minimize overlap, and increased reliance on zero- and near-zero emission technologies. The revised analysis and conclusions should be included in the Final SEIR to ensure a complete and transparent assessment of potential air quality impacts. 17 Appendix C3: EBPSP AQ Study. p. C3-65.
18 Appendix C3: EBPSP AQ Study. p. C3-926.

Response A4-2
The City acknowledges this comment but respectfully disagrees that the Draft SEIR's air quality analysis is deficient with respect to overlapping construction and operational emissions. The Draft SEIR's air quality analysis was prepared consistent with South Coast AQMD's 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, which establishes the standard methodology for quantifying construction and operational emissions separately and comparing each to applicable significance thresholds.

This approach reflects South Coast AQMD's own established guidance for CEQA air quality 3191

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-16 PlaceWorks
analyses. See Section 9.8 Analyzing and Reporting Emissions from the 1993 CEQA Handbook (Page 9-15) which states: “The environmental documentation should demonstrate clearly that the amount of emissions generated by the project have been compared to the thresholds of significance. In this step, construction and operational related emissions should be considered separately.”
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Draft SEIR did not ignore or omit consideration of overlap of construction and operational emissions. Appendix C3 of the Draft SEIR expressly quantified the EBPSP’s combined construction and operational emissions, thereby disclosing the potential for overlap-period emissions and providing the public and responsible agencies a meaningful opportunity to comment on that analysis during the public review period. Likewise, the South Coast AQMD operational significance thresholds used throughout the Draft SEIR were disclosed and applied in the air quality analysis.

In response to the Commenter’s request, the Final SEIR incorporates additional discussion of this combined emissions scenario into the EBPSP’s operational analysis, see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR. The Final SEIR’s discussion of overlap-period emissions does not introduce a new emissions inventory, revise underlying modeling assumptions, or present new technical analysis. Rather it clarifies and amplifies information already disclosed by applying an existing significance framework to emissions data previously disclosed to the public and decisionmakers.

Accordingly, the comparison of overlap-period emissions to operational significance thresholds does not constitute significant new information within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 because it does not deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on the environmental consequences of the project.

Based on the construction schedule presented in Table 3-3 of the EBPSP Air Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix C3 of the Draft SEIR), the three construction phases occur sequentially with no internal overlap among construction phases. However, because Phase 1 construction concludes and Phase 1 operations commence in 2028, and because Phase 2 and Phase 3 construction commence while prior phases are already operational, construction of Phase 2 would overlap with operation of Phase 1 and construction of Phase 3 would overlap with operation of Phases 1 and 2.

The overlapping emissions for these two phases also exceed South Coast AQMD's operational significance thresholds for ROG and NOx and were identified in Appendix C3. This is consistent with the finding in the Draft SEIR that the EBPSP’s operational emissions are significant and unavoidable. This result does not represent a new or distinct significant impact. The overlapping emissions scenario reflects the same operational impact already identified in Tables 3.3-11 through 3-18 of the Draft SEIR, which identified significant and unavoidable emissions for ROG, NOx, CO, and PM10 operating independently of any construction activity. The operational 3192

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-17
component drives the exceedances in both overlap scenarios; the construction component alone does not exceed any applicable threshold, as shown in Tables 3.3-15 and 3.3-16 (see also Tables 3-7 and 3-8 in Appendix C3).

The Draft SEIR already incorporates all feasible mitigation measures identified to reduce the EBPSP's significant and unavoidable operational emissions through Mitigation Measures AIR-1- SP through AIR-8-SP. These measures require features such as water efficient fixtures, Energy Star-rated appliances, outdoor electrical outlets (to accommodate outdoor electrical equipment), rooftop solar, idling restrictions, EV charging stations, infrastructure for truck EV charging stations (to accommodate this technology at such time it becomes commercially available), and tenant lease agreements to ensure the continued implementation of these requirements.

Although construction emissions were determined to be less than significant when evaluated separately against South Coast AQMD’s construction significance thresholds, the Final SEIR incorporates Mitigation Measure AIR-9-SP to further reduce emissions during temporary overlap periods when construction and operational activities occur concurrently.

Mitigation Measure AIR-9-SP: Prior to the commencement of construction activities that may overlap with operation of nearby approved or existing uses and result in concurrent emissions-generating activities (“overlap periods”), the project applicant shall prepare and submit a construction emissions management plan to the City for review and approval. The plan shall identify and implement feasible measures to minimize construction-related emissions during overlap periods and shall include, at a minimum, the following measures, where applicable and feasible:
a) Apply water or approved soil stabilizers to disturbed soils, unpaved haul roads, staging areas, and stockpiles as necessary to prevent visible dust emissions. b) Cover, water, or otherwise stabilize all soil stockpiles and inactive disturbed areas. c) Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces to 15 miles per hour or less. d) Install and maintain track-out control devices, including rumble plates, wheel washers, or equivalent measures, at construction access points. e) Suspend grading and other soil-disturbance activities during high wind events when visible dust cannot be adequately controlled.
f) Utilize off-road diesel-powered construction equipment meeting U.S. EPA Tier 4 Final emissions standards for engines rated at 50 horsepower or greater, unless such equipment is demonstrated to be unavailable or infeasible. 3193

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-18 PlaceWorks
g) All diesel-powered off-road construction equipment and on-road haul trucks operating during overlap periods shall utilize renewable diesel meeting California Air Resources Board specifications to the extent commercially available and feasible. h) Require off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts, including plate compactors and pressure washers, to be electrically powered or battery operated where commercially available and feasible.
i) Prohibit the idling of construction equipment and on-road haul trucks for more than five consecutive minutes, except where necessary for safety, operational requirements, or manufacturer specifications.
j) Utilize electrically powered or battery-powered construction tools and equipment where commercial available and feasible.
k) Require heavy-duty haul trucks entering the construction site during grading and building construction phases to be model year 2014 or newer to the extent feasible and commercially available.
l) Encourage construction workers to carpool, rideshare, or utilize shared transportation to access the construction site and provide information regarding available ridesharing and transit opportunities to construction personnel. m) Use architectural coatings, including paints, primers, sealants, adhesives, and caulks, that comply with applicable South Coast AQMD VOC content limits in effect at the time of construction. To the extent feasible, coatings with VOC levels below applicable regulatory thresholds shall be utilized.
n) Use high-pressure/low-volume paint applicators with minimum transfer efficiency of 50 percent or other application techniques with equivalent or greater transfer efficiency where feasible.
o) Keep paint container lids closed when not in use and utilize compliant low-VOC cleaning solvents for paint equipment cleaning activities. p) Use pre-painted construction materials to the extent feasible. q) Recycle or properly dispose of all unused paint and paint-related materials at an authorized facility or household hazardous waste collection facility, as applicable.

Water-based and oil-based paints shall be stored and disposed of separately. r) Sequence grading, excavation, paving, and other intensive construction activities to avoid simultaneous operation of multiple high-emission equipment fleets in close 3194

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-19
proximity, limit concurrent operation of heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment where feasible, and coordinate construction scheduling to reduce peak daily emissions during overlap periods.
s) Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid or minimize exposure to sensitive receptors to the extent feasible.

The addition of Mitigation Measure AIR-9-SP does not trigger recirculation. Under CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5(a)(3), when information added to the final EIR consists of new mitigation measures, recirculation is required only if the new measure meets all of the following criteria: (1) it is feasible, (2) it is considerably different from the mitigation measures already evaluated in the draft EIR, (3) it would clearly lessen the project’s significant environmental impacts, and (4) it is not adopted. South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 316, 330. Because AIR-9-SP is being adopted and incorporated into the MMRP, it does not satisfy the criteria requiring recirculation.

Although AIR-9-SP would reduce emissions associated with concurrent construction and operational activities, implementation of the measures would not reduce overlap-period emissions to a less than significant level. As disclosed in the Draft SEIR, the Project’s operational emissions independently exceed South Coast AQMD significance threshold and remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation. Accordingly, while the overlap-period mitigation measures would lessen overall emissions during periods of concurrent construction and operation, the overlap scenarios would continue to result in significant and unavoidable emissions because the operational component of the Project would independently exceed applicable significance thresholds. This significance determination was already disclosed in the Draft SEIR, and the overlap-period analysis does not identify a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact.

Moreover, the overlap scenarios disclosed in Appendix C3 represent a conservative worst-case assumption because they assume simultaneous occurrence of peak construction activity and peak operational activity. In practice, peak construction activity and peak operational activity are unlikely to occur on the same day, and the duration of any overlap period is finite and temporary by nature. The overlap analysis therefore provides conservative disclosure of potential concurrent emissions conditions sufficient to inform decisionmakers and the public regarding the nature and magnitude of potential impacts.

For these reasons, substantial evidence supports the City’s conclusion that the Draft SEIR adequately discloses and evaluates construction and operational emissions consistent with CEQA and South Coast AQMD guidance, and all feasible mitigation measures have been identified and disclosed in the EIR. The Commenter has not identified significant new 3195

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-20 PlaceWorks
information, a substantial increase in environmental impacts, or additional feasible mitigation measures requiring revision or recirculation of the Draft SEIR.

Comment A4-3
Recommend Conducting a Quantitative Analysis of Human Health Consequences Section 3.3 (Air Quality) of the Draft SEIR states that the health impacts or human health consequences analysis is not conducted.19 The health impacts are acknowledged; however, the Lead Agency relies on infeasibility arguments to conclude that the quantification of the health effects analysis is not provided in the Draft SEIR. However, the February 2023 Friant Community Plan Update and Friant Ranch Specific Plan contained a detailed quantitative analysis of Human Health Consequences Analysis,20 which is evidence that this type of calculation can be performed.

For context, the Bloomington Business Park Specific Plan Project21 was required to recirculate its Draft EIR following a legal challenge in San Bernardino County Superior Court (Case No.

CIVSB2228456). In that proceeding, the court directed the County to set aside its prior approvals, finding that the EIR was legally inadequate with respect to its analysis of air quality impacts, including the application of the Friant Ranch methodology for evaluating health effects. As articulated in the court’s ruling, “a sufficient discussion of significant impacts requires not merely a determination of whether an impact is significant, but some effort to explain the nature and magnitude of the impact.22” This standard underscores the requirement under the CEQA that an EIR provide a meaningful, evidence-based analysis that allows decision-makers and the public to understand the extent and severity of a project’s environmental and public health impacts.

Therefore, the Lead Agency is recommended to review the analysis in the above-referenced document, perform a quantitative analysis specific to the Proposed Project, and incorporate the results in the Final SEIR.
19 Ibid. p. 3.3-73.
20 Quantitative Analysis of Human Health Consequences Analysis, Table 3.3-8. Available at:
https://www.fresnocountyca.gov/files/sharedassets/county/v/1/vision-files/files/72347-friantprr-deir_2-7-23.pdf 21 Bloomington Business Park Specific Plan Project (SCH: 2020120545). Available at https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2020120545/10
3196

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-21
22 Bloomington Business Park Specific Plan Project. Court Ruling. p. 34 of PDF. Available at https://www.climatecasechart.com/documents/california-superior-court-found-that-ceqareview-for-industrial-rezoning-improperly-analyzed-greenhouse-gas-reduction-measures_4d86 Response A4-3
South Coast AQMD notes that although the Draft SEIR concludes that impacts would be significant, it does not sufficiently characterize the nature and magnitude of the effect. The response below regarding ‘health effects’ of exceeding the South Coast AQMD significance threshold is divided into key components: 1) Modeling Challenges; 2) Stationary Sources Impacts, 3) AB 98/SB 415 Truck Routes Emissions; and 4) Co-Benefits Risk Assessment.

Modeling Challenges
Although the Draft SEIR provides an emission forecast for the EBPSP and the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment implementation, the Draft SEIR does not model potential increases in potential health outcomes, which includes mortality, respiratory effects, and cardiovascular effects of air pollution. The Draft SEIR does quantify the increase in criteria air pollutants emissions for both the EBPSP and the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment compared to the approved project. In addition, a qualitative discussion of the health effects associated with this impact is included under the section entitled “Health Impacts” starting on page 3.3-72 of the Draft SEIR.

At a programmatic level, it is not feasible to quantify the increase in criteria air pollutant emissions from stationary sources associated with a general plan given that it is speculative to identify the location, amount, and emission rates for individual sources. Additionally, the location, velocity of emissions, meteorology and topography of the area, and locations of receptors are equally important model parameters as the quantity of toxic air contaminant emissions.

The white paper, “Assessing Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions Impacts Under CEQA in Light of the Friant Ranch Ruling,” has been added as Appendix D of the Final SEIR and describes several of the challenges of quantifying local effects—particularly health risks—for large-scale, regional projects, and these are applicable to both criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Similarly, the 2 amicus briefs in the Draft SEIR C1 (filed by the air districts on the Friant Ranch case) describe respective positions regarding CEQA requirements, modeling feasibility and variables; and reliability of results for determining specific health risks associated with criteria air pollutants at the time of this case. The discussions also include the distinction between criteria air pollutant emissions and toxic air contaminants with respect to health risks.

Additionally, the South Coast Air Quality Districts’ Significance Thresholds and Monitoring demonstrate the infeasibility based on the current guidance/methodologies of the Air Districts.

The following summarizes major points about the infeasibility of assessing health impacts associated with implementation of the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment. 3197

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-22 PlaceWorks
To achieve and maintain air quality standards, the South Coast AQMD established numerical emission indicators of significance for regional and localized air quality impacts for both construction and operational phases of a local plan or project. South Coast AQMD has established the thresholds based on “scientific and factual data that is contained in the federal and state Clean Air Acts” and recommend “that these thresholds be used by lead agencies in making a determination of significance.” The numerical emission indicators are based on the recognition that the air basin is a distinct geographic area with a critical air pollution problem for which ambient air quality standards have been promulgated to protect public health. The thresholds represent the maximum emissions from a plan or project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable national or state ambient air quality standard. By analyzing the plan’s emissions against the thresholds, an EIR assesses whether these emissions directly contribute to any regional or local exceedances of the applicable ambient air quality standards and exposure levels.

South Coast AQMD currently does not have methodologies that would provide the City with a consistent, reliable, and meaningful analysis to correlate specific health impacts that may result from a proposed project’s mass emissions.

For criteria air pollutants, exceedance of the regional significance thresholds cannot be used to correlate a project to quantifiable health impacts, unless emissions are sufficiently high to use a regional model.

Ozone concentrations are dependent upon a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Secondary formation of PM and ozone can occur far from sources, as a result of regional transport due to wind and topography (e.g., lowlevel jet stream). Photochemical modeling depends on all emission sources in entire domain (i.e., modeling grid). Low resolution and spatial averaging produce “noise” and modeling errors that usually exceed individual source contributions. Because of the complexities of predicting ground-level ozone concentrations in relation to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) and California AAQS, it is not possible to link health risks to the magnitude of emissions exceeding the significance thresholds.

Current models used in CEQA air quality analyses are designed to estimate potential project construction and operation emissions for defined projects. The estimated emissions are compared to significance thresholds, which are keyed to reducing emissions to levels that will not interfere with the region’s ability to attain the health-based standards. While this serves to protect public health in the overall region, there is currently no CEQA methodology to determine the impact of emissions (e.g., pounds per day) on future concentration levels (e.g., parts per million or micrograms per cubic meter) in specific geographic areas. CEQA thresholds, therefore, are not specifically tied to potential health outcomes in the region. 3198

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-23
Until such time that South Coast AQMD has provided methodology to assess the specific correlation between mass emissions generated and their effect on health, individual analysis for the evaluation of health effects would not be meaningful.

Stationary Source Impacts
Regional emissions are divided into two major source categories: stationary and mobile sources.

The Ontario Policy Plan Amendment provides a land use plan that designates land uses for employment-generating uses, including Business Park and Industrial. These broad employment categories cover a wide variety of potential uses. For a programmatic environmental document, it is speculative to determine the exact nature of and location that would occur within these employment-generating categories for stationary sources. Therefore, it is not possible to determine what types of toxic air contaminants would be generated on an individual site.

Additionally, because the exact nature of the future industrial uses is speculative for this programmatic assessment, the quantity of toxic air contaminants generated by the proposed project is also unknown. Thus, for programmatic, general plan–level assessments, it is not feasible to conduct regional dispersion modeling to determine the incremental contribution of risks associated with land use changes in the unincorporated areas.

Policy Plan Amendment AB 98/SB 415 Truck Routes HRA
Section 3.3, Air Quality, under the section Mobile Sources of TACs, starting on page 3.3-86 includes an operational HRA to evaluate impacts of changes to the City’s truck routes in Ontario Ranch in accordance with AB 98/SB 415 compared to the current TOP. The results of the operational HRA were included in Appendix C2 of the Draft SEIR. As identified in this section the unmitigated results of the HRA indicate that the maximum incremental cancer risk resulting from the changes to the Truck Routes would not exceed South Coast AQMD threshold of 10 in one million (see Table 3.3-22, Ontario Ranch Truck Route Changes Operational Health Risk Summary). Consequently, changes to the City’s Truck Routes associated with the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment would have a beneficial impact on existing sensitive receptors along Archibald Avenue and overall would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations along proposed truck routes in the City.

Co-Benefits Risk Assessment
Additionally, a separate Co-Benefits Risk Assessment (COBRA) screening analysis has been prepared for the EBPSP and is included as Appendix D to the Final SEIR. The COBRA analysis estimates incremental regional changes in health indicators (including mortality, asthma events, and respiratory hospitalizations) from the EBPSP’s peak daily criteria pollutant and precursor emissions across the four-county South Coast Air Basin. The results confirm that the EBPSP’s incremental contribution to regional health outcomes is very small relative to existing background conditions. This analysis fulfills the Friant Ranch requirement to provide a reasoned, 3199

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-24 PlaceWorks
evidence-based connection between the EBPSP’s significant air emissions and their expected human health consequences, to the extent that existing tools permit reliable quantification.

Consistent with guidance from South Coast AQMD, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), the Association of Environmental Professionals, and the City of Los Angeles Technical Advisory Panel, the City finds that current regional photochemical tools (such as CAMx, CMAQ, and BenMAP) are designed and validated for regional planning and attainment analyses, not for resolving the incremental health effects of an individual project whose emissions represent a small fraction of the basinwide precursor inventory. The incremental changes in ozone and secondary PM2.5 concentrations attributable to the EBPSP would fall within the models’ margins of uncertainty and would not produce reliable, site-specific health outcome estimates. These limitations further support the City’s reliance on the COBRA analysis as the appropriate quantitative tool to fulfill Friant Ranch obligations for the EBPSP. No edits to the Draft SEIR are warranted.

Comment A4-4
Recommended Air Quality Mitigation Measures to Reduce Construction Emissions Section 3.3 (Air Quality) of the Draft SEIR evaluates emissions associated with construction activities of the EBPSP and concludes that construction-related impacts would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed.23 Notwithstanding this determination, the Lead Agency is recommended to incorporate all feasible and available best management practices to further minimize criteria pollutants and precursor emissions to the maximum extent practicable.

Furthermore, given the extent, scale, and duration of the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency is recommended to evaluate the applicability of the statewide clean-fleet and clean-construction programs under development by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). These programs provide a framework for achieving substantial near-term reductions in nitrogen oxide (NOx), VOC, and DPM emissions from on- and off-road fleets, which are the key precursors to the formation of ozone, which have associated adverse health impacts. Taking full advantage of these programs would provide additional opportunities to minimize the significant effects of the Proposed Project. CARB’s California Clean Construction Program is designed to recognize and encourage off-road construction fleets that voluntarily exceed regulatory requirements by deploying cleaner-than-Tier 4 Final or zero-emission off-road equipment.24 Similarly, CARB’s Clean Fleet Connect25 and Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) programs support on-road fleet transitions toward zero-emission technologies.26 These frameworks demonstrate that both construction and operational fleets can achieve meaningful emissions reductions through the adoption of newer, cleaner equipment and zero-emission technologies. 3200

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-25
In addition to the use of the cleanest available construction technologies (e.g., Tier 4 Final engines), renewable diesel fuel, super-compliant low-volatile organic compound (VOC) architectural coatings, and zero-emission (fully electric) equipment where feasible, the Lead Agency is recommended to consider implementing enhanced fugitive dust control measures (e.g., increased watering frequency, application of soil stabilizers, and minimizing disturbed areas), idling restrictions for on-road and off-road equipment, and optimized construction phasing and scheduling to reduce equipment overlap and associated emissions. Further measures may include the establishment of designated construction haul routes to minimize exposure to sensitive receptors and the preparation of a construction emissions management plan to ensure effective implementation and monitoring of these practices.

Incorporation of these mitigation measures would further reduce short-term air quality impacts and potential localized health risks, particularly in proximity to sensitive receptors. These additional mitigation measures should be evaluated, disclosed, and incorporated, as appropriate, in the Final SEIR to demonstrate the Lead Agency’s commitment to minimizing air quality impacts beyond the identified level of significance. 23 Ibid. p. 3.3-56.
24 CARB – California Clean Construction Program. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/california-clean-construction-program. 25 CARB – Clean Fleet Connect. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/clean-fleet-connect. 26 CARB – Advanced Clean Fleets Program. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/advanced-clean-fleets.

Response A4-4
South Coast AQMD notes that construction activities associated with EBPSP would not exceed the South Coast AQMD regional or localized construction thresholds. The Ontario Policy Plan Amendment project component identified potentially significant construction-related air quality impacts; therefore, mitigation measures were identified for discretionary projects within the City.

As identified in Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR-1-PPA, future projects subject to CEQA would be required to prepare and submit a technical analysis to the City identifying specific impacts and necessary mitigation to reduce those impacts to less-than-significant levels as feasible. As noted in MM AIR-1-PPA, mitigation can include utilizing Tier 4 construction equipment, using supercompliant VOC paints, employing dust control measures that exceed South Coast AQMD’s Rule 403, and implementing idling restrictions, which were recommended by the Commenter. 3201

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-26 PlaceWorks
Additionally, construction vehicles and equipment associated with future construction projects in Ontario would be subject to relevant statewide clean-fleet and clean-construction programs that are in effect at the time those vehicles or equipment are manufactured or utilized. For instance, CARB’s Clean Fleet Connect and Advanced Clean Fleets programs would assist individual heavy duty vehicle operators in the long-term transition toward zero-emission technologies.

Nonetheless, at the request of South Coast AQMD, MM AIR-1-PPA was modified to incorporate the additional construction measures such as using renewable diesel fuel and zero-emission (ZE) equipment, when feasible. These revisions do not require recirculation. The modified measure has been adopted as part of the project approval and therefore does not satisfy the recirculation criteria under CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5(a)(3). Moreover, the revisions merely strengthen and refine mitigation measures already evaluated in the Draft SEIR and do not result in a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of an identified impact.

See Response A4-2.For the EBPSP, although construction emissions were determined to be less than significant when evaluated separately against South Coast AQMD’s construction significance thresholds, the Final SEIR incorporates Mitigation Measure AIR-9-SP to further reduce emissions during temporary overlap periods when construction and operational activities occur concurrently.

The addition of Mitigation Measure AIR-9-SP does not trigger recirculation. Under CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5(a)(3), when information added to the final EIR consists of new mitigation measures, recirculation is required only if the new measure meets all of the following criteria: (1) it is feasible, (2) it is considerably different from the mitigation measures already evaluated in the draft EIR, (3) it would clearly lessen the project’s significant environmental impacts, and (4) it is not adopted. South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 316, 330. Because AIR-9-SP is being adopted and incorporated into the MMRP, it does not satisfy the criteria requiring recirculation.

With respect to the statewide clean-construction programs identified by South Coast AQMD, the City has reviewed CARB's California Clean Construction Program. Many of the best practices and emissions-reduction concepts promoted by this program are reflected in Mitigation Measure AIR-9-SP. However, the City notes that CARB's California Clean Construction Program is largely voluntary and encourages deployment of equipment cleaner than Tier 4 Final on a voluntary basis; requiring contractors to use equipment exceeding Tier 4 Final specifications or mandating zero-emission construction fleets on a fixed schedule is not presently feasible for the regional construction market serving this area (i.e., Southern California). However, for future projects under the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment, the City has modified MM AIR-1-PPA to incorporate additional construction measures that may be implemented on a project-by-project 3202

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-27
basis as necessary to reduce impacts, including using renewable diesel and ZE equipment (see Final SEIR Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR).

Comment A4-5
Recommended Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features for Consideration
CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized to minimize or eliminate any significant adverse air quality impacts. To further reduce the Proposed Project’s air quality impacts, the following mitigation measures and project design considerations are recommended to be incorporated into the Final SEIR.

Response A4-5
Responses to each of South Coast AQMD’s recommended measures identified are provided in responses A4-6 through A4-9 below.

Comment A4-6
Mitigation Measures to Reduce Operational Air Quality Impacts from Mobile Sources

1. Require ZE or NZE on-road haul trucks, such as heavy-duty trucks with natural gas engines that meet the CARB’s adopted optional NOx emissions standard at 0.02 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr), if and when feasible.

Note: Given CARB’s clean truck rules and regulations aiming to accelerate the utilization and market penetration of ZE and NZE trucks, such as the Advanced Clean Trucks Rule and the Heavy-duty Low NOx Omnibus Regulation, ZE and NZE trucks will become increasingly more available for use.

2. Require a phase-in schedule to incentivize the use of cleaner operating trucks to reduce any significant adverse air quality impacts.

Note: South Coast AQMD staff are available to discuss the availability of current and upcoming truck technologies and incentive programs with the Lead Agency.

3. Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at the Proposed Project to levels analyzed in the Final EIR. If higher daily truck volumes are anticipated to visit the site, the Lead Agency should commit to re-evaluating the Proposed Project through CEQA prior to allowing this higher activity level.
3203

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-28 PlaceWorks

4. Provide electric vehicle (EV) charging stations or, at a minimum, provide electrical infrastructure, and electrical panels should be appropriately sized. Electrical hookups should be provided for truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary equipment.

Response A4-6
Mobile source emissions mitigation measures requested by South Coast AQMD are reviewed below:
 Require ZE or NZE on-road haul trucks, such as heavy-duty trucks with natural gas engines that meet the CARB’s adopted optional NOx emissions standard at 0.02 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr), if and when feasible. For the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment, it would be infeasible to require all future trucking activities to utilize zeroemission (ZE) or near zero-emission (NZE) technologies as the operations, constraints, and impacts of individual future projects are unknown at this time. The City has no control over the technologies used for regional trucking activities that utilize the City’s truck routes; therefore, the City would not be able to enforce such a measure. In addition, individual projects facilitated by the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment that are subject to CEQA would be required to prepare a technical analysis under MM AIR-3-PPA to identify that individual project’s impacts and implement feasible mitigation to reduce impacts, which may include utilizing or phasing in use of ZE or NZE emission technologies.
 Require a phase-in schedule to incentivize the use of cleaner operating trucks to reduce any significant adverse air quality impacts. For the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment, it would be infeasible to require all future individual projects to commit to a phase-in schedule for utilizing ZE or NZE technologies as the operations, constraints, and impacts of individual future projects are unknown at this time. Many future individual projects will have limited control over the technologies used for off-site trucking activities; therefore, the City would not be able to enforce a phase-in schedule via a programmatic mitigation measure. While future individual projects would have control over domiciled fleets and the technologies used therein, compliance with CARB’s Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment Regulation will require new cargo handling equipment to meet relevant emission control standards, and CARB is exploring zero-emission requirements for future iterations. In addition, individual projects facilitated by the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment that are subject to CEQA would be required to prepare a technical analysis under MM AIR-3-PPA to identify that individual project’s impacts and implement feasible mitigation to reduce impacts, which may include utilizing or phasing in use of ZE or NZE emission technologies for domiciled fleets.
3204

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-29
 Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at the Proposed Project to levels analyzed in the Final EIR. If higher daily truck volumes are anticipated to visit the site, the Lead Agency should commit to re-evaluating the Proposed Project through CEQA prior to allowing this higher activity level. For future individual projects facilitated by the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment, projects subject to CEQA will be analyzed for potential impacts based on their operational characteristics, including the number of trucks accessing the site.

Nonetheless, to avoid uncertainty surrounding the number of trucks accessing an individual site exceeding what was analyzed during that project’s CEQA review, MM AIR3-PPA has been modified to include this as a sample measure that may be implemented if an individual project’s truck trip estimates are uncertain or unknown (see Final SEIR Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR).
 Provide electric vehicle (EV) charging stations or, at a minimum, provide electrical infrastructure, and electrical panels should be appropriately sized. Electrical hookups should be provided for truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary equipment. Future development projects would additionally be required via CALGreen to install electric vehicle charging infrastructure according to the off-street parking supply provided and the project’s occupancy type, for both passenger vehicles and trucks. For example, Section 5.106.5.3 of the January 2026 Errata of the 2025 CALGreen code specifies mandatory standards for electric vehicle capable space and electric vehicle charging infrastructure installation in new nonresidential construction. Moreover, Section

5.106.5.5 of the January 2026 Errata of the 2025 CALGreen code specifies mandatory standards for new facilities that accommodate truck activities, including warehouses, grocery stores, office buildings, manufacturing facilities, and retail stores with planned off-street loading spaces. In addition, MM AIR-3-PPA identifies electric vehicle charging standards which exceed mandatory compliance with CALGreen as a sample measure that can be implemented on individual projects to reduce impacts, and loading dock electrical hookups are identified as an additional sample measure that future warehousing, industrial, or other trucking-intensive projects can implement to reduce potential impacts.

For EBPSP, with respect to statewide clean-fleet programs identified by South Coast AQMD applicable to Project operations, the City has reviewed CARB's Clean Fleet Connect and Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) programs. Many of the emissions-reduction concepts promoted by these programs are already reflected in the EBPSP’s operational mitigation measures via MM AIR-1-SP and MM AIR-5-SP for supporting future use of ZE trucks, MM AIR-2-SP for supporting the use of alternative fuels, MM AIR-3-SP for idling restrictions, MM AIR-4-SP for using newer model year trucks and installing signage designating idling limits and trucking movement locations, MM AIR-6-SP for using water efficient fixtures, and MM AIR-7-SP for energy efficient appliances and renewable energy technology integration. The City notes, however, that CARB's clean-fleet programs — including the ACF rule — are in various stages of regulatory 3205

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-30 PlaceWorks
development and implementation, and mandating zero-emission on-road fleet transitions on a fixed schedule beyond what is currently required by law is not presently feasible given fleet supply and supporting infrastructure constraints in the South Coast Air Basin. The EBPSP has incorporated mitigation measures requiring tenants to transition to zero-emission heavy-, medium-, and light-duty trucks consistent with commercially available technologies and applicable CARB regulations in effect at the time of operation. Findings and conclusions of the Draft SEIR are not affected.

Comment A4-7
Mitigation Measures to Reduce Operational Air Quality Impacts from Other Area Sources

1. Maximize the use of solar energy by installing solar energy arrays.

2. Use light-colored paving and roofing materials.

3. Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices and appliances.

Response A4-7
Area source emissions mitigation measures requested by South Coast AQMD are reviewed below:
 Maximize the use of solar energy by installing solar energy arrays. Future new construction projects would be required via the California Building Standards Code, Part 6 (Energy Code) to consider rooftop solar arrays in building design. In addition, individual projects facilitated by the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment that are subject to CEQA would be required to prepare a technical analysis under MM AIR-3-PPA to identify that individual project’s impacts and implement feasible mitigation to reduce impacts, which may include increasing the size of the required rooftop solar system beyond prescriptive code compliance.
 Use light-colored paving and roofing materials. Future individual projects would be required via the California Building Standards Code, Part 11 (CALGreen) to meet specified roof solar reflectance performance requirements depending on the occupancy type and proposed roof assembly design. Nonetheless, MM AIR-3-PPA has been modified to include a sample measure to meet the voluntary residential and nonresidential voluntary standards for more stringent solar reflectance and thermal emittance performance which may be implemented to reduce potential project-specific impacts.
3206

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-31
 Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices and appliances. Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations regulates the energy efficiency of newly manufactured appliances that would be used in future development projects within the EBPSP and City of Ontario. In addition, MM AIR-3-PPA identifies sample measures that future projects can implement to reduce impacts, such as providing electric vehicle charging infrastructure beyond mandatory code requirements, using Energy Starcertified appliances, and utilizing renewable energy and energy storage technologies.

For the EBPSP, the City has reviewed South Coast AQMD’s recommended area source measures and confirms that solar energy arrays, light-colored paving and roofing, and Energy Star equipment requirements are addressed through the California Energy Code, CALGreen standards, and the EBPSP’s design features. To the extent any of these measures exceed mandatory code requirements and are feasible for individual future projects within the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment area, MM AIR-3-PPA has been updated to identify them as sample measures available for implementation (see Final SEIR Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR).

Comment A4-8
Design Considerations for Reducing Air Quality and Health Risk Impacts

1. Clearly mark truck routes with trailblazer signs so that trucks will not travel next to or near sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, daycare centers, etc.).

2. Design the Proposed Project such that truck entrances and exits are not facing sensitive receptors, and trucks will not travel past sensitive land uses to enter or leave the Proposed Project site.

3. Design the Proposed Project such that any truck check-in point is inside the Proposed Project site to ensure no trucks are queuing outside.

4. Design the Proposed Project to ensure that truck traffic inside the Proposed Project site is as far away as feasible from sensitive receptors.

5. Restrict overnight truck parking in sensitive land uses by providing overnight truck parking inside the Proposed Project site.
3207

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-32 PlaceWorks
Response A4-8
As identified on page 3.3-85 of the Draft SEIR, TOP includes Policy ER-4.9 in TOP 2050, which requires future development projects that generate more than 100 trucks per day or 40 trucks with transportation refrigeration units per day within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors to prepare a site-specific health risk analysis (HRA) to determine potential project-generated impacts and specify necessary mitigation to reduce impacts. Area source emissions mitigation measures requested by South Coast AQMD are reviewed below:
 Clearly mark truck routes with trailblazer signs so that trucks will not travel next to or near sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, daycare centers, etc.). The Ontario Policy Plan Amendment includes changes to the City’s Truck Routes in accordance with AB 98/SB 415 in order to minimize impacts of commercial trucks to sensitive land uses in the City. As discussed on pages 3.3-87 through 3.3-99 of the Draft SEIR, a Citywide HRA was prepared to analyze the potential individual cancer risk and chronic non-hazard risk impacts and communitywide cancer burden impacts resulting from the net increase in trucking activities accommodated by changes to the City’s Truck Routes. As shown therein and in Tables 3.3-22 and 3.3-23, individual and communitywide risk impacts would be below the South Coast AQMD’s significance thresholds and would not represent a potentially significant impact.
 Design the Proposed Project such that truck entrances and exits are not facing sensitive receptors, and trucks will not travel past sensitive land uses to enter or leave the Proposed Project site. Future development projects facilitated under the proposed Ontario Policy Plan Amendment are not known at this time; therefore, it would not be feasible to specify required site orientation and design, such as site entrances and exits or queueing locations, at this time. Nonetheless, MM AIR-3-PPA has been modified to include a sample measure to alter the design of a future individual project such that truck entrances and exits are not facing sensitive receptors and trucks entering or existing the site do not pass by sensitive land uses, which may be implemented to reduce potential project-specific impacts (see Final SEIR Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR).
 Design the Proposed Project such that any truck check-in point is inside the Proposed Project site to ensure no trucks are queuing outside. Future development projects facilitated under the proposed Ontario Policy Plan Amendment are not known at this time; therefore, it would not be feasible to specify required site orientation and design, such as designating specific check-in locations for trucks accessing a project site, at this time. Nonetheless, MM AIR-3-PPA has been modified to include a sample measure to alter the design of a future individual project such that trucks entering the site have an interior check-in location to maximize the distance between queueing trucks and nearby 3208

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-33
sensitive receptors, which may be implemented to reduce potential project-specific impacts (see Final SEIR Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR).  Design the Proposed Project to ensure that truck traffic inside the Proposed Project site is as far away as feasible from sensitive receptors. Future development projects facilitated under the proposed Ontario Policy Plan Amendment are not known at this time; therefore, it would not be feasible to specify required site orientation and design, such as designating specific truck routing interior to a project site, at this time. In addition, AB 98 requires logistics projects of 250,000 square feet or more and with loading bays within 900 feet of sensitive receptors, or a logistics project with loading bays within 900 feet of sensitive receptors where the site is not zoned industrial, to orient loading bays away from nearby sensitive receptors to the extent feasible; locate loading bays a minimum of 500 feet from the property line of the nearest sensitive receptor; have separate entrances for heavy-duty trucks accessible via a truck route; locate truck entrances, exits, and internal circulation away from sensitive receptors; and include property perimeter screening and buffering. Future project compliance with AB 98 requirements, as applicable, will assist in reducing potential impacts to sensitive receptors with respect to distancing internal truck traffic from nearby sensitive receptors. Nonetheless, MM AIR-3-PPA has been modified to include a sample measure to alter the design of a future individual project such that trucks traveling in the interior of the site to maximize the distance between truck travel paths and nearby sensitive receptors, which may be implemented to reduce potential project-specific impacts (see Final SEIR Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR).
 Restrict overnight truck parking in sensitive land uses by providing overnight truck parking inside the Proposed Project site. Future development projects facilitated under the proposed Ontario Policy Plan Amendment are not known at this time; therefore, it would not be feasible to specify required site orientation and design, such as prescribing overnight parking at future project sites, at this time. In addition, AB 98 requires logistics projects of 250,000 square feet or more and with loading bays within 900 feet of sensitive receptors, or a logistics project with loading bays within 900 feet of sensitive receptors where the site is not zoned industrial, to orient loading bays away from nearby sensitive receptors to the extent feasible; locate loading bays a minimum of 500 feet from the property line of the nearest sensitive receptor; have separate entrances for heavy-duty trucks accessible via a truck route; locate truck entrances, exits, and internal circulation away from sensitive receptors; and include property perimeter screening and buffering. Future project compliance with AB 98 requirements, as applicable, will assist in reducing potential impacts to sensitive receptors with respect to distancing internal truck traffic from nearby sensitive receptors. Nonetheless, MM AIR-3-PPA has been modified to include a sample measure to alter the design of a future individual project such that trucks accessing the site have space for overnight parking, which may be 3209

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-34 PlaceWorks
implemented to reduce potential project-specific impacts (see Final SEIR Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR).

For the EBPSP, the City further notes that AB 98 requirements for qualifying logistics projects will provide an additional mandatory regulatory layer ensuring that truck entrances, loading bays, and internal circulation are sited and designed to maximize separation from sensitive receptors. Future project compliance with AB 98, combined with the sample measures added to MM AIR-3-PPA as described above, collectively achieve the design objectives recommended by South Coast AQMD in this comment.

Comment A4-9
Lastly, the South Coast AQMD also suggests that the Lead Agency conduct a review of the following references and incorporate additional mitigation measures as applicable to the Proposed Project in the Final EIR:

1. State of California – Department of Justice: Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act27

2. South Coast AQMD 2022 Air Quality Management Plan,28 specifically:
a. Appendix IV-A – South Coast AQMD’s Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures
b. Appendix IV-B – CARB’s Strategy for South Coast
c. Appendix IV-C – SCAG’s Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measure

3. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Transportation, Air Quality, and Climate Change.29
27 State of California – Department of Justice, Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf 28 South Coast AQMD, 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) available at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan 29 United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Transportation, Air Quality, and Climate Change available at https://www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climatechange 3210

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-35
Response A4-9
The City has reviewed the measures in the documents referenced by South Coast AQMD and has determined that these measures are already included TOP 2050 policies and implementation measures, have been integrated as mitigation measures, are not applicable to the project, and/or were determined to not be feasible for this programmatic review.

Comment A4-10
Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program
On May 7, 2021, South Coast AQMD’s Governing Board adopted Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program,30 and Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305.31 Rules 2305 and 316 are new rules that will reduce regional and local emissions of NOx and particulate matter (PM), including DPM. These emission reductions will reduce public health impacts for communities located near warehouses from mobile sources that are associated with warehouse activities. Also, the emission reductions will help the region attain federal and state ambient air quality standards. Rule 2305 applies to owners and operators of warehouses greater than or equal to 100,000 sf. Under Rule 2305, operators are subject to an annual WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation that is calculated based on the annual number of truck trips to the warehouse. WAIRE Points can be earned by implementing actions in a prescribed menu in Rule 2305, implementing a site-specific custom plan, or paying a mitigation fee. Warehouse owners are only required to submit limited information reports, but they can opt to earn Points on behalf of their tenants if they choose, because certain actions to reduce emissions may be better achieved at the warehouse development phase, for instance, the installation of solar and charging infrastructure. Rule 316 is a companion fee rule for Rule 2305 to allow South Coast AQMD to recover costs associated with Rule 2305 compliance activities. Since the Proposed Project consists of the development of up to 2,939,000 sf of warehouses, fulfillment centers, industrial park uses, etc., the Proposed Project’s warehouse owners and operators will be required to comply with Rule 2305 once the warehouse is occupied. Therefore, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency review South Coast AQMD Rule 2305 to determine the potential WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation for future operators and explore whether additional project requirements and CEQA mitigation measures can be identified and implemented at the Proposed Project that may help future warehouse operators meet their compliance obligation. South Coast AQMD staff is available to answer questions concerning Rule 2305 implementation and compliance by phone or email at (909) 396-3140 or [email protected]. For implementation of guidance documents and compliance and reporting tools, please visit South Coast AQMD’s WAIRE Program webpage.32
3211

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-36 PlaceWorks
30 South Coast AQMD Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xxiii/r2305.pdf. 31 South Coast AQMD Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-iii/r316.pdf 32 South Coast AQMD WAIRE Program available at http://www.aqmd.gov/waire.

Response A4-10
South Coast AQMD comments regarding South Coast AQMD Rule 2305, Warehouse Indirect Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE), are not comments on the physical environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. Existing and future warehouses within Ontario that are subject to South Coast AQMD Rule 2305 will need to comply with the WAIRE program requirements. This comment is noted and no changes to the Draft SEIR are warranted.

Comment A4-11
South Coast AQMD Air Permits and Role as a Responsible Agency Appendix C3 (EBPSP AQ Study) of the Draft SEIR states that the Proposed Project would include a total of two emergency fire pumps in Phase 1, four emergency fire pumps in Phase 2, and five emergency fire pumps in Phase 3.33 Thus, air permits from South Coast AQMD will be required.

The Final SEIR should include a discussion about the South Coast AQMD rules that may be applicable to the Proposed Project. Those rules may include, for example, Rule 201 – Permit to Construct,34 Rule 203 – Permit to Operate,35 Rule 401 – Visible Emissions,36 Rule 402 – Nuisance,37 Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust,38 Rule 1110.2 – Emissions from Gaseous and Liquid Fueled Engines,39 Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings,40 and Rule 1470 – Requirements for Stationary Diesel-Fueled Internal Combustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines,41 etc.

It is important to note that if air permits from the South Coast AQMD are required, South Coast AQMD’s role under CEQA will become the Responsible Agency of the Proposed Project. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15086, the Lead Agency is required to consult with South Coast AQMD.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15096 sets forth specific procedures for a Responsible Agency, including making a decision on the adequacy of the CEQA document for use as part of the process for conducting a review of the Proposed Project and issuing discretionary approvals.

Also, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15096(h), the Responsible Agency is required to make Findings in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 for each significant effect of the project and issue a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with CEQA 3212

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-37
Guidelines Section 15093, if necessary. Lastly, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15096(i), the Responsible Agency may file a Notice of Determination.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15096 sets forth specific procedures for a Responsible Agency, including making a decision on the adequacy of the CEQA document for use as part of the process for conducting a review of the Proposed Project and issuing discretionary approvals.

Moreover, it is important to note that if a Responsible Agency determines that a CEQA document is not adequate to rely upon for its discretionary approvals, the Responsible Agency must take further actions listed in CEQA Guideline Section 15096(e), which could have the effect of delaying the implementation of the Proposed Project. In its role as CEQA Responsible Agency, the South Coast AQMD is obligated to ensure that the CEQA document prepared for this Proposed Project contains a sufficient project description and analysis to be relied upon in order to issue any discretionary approvals that may be needed for air permits.

For these reasons, the final CEQA document should be revised to include a discussion about any and all new stationary and portable equipment requiring South Coast AQMD air permits, provide the evaluation of their air quality and greenhouse gas impacts, and identify South Coast AQMD as a Responsible Agency for the Proposed Project as this information will be relied upon as the basis for the permit conditions and emission limits for the air permit(s). Please contact South Coast AQMD’s Engineering and Permitting staff at (909) 396-3385 for questions regarding what types of equipment would require air permits. For more general information on permits, please visit South Coast AQMD’s webpage at https://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits. 33 Appendix C3: EBPSP AQ Study. p. C3-59.
34 South Coast AQMD, Rule 201 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/rule-book/reg-ii/rule-201.pdf 35 South Coast AQMD, Rule 203 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/rule-book/reg-ii/rule-203.pdf 36 South Coast AQMD, Rule 401 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-401.pdf 37 South Coast AQMD, Rule 402 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-402.pdf 38 South Coast AQMD, Rule 403 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-403 39 South Coast AQMD, Rule 1110.2 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/rule-book/reg-xi/r1110_2.pdf 3213

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-38 PlaceWorks
40 South Coast AQMD, Rule 1113 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/rule-book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf 41 South Coast AQMD, Rule 1470 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/rule-book/reg-xiv/rule-1470.pdf Response A4-11
South Coast AQMD comments regarding air permits for future stationary sources of emissions within Ontario are not comments on the physical environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The EBPSP considered a worst-case emissions scenario assuming that future projects within the Specific Plan may require fire pumps. However, as noted in the Executive Summary, the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP were evaluated as a Program EIR. Site plans for individual buildings and specific equipment are speculative at this planning phase of the proposed project for both the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP project components. Should stationary sources within the EBPSP and the City of Ontario that require a permit from South Coast AQMD, the project applicants for such projects will need to adhere to South Coast AQMD’s rules and regulations.

Given the information available at this programmatic stage, it would not be appropriate to identify the type of future environmental analysis that may be required for future discretionary projects in Specific Plan or City. As noted by South Coast AQMD, the District would be lead agency for stationary sources that require a permit in the City.

The City further acknowledges that the EBPSP’s emergency fire pump installations will require air permits from South Coast AQMD under applicable rules, including Rules 201 and 203 (Permit to Construct and Permit to Operate) and Rule 1470 (Requirements for Stationary Diesel-Fueled Internal Combustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines), among others. As a result, South Coast AQMD will serve as a Responsible Agency for the proposed project under CEQA, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines sections 15086 and 15096.

The Final SEIR Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR, has been revised to identify South Coast AQMD as a Responsible Agency for the proposed project and include a discussion of the South Coast AQMD rules applicable to the stationary and portable equipment associated with the EBPSP, including the emergency fire pumps and any other equipment identified through coordination with South Coast AQMD’s Engineering and Permitting staff.

With respect to South Coast AQMD's request for an evaluation of the air quality and GHG emissions impacts associated with the emergency fire pumps, this analysis is contained in the Draft SEIR. Section 3.5.4 of the EBPSP Air Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix C3 of the Draft SEIR) describes the stationary source emissions methodology and assumptions in detail. The EBPSP was conservatively assumed to include two diesel-fueled emergency fire pumps in Phase 3214

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-39
1, four in Phase 2, and five in Phase 3, each rated at 220 brake-horsepower and assumed to operate up to one hour per day, one day per week, for up to 50 hours per year for maintenance and testing purposes consistent with Rule 1470 operational limitations. Criteria pollutant and GHG emissions from the fire pumps were calculated using CalEEMod and are reflected in the "Stationary" source line item in Tables 3-11, 3-12, and 3-13 of the EBPSP Air Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix C3 of the Draft SEIR). At Phase 3 buildout, the peak daily stationary source emissions are 1.80 lbs/day ROG, 5.05 lbs/day NOx, 4.60 lbs/day CO, 0.01 lbs/day SO2, 0.27 lbs/day PM10, and 0.27 lbs/day PM2.5. These emissions are included within the EBPSP’s total operational emissions presented in Tables 3-11 through 3-13 and evaluated against South Coast AQMD's regional significance thresholds accordingly. The stationary source emissions do not independently exceed any applicable significance threshold and do not alter the significance conclusions presented in the Draft SEIR.

The City acknowledges South Coast AQMD’s obligation under CEQA Guidelines section 15096 to make findings on the adequacy of the CEQA document and to issue a Statement of Overriding Considerations, if necessary. The City will work cooperatively with South Coast AQMD staff throughout the permitting process.

Comment A4-12
Conclusion
As set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(ab), the Lead Agency shall evaluate comments from public agencies on environmental issues and prepare a written response at least 10 days prior to certifying the Final SEIR. As such, please provide South Coast AQMD written responses to all comments contained herein at least 10 days prior to the certification of the Final SEIR. In addition, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c), if the Lead Agency’s position is at variance with recommendations provided in this comment letter, detailed reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record to explain why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted must be provided.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. South Coast AQMD staff are available to work with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter. Please contact Danica Nguyen, Air Quality Specialist, at [email protected] should you have any questions.

Response A4-12
This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft SEIR and no further response is necessary. Responses to comments will be sent to all agencies who commented during the public review period of the NOA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15088(b).
3215

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-40 PlaceWorks
A5. City of Chino – April 16, 2026
Comment A5-Intro
This letter is in response to an email regarding a Notice of Availability of a Draft Supplemental EIR for The Ontario Plan 2050 Policy Plan Amendment. Thank you for giving the City of Chino the opportunity to review the information and provide comments. In reviewing the proposed changes to the Ontario Plan
Response A5-Intro
Responses to the City of Chino’s comments are provided in Responses A5-1 through A5-5.

Comment A5-1
 As the Proposed Land Use Plan identifies intensifying the Business Park Land Use Type along Eucalyptus Avenue, The City of Chino requests the EIR identify how this project will address its compliance with AB98. Specifically, to ensure that the existing residential sensitive land uses west of Euclid Avenue are protected from increased commercial vehicle traffic through truck routing maps, signage, enforcement policies, and cooperation with neighboring jurisdictions.

Response A5-1
As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the Policy Plan Amendment evaluates changes to the City’s current Truck Routes concurrent with the TOP 2050 land use plan changes. As described under the section entitled “Transportation”, the changes to the truck route map are to minimize the number of existing and proposed sensitive receptors adjacent to the truck routes. AB 98/SB 415 requires cities to balance impacts to sensitive receptors with commercial truck operational needs. Factors that were considered included:
 Direct access to a freeway interchange.
 Connection to truck routes in other jurisdictions.
 Direct service to Industrial and Business Park land uses.  Larger roads (generally 4-6 lanes).
 The presence of soundwalls and vegetation.
 The proximity of a parallel truck route.
 Existing and future estimated truck volumes.
 Fewer gaps in truck routes.
3216

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-41
 Presence of existing and planned sensitive uses (e.g., residential areas, Grand Park, and schools).
 Roadway operations.

As part of the selection of the Truck Routes, a detailed analysis of existing truck origins/destinations and local travel patterns was conducted and found that the majority of truck traffic traveling to and from the Ontario Ranch area are traveling on State Route 60 (SR-60) and Interstate 15 (I-15). The assessment evaluated the anticipated shifts in truck travel patterns related to truck route changes and identified that trucks were being routed away from sensitive receptors in Ontario to appropriate truck routes in Ontario and Chino. The proposed project does not recommend changes of truck routes in Chino.

TOP 2050 includes policies and implementation measures to implement the proposed changes to the City’s Truck Routes. The City is proposing to install truck route signage to direct trucks to turn onto Euclid Avenue when traveling west on Eucalyptus Avenue. In accordance with AB 98, the City is required to provide the GIS truck route map to mapping providers, post the GIS layer on the City’s website, and require warehouse operators to direct truck drivers to use the designated truck routes to access facilities.

Comment A5-2
 The Proposed Truck Route changes add Eucalyptus Avenue east of Euclid as a truck route, the City of Chino requests that the EIR include the identification of mitigation measures to prevent commercial traffic from using Eucalyptus Avenue west of Euclid Avenue through residential areas. The City of Chino requests that the City of Ontario work collaboratively on truck route signage along the shared Euclid Avenue boundary.

Response A5-2
See Response A5-1. The proposed business park uses associated with the EBPSP require direct access to a truck route. Euclid Avenue is an existing truck route (see Figure 2-8, Current Truck Routes). Truck distribution for the EBPSP is included in Appendix K3 of the Draft SEIR (see Exhibit 4-3). The City of Chino does not identify Eucalyptus west of Euclid Avenue as a truck route. However, it is not anticipated that trucks associated with the EBPSP or the Policy Plan Amendment to travel west of Euclid Avenue because the ultimate destination for commercial trucks is the freeways, including I-10, SR-60, and SR-71. As shown in Exhibit 4-3 of Appendix K3 of the Draft SEIR, truck distribution on Eucalyptus west of Euclid Avenue is not anticipated.

While Eucalyptus Avenue does extend to the west in Chino, there is no direct access to SR-71 as the street dead ends into Central Avenue (then named College Park Avenue), after passing through a roundabout at Clarks Avenue. Trucks are much more likely to travel to/from 3217

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-42 PlaceWorks
Eucalyptus Avenue in Ontario via Euclid Avenue and Edison Avenue, both of which are truck routes in Chino and Ontario and provide direct access to SR-60 and SR-71, respectively.

Comment A5-3
 The Proposed Truck Routes remove a portion of Edison Avenue from Euclid Avenue to Walker Avenue while maintaining Edison Avenue easterly all the way to 1-15 in the City of Eastvale. This presents inconsistent regional commercial route planning that differs from previous plans. The City of Chino is concerned that this change presents further concerns with regional truck routes as mentioned above.

Response A5-3
See also Response A5-2. AB 98/SB 415 requires the City to balance impacts to sensitive receptors to operational needs of commercial trucks when revising truck routes. The proposed changes to the truck routes intend to encourage trucks to use major freight corridors, such as Euclid Avenue, SR-60, SR-71, and I-15, and to avoid using roadways that are fronted by sensitive receptors. The proposed project includes concurrent land use changes to TOP 2050 in addition to changes related to AB 98/SB 415. Because of the concurrent land use changes along Eucalyptus Avenue that reallocate residential land uses to high density corridors and the presence of sensitive land uses in Ontario Ranch along Edison Avenue identified in TOP 2050, the City proposed changes to the Truck Routes identified in Figure 2-9, Proposed Truck Routes.

The Ontario Policy Plan Amendment includes residential receptors along Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road between Euclid Avenue and Archibald Avenue; and neighborhood centers at the intersections of Euclid Avenue/Edison Avenue, Grove Avenue/Edison Avenue, and on the south side of the corridor generally between Walker Avenue and Carpenter Avenue. While much of this area is undeveloped now, TOP 2050 plans for sensitive land uses along these corridors. As such, Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road between Euclid Avenue and Walker Avenue is not necessary for truck access and proposed for removal pursuant to AB 98/SB 415. In contrast, Eucalyptus Avenue is needed for truck access and is being proposed as a designated truck route.

Eucalyptus Avenue is also closer to Chino Airport and thereby zoned to allow for logistics uses on the south side of the street and mixed use and medium density residential on the north side.

Based on an analysis of the existing truck routing patterns, the change in the designated truck routes is anticipated to result in a negligible change to truck access in Chino. Specifically, based on vehicle classification counts collected at the intersection of Euclid Avenue and Edison Avenue on May 15, 2025, heavy-duty trucks represent less than 5 percent of the eastbound and westbound through traffic on Edison Avenue and Euclid Avenue (see counts provided in Draft SEIR Appendix K3, , pages 3.1-193 and 3.1-208). The shift of 30 eastbound trucks from a through movement on Eucalyptus Avenue to a right or left turn on Euclid Avenue would not impact 3218

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-43
freight access nor alter the level of service on Euclid Avenue. Additionally, as indicated in the San Bernardino County Land Use Services Department (Comment Letter A6), the City’s proposed truck routes align with the County’s regional truck routes. The City’s proposed Truck Routes are not inconsistent with the City of Chino’s truck routes.

Comment A5-4
 The City of Chino is concerned that with the proposed truck route changes, commercial traffic will be concentrated on Euclid Avenue beyond originally anticipated intersection compacities at buildout. Further, this change is likely to impact SR-60 and SR-71 interchanges that may require additional improvement considerations beyond what has been identified to date. The EIR and traffic impact analysis should review both interchanges to determine how intensifying commercial traffic on Euclid Avenue affects the Level of Service to these locations.

Response A5-4
The comments on delay-based metrics, such as level of service (LOS), do not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft SEIR pursuant to SB 743, and no further response is necessary; however, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was conducted for the EBPSP and was included as Appendix K3 to the Draft SEIR. Table 7-1, Horizon Year (2050) Intersection analysis identifies the LOS for SR-60 and SR-72 ramps.

The proposed changes to the truck routes reflect AB98/SB 415 goals to avoid sensitive receptors and aggregate trucks to regional truck routes such as state highways and expressways, which Euclid Avenue is classified as. The proposed changes reflect current conditions which show that trucks primarily utilize regional routes such as SR-60, SR-71, and SR-91 for regional travel, while Euclid Avenue is not the preferred route for regional travel. The removal of Archibald Avenue would result in minor rerouting of trips to Euclid Avenue but not to the extent that regional planning and future interchanges would be affected.

Based on vehicle classification counts collected along Euclid Avenue in May 2025, the changes to the truck route designations in Ontario would result in minor shifts to existing heavy-duty truck volumes on Euclid Avenue, with the most detectable change occurring at the intersection of Euclid Avenue and Edison Avenue. The shifts represent less than 5 percent of the eastbound and westbound through traffic on Edison Avenue and Euclid Avenue (see counts provided in Draft SEIR Appendix K3, pages 3.1-193 and 3.1-208). The shift of 30 eastbound trucks from a through movement on Eucalyptus Avenue to a right or left turn on Euclid Avenue would not impact freight access nor alter the level of service on Euclid Avenue. 3219

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-44 PlaceWorks
Comment A5-5
 The City of Chino requests that the City of Ontario coordinate Active Transportation facilities along Euclid Avenue and through east-west streets to provide seamless regional connectivity.

Response A5-5
The City of Ontario looks forward to coordinating bicycle and pedestrian connections between Chino and Ontario, specifically along Edison Avenue adjacent to the planned regional park.

Ensuring safe separation between trucks and vulnerable roadway users is very important to the City of Ontario. The proposed removal of the truck route designation from Edison Avenue will improve safe access to the planned park by eliminating heavy-duty truck traffic. 3220

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-45
A6. San Bernardino County, Land Use Services Department – April 20, 2026
Comment A6-1
Thank you for providing the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed amendments to the Ontario Plan (TOP} 2050 Policy Plan.

Based on the information provided, the project is located entirely within the City of Ontario, and direct impacts to unincorporated County areas are expected to be limited. The proposed truck routes also appear consistent with those already evaluated by the County.

Please continue to include County departments, including Land Use Services and Public WorksTraffic, as well as regional partners such as the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA), to ensure impacts to County roadways and truck routes remain limited and coordination is maintained.

Response A6-1
The County of San Bernardino Land Use Department determination of consistency with the County’s truck routes is noted. The City will continue to coordinate with the County of San Bernardino Land Use Services and Public Works-Traffic as well as SBCTA.

A7. California Department of Transportation – April 21, 2026 Comment A7-Intro
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Local Development Review (LDR) Branch has completed its review of the Ontario Plan 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Supplemental Environmental Impact Report documents. The City of Ontario is in the southwestern corner of San Bernardino County and is surrounded by the cities of Chino and Montclair and unincorporated San Bernardino County to the west; the cities of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga to the north; the City of Fontana and unincorporated San Bernardino County to the east; and the cities of Eastvale and Jurupa Valley to the south.

The Policy Plan Amendment project component primarily involves modifying the currently permitted and planned TOP land use pattern across more than 1,300 acres in southern Ontario.

These proposed changes to TOP are driven by requests from property owners and developers who seek to alter the allowable type or intensity of land use on their properties as well as land use changes required to improve land use compatibility, maintain compliance with state laws, 3221

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-46 PlaceWorks
uphold long-term planning goals, and plan for a cohesive land use pattern that repositions the southwest portion of the city as a regional employment and logistics center.

Given that the project is proposing to work within Caltrans’ ROW, further review and the issuance of a Caltrans Encroachment Permit prior to construction to address impacts to Caltrans’ will be necessary. Based on the information currently available, these comments are preliminary and subject to revision as the project design and development progress.

Based on the information available, we are submitting the following comments:

Response A7-Intro
Responses to Caltrans comments are included in Responses A7-1 through A7-4. It should be noted that the EBPSP and the Policy Plan Amendment provide a program-level review of potential impacts associated with buildout of land uses in accordance with the TOP 2050 and the Specific Plan. Specific improvements to Caltrans facilities are not identified as part of this program environmental review; however, should future projects warrant improvements within Caltrans right-of-way (ROW) a Caltrans Encroach Permit would be required.

Comment A7-1
Modal Planning Programs
In the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan, Project Level VMT Impact Assessment contains a revised truck map removing Archibald Avenue as one of the current truck routes (page K1-48).

Given the decrease in future truck trips with the proposed change to the existing truck route, the City should make a concerted effort to implement the mobility plan/Ontario Active Transportation Master Plan (2021), prioritizing streets where trucks are prohibited or will be restricted, as it is notable that there are no continuous north-south bicycle facilities south of SR60, five years following the completion of the Active Transportation Master Plan.

Response A7-1
The EBPSP does not remove Archibald Avenue from the City’s Truck Routes because this action is part of the concurrent Policy Plan Amendment project component. The Policy Plan Amendment includes changes to the City’s truck routes (see Figure 2-8, Current Truck Routes) as identified in Figure 2-9, Proposed Truck Routes. As described under the section entitled “Transportation”, the changes to the truck route map are to minimize the number of existing and proposed sensitive receptors adjacent to the truck routes. AB 98/SB 415 requires cities to balance impacts to sensitive receptors with commercial truck operational needs. 3222

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-47
Caltrans request to prioritize implementation of the Ontario Active Transportation Master Plan is noted. The comments on the City’s Active Transportation Master Plan do not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft SEIR, and no further response is necessary. The Mobility Element of TOP includes changes to the City’s Multipurpose Trails & Bikeways Plan, as shown in Figure 3.17-3. The changes to the City’s Multipurpose Trails & Bikeways Plan further refine Ontario’s Active Transportation Master Plan and shift Class II bike lanes to Multipurpose Trails or Class 1 bikeways to ensure that these Active Transportation improvements align with the proposed land use plan and do not conflict with the proposed changes to the City’s Truck Routes being implemented in response to AB 98/SB 415. Proposed active transportation improvements along existing and proposed roadways in Ontario Ranch are contingent upon redevelopment in Ontario Ranch. The City agrees and is committed to implementing the Mobility Element and Active Transportation Master Plan, including strengthening north/south bicycle connectivity within the Ontario Ranch Area as development occurs and funding allows.

Comment A7-2
Traffic Operations
 Exhibit 1-4 on Page 11: The study area should include the intersection of Euclid Avenue (SR-83) and Bickmore Avenue.
 Provide Synchro (Version 12) input files that are used to analyze intersections.  On Page 38 under Section 2.3: CA MUTCD should be updated to CA MUTCD 2026  Intersection #1 in Table 7-1 on Page 97: The Synchro output for this ramp intersection showed failure. The HCS output showed the WB left off-ramp failed. This left-turn movement should be improved. Also, a double left on NB Euclid to the WB on ramp should be considered.
 Intersection #2 in Table 7-3 on Page 102: A double SB left without a project is the same as with a project. Verify
 Intersection #21 in Table 7-3 on Page 102: Additional trips add onto the SR-60 WB ramps and Grove Avenue. So, the improvement of these WB ramps should be considered  The EB left off-ramp at intersection #22 in Table 7-3 on Page 102: Is adding an exclusive left-turn lane? which is a three-lane approach to Grove Ave. Verify Traffic Operations-San Bernadino County does not consider the TIA report to be completed or approved for this proposed project. Additional comments may be provided after the next submittal is reviewed.
3223

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-48 PlaceWorks
Response A7-2
The comments on delay-based metrics, such as level of service (LOS) do not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft SEIR pursuant to SB 743, and no further response is necessary. Further, Caltrans does not have jurisdictional authority over approval of the EBPSP TIA.

Responses to individual comments on the LOS study are provided below:
 The study area intersections evaluated in the EBPSP Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), which was included in Appendix K3 of the Draft SEIR, were established through the City scoping process. Numerous study area intersections are located along Euclid Avenue. Specifically, nine intersections, as well as the on/off-ramps to/from both the SR-60 and SR-71. It is noted that both intersections along Euclid Avenue to the north and south of Bickmore Avenue (Kimball Avenue and Pine Avenue) were included as study area intersections.  Synchro Version 12 input files for all study intersections were sent to Caltrans for review on May 15, 2026.
 The EBPSP TIA was underway prior to the release of MUTCD 2026 edition, and is consistent with the latest guidelines in place at the time of traffic study scoping agreement approval.

Furthermore, there were no changes to the CA MUTCD for peak hour warrants that would change the findings/recommendations in the Traffic Analysis.  Intersection level of service operations at signalized intersections are evaluated based on the intersection’s average control delay per the HCM 7th Edition methodology for signalized intersections. As shown in the TIA Table 7-1, Intersection #1 is anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS under the analyzed conditions. Additionally, as shown in Table 7-3 of the TIA (Appendix K3 of the Draft SEIR), the westbound left-turn movement is not anticipated to experience queuing deficiencies, and available storage is sufficient to accommodate projected queues. Therefore, no improvements are recommended at this location.  Under Horizon Year conditions, improvements have been recommended for Without Project and With Project conditions. TIA Table 7-3 does not show a "Without Improvements" condition. Table 7-3 shows that at intersection #21, the same improvements have been recommended for both Without Project and With Project conditions. This indicates that the same improvements are needed without and with the project.  As shown in TIA Table 7-1, Intersection #21 is anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS under the analyzed conditions. Additionally, as shown in Table 7-3 of the TIA, the study intersection is not anticipated to experience queuing deficiencies, and available storage is sufficient to accommodate projected queues. Therefore, no improvements are recommended at this location.
3224

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-49
 The recommended improvements consist of adding an exclusive left-turn lane. As such, the eastbound approach would consist of a left-turn lane, a shared left-through lane, and a right-turn lane.

Comment A7-3
Caltrans Encroachment Permit
Be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto Caltrans’ ROW requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit. For information regarding the Encroachment Permit application and submittal requirements, contact:

Caltrans Office of Encroachment Permits
464 West 4th Street, Basement, MS 619
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400
(909)383-4526
[email protected]
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/ep
Important Note: All new permit applications must now be submitted through our new CEPS Online Portal at: https://ceps.dot.ca.gov/
Local Development Review and Encroachment Permit Process Please note that this LDR Letter is not a Caltrans approval nor an entitlement. However, once the above comments have been properly addressed, the project may proceed with the Caltrans Office of Encroachment Permits for an in-depth review and permit issuance.

Response A7-3
See Response A7-Intro. Should future projects warrant improvements within Caltrans right-ofway (ROW) a Caltrans Encroach Permit would be required. The City will coordinate with Caltrans appropriately to obtain all necessary permitting, as needed.

Comment A7-4
Thank you again for including the Caltrans LDR Branch in the review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, or for future notifications and requests for review of new projects, please email [email protected] or call 909-963-9608.

Response A7-4
This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft SEIR and no further response is necessary.
3225

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-50 PlaceWorks

2.3.2 Comments from Organizations
O1. Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance – April 16, 2026 Comment O1-1
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan/The Ontario Plan 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Project. Please accept and consider these comments on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance. Also, Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance formally requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this Project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, P.O. Box 79222, Corona, CA 92877.

1.0 Summary
The Project includes two aspects: 1) Project-level analysis of adoption of the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (EBPSP) to construct 2,939,000 s.f. of industrial business park uses and 2) program-level analysis of substantial amendments to seven chapters (Land Use Element, Housing Element, Mobility Element, Community Design Element, Parks and Recreation Element, Safety Element, and Environmental Resources Element) of the City’s General Plan known as The Ontario Plan (TOP Policy Plan Amendment (PPA)) to accommodate the proposed EBPSP, unaccounted for land use changes that increase TOP buildout by 1,395,416 square feet of nonresidential building area, and other changes to TOP. The EBPSP proposes demolition of all existing onsite structures to accommodate the construction and operation of an industrial business park area. The EBPSP would establish 9 planning areas that provide for development of the site with approximately 2,939,000 SF of industrial business park uses on 137.9 acres (Planning Areas 1-6) and 36.15 acres of Open Space–Parkland (Planning Areas 7-9). The remaining 14.97 acres would be utilized for roadway improvements. The Business Park land use designation is intended to provide for uses such as employee intensive office spaces, technology centers, research and development facilities, warehouse and distribution, and light manufacturing. No cold storage would be permitted. The Specific Plan would also allow a maximum of 10,000 SF of commercial uses within the Business Park planning areas to support the Business Park operations and a 35,000 SF publicly operated animal resource center if the City of Ontario decides to locate an animal resource center in the Specific Plan. 3226

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-51
Response O1-1
This serves as an introduction to the comment letter. This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft SEIR and no further response is necessary. Responses to the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance’s (GSEJA) comments are provided in Responses O1-2 through O1-73.

Comment O1-2
Executive Summary 2.2. Type and Purpose of this Draft SEIR The amendments to TOP are analyzed at a programmatic level as a Supplemental EIR to the existing TOP EIR. The EBPSP portion of the Project is analyzed as a Project Supplemental EIR.

However, CEQA requires that TOP be analyzed as a Subsequent EIR. The EIR states that, “The proposed land use changes necessitate updates and modifications across the Land Use Element and various other elements of TOP 2050 Policy Plan.” This justification language is vague and overly simplifies the extent of the PPA amendments to TOP. The existing TOP has a total of nine chapters, and the PPA modifies seven of them – Land Use Element, Housing Element, Mobility Element, Community Design Element, Parks and Recreation Element, Safety Element, and Environmental Resources Element. The Project also includes changes to the City’s Development Code and Zoning Map to reflect the changes within TOP.

CEQA Guidelines Section 21166 requires that a subsequent EIR be prepared when any of the following apply: 1) substantial changes to the approved Project will require major revisions to the certified EIR, 2) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the approved Project is being undertaken will require major revisions to the certified EIR, or 3) new information, that was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR for the approved Project was certified becomes available. All three of these circumstances apply to the proposed Project. The approved Project (existing TOP) is changed so fundamentally and substantially that the RHNA sites inventory of the Housing Element is altered, new land use designations are created, existing land use designations are altered, and the Development Code and Zoning Map must also be updated as a result in order to accommodate these substantial changes.

Further, substantial changes and revisions to the existing TOP EIR are necessary in that the proposed Project has prepared new analyses for Air Quality, GHG, Truck Routes, Noise, VMT, and Water Supply. New information that was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR for the approved Project (existing TOP) was certified becomes available, including but not limited to the proposed revisions to seven chapters of TOP to accommodate the EBPSP, the Redondo Beach case law requirements for Housing Elements, and state law requirements such as SB 330, SB 166, SB 1000, and AB 98.
3227

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-52 PlaceWorks
CEQA Guidelines Section 15163(a)(2) allows preparation of a Supplemental EIR if “only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the Project in the changed situation.” The Project creates a completely new situation that is changed entirely from the previously certified EIR. The Project includes substantial changes to seven of the nine chapters within The Ontario Plan and requires major revisions of the previous EIR due to involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(1)).

Therefore, a Subsequent EIR is required to be prepared and circulated for public review.

Response O1-2
The Executive Summary section ES.2.2, Type and Purpose of this Draft SEIR, summarizes the considerations for moving forward with a Supplemental EIR under Section 15163. As noted in the Draft SEIR, Chapter 2, Project Description, the proposed project includes land use designation changes at the request of property owners within the City as well as minor revisions to the Elements of TOP 2050. Contrary to the Commenter’s assertion that a subsequent EIR is required under Public Resources Code section 21166, that section allows preparation of either a subsequent or supplemental EIR when one or more of the listed events occurs. Based on the City’s review of the proposed project and the CEQA Guidelines, specifically Section 15162, Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations, and Section 15163, Supplement to an EIR, the City determined that a Supplement to The Ontario Plan 2050 SEIR was appropriate. The proposed project is not a comprehensive update to TOP 2050 and the revisions to the Elements of TOP, as described in Chapter 2 under the section entitled, Policy Plan Elements, are considered to be minor. The land use changes affect approximately four percent1 of the total acreage in the City.

Moreover, pursuant to Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, the level of detail required in an EIR is determined by the nature of the project. As such, it matters little what the title of CEQA document is so long as the EIR evaluated the impacts of the proposed project. City of Irvine v. County of Orange (2015) 238 Cal.App.526, 540 (focus is on the substance of the EIR, not its nominal title). In this case, the Commenter is arguing that the analysis in the SEIR is inadequate merely based on the title of the EIR. There is nothing in this comment that suggests that the analysis in the 20 topical sections included in the proposed project Draft SEIR is inadequate or misleading. The CEQA procedures of a Subsequent and Supplemental EIR are not different once an EIR is determined to be needed. An EIR must adhere to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines, Article 7, EIR Process (CEQA Guidelines section 15080 through section 15097) regardless of whether the decision was made to proceed with a Subsequent EIR or a Supplemental EIR. 1 1,435 acres / 33,022 acres
3228

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-53
However, as stated above, based on the City’s review of the conditions identified under CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and section 15163, the City determined that a Supplemental EIR was the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed project.

Comment O1-3

1.1 Project Piecemealing
The EIR does not accurately or adequately describe the Project, meaning “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment” (CEQA § 15378). The proposed Project is a piecemeal portion of a larger overall project to be developed by Sares Regis within the City.

The EIR misleads the public and decision makers by circumventing adequate and accurate environmental analysis for the whole of the action - construction and operation of all Sares Regis buildings as a whole. At minimum, known piecemealed Projects include the development of the Meredith International Centre (3,001,160 s.f. of industrial distribution space across seven buildings1,2). Cumulatively, the proposed EBSP Project and the piecemealed Project will construct 5,940,160 sf of warehouse/industrial building area. The proposed TOP Policy Plan Amendment increases TOP buildout for nonresidential building area by 4,334,416 sf, which cumulatively develops 7,335,576 sf of nonresidential building area. 1 https://www.rga-architects.com/meredith-international-centre 2 https://www.oltmans.com/projects/meredith-international-centre-bldgs-1-7-infrastructureand-solar Response O1-3
The City disagrees with the GSEJA that the proposed project meets the definition of piecemealing for the purpose of CEQA. TOP 2050 itself is the City’s general plan. Thus, buildout of the City’s land use plan under the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment considers cumulative growth within the City. As noted in CEQA Guidelines section 15130(b)(1)(B), a general plan is considered a plan that evaluates the conditions contributing to cumulative effect. Therefore, TOP 2050 inherently considers cumulative growth that can be used to define cumulative impacts in a CEQA document.

The Draft SEIR evaluated the impacts of the Policy Plan Amendment, the concurrent Zoning amendment, and the EBPSP under one comprehensive Draft SEIR. Therefore, the proposed project was evaluated as a whole, since the Policy Plan Amendment, the Zoning amendment, and the EBPSP, are interrelated components of a single planning effort. The Draft SEIR analyzes 3229

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-54 PlaceWorks
these elements across all environmental issue areas, including alternatives and cumulative impacts, at a level of detail appropriate for the programmatic nature of the action. The environmental review does not defer or segment any reasonably foreseeable phases or components of the proposed project that would result in additional impacts.

Moreover, the Meredith International Center is a separate development proposal with independent approvals, timing, financing, and operational purposes. The Meredith International Center is not a foreseeable consequence of the proposed Policy Plan Amendment, concurrent Zoning Amendment, or EBPSP, nor is it necessary to implement or operate the Project. Likewise, the Project does not rely the Meredith International Centre for access, infrastructure, utilities, parking, or functionality. Each may proceed independently and retains independent utility absent the other. Accordingly, the analysis complies with CEQA’s requirement to evaluate the whole of the action and does not constitute piecemealing.

Comment O1-4

2.0 Project Description
The EBSP aspect of the Project proposes to construct 2,939,000 sf of nonresidential building area. Table 2-4: Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment within the EIR states that the TOP PPA will increase the allowable development of nonresidential building square feet by 4,334,416 square feet. This leaves 1,395,416 square feet of nonresidential building area unaccounted for. The land use changes that generate this specific increase in nonresidential building area are not discussed in the EIR. The EIR is inadequate as an informational document, and this does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for meaningful disclosure. The EIR must be revised and include a complete list of affected Assessors Parcel Numbers, the parcel size, the existing and proposed TOP land use designations, and the existing and proposed Zoning designation to adequately disclose the land use changes for the 1,395,416 square feet of nonresidential building area increase over existing conditions.

Response O1-4
The GSEJA is citing the total non-residential change identified in Table 2-4, Comparison of the Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment of the Draft EIR then stating that there is 1,395,416 square feet of nonresidential building area unaccounted for because the EBPSP only accounts for 2,939,000 square feet of industrial/business park land use. However, GSEJA is not accounting for the change in square footage by land use type.

Table 2-3, TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Proposed Land Use Summary, provides detailed information on buildout of the proposed project. Table 2-1, Approved TOP 2050 Land Use Designation, provides detailed information on buildout of the current TOP 2050. Table 2-1 and Table 2-3 in the Draft SEIR are based on the buildout methodology, which has been added as 3230

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-55
Appendix C, Buildout Methodology, to the Final SEIR. Table 2-3 and Table 2-1 provides a detailed accounting of the acres, housing units, households, population, non-residential square footage, and employment by land use type. In contrast, Table 2-4 is a summary table provided in the Draft SEIR that identifies the total change in residential units, population, non-residential square feet, and employment associated with the current TOP compared and the Policy Plan Amendment project.

The industrial and business park land uses in Table 2-1 for the current TOP and Table 2-3 for the Policy Plan Amendment are summarized under the heading “Employment”. At buildout, the proposed project would result in 215,009,231 square feet of industrial land uses. Compared to the current TOP (see Appendix C), the “Employment” land uses are currently, 208,638,928 square feet. As a result, the proposed project result in an increase in 6,370,304 square feet of industrial land use and an increase in 294.1 acres of industrial land uses in the City, of which the EBPSP represents 47 percent of that change.

To summarize, the difference in the square footage numbers cited by the Commenter is because total non-residential square footage includes more land use subtypes than just the industrial land use, which the Draft SEIR evaluates as part of the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment project analysis.

As noted by the Commenter, the section entitled “Assessor Parcel Numbers” lists each individual parcel that would be affected by the Policy Plan Amendment. The Draft SEIR also includes Figure 2-6, Policy Plan Amendment Areas of Change, which identifies the location of the parcels associated with the Policy Plan Amendment. At the request of the Commenter, Figure 2-6a through 2-6c, Policy Plan Amendment Area of Change, has been added to the SEIR in order to identify the parcel numbers on this figure (see Appendix B, Revised Draft SEIR Figures).

Thus, the project description is not inaccurate or misleading. The Draft SEIR provides a clear and consistent project description with detailed information on the change in non-residential (and employment land use as a subsect of this total) land uses in the City that the public and decision makers would need to evaluate the potential impacts of those land use changes.

Comment O1-5
The EIR has also excluded copies of the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan document, revised Draft Housing Element, and changes to the City’s Zoning Map and Development Code to implement the Policy Plan Amendments from the EIR. This does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA Guidelines Section 15121 and PRC Section 21003(b)). Incorporation by reference (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 (f)) is not appropriate as the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan document, revised Draft Housing Element, and changes to the City’s Zoning Map and 3231

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-56 PlaceWorks
Development Code to implement the Policy Plan Amendments contribute directly to the analysis of the problem at hand and is relied upon throughout the EIR to support less than significant findings. A revised EIR must be prepared to include the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan document, revised Draft Housing Element, and changes to the City’s Zoning Map and Development Code to implement the Policy Plan Amendments as appendices to the EIR for review, analysis, and comment by the public and decision makers.

Response O1-5
The comment incorrectly asserts that CEQA requires the EIR to include complete copies of the EBPSP, revised Draft Housing Element, and implementing zoning documents as an appendices to the EIR. CEQA does not require that every related planning document referenced in an EIR be physically reproduced within the EIR itself. Rather, CEQA Guidelines section 15150 expressly authorizes incorporation by reference where the material is reasonably available for public review and inspection. The EIR adequately describes the Policy Plan Amendment, the concurrent Zoning amendment, and the EBPSP to permit informed public review and decisionmaking. The EIR summarizes the relevant components of these planning documents, analyzes their potential environmental effects, and identifies the basis of the conclusions reached.

All information cited by GSEJA was posted to the City’s website by March 4, 2026:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/community-development/planning/environmentaldocuments.  EBPSP. The EBPSP was posted to the City’s website
https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2026- 03/Eucalyptus%20Business%20Park%20Specific%20Plan%20Public%20Review%20Draft%20 2026-03-03.pdf.
 Policy Plan Amendment. Appendix B, TOP 2050 Policy Matrix, of the Draft SEIR identified the changes to TOP 2050 as a result the Policy Plan Amendment project. The Housing Element Technical Report Amendments was posted to the City’s website:
https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2026- 03/HEonly_PublicReviewDraft_260304.pdf.pdf. The zoning amendments were also included in the Draft SEIR as Figure 2-10, Proposed Zoning Map. Additionally, the amendments to The Ontario Plan (TOP) are currently available on the project website:
https://www.myinput.com/OntarioPPA/draft-documents.
 Zoning. The proposed changes are available on the City’s website:
https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2026- 03/Proposed%20Zoning%20Map%2020260304.pdf. The
3232

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-57
The information requested by GSEJA was made available to the public during circulation of the Draft SEIR on the City’s “Environmental Documents” portion of the City’s website.

The Commenter also incorrectly contends that incorporation by reference is prohibited because the reference documents “contribute directly” to the analysis. CEQA does not impose such limitation. To the contrary, incorporation by reference is routinely used for planning documents, technical studies, and regulatory materials that inform EIR analyses, provided the EIR itself contains sufficient detail to allow meaningful evaluation of environmental impacts. The relevant standard is whether the EIR functions as an informational document enabling informed participation and decision-making, not whether every supporting document is reproduced in full as an appendix.

Moreover, the EIR contains sufficient information to support the analysis and conclusions presented. The commentor has not identified any specific information allegedly omitted from the EIR that precluded meaningful public review or impaired the ability of decision-makers to evaluate environmental effects. Nor has the commentor demonstrated that any member of the public lacked access to the referenced documents during the review process.

Accordingly, the EIR complies with CEQA Guidelines sections 15121 and 15150, as well as Public Resources Code section 21003(b), and recirculation is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5.

Comment O1-6
The EIR does not include a detailed floor plan, a detailed site plan, a detailed grading plan, or detailed building elevations. The basic components of a Planning Application include a detailed site plan, floor plan, grading plan, written narrative, and detailed elevations. The site plan provided in Figure 2-12 has been edited for public review to remove meaningful information such as the legend, key notes, floor area ratio calculation, and site coverage. All these basic items are necessary to conduct any type of analysis, and the EIR is inadequate as an informational document, as it is not possible to ascertain any meaningful analysis based upon the information provided. Further, no building elevations are included. A revised EIR must be prepared to include a wholly accurate, adequate, and legible detailed site plan, floor plan, and building elevations for public review.

Response O1-6
Executive Summary, section ES.2.2, Type and Purpose of this Draft SEIR, under the subsection entitled “Program EIR” identifies that a program level analysis for proposed project, including the EBPSP, was prepared. The EBPSP is referred to as ‘project’ because it is more refined and less ‘general’ than TOP 2050, but EBPSP is a Specific Plan; and therefore, a plan-level review was conducted. Because of the programmatic nature of the Specific Plan, detailed floor plans and 3233

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-58 PlaceWorks
site plans are not available at this program-level stage of the project entitlements. It is however noted that Table 5-2 of the EBPSP provides the maximum floor area ratio, maximum building heights and footprints, minimum landscape coverage, etc. The City will require these projectlevel components at the time applications for individual development projects are submitted.

Chapter 2, Project Description, is based on the level of information available at the time of the EIR. The lack of detailed, project-level site plans, elevations, floor plans, in a program EIR does not constitute inaccurate, inconsistent, or incomplete information pursuant to CEQA.

Comment O1-7
Additionally, the grading plan provided in Figure 2-15 has been edited for public review to remove meaningful information. For example, it does not provide any detailed information, such as earthwork quantity notes. Providing the grading plan and earthwork quantity notes is vital as the Project Description states that, “…the site needs to export approximately 51,000 CY of organic materials.” The EIR has not provided substantial evidence to support this claim.

Verification of the import/export materials is vital as it directly informs the quantity of necessary truck hauling trips due to soil import/export during the grading phase of construction. A revised EIR must be prepared to include wholly accurate and adequate detailed Project grading plans for public review.

Response O1-7
See Response O1-6. The Draft SEIR is a Program EIR. The EBPSP construction impacts identified in the Draft SEIR are based on the level of information available at the time of analysis, as identified in Chapter 2, Project Description. Specifically, Draft SEIR page 2-63 specifies the approximate earthwork quantities anticipated for the Specific Plan. These quantities are based on land surveys, project concepts, and site-specific geotechnical characteristics. The anticipated earthwork quantities informed the technical analyses prepared for the EBPSP. The project description in Chapter 2 is intended to provide a stable and accurate summary of the proposed project. The Project Description provides the level of detail sufficient for the Draft SEIR’s programmatic environmental review and is based on the best available information at this planning phase. Final, engineering-level detail is not yet available. Accordingly, the absence of detailed grading plans does not preclude meaningful environmental analysis or public review.

Comment O1-8

3.3 Air Quality, 3.6 Energy, and 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The EIR does not include relevant environmental justice issues for analysis in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts from the proposed Project. This conflicts with CEQA Guidelines Section 15131 (c), which requires that “Economic, social, and particularly housing 3234

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-59
factors shall be considered by public agencies together with technological and environmental factors in deciding whether changes in a Project are feasible to reduce or avoid the significant effects on the environment identified in the EIR. If information on these factors is not contained in the EIR, the information must be added to the record in some other manner to allow the agency to consider the factors in reaching a decision on the Project.” This is especially significant as the surrounding community is highly burdened by pollution. According to CalEnviroScreen

4.03, CalEPA’s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the state for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability, the proposed Project’s census tract (6071001903) is highly burdened by pollution and ranks in the 99th percentile for overall pollution burden, meaning that it is among the most polluted census tracts in the state. The surrounding community bears the impact of multiple sources of pollution and is more polluted than other census tracts in many pollution indicators measured by CalEnviroScreen. For example, the Project census tract ranks in the 77th percentile for ozone burden, 93rd percentile for particulate matter (pm) 2.5 burden, and 57th percentile for diesel pm burden. These environmental factors are attributed to heavy truck activity in the area. Ozone can cause lung irritation, inflammation, and worsening of existing chronic health conditions, even at low levels of exposure4 . Exhaust fumes contain toxic
chemicals that can damage DNA, cause cancer, make breathing difficult, and cause low birth weight and premature births5. The very small particles of diesel PM can reach deep into the lung, where they can contribute to a range of health problems. These include irritation to the eyes, throat, and nose, heart and lung disease, and lung cancer6. See also the attached air quality comments and analysis from SWAPE.

The census tract ranks among the most severely impacted in several areas that impact water quality. The census tract ranks in the 98th percentile for groundwater threats. People who live near contaminated groundwater may be exposed to chemicals moving from the soil into the air inside their homes7. Accordingly, the census tract ranks in the 100th percentile for drinking water impacts, which indicates that it ranks with the worst quality drinking water in the state.

Poor communities and people in rural areas are exposed to contaminants in their drinking water more often than people in other parts of the state8. The census tract also ranks in the 87th percentile for impaired waters. Water pollution can harm wildlife habitats and change the number and types of plants and animals in the environment9. When fish and shellfish are contaminated, people who eat them can be exposed to toxic substances10.

The census tract ranks in the 99th percentile for solid waste facility impacts. Solid waste facilities can expose people to hazardous chemicals, release toxic gases into the air (even after these facilities are closed), and chemicals can leach into soil around the facility and pose a health risk to nearby populations11. The census tract also bears more impacts from cleanup sites than 80% of the state. Chemicals in the buildings, soil, or water at cleanup sites can move into nearby communities through the air or movement of water12. 3235

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-60 PlaceWorks
The census tract ranks in the 100th percentile for toxic releases. People living near facilities that emit toxic releases may breathe contaminated air regularly or if contaminants are released during an accident13. The census tract also ranks in the 87th percentile for hazardous waste facility impacts. Hazardous waste generators and facilities contribute to the contamination of air, water, and soil near waste generators and facilities can harm the environment as well as people14.

Further, the census tract is a diverse community including 29% Hispanic, 5% African-American, and 37% Asian-American residents, who are especially vulnerable to the impacts of pollution.

The community has a high rate of low educational attainment, meaning 53% of the census tract over age 25 has not attained a high school diploma, which is an indication that they may lack health insurance or access to medical care. The community also has a high rate of poverty, meaning 35% of the households in the census tract have a total income before taxes that is less than the poverty level. Income can affect health when people cannot afford healthy living and working conditions, nutritious food and necessary medical care15. Poor communities are often located in areas with high levels of pollution16. Poverty can cause stress that weakens the immune system and causes people to become ill from pollution17. Living in poverty is also an indication that residents may lack health insurance or access to medical care. Medical care is vital for this census tract as it ranks in the 29th percentile for incidence of cardiovascular disease and 49th percentile for low birth weights. The community also has a high rate of linguistic isolation, meaning 69% of the census tract speaks little to no English and faces further inequities as a result.
3 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 4 OEHHA Ozone https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/air-quality-ozone 5 OEHHA Traffic https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/traffic-density 6 OEHHA Diesel Particulate Matter https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/dieselparticulate-matter 7 OEHHA Groundwater Threats https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/groundwaterthreats 8 OEHHA Drinking Water https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/drinking-water 9 OEHHA Impaired Waters https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/impaired-waterbodies 10 Ibid.
11 OEHHA Solid Waste Facilities https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/solid-wastesites-and-facilities 12 OEHHA Cleanup Sites https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/cleanup-sites 3236

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JUNE 2026 2-61
13 OEHHA Toxic Releases https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/toxic-releasesfacilities 14 OEHHA Hazardous Waste Generators and Facilities
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/hazardouswaste-generators-and-facilities 15 OEHHA Poverty https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/poverty 16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.

Response O1-8
The Commenter mischaracterizes the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15131(c). That section does not require an EIR to analyze environmental justice issues. Rather, CEQA Guidelines section 15131 provides that economic, social, and other non-environmental effects need not be treated as significant effects on the environment under CEQA, although such considerations may be relevant in evaluating the feasibility of mitigation measures or alternatives. Section 15131 further recognizes that determinations regarding feasibility or feasibility of mitigation measures must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Accordingly, the Commenter’s reliance on section 15131(c) imposing an independent environmental justice analysis is misplaced.

Environmental justice (EJ) is not a standalone topic under CEQA. Senate Bill (SB) 1000 signed into 2016, required local governments to identify EJ communities (called “disadvantaged communities”) in their jurisdictions and address EJ in their general plans. The law requires the inclusion of an EJ element when a lead agency is updating two or more General Plan elements.

CEQA is generally concerned with physical environmental impacts of a particular project and does not focus on the social impacts. The Draft SEIR provides the context for physical impacts on surrounding communities and provides an overview of the CalEnviroScreen (CES) information in Section 3.3, Air Quality, on page 3.3-29 of the Draft SEIR. This section includes Figure 3.3-3, Environmental Justice Communities, which shows the census tracts and associated neighborhoods in Ontario that have been identified as EJ communities through the SB 1000 process, and Figure 3.3-4, CES4 Indicator: Pollution Burden, which depicts the pollution burden percentile for Ontario by census tracts.

The Draft SEIR includes a detailed, quantified analysis of project- and cumulative-level air quality, energy, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts in Sections 3.3, 3.6, and 3.8, respectively. As noted above, environmental justice, including consideration of impacts on disadvantaged communities, is not a standalone requirement under CEQA. Additionally, South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) has not defined significance thresholds directly pertaining to environmental justice impacts. However, the air quality issues 3237

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-62 PlaceWorks
evaluated in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft SEIR are relevant to the discussion regarding environmental justice issues.

The Draft SEIR addresses potential regional and cumulative air quality and health risk impacts on sensitive receptors, which include populations that may overlap with identified EJ communities. For example, Impact AQ-4 and Impact AQ-5 evaluated potential project-related construction phase and operation phase localized impacts, respectively, that are associated with criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants to offsite sensitive receptors. As discussed on page 3.3-85 of Draft SEIR, the Draft SEIR acknowledges that cumulative development in the City would contribute to increased environmental burdens on sensitive populations, including EJ communities in the South Coast Air Basin.

Consequently, the Draft SEIR determined the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to significant health impacts in the air basin and expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations. Therefore, the Draft SEIR considered cumulative health risk impacts in light of the pollution burden of the surrounding community and considered mitigation measures to reduce the proposed project’s cumulative impact.

Comment O1-9

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The EBSP area of the Project is within Referral Area C and Safety Zone III of the Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan18. The City’s Development Code Reference I: Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan19 (it must be noted that this is the City’s adopted Chino Airport ALUCP and not the statutorily authorized Chino Airport ALUCP) states that regarding statutorily required airport land use compatibility analysis, “San Bernardino County and its cities elected to follow the Alternative Process when this option became available as a result of the 1994 legislation (Assembly Bill 2831). Specific requirements for implementation of the Alternative Process are set forth in Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c)(2).” Further, “The California Division of Aeronautics approved the San Bernardino County Alternative Process in 1996. The approval of the Alternative Process designated the City of Chino as the local jurisdiction responsible for leading the compatibility planning process for Chino Airport. The current Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) does not reflect the guidance set forth in the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. 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 prepared an airport land compatibility plan for Chino Airport consistent with the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook solely to address impacts within Ontario's boundaries.”
3238