Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, June 16, 2026 (part 16 of 28)

The purpose of the meeting was to gather input from responsible and trustee agencies, as well as the community, prior to preparation of the SEIR. Key concerns identified during the scoping process included truck routes and warehousing-related impacts, including air quality, noise, and vibration; the loss of agricultural resources; and increased housing density.
 Notice of Availability (NOA). The NOA for the Draft SEIR for the Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP was posted to the City website. The NOA indicated that the Draft SEIR was available for review and that the City would be accepting comments through April 20, 2026. The NOA was advertised as a hearing in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario (the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper).

The Commenter’s request for additional outreach on project in the City is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 3469

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2-294 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
3470
JUNE 2026 3-1

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR

3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section contains revisions to the Draft SEIR based upon (1) additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment; (2) applicable updated information that was not available at the time of Draft SEIR publication; and/or (3) typographical errors. This section also includes additional mitigation measures to fully respond to commenter concerns as well as provide additional clarification to mitigation requirements included in the Draft SEIR.

None of the revisions to the Draft SEIR require recirculation of the document. Recirculation is only required when significant new information is added. Information is not significant unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. Recirculation is not required where the new information merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.) As explained below, none of the changes adds any new significant information and recirculation is not required.

For each revision, the Draft SEIR page and location on the page are identified, followed by the textual, tabular, or graphical revision. Changes made to the Draft SEIR are identified here in strikethrough to indicate deletions and in Double underlined to signify additions.

3.2 DRAFT EIR REVISIONS
Revisions to Draft SEIR Figures
Revisions to the Draft SEIR figures are included as Appendix B, Revised Draft SEIR Figures, of the Final SEIR. These figures have been revised reflect the correct basemap for the approved TOP, as well as minor corrections to the EBPSP figures.
 Figure 2-4, Current TOP Land Use Plan
 Figure 2-6a, b, and c, Policy Plan Amendment Areas of Change  Figure ES-5, Conceptual EBPSP Land Use Plan
 Figure 2-11, Conceptual EBPSP Land Use Plan
 Figure 2-13, Conceptual EBPSP Vehicular Circulation and Access Plan 3471

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-2 PLACEWORKS
 Figure 2-14, Conceptual EBPSP Non-Vehicular Circulation and Mobility Plan  Figure 3.19-4, EBPSP Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure
 Figure 3.19-5, EBPSP Storm Drain Infrastructure
Executive Summary
Section ES.4, Summary of Proposed Project, on page ES-10 has been revised to reflect the specific acreage of land use changes.

The Policy Plan Amendment project component primarily involves modifying the currently permitted and planned TOP land use pattern across more than 1,300 1,435 acres in southern Ontario. These proposed changes to TOP are driven by requests from property owners and developers who seek to alter the allowable type or intensity of land use on their properties as well as land use changes required to improve land use compatibility, maintain compliance with state laws, uphold long-term planning goals, and plan for a cohesive land use pattern that repositions the southwest portion of the City as a central business center.

Section ES.4, Summary of Proposed Project, on page ES-20 and ES-21 has been revised based on minor changes to the EBPSP site plan.

As illustrated in Figure ES-5, Conceptual EBPSP Land Use Plan, the EBPSP would establish 9 planning areas that would provide for development of the site with approximately 2,939,000 SF of Business Park uses on 137.9 acres and 36.15 35.88 acres of Open Space–Parkland. The remaining 14.97 15.24 acres would be utilized for roadway improvements. Table ES-2, EBPSP Land Use Statistical Summary, provides a breakdown of acreages by planning area. The EBPSP would result in estimated 1,590 employees within the project site. 3472

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-3
Section ES.4, Summary of Proposed Project, Table ES-2, EBPSP Land Use Statistical Summary, on page 2-49 has been revised based on minor changes to the EBPSP site plan.

Table 2-7 EBPSP Land Use Statistical Summary
Planning Area
(PA) Land Use Designation Acres Target Buildout SF
1 Business Park 7.70 162,600
2 Business Park 18.33 273,700
3 Business Park 18.21 340,700
4 Business Park 18.19 423,200
5 Business Park 37.76 859,300
6 Business Park 37.71 879,500
7 Open Space – Parkland 8.05 8.00 —
8 Open Space – Parkland 14.10 13.99 —
9 Open Space – Parkland 14.00 13.89 —
- Roadway 14.97 15.24 —
TOTAL 189.0 2,939,000
Chapter 2, Project Description
Section 4.1, Policy Plan Amendment Project, on page 2-17 has been revised to reflect the specific acreage of land use changes.

Section 2.4.1, Policy Plan Amendment Project, on page 2-34 has been revised to reflect the specific acreage of land use changes.

Figure 2-6, Policy Plan Amendment Areas of Change, shows the changes in land use between the Current TOP and proposed project that will be evaluated in this SEIR. The proposed project 3473

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-4 PLACEWORKS
has approximately 1,300 1,435 acres of land use changes that affect the buildout projections throughout the City; however, the majority of changes are concentrated in Ontario Ranch.

Section 2.4.2, Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan Project, on page 2-49 has been revised based on minor changes to the EBPSP site plan
As illustrated in Figure 2-11, Conceptual EBPSP Land Use Plan, the EBPSP would establish 9 planning areas that would provide for development of the site with approximately 2,939,000 SF of Business Park uses on 137.9 acres and 36.15 35.88 acres of Open Space–Parkland. The remaining 14.97 15.24 acres would be utilized for roadway improvements.

Section 2.4.2, Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan Project, Table 2-7, EBPSP Land Use Statistical Summary, on page 2-49 has been revised based on minor changes to the EBPSP site plan.

Table 2-7 EBPSP Land Use Statistical Summary
Planning Area
(PA) Land Use Designation Acres Target Buildout SF
1 Business Park 7.70 162,600
2 Business Park 18.33 273,700
3 Business Park 18.21 340,700
4 Business Park 18.19 423,200
5 Business Park 37.76 859,300
6 Business Park 37.71 879,500
7 Open Space – Parkland 8.05 8.00 —
8 Open Space – Parkland 14.10 13.99 —
9 Open Space – Parkland 14.00 13.89 —
- Roadway 14.97 15.24 —
TOTAL 189.0 2,939,000
Section 2.4.2, Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan Project, on page 2-53 has been revised based on minor changes to the EBPSP site plan.

Situated between the northern boundary of the Specific Plan and new Public Street ‘A’, Planning Areas 7, 8, and 9 would be designated Open Space–Parkland. This 36.15 35.88-acre area would implement a segment of the City’s public “Grand Park.”
3474

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-5
Section 2.5, Intended Uses of the SEIR, Table 2-11, Project Approvals Needed, on page 2-78 has been revised based on comments from South Coast AQMD.

Table 2-11 Project Approvals Needed
Lead Agency Action
City of Ontario City Council  Certification of the SEIR  Adoption of the Policy Plan Amendment
 Adoption of the EBPSP
 Approval of the Cancelation of Williamson Act
Contracts
 Approval of the EBPSP Development Agreement
 Approval of the EBPSP Tentative Parcel Map
 Adoption of the Findings of Fact and Statement of
Overriding Considerations
 Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program
 Adoption of any ordinances, guidelines, programs,
actions, or other mechanisms that implement the
Policy Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
Responsible Agencies Action
Ontario International Airport–Inter Agency
Collaborative (ONT-IAC) Technical Advisory
Group
 For review of local airport-related policies
California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (CAL FIRE)
 Review of the Safety Element for policies in state
responsibility areas and very high fire hazard severity zones
California Department of Housing and
Community Development
 For certification of the Housing Element
South Coast Air Quality Management
District (South Coast AQMD)
 Permits associated with stationary equipment
associated with the EBPSP
Section 3.3, Air Quality
Section 3.3.1, Regulatory Framework, on page 3.3-16 has been modified in response to comments from South Coast AQMD.

South Coast AQMD Permitting Requirements
Implementation of the EBPSP will require the installation of stationary and portable equipment subject to permitting by the South Coast AQMD. Based on the project description, the EBPSP 3475

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-6 PLACEWORKS
includes emergency fire water pumps in each development phase, including two emergency fire pumps in Phase 1, four emergency fire pumps in Phase 2, and five emergency fire pumps in Phase 3. These diesel-fueled stationary compression ignition engines are subject to the above South Coast AQMD rules as well as the following applicable permitting rules, at a minimum:
 Rule 201, Permit to Construct. Requires a permit prior to construction, installation, or modification of any equipment that may emit air contaminants.  Rule 203, Permit to Operate. Requires a permit to operate any equipment for which a Permit to Construct has been issued.
 Rule 1110.2. Emissions from Gaseous and Liquid Fueled Engines. Establishes emission limits and operational requirements for stationary internal combustion engines.  Rule 1470, Requirements for Stationary Diesel-Fueled Internal Combustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines. Establishes emission standards, operational requirements, and health risk notification requirements for stationary diesel-fueled compression ignition engines, including emergency fire pumps.

Future project applicants within the EBPSP will be required to consult with South Coast AQMD's Engineering and Permitting staff prior to installation of any stationary or portable equipment to determine the full scope of applicable permitting requirements. As a result of the permitting requirements described above, 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.

AQMP Consistency Analysis on page 3.3-51 has been modified to address a minor typo.

Impacts for the Specific Plan are embodied in the emissions tables (Tables 3.3-1211 to 3.3-18) under Air Quality Threshold b...

Section 3.3.5, Environmental Impact, on page 3.3-55 has been modified in response to comments from South Coast AQMD.

Consistent with industry standards and typical construction practices, each piece of equipment is assumed to operate up to a total of eight hours per day. Standard construction practices to be employed during EBPSP construction include:
 Fugitive dust controls, including soil watering, soil stabilization, limited speeds on-site, and the use of rumble plates or street sweepers.
 Equipment emission controls, including the use of Tier 4 Final off-road diesel equipment, idling restrictions, and the use of electrical equipment when feasible.  Construction vehicle controls, including encouraging ridesharing and covering haul truck loads.
3476

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-7
 Architectural coatings, including the use of low-VOC paints, primers, and sealants.  Construction phasing, including sequencing construction to minimize overlap of highemission activities and avoiding simultaneous high-emission operations when feasible.

Mitigation Measure AIR-1-PPA on page 3.3-58 has been modified in response to comments South Coast AQMD and GSEJA.

Mitigation Measure AIR-1-PPA [Former MM 3-1]: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Building Department shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include:
 Require fugitive dust control measures that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403, such as:
o Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. o Applying water every four 4 hours to active soil disturbing activities. o Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.  Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 interim or higher exhaust emission limits.  Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
 Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five 5 consecutive minutes.
3477

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-8 PLACEWORKS
 Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s website at: http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/SuperCompliant_AIM.pdf. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rulescompliance/compliance/vocs/architectural-coatings/super-compliantcoatings.  Using electric off-road vehicles and equipment where feasible and using renewable diesel fuel for diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment where gasoline, natural gas, or electric alternatives are not available.

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

Operation – Regional Emissions, Specific Plan, on page 3.3-63 has been modified in response to comments from South Coast AQMD and GSEJA.

Estimated peak operational emissions for all phases are summarized in Table 3.3-15, EBPSP Peak Operational Emissions Summary: Phase 1; Table 3.3-16, EBPSP Peak Operational Emissions Summary: Phases 1 and 2; and Table 3.3-17, EBPSP Peak Operational Emissions Summary:

Phases 1, 2, and 3. As shown in these tables, Phase 1 emissions would exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the South Coast AQMD for emissions of ROG (summer only) and NOx. Phase 1 and 2 emissions would exceed the South Coast AQMD significance thresholds for emissions of ROG, NOx, and CO (summer only).

An evaluation of the potential maximum daily emissions associated with overlapping construction and operational phases of the EBPSP was conducted (see Appendix C3, Appendix

3.13 on page C3-926). 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, the following construction/operations overlap scenarios exist and emissions are shown in Table 3.3-18, EBPSP Overlapping Construction and Operational Emissions Summary:
 Overlap Scenario 1 — Phase 2 Construction / Phase 1 Operations: Phase 2 construction occurs from July 2028 through December 2029, during which time Phase 1 is operational.

The peak combined emissions for this scenario are the Phase 2 construction peak (50.64 lbs/day ROG and 47.92 lbs/day NOx) added to Phase 1 operational emissions (55.12 lbs/day 3478

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-9
ROG and 87.50 lbs/day NOx), yielding combined maximum daily emissions of approximately 105.76 lbs/day ROG and 135.42 lbs/day NOx.
 Overlap Scenario 2 — Phase 3 Construction / Phase 1 and 2 Operations: Phase 3 construction occurs from January 2030 through June 2031, during which time Phases 1 and 2 are both operational. The peak combined emissions for this scenario are the Phase 3 construction peak (61.19 lbs/day ROG and 46.71 lbs/day NOx) added to Phase 1 and 2 operational emissions (107.39 lbs/day ROG and 169.30 lbs/day NOx), yielding combined maximum daily emissions of approximately 168.58 lbs/day ROG and 216.01 lbs/day NOx.

The overlap scenarios also represent a conservative worst-case analytical construct, as peak construction and peak operational activity would not necessarily occur on the same calendar day. The duration of any overlap period is temporary and bounded by the sequential construction schedule.

At buildout, the EBPSP’s operational emissions would exceed the applicable South Coast AQMD significance thresholds for emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, and PM10. This would be a potentially significant impact. Long-term operational impacts associated with the approved project were identified as significant and unavoidable in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR..

Operation – Regional Emissions on page 3.3-66 a new table has been added in response to comments from South Coast AQMD and GSEJA.

Table 3.3-18 EBPSP Overlapping Construction and Operation Emissions Summary Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Overlap Scenario 1
Phase 2 Construction (Table 3.3-12) 50.64 47.92 72.64 0.19 13.31 5.28 Phase 1 Operations (Table 3.3-15) 55.12 87.50 335.45 1.01 60.12 16.73 Maximum Daily Emissions 105.76 135.42 408.09 1.20 73.43 22.01 South Coast AQMD Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? YES YES NO NO NO NO
Overlap Scenario 2
Phase 3 Construction (Table 3.3-13) 61.19 46.71 71.43 0.19 12.66 5.16 Phase 1 and 2 Operations (Table 3.3-16) 107.39 169.30 648.49 2.08 133.76 36.78 Maximum Daily Emissions 168.58 216.01 719.92 2.27 146.42 41.94 South Coast AQMD Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? YES YES YES NO NO NO
3479

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-10 PLACEWORKS
Table 3.3-18 EBPSP Overlapping Construction and Operation Emissions Summary Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Source: Appendix C3.

Note: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding.

Mitigation Measure AIR-3-PPA on page 3.3-67 has been modified in response to comments from South Coast AQMD and GSEJA.

Mitigation Measure AIR-3-PPA [Former MM AQ-1]: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Planning Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
 For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.  Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use.  Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles 3480

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-11
while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 sec. 2485).
 Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
 Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 of CALGreen (Residential Voluntary Measures).
 Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
 Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 and Section A5.106.8.2 A4.106.8 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures; Residential Voluntary Measures).
 Applicant-provided appliances shall be Energy Star–certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers). Installation of Energy Star–certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City during plan check.  Use cool roof materials to improve reflectance and thermal emittance performance of roof structures per Section A5.106.11.2 and Section A4.106.5.1 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures; Residential Voluntary Measures).
 Limit the daily number of trucks accessing the project site to levels analyzed in the technical assessment.
 Design the 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 project site.
 Design the project such that truck traffic interior to the project site is located as far away from nearby sensitive receptors as feasible.  Design the project such that trucks accessing the project site have available onsite overnight parking to prevent trucks from parking in sensitive land use areas.
3481

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-12 PLACEWORKS
 Design the project such that any truck check-in location is in the interior of the project site to prevent truck queueing and idling outside the project site and in closer proximity to nearby sensitive receptors.

New Mitigation Measures, Specific Plan on page 3.3-68 has been modified to identify the construction-related measures being implemented as part of the EBPSP.

Standard construction practices such as fugitive dust controls; use of Tier 4 off-road-road diesel equipment; idling restrictions; use of electrical equipment, when feasible; encouraging ridesharing; use of low-VOC paints, primers, and sealants; and construction phasing to minimize overlap of high-emission activities were incorporated to reduce the EBPSP’s construction emissions. In addition, iImplementation of the following Mitigation Measures would be required for Specific Plan:

Mitigation Measure AIR-3-SP on page 3.3-69 has been modified in response to comments from South Coast AQMD and GSEJA.

Mitigation Measure AIR-3-SP: Idling Regulations. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be installed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas that identify applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) anti-idling regulations. At a minimum, each sign shall include the following instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use.
a) Instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than 5 2- minutes once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park” and the parking brake is engaged.
b) Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report violations.

Mitigation Measure AIR-9-SP has been added on page 3.3-72 in response to comments from South Coast AQMD and GSEJA.

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 3482

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-13
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. 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 hand construction tools and equipment where commercial available and feasible.
3483

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-14 PLACEWORKS
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 lowVOC 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 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.

Construction-Phase Localized Significance Thresholds on page 3.3-79 has been revised to reflect revised table numbering.

Based on South Coast AQMD’s LST Methodology, emissions of concern during construction activities include NOX, CO, PM2.5, and PM10. Table 3.3-1819, EBPSP Construction Source LST 3484

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-15
Summary: Phase 1; Table 3.3-1920, EBPSP Construction Source LST Summary: Phase 2; and Table 3.3-2021, EBPSP Construction Source LST Summary: Buildout, present the constructionsource localized emissions that can be expected during each construction phase of the Specific Plan. As shown in these tables, emissions for all construction phases would not exceed South Coast AQMD’s localized significance thresholds at the maximally exposed receptors as a result of construction activities.

Table 3.3-1819 EBPSP Construction-Source LST Summary: Phase 1 Phase 1 Construction
CO NO2 PM10 PM2.5
Averaging Time
1-Hour 8-Hours 1-Hour 24-Hours 24-Hours
Peak Day Localized Emissions 0.03 0.01 1.05E-02 0.84 0.41 Background Concentration 1.5 1.1 0.085 — —
Total Concentration 1.53 1.11 0.10 0.84 0.41
South Coast AQMD Threshold 20 9 0.18 10.40 10.40
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO
Source: Appendix C4.

Table 3.3-1920 EBPSP Construction-Source LST Summary: Phase 2 Phase 2 Construction
CO NO2 PM10 PM2.5
Averaging Time
1-Hour 8-Hours 1-Hour 24-Hours 24-Hours
Peak Day Localized Emissions 0.04 0.01 1.40E-02 1.01 0.49 Background Concentration 1.5 1.1 0.085 — —
Total Concentration 1.54 1.11 0.10 1.01 0.49
South Coast AQMD Threshold 20 9 0.18 10.40 10.40
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO
Source: Appendix C4.
-
I
-
I
3485

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-16 PLACEWORKS
Table 3.3-2021 EBPSP Construction-Source LST Summary: Buildout Phase 3 Construction
CO NO2 PM10 PM2.5
Averaging Time
1-Hour 8-Hours 1-Hour 24-Hours 24-Hours
Peak Day Localized Emissions 0.08 0.03 2.69E-02 1.59 0.77 Background Concentration 1.5 1.1 0.085 — —
Total Concentration 1.58 1.13 0.11 1.59 0.77
South Coast AQMD Threshold 20 9 0.18 10.40 10.40
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO
Source: Appendix C4.

Construction-Phase Toxic Air Contaminants on page 3.3-80 has been revised to reflect revised table numbering.

Construction-related DPM emissions are expected primarily as a function of the operation of heavy-duty construction equipment. Potential health risks to residents, workers, and school children were evaluated over a period of 30, 25, and 9 years of exposure, as discussed below.

Table 3.3-2122, Summary of EBPSP Construction Health Risks, presents a summary of the previous discussions of EBPSP construction health risks.

Table 3.3-2122 Summary of EBPSP Construction Health Risks Maximum Exposed
Location
Receptor
Location
Time Period
(Year)
Maximum
Lifetime
Cancer Risk1
Significance
Threshold1
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold?
Cancer Risk
Sensitive Receptor R5 4.50 1.39 10 NO
Worker Receptor R6 4.50 0.04 10 NO
Individual School Child R9 4.50 <0.01 10 NO
Maximum Exposed
Location
Receptor
Location Time Period
Maximum
Hazard
Index
Significance
Threshold
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold?
Non-Cancer Risk
Sensitive Receptor R5 Annual
Average <0.01 1 NO
Worker Receptor R6 Annual
Average <0.01 1 NO
Individual School Child R9 Annual
Average <0.01 1 NO
Source: Appendix C4.

1. risk per million
I
3486

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-17
Non-permitted Sources (Warehousing and Industrial Land Uses), Individual Health Risk Impacts, on page 3.3-87 has been revised to reflect revised table numbering.

The calculated health risk values are based on the modeled receptor concentration over an average 70-year lifetime. Unmitigated results of the health risk assessment shown in Table 3.3-2223, Ontario Ranch Truck Route Changes Operational Health Risk Summary, indicate that the maximum incremental cancer risk resulting from the proposed project would be less than the South Coast AQMD threshold of 10 in one million. The incremental risk shown in Table 3.3-2223 reflects the net change between 2050 conditions for the approved project and 2050 conditions for the proposed project, focusing specifically on the change of route designations and redistribution of truck volumes on the designated truck route network for each 2050 scenario. As shown, the MER would experience a cancer risk of approximately 9.5 per million people. The MER would also not exceed the South Coast AQMD’s chronic hazard threshold of 1.0. Because the incremental cancer risk and hazard index do not exceed the South Coast AQMD thresholds, changes to the City’s truck routes (see Figure 2-9) in addition to the growth in truck traffic associated with the Policy Plan Amendment would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Table 3.3-2223 Ontario Ranch Truck Route Changes Operational Health Risk Summary
Receptor
Incremental Increase
Cancer Risk (per million)
Incremental Increase
Chronic Hazard
Maximally Exposed Receptor 9.5 <0.1
South Coast AQMD Threshold 10 1.0
Significant? NO NO
Source: See Appendix C2.

Non-permitted Sources (Warehousing and Industrial Land Uses), Citywide Cancer Burden, on page 3.3-97 has been revised to reflect revised table numbering.

As shown in Table 3.3-2324, Unmitigated Cancer Burden Summary, the proposed project would result in a total cancer burden of 0.43, which would be below the South Coast AQMD’s significance threshold of 0.5. As a result, changes to the City’s truck routes (see Figure 2-9) in addition to the growth in truck traffic associated with the Policy Plan Amendment would not substantially increase cancer burden in the City.
3487

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-18 PLACEWORKS
Table 3.3-2324 Unmitigated Cancer Burden Summary
Risk Contour Square Miles Population Cancer Burden
5 to 9 per million 0.3 2,567 0.02
2 to 5 per million 1.2 10,266 0.05
1 to 2 per million 12.3 105,227 0.21
<1 per million 36.2 309,691 0.15
Total Cancer Burden — — 0.43
South Coast AQMD Threshold — — 0.5
Significant? — — NO
Source: See Appendix C2.

Operational-Source Localized Significance Thresholds, on page 3.3-101 has been revised to reflect revised table numbering.

Table 3.3-2425, EBPSP Operational Source LST Summary: Phase 1; Table 3.3-2526, EBPSP Operational Source LST Summary: Phases 1 and 2; and Table 3.3-2627, EBPSP Operational Source LST Summary: Phases 1, 2, and 3, present the operational-source localized emissions that can be expected during each operational phase of the Specific Plan. As shown, emissions for all operational phases would not exceed South Coast AQMD’s localized significance thresholds at the maximally exposed receptors as a result of operational activities.

Table 3.3-2425 EBPSP Operational-Source LST Summary: Phase 1 Peak Operations
CO NO2 PM10 PM2.5
Averaging Time
1-Hour 8-Hours 1-Hour 24-Hours 24-Hours
Peak Day Localized Emissions 3.96E-02 3.43E-02 1.52E-03 0.23 0.09 Background Concentration 1.5 1.1 0.085
Total Concentration 1.54 1.13 0.09 0.23 0.09
South Coast AQMD Threshold 20 9 0.18 2.50 2.50
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO
Source: Appendix C4.

I I I
3488

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-19
Table 3.3-2526 EBPSP Operational-Source LST Summary: Phases 1 and 2 Peak Operations
CO NO2 PM10 PM2.5
Averaging Time
1-Hour 8-Hours 1-Hour 24-Hours 24-Hours
Peak Day Localized Emissions 4.65E-02 3.49E-02 2.28E-03 0.57 0.18 Background Concentration 1.5 1.1 0.085
Total Concentration 1.55 1.13 0.09 0.57 0.18
South Coast AQMD Threshold 20 9 0.18 2.50 2.50
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO
Source: Appendix C4.

Table 3.3-2627 EBPSP Operational-Source LST Summary: Phases 1, 2, and 3 Peak Operations
CO NO2 PM10 PM2.5
Averaging Time
1-Hour 8-Hours 1-Hour 24-Hours 24-Hours
Peak Day Localized Emissions 5.20E-02 3.94E-02 2.65E-03 0.72 0.23 Background Concentration 1.5 1.1 0.085
Total Concentration 1.55 1.14 0.09 0.72 0.23
South Coast AQMD Threshold 20 9 0.18 2.50 2.50
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO
Source: Appendix C4.

Operational-Source Health Risk Thresholds, on page 3.3-103 has been revised to reflect revised table numbering.

Table 3.3-2728, Summary of EBPSP Operational Health Risks, presents a summary of the EBPSP operational health risk analysis.

I I I
I I I
3489

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-20 PLACEWORKS
Table 3.3-2728 Summary of EBPSP Operational Health Risks Maximum Exposed
Location
Receptor
Location
Time Period
(Year)
Maximum
Lifetime
Cancer Risk1
Significance
Threshold1
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold?
Cancer Risk
Sensitive Receptor R5 30 2.27 10 NO
Worker Receptor R6 25 0.21 10 NO
Individual School Child R9 9 0.04 10 NO
Maximum Exposed
Location
Receptor
Location
Time Period Maximum
Hazard
Index
Significance
Threshold
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold?
Non-Cancer Risk
Sensitive Receptor R5 Annual
Average <0.01 1 NO
Worker Receptor R6 Annual
Average <0.01 1 NO
Individual School Child R9 Annual
Average <0.01 1 NO
Source: Appendix C4.

Notes:

1. risk per million
Construction and Operational Impacts Combined, on page 3.3-105 has been revised to reflect revised table numbering.

The land use with the greatest potential exposure to construction-source and operationalsource DPM emissions is Location R5. As shown in Table 3.3-2829, Summary of EBPSP Construction and Operational Health Risks Combined, at the MEIR, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to construction-source and operational-source DPM emissions is estimated at 2.38 in one million, which is less than the threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be ≤0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. As such, the EBPSP would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of construction and operational activity. All other receptors during construction and operational activity would experience less risk than what is identified for this location.
3490

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-21
Table 3.3-2829 Summary of EBPSP Construction and Operational Health Risks Combined
Maximum Exposed
Location
Receptor
Location
Time Period
(Year)
Maximum
Lifetime
Cancer Risk1
Significance
Threshold1
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold?
Cancer Risk
Sensitive Receptor R5 30 2.38 10 NO
Maximum Exposed
Location
Receptor
Location
Time Period Maximum
Hazard
Index
Significance
Threshold
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold?
Non-Cancer Risk
Sensitive Receptor R5 Annual
Average <0.01 1 NO
Source: Appendix C4.

1. risk per million
Section 3.4, Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO-9-PPA on page 3.4-62 has been modified to clarify the determination should be made by a Qualified Biologist.

Mitigation Measure BIO-9-PPA: Active Nest Avoidance and No-Work Buffers. If active nests of avian species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code are detected within the proposed development project area or within a 300-foot buffer (500-foot buffer for raptors and listed species) of the proposed development project area, as determined by the qualified biologist, a no-work buffer will be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors and listed species) and construction shall be restricted in the area until the young have fledged; there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting if the nest attempt has failed, as determined by the qualified biologist; or until appropriate protection measures (installation of noise and/or visual barriers, intermittent halting or rerouting of high noise-producing construction activities to other portions of the project area, biological monitoring, and/or noise monitoring to ensure effectiveness of no-work buffers and/or noise reduction measures, etc.) that respond to the specific situation have been developed and implemented in consultation with the City and regulatory agencies. A figure showing the locations of no-work buffers established during 3491

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-22 PLACEWORKS
the preclearance nesting survey shall be included in the predisturbance survey report (see Mitigation Measure BIO-8-PPA)
Section 3.5 Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL-1-PPA on page 3.5-38 has been modified because potentially historic buildings within Ontario Ranch have already been evaluated for historic significance through the City’s tier system.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1-PPA [Former MM 5-1]: Historic or potentially historic resources in the City, except for those properties in the Ontario Ranch, shall be evaluated for historic significance through the City’s tier system prior to the issuance of plan or development approvals. Pursuant to the City’s Development Code (Chapter 4, Permits, Actions, and Decisions, and Chapter 7, Historic Preservation), mitigation measures for all Tier III Historic Resources citywide, Tier II historic resources in Ontario Ranch, or potentially significant historic resources in Ontario Ranch shall include the following:
a) Each historic resource shall be fully documented and cataloged pursuant to Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) standards, to provide a record of the resource, including, but not limited to: [i] the preparation of site plans, floor plans, exterior and interior elevations, and detail drawings of character defining features (such as moldings, stairs, etc.); and [ii] photographs of the resource, including the exterior, interior, and interior and exterior character defining features (such as moldings, light fixtures, trim patterns, etc.).
b) A mitigation fee established pursuant to Section 7.01.030 (Historic Preservation Mitigation Fee) shall be paid to the City and deposited into the Historic Preservation Trust Fund prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for Tier III historic resources, Tier II Historic Resources located in Ontario Ranch, or a potentially significant historic resource in Ontario Ranch. Fees for Tier III Historic Resources citywide shall be 10 percent and fees for Tier II historic resources in Ontario Ranch and potentially significant historic properties in Ontario Ranch shall be 30 percent of the price per square foot construction cost, as established in the most current ICC Building Valuation Data. Fees for Tier I citywide and II historic resources outside of Ontario Ranch shall be determined during the Environmental Impact Report process. The fees established for Tier III will be used as a reference point for establishing fees for Tier I and II historic resources.
3492

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-23
c) Issuance of a A Certificate of Appropriateness shall be required not be issued for the demolition of an Tier III historic resource citywide or a Tier II historic resource in Ontario Ranch, either in whole or in part, However, it shall not be issued until such time that a demolition permit application and a replacement structure has been approved by the City, and appropriate permits have been issued for its construction, unless: [i] a waiver is granted pursuant to Subsection H (Replacement Structure Waiver for Historic Resources Located within Industrial Zoning Districts) of Section

4.02.050; [ii] a deferral of the replacement structure requirement is granted pursuant to Subsection G (Replacement Structure Deferral) of Section 4.02.050; or [iii] demolition is required pursuant to Section 7.01.050 (Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions) of this Development Code.
d) In an effort to preserve features and artifacts from historic resources, a determination whether items within or on the resource should be salvaged must be made by the Planning Department and may include the local historical society prior to the issuance of the demolition permit. The applicant shall be responsible for the removal, relocation, storage, and donation of such items selected for salvaging. The applicant shall provide an inventory of salvaged items to the Planning Department, and shall include a list of each item name, description, and dimension (as necessary), and the location of each item on a floor plan.

Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning
Table 3.11-1, Policy Plan Amendment Consistency with SCAG Connect SoCal, has been revised to reflect a minor typo.

Table 3.11-1 Policy Plan Amendment Consistency with SCAG Connect SoCal Connect SoCal Policy/Objective Number Policy Plan Amendment Consistency Analysis 3493

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-24 PLACEWORKS
Table 3.11-3, EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis, has been revised in response to minor changes to the EBPSP site plan.

LU-1.6: Complete Community.

We incorporate a variety of land uses and
building types in our land use planning
efforts that result in a complete community
where residents at all stages of life,
employers, workers, and visitors have a
wide spectrum of choices of where they
can live, work, shop and recreate within
Ontario.

Consistent. The EBPSP land use plan provides business
park uses that would accommodate a variety of
employment uses arranged in a sensible and efficient
manner that allow ease of access and complement the
surrounding community. The 36.15 35.88 acres of
parkland would provide recreational amenities for
residents of and visitors to the City of Ontario. The
business park uses are intended to attract local,
national, and international businesses and would assist in diversifying the mix of employment opportunities
available in the City. Potential retail uses would serve both on-site uses and the broader community.

PR-1.9: Phased Development.

We require parks be built in new
communities before a significant
proportion of residents move in.

Consistent. The EBPSP does not include the creation of
new residential units, but includes 36.15 35.88 acres of the City’s Grand Park, providing amenities such as
pedestrian paths, gathering areas, turf areas, and
botanical gardens. Phasing of Specific Plan
development is discussed in Chapter 7, Implementation
Plan, of the EBPSP.

Section 3.13, Population and Housing
Table 3.14-7, Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 and Proposed Project to SCAG Forecast, and text on page 3.14-10 has been revised in response to comments from the GSEJA.

SCAG forecasts the City to be jobs-rich, with a jobs-housing ratio of 2.0 2.2 in 2050 2045, which is the same as that of slightly less than the proposed project. According to the California EDD, unemployment in the City was 5,000 in August 2025 (5.3 percent unemployment rate) and 61,700 for San Bernardino County (5.9 percent unemployment rate) (EDD 2025). 3494

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-25
Table 3.14-7 Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 and Proposed Project to SCAG Forecasts Category
SCAG Projections
(2050) Approved TOP 2050
Proposed Project
(2050)
Population1 N/A 411,268 427,741
Housing Units 95,500 129,951 137,177
Jobs 187,700 299,204 301,035
Jobs-Housing Ratio 2.2 2.0 2.3 2.2
Source: SCAG 2024b.
1 SCAG no longer forecasts population by jurisdiction in the Regional Transportation Plan.

Section 3.15, Public Services
Section 3.15.2, Existing Conditions, on page 3.15-11 has been revised based on minor changes to the EBPSP site plan.

A 36.15 35.88-acre segment of the City’s “Grand Park” lies within the Specific Plan boundaries between Walker Avenue and Campus Avenue.

Section 3.15.5, Impact Analysis, on page 3.15-25 has been revised based on minor changes to the EBPSP site plan.

The Specific Plan includes 36.15 35.88 acres of passive recreational opportunities for future employees and visitors through features such as pedestrian paths, gathering areas, turf areas, and botanical gardens.

Section 3.16, Recreation
Section 3.16.5, Impact Analysis, on page 3.16-19 has been revised based on minor changes to the EBPSP site plan.

The Specific Plan provides for the development of 36.15 35.88 acres of the City’s public “Grand Park.”
Section 3.16.5, Impact Analysis, on page 3.16-21 has been revised based on minor changes to the EBPSP site plan.

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-26 PLACEWORKS
Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources
Section 3.18.5, Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measure TCR-3-PPA on page 3.18-18 through

3.18-19 has been revised to identify the project archeologist as the responsible entity to identify the rotating Tribal Cultural Resources Monitor schedule.

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 project archeologist shall designate the schedule for the onsite Native American Tribal Monitor for the proposed project);

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

At least 30 days prior to application for a grading permit and before any brush clearance, grading, excavation, and/or ground disturbing activities on the site, the developer shall retain a tribal cultural monitor to monitor all grounddisturbing 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. 3496

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-27
Section 3.19, Utilities and Public Services
Section 3.19.2, Existing Conditions, on page 3.19-26 has been revised based on minor changes to the EBPSP site plan.

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 35.88 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 15.24 acres would be utilized for roadway improvements.

Table 3.19-6, EBPSP Water Demand, and text on page 3.19-41 has been revised based on minor changes to the EBPSP site plan.

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 35.88 AC 100 GPD/AC 3,615 3,588 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 35.88 AC 2,500 GPD/AC 90,375 88,700 101.2 100.5 RECYCLED - Sub Total (AFY) 286.6 285.9
TOTAL EBPSP WATER DEMAND 572.6 571.9
Section 3.19.5, Environmental Impacts, on page 3.19-42 has been revised based on minor changes to the EBPSP site plan.

The total water demand for the EBPSP is estimated to be 572.6 571.9 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).
3497

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-28 PLACEWORKS
Chapter 4, Alternatives
Section 4.7.16, Recreation, on page 4-36 has been based on minor changes to the EBPSP site plan.

The EBPSP introduces 36.15 35.88 acres planned for development of the City’s public “Grand Park.”
3498

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-29

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Pages ES-30 through ES-107, Table ES-3, Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, has been revised as a result of revisions to Mitigation Measure AIR-1-PPA and Mitigation Measure AIR-3-PPA requested by South Coast AQMD (Comment Letter A4), the addition of Impact AGF-5 to the summary table, and minor revisions to Mitigation Measures CUL-1-PPA and TCR-1-PPA.

Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Impact AGF-5: The proposed
project would not involve other
changes that would result in
conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use that
have not been previously
disclosed.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS

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

PPA: PS
EBPSP: LTS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure AIR-1-PPA [Former MM 3-1]: Prior to
discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating
potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and
approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts.

PPA: SU
EBPSP: LTS
3499

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-30 PlaceWorks
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–
adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Building Department shall require feasible mitigation
measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include:
 Require fugitive dust control measures that exceed
South Coast Air Quality Management District’s
Rule 403, such as:
o Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to
reduce wind erosion.
o Applying water every four 4 hours to active
soil disturbing activities.
o Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of
24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt,
sand, soil, or other loose materials.
 Using construction equipment rated by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency as having
Tier 4 interim or higher exhaust emission limits.
 Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced
and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
 Limiting nonessential idling of construction
equipment to no more than five 5 consecutive
minutes.
 Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of
architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of
Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures
can be found on the South Coast Air Quality
3500

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-31
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Management District’s website at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/SuperCompliant_AIM.pdf. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rulescompliance/compliance/vocs/architecturalcoatings/super-compliant-coatings.  Using electric off-road vehicles and equipment where
feasible and using renewable diesel fuel for dieselfueled vehicles and equipment where gasoline, natural gas, or electric alternatives are not available.

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

Specific Plan
No mitigation measures are required.

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

PPA: PS
EBPSP: PS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure AIR-2-PPA [Former MM 3-2]: The City of Ontario shall evaluate new development proposals within the City and require all developments to include access or linkages to alternative modes of transportation, such as transit stops, bike paths, and/or pedestrian paths (e.g. sidewalks).

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-32 PlaceWorks
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted
thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Planning Department shall require that applicants for new
development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities.

The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
 For site-specific development that requires
refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents
shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical
service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce
idling time and emissions.
 Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and
power in appropriate applications to optimize
renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak
energy use.
 Site-specific developments with truck delivery and
loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include
signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with
3502

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-33
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR
Chapter 10 sec. 2485).
 Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in
Section A5.106.4.3 of CALGreen (Nonresidential
Voluntary Measures).
 Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 of CALGreen (Residential Voluntary Measures).
 Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section
A5.106.5.1 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary
Measures).
 Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 and Section A5.106.8.2
A4.106.8 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary
Measures; Residential Voluntary Measures).
 Applicant-provided appliances shall be Energy Star–
certified appliances or appliances of equivalent
energy efficiency (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators,
clothes washers, and dryers). Installation of Energy
Star–certified or equivalent appliances shall be
verified by the City during plan check.
 Use cool roof materials to improve reflectance and
thermal emittance performance of roof structures
per Section A5.106.11.2 and Section A4.106.5.1 of
CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures;
Residential Voluntary Measures).
 Limit the daily number of trucks accessing the project site to levels analyzed in the technical assessment.
3503

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-34 PlaceWorks
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
 Design the 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
project site.
 Design the project such that truck traffic interior to the project site is located as far away from nearby
sensitive receptors as feasible.
 Design the project such that trucks accessing the
project site have available on-site overnight parking
to prevent trucks from parking in sensitive land use
areas.
 Design the project such that any truck check-in
location is in the interior of the project site to prevent truck queueing and idling outside the project site and
in closer proximity to nearby sensitive receptors.

Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure AIR-1-SP: To facilitate the future installation of infrastructure that would charge the batteries that power the motors of electric-powered trucks, the following shall be installed: 1) prior to the shell building permit approval, an electrical room(s) and/or exterior area(s) of the site shall be designated where future electrical panels would be located for the purpose of supplying power to on-site charging
facilities for electric powered trucks. Conduit shall be installed from this designated area where the panel would be located to the onsite location where the charging facilities would be located and where electric-powered trucks would park and connect to charging facilities to charge the batteries that 3504

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-35
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
power the motors of the electric-powered trucks; 2) prior to issuance of a building permit for tenant improvements,
tenants that plan to operate electric trucks would be required to construct electrical charging infrastructure in addition to the required conduits.

Mitigation Measure AIR-2-SP: In order to promote alternative fuels, and help support “clean” truck fleets, the
developer/successor-in-interest shall provide building
occupants with information related to South Coast AQMD’s Carl Moyer Program, or other such programs that promote truck retrofits or “clean” vehicles and information including, but not limited to, the health effect of diesel particulates, benefits of reduced idling time, and CARB regulations.

Tenants shall be notified about the availability of: 1) alternatively fueled cargo handling equipment; 2) grant programs for diesel-fueled vehicle engine retrofit and/or replacement; 3) access to alternative fueling stations
proximate to the site that supply compressed natural gas; and 4) the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s
SmartWay program.

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-36 PlaceWorks
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
 Instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than 52 minutes once the vehicle is
stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park” and the parking brake is engaged.
 Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager
and CARB to report violations.

Mitigation Measure AIR-4-SP: All future operations shall adhere to the following:
 Sites shall clearly mark entry and exit points for trucks and service vehicles.
 Facility operators shall maintain records of their fleet equipment owned by the facility and ensure that all
diesel-fueled Medium-Heavy Duty Trucks (MHDT) and
Heavy-Heavy Duty Trucks (HHD) use year CARB 2010
or newer engines. The records should be maintained
on-site and be made available for inspection by the
lead agency.
 Facility operators shall train their managers and
employees on efficient scheduling and load
management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and
idling of trucks.
 Signs should be posted in the appropriate locations
and/or handouts should be provided that show the
locations of nearest food options, fueling, truck
maintenance services, and other similar convenience
services.
 Each Facility shall designate a Compliance Officer
responsible for implementing the measures
described herein and/or in the project conditions of
3506

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-37
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
approval and mitigation measures. Contact
information shall be provided to the City and updated
annually, and signs shall be posted in visible locations providing the contact information for the Compliance
Officer to the surrounding community. The
Compliance Officer also shall coordinate with CARB
and South Coast AQMD to obtain the latest
information about regional air quality concentrations,
health risks, and trucking regulations.
 Signs shall be posted in the appropriate locations
heavy truck drivers to park and perform any selfmaintenance of trucks in designated on-site areas and not within the surrounding community or on
public streets.
 Development plans and specifications shall include
signs at every truck exit driveway providing
directional information to the truck route.

Mitigation Measure AIR-5-SP: Electric Vehicle Charging and Future Truck Charging Capability. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following features shall be demonstrated on the EBPSP’s building plans to the extent feasible over minimum California Code of Regulations Title 24 requirements.

Installation shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
 For use by employees and visitors conducting
business at the building, install automobile electric
vehicle (EV) charging stations at the minimum
number required by the California Code of
Regulations Title 24. All charging stations shall be
3507

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-38 PlaceWorks
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
equipped with Level 2 or faster chargers. Signs shall
be posted indicating that the charging stations are for exclusive use by the building’s employees and by
visitors conducting business at the building.
 Install appropriate electrical infrastructure sufficiently sized to accommodate the potential installation of
additional auto and truck EV charging stations in the
future.
 Install raceways for conduit to tractor trailer parking areas in logical, gated locations determined by the
Applicant during construction document plan check,
for the purpose of accommodating the future
installation of EV truck charging stations at such time this technology becomes commercially available. The
charging station location(s) are to be located inside
the gated and secured truck courts.

Mitigation Measure AIR-6-SP: Water Efficient Fixtures. All water fixtures shall be water efficient (toilets/urinals (1.5 gallons per minute [gpm] or less), showerheads (2.0 gpm or less), and faucets (1.28 gpm or less).

Mitigation Measure AIR-7-SP: City Review of Construction Documents. Prior to issuance of building permits, the
following features shall be demonstrated on building and landscape plans to the extent feasible. Installation shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
a) Install Energy Star-rated heating, cooling, lighting, and appliances
3508

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-39
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
b) Structures shall be equipped with outdoor electric outlets in the front and rear to facilitate use of electrical lawn and garden equipment.
c) Install rooftop solar energy systems which generate
enough electricity to meet 45% of the annual warehouse
electricity demand.

Mitigation Measure AIR-8-SP: Tenant Lease Agreement. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the following language shall be included within tenant lease agreements in order to reduce operational air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible:
a) Information about energy efficiency, energy-efficient lighting and lighting control systems, energy
management, and existing energy incentive programs.
b) Information about funding opportunities, such as the Carl Moyer Program, that provide incentives for using cleanerthan-required engines and equipment. c) Requirements to use the cleanest technologies available and to provide the necessary infrastructure to support
zero-emission vehicles, equipment, and appliances that
would be operating on site at such time this technology becomes commercially available. This requirement shall
apply to equipment such as forklifts, handheld
landscaping equipment, yard trucks, office appliances,
etc.
d) Requirements to exclusively use zero-emission light and medium-duty delivery trucks and vans, when
economically feasible.
3509

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-40 PlaceWorks
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
e) Requirements to operate in compliance with, and to
monitor compliance with, all current and applicable air quality regulations for on-road trucks including the
California Air Resources Board’s Heavy-Duty (TractorTrailer) Greenhouse Gas Regulation, Periodic Smoke Inspection Program, and the Statewide Truck and Bus
Regulation.
f) Requirements and identification of the responsible party to maintain, replace, and upgrade rooftop solar panels
per the manufacturer’s recommendations for the life of
the lease. The EBPSP would comply with existing solar
requirements per the California Energy Code in effect
during permitting (at the time of Construction Drawing
Plan Check Submittal). In the case that the tenant
requires additional solar capacity, this shall be addressed during the tenant improvement process. The EBPSP
would be required to meet the CCR Title 24 energy
efficiency standards in effect at the time building permit applications are submitted.
g) Requirements and identification of the responsible party to maintain, replace, and repair the legible, durable,
weather-proof signs that were installed at initial building occupancy placed at truck access gates, loading docks,
and truck parking areas that identify applicable CARB
anti-idling regulations.
h) The tenant agreement shall include notification that the tenant shall comply with CARB Truck and Bus regulation, including requirements that only haul trucks meeting
model year 2010 engine emission standards shall be used 3510

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-41
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
for the on-road transport of materials to and from the
site.
i) Requirements for the building owner to provide a Green Cleaning Products and Paint Education Program available to the building tenant, to keep at the building’s office, break room, leasing space, or on an accessible website
Mitigation 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.
3511

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-42 PlaceWorks
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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.
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 onroad 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
3512

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-43
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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
3513

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-44 PlaceWorks
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
simultaneous operation of multiple high-emission
equipment fleets in close 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.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-1: Implementation of
the proposed project could
impact special-status species, as
well as nesting birds, burrowing
owls, and roosting bat species.

PPA: PS
EBPSP: PS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure BIO-9-PPA: Active Nest Avoidance and No-Work Buffers. If active nests of avian species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code are
detected within the proposed development project area or within a 300-foot buffer (500-foot buffer for raptors and listed species) of the proposed development project area, as
determined by the qualified biologist, a no-work buffer will be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for
passerines and 500 feet for raptors and listed species) and construction shall be restricted in the area until the young have fledged; there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting if the nest attempt has failed, as determined by the qualified biologist; or until appropriate protection measures (installation of noise and/or visual barriers, intermittent halting or rerouting of high noise-producing construction activities to other portions of the project area, biological PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
3514

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-45
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
monitoring, and/or noise monitoring to ensure effectiveness of no-work buffers and/or noise reduction measures, etc.) that respond to the specific situation have been developed and implemented in consultation with the City and regulatory agencies. A figure showing the locations of no work buffers established during the preclearance nesting survey shall be included in the predisturbance survey report (see Mitigation Measure BIO-8-PPA)

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CUL-1: Implementation of
the Policy Plan Amendment could
impact historical resources.

PPA: PS
EBPSP: LTS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure CUL-1-PPA [Former MM 5-1]: Historic or potentially historic resources in the City, except for those properties in the Ontario Ranch, shall be evaluated for historic significance through the City’s tier system prior to the issuance of plan or development approvals. Pursuant to the City’s Development Code (Chapter 4, Permits, Actions, and Decisions, and Chapter 7, Historic Preservation), mitigation measures for all Tier III Historic Resources citywide, Tier II historic resources in Ontario Ranch, or potentially significant historic resources in Ontario Ranch shall include the
following:
a) Each historic resource shall be fully documented and cataloged pursuant to Historic American Building
Survey/Historic American Engineering Record
(HABS/HAER) standards, to provide a record of the
resource, including, but not limited to: [i] the preparation of site plans, floor plans, exterior and interior elevations, PPA: SU
EBPSP: LTS
3515

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-46 PlaceWorks
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
and detail drawings of character defining features (such as moldings, stairs, etc.); and [ii] photographs of the resource, including the exterior, interior, and interior and exterior character defining features (such as moldings, light fixtures, trim patterns, etc.).
b) A mitigation fee established pursuant to Section 7.01.030 (Historic Preservation Mitigation Fee) shall be paid to the City and deposited into the Historic Preservation Trust Fund prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for Tier III historic resources, Tier II Historic Resources located in Ontario Ranch, or a potentially significant historic
resource in Ontario Ranch. Fees for Tier III Historic
Resources citywide shall be 10 percent and fees for Tier II historic resources in Ontario Ranch and potentially
significant historic properties in Ontario Ranch shall be 30 percent of the price per square foot construction cost, as established in the most current ICC Building Valuation
Data. Fees for Tier I citywide and II historic resources outside of Ontario Ranch shall be determined during the Environmental Impact Report process. The fees
established for Tier III will be used as a reference point for establishing fees for Tier I and II historic resources
c) Issuance of a A Certificate of Appropriateness shall be required not be issued for the demolition of an Tier III historic resource citywide or a Tier II historic resource in Ontario Ranch, either in whole or in part, However, it
shall not be issued until such time that a demolition
permit application and a replacement structure has been approved by the City, and appropriate permits have been 3516

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-47
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
issued for its construction, unless: [i] a waiver is granted pursuant to Subsection H (Replacement Structure Waiver
for Historic Resources Located within Industrial Zoning Districts) of Section 4.02.050; [ii] a deferral of the
replacement structure requirement is granted pursuant
to Subsection G (Replacement Structure Deferral) of
Section 4.02.050; or [iii] demolition is required pursuant to Section 7.01.050 (Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions) of this Development Code.
d) In an effort to preserve features and artifacts from historic resources, a determination whether items within or on the resource should be salvaged must be made by
the Planning Department and may include the local
historical society prior to the issuance of the demolition permit. The applicant shall be responsible for the
removal, relocation, storage, and donation of such items selected for salvaging. The applicant shall provide an
inventory of salvaged items to the Planning Department, and shall include a list of each item name, description, and dimension (as necessary), and the location of each
item on a floor plan.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2-PPA: Project applicants for development projects that contain Tier II Historic Resources in Ontario Ranch pursuant to the City’s historic resource evaluation system (i.e., 8314 Edison Avenue, 8484 Schaefer Avenue, 8185 Edison Avenue, 14251 Euclid Avenue, and 13948 S.

Walker Avenue) and all other potentially historic properties in Ontario Ranch shall be subject to the following additional 3517

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-48 PlaceWorks
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
mitigation requirements prior to the issuance of any grading, demolition, or development approvals:
a) Documentation. A complete chain of title with copies of recorded deeds / documents for each parcel within the
eligible property boundaries shall be provided to the
Planning Department by the project applicant to ensure
that all ethnic groups associated with each significant parcel / property are identified. The information shall be integrated into the HABS-Like Local Documentation
Package prepared for each property. For properties with Basque or Portugues Associations, the following
additional measures are required:
 Basque Associations. For properties with Basque
associations, the project applicant shall contact the
Chino Basque Club to inquire if the organization
possesses any historic materials relating to the
property or the owners identified in the complete
chain of title. New materials resulting in this effort
shall be integrated with HABS-like documentation;
and
 Portuguese Associations. For properties with
Portuguese associations, the project applicant shall
contact the Chino Valley Divino Espirito Santo (DEA)
Club to inquire if the organization possesses any
historic materials relating to the property or the
owners identified in the complete chain of title. New
materials resulting in this effort shall be integrated
with HABS-like documentation.
3518

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-49
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
b) Avoidance. All efforts to avoid demolition of historic resources shall be made by the project applicant.

Alternatives to demolition that shall include:
 Adaptive Reuse Study. Prior to approval of
demolition, an adaptive reuse study shall be prepared
by a qualified professional meeting the minimum
qualifications standards of the Secretary of the
interior Professional Qualifications (Code of Federal
Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61). The adaptive reuse
study shall make recommendations on the possible
reuse of the historic resource into the proposed
project. If feasible and determined appropriate, the
historic resource shall be integrated into the project, thereby avoiding demolition.
 Structural Analysis for Relocation and/or
Reconstruction. Prior to approval of demolition, a
structural analysis shall be prepared by a California
licensed engineer meeting the minimum
qualifications standards of the Secretary of the
interior Professional Qualifications (Code of Federal
Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61). The analysis shall
identify the building components and materials and
determine the feasibility of relocation and
reconstruction.
o If determined that relocation is feasible and a
receiver site is available, the project applicant
shall facilitate the relocation, affixing the building
or structure to a permanent foundation, with
3519

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-50 PlaceWorks
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
approved relocation plans and required permit
issuance.
o If a receiver site is not available, the historic
resource shall be advertised and shall be offered
at no cost for those who can relocate the
structures off-site. Advertisements notifying the
public of the opportunity to relocate the
structures shall be placed for a minimum of 30
days: on-site with temporary signage, in at least 3
local publications (newspapers, magazines, local
organization newsletters), and on local bulletin
boards (realtor’s offices, local business). A social
media campaign, posted on the applicant’s
website or on a local non-profit heritage site,
including a dedicated web page with the
structure’s information (description, square
footage, photographs) and contact information
should be incorporated into the relocation
advertisement.
c) Interpretive Plan. An interpretative plan highlighting the history, architectural styles, businesses, or individuals that have historic significance and have contributed to the development of the dairy industry shall be prepared by a qualified historian to further educate and increase community awareness of the local dairy history. The
interpretive plan may be developed and constructed at a site-specific location, as determined by the City, or
development in an on-line format.
3520

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-51
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Specific Plan
No mitigation measures are required.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact TCR-1: Tribal cultural
resources could be adversely
impacted by grading activities
associated with the Proposed
Project.

PPA: PS
EBPSP: PS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure TCR-1-PPA [Former MM 5-3]: Upon receipt of an application for a proposed project subject to CEQA and is within the City’s jurisdiction, the City’s representative shall consult with the relevant tribe(s)’ representative(s) to determine if the proposed project is within a culturally sensitive area to the tribe. If sufficient evidence is provided to reasonably ascertain that the site is within a [tribal] culturally sensitive area, an archaeologist shall prepare a cultural resources assessment. The findings of the cultural resources assessment shall be incorporated into the CEQA
documentation. A copy of the report shall be forwarded to the tribe(s). If mitigation is recommended in the CEQA
document, the procedure described in Mitigation Measure 5- 4 TCR-2-PPA shall be followed.

Mitigation Measure TCR-2-PPA [Former MM 5-4]: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for a proposed project for which the CEQA document defines cultural resource mitigation for potential tribal resources, the project applicant shall contact the designated tribe(s) to notify them of the grading,
excavation, and monitoring program. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Ontario and the tribal
representative(s) to develop mitigation measures that
address the designation, responsibilities, and participation of tribal monitors during grading, excavation, and groundPPA: LTS EBPSP: LTS
3521

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-52 PlaceWorks
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
disturbing activities; 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 project archeologist shall
3522

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-53
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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.

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
3523

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-54 PlaceWorks
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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
3524

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
JUNE 2026 3-55
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part
79, and therefore the resource would be
professionally curated and made available to
other archaeologists/researchers for further
study. The collections and associated records
shall be transferred, including title, to an
appropriate curation facility in San
Bernardino County, to be accompanied by
payment of the fees necessary for permanent
curation;
c. For purposes of conflict resolution, if more
than one Native American tribe or band is
involved with the project and cannot come to
an agreement as to the disposition of cultural
materials, materials shall be curated at the
San Bernardino County Museum by default;
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
3525

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-56 PlaceWorks
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
evidence of the required cultural sensitivity
training for the construction staff held during
the required pregrade meeting; and, in a
confidential appendix, include the
daily/weekly monitoring notes from the
archaeologist. All reports produced will be
submitted to the City, County Museum, and
consulting tribes.

Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure TCR-1-SP: The EBPSP shall implement MM TCR2-PPA, MM TCR-3-PPA, MM TCR-4-PPA. 3526
APPENDIX A:

DRAFT SEIR COMMENTS RECEIVED
3527
3528
Good morning, Thomas,
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 M-4.1 to address potential impacts from truck traffic? Thank you.

Best Regards,
Kumail Raza, AICP
Planning Manager
E: [email protected]
D: (909) 387-5366
Land Use Services Department
385 N. Arrowhead Avenue, 1st Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92415
[sbcounty.gov]
A1-1
From: Raza, Kumail <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2026 10:33 AM
To: Thomas Grahn <[email protected]>
Cc: Gonzales, Paul [email protected]>; Acuna, Vincent <[email protected]>
Subject: Notice of Availability for EIR - The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Policy Plan Amendment 3529
dtsc.ca.gov

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 18, 2026
Thomas Grahn
Principal Planner
City of Ontario
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
[email protected]
RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050

POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DATED MARCH 6, 2026, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2025110102 Dear Thomas Grahn,
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:

A2-Intro
e
Yana Garcia
Secretary for
Environmental Protection
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Katherine M. Butler, MPH, Director
8800 Cal Center Drive
Sacramento, California 95826-3200
Gavin Newsom
Governor
3530
Thomas Grahn
March 18, 2026

Page 2 ends

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; DTSC’s public-facing database and coordinate with the Department if any suspected decisions may impact these areas of which DTSC oversees.

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. Furthermore, DTSC advises referencing the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact 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.

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 CEQA Review email for additional guidance.

A2-1
A2-2
A2-3
3531
Thomas Grahn
March 18, 2026

Page 3 ends

Sincerely,
Tamara Purvis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Nicole Vermilion
Principal,
PlaceWorks / Consulting Firm
[email protected]
Dave Kereazis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP-Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Scott Wiley
Analyst II
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
3532
Dear Mr. Thomas Grahn,
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:

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), 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.

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 - 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.

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, A3-Intro
A3-1
A3-2
A3-3
1700 W. Fifth St.

San Bernardino, CA 92411
909-379-7100
www.om n itra ns.org
3533
and employer participation), transit service will have a higher chance of success in this new region.

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.

Best regards,
Youssef Kaddeche
Planner I
Cc: Alex Shippau, Development Planning Manager
Ben Nolen, Service Planning Manager
A3-3 cont.

A3-4
Fl
L,- • CHINO
0 0.5
: =RA.~CIS ST

ONTA RIO
;>t<IlADtl IIA ::i
[Edbon-Gr~nd Corri~orl
MERRJllA'IE
~ of ~ct516e,$Ml!lerlliltdn;>
<hslf:./,:51..rt>uO!UnjM,o:~
Esri, HERE. Gamtn, GeoTe::tnoloqJCS, l11e., t~'- FPJ.
2 Miles

RJXNCRO

CUCAMONGA
1700 W. Fifth St.

San Bernardino, CA 92411
909-379-7100
www.om n itra ns.org
N
A
-- ~westNC!r(:jll1(
• • 5an Hlt:lf!IO tus:>MBI n_
w.:nd~M.

Grzn1Hdoon
- on-noamR:x.ccs
3534
-1-
SENT VIA E-MAIL: April 16, 2026
[email protected]
Thomas Grahn, Principal Planner
City of Ontario
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Proposed The Ontario Plan 2050 Policy Plan Amendment (Proposed Project) (SCH No.: 2025110102)
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 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.

A4-Intro
JiB1 South Coast ~ Air Quality Management District ~ 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 9 1765-4178 ~ (909) 396-2000 • www.aqmd.gov
3535
Thomas Grahn, Principal Planner April 16, 2026
-2-
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
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
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.
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.
13 Appendix C4: EBPSP HRA. p. C4-19.
14 Appendix C4: EBPSP HRA. p. C4-20.

A4-Intro
A4-1
3536
Thomas Grahn, Principal Planner April 16, 2026
-3-
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 heavy-duty 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 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.

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 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 17 Appendix C3: EBPSP AQ Study. p. C3-65.
18 Appendix C3: EBPSP AQ Study. p. C3-926.

A4-1 cont.

A4-2
3537
Thomas Grahn, Principal Planner April 16, 2026
-4-
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.

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.

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), 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-friant-prr-deir_2-7-23.pdf 21 Bloomington Business Park Specific Plan Project (SCH: 2020120545). Available at https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2020120545/10 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-ceqa-review-for-industrial-rezoningimproperly-analyzed-greenhouse-gas-reduction-measures_4d86 23 Ibid. p. 3.3-56.

A4-2 cont.

A4-3
A4-4
3538
Thomas Grahn, Principal Planner April 16, 2026
-5-
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.

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.

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.

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.
24 CARB – California Clean Construction Program. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/california-cleanconstruction-program. 25 CARB – Clean Fleet Connect. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/clean-fleet-connect. 26 CARB – Advanced Clean Fleets Program. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-fleets.

A4-4 cont.

A4-5
A4-6
3539
Thomas Grahn, Principal Planner April 16, 2026
-6-
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.

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.

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.

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.

A4-6 cont.

A4-7
A4-8
3540
Thomas Grahn, Principal Planner April 16, 2026
-7-
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
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 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/cleanair-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-climate-change 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/regiii/r316.pdf A4-9
A4-10
3541
Thomas Grahn, Principal Planner April 16, 2026
-8-
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
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 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 32 South Coast AQMD WAIRE Program available at http://www.aqmd.gov/waire. 33 Appendix C3: EBPSP AQ Study. p. C3-59.
34 South Coast AQMD, Rule 201 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-ii/rule-201.pdf 35 South Coast AQMD, Rule 203 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-ii/rule-203.pdf 36 South Coast AQMD, Rule 401 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-401.pdf 37 South Coast AQMD, Rule 402 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-402.pdf 38 South Coast AQMD, Rule 403 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-403 39 South Coast AQMD, Rule 1110.2 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xi/r1110_2.pdf 40 South Coast AQMD, Rule 1113 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf 41 South Coast AQMD, Rule 1470 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xiv/rule-1470.pdf A4-10 cont.

A4-11
3542
Thomas Grahn, Principal Planner April 16, 2026
-9-
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.

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.

Sincerely,
Sam Wang
Sam Wang
Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR
Planning, Rule Development & Implementation
SW:DN
SBC260305-02
Control Number
A4-11 cont.

A4-12
3543
A5-Intro
A5-1
A5-2
A5-3
EUNICE M. ULLOA KAREN C. COMSTOCK

CHRISTOPHER FLORES

MARC LUCIO
Mayor
Council Members
CURTIS BURTON DR. LINDA REICH
Mayor Pro Tem
April 16, 2026
Sent Via Email and US Mail:
[email protected]
Thomas Grahn
City of Ontario Planning Department
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
City Manager
CITY of CHINO
Re: NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Ontario Plan 2050 Policy Plan Amendment {State Clearinghouse No. 2025110102)
Dear Thomas:

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
• 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 residentia I 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.
• 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. • 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.
13 220 Central A venue, Chino, California 91710
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 667, Chino, California 91708-0667 (909) 334-3250 • (909) 334-3720 Fax
Web Site: www.cityofchino.org
3544
A5-4
A5-5
April 20, 2026

Page 2 of 2 ends

• 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. • 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.

If you have any questions, please contact Chris Cortez, Assistant Planner, by email at [email protected]. or by phone at 909-334-3525.

Sincerely,
Warren Morelion, AICP
Director of Development Services
cc: Michael Hitz, AICP, Principal Planner
3545
A6-1

RNARDINO
UNTY

SENT VIA EMAIL
April 20, 2026
Thomas Grahn
Principal Planner
City of Ontario
303 East B Street,
Ontario, CA 91764
385 N. Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92415 I Phone: 909.387.8311 Fax: 909.387.3223 www.SBCounty.gov
Land Use Services Department
Planning
Miguel Figueroa
Director
Thomas Bustamonte
Assistant Director
RE: NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY FOR EIR - THE ONTARIO PLAN (TOP) 2050 POLICY

PLAN AMENDMENT
Dear Mr. Grahn,
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 Works - Traffic, 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.

Best Regards,
{r
Paul Gonzales
Planning Chief
IH , ,\ 1-: P ( ) r q ' 11 i .1: \ ! "u 11_"
Cm PAt.:I. CooK (Rn.) J1,ssE AR~1E:-.:DA1nz DA\\':-.: Rm,·1, Cl,RT HAC,MA:-.: JoE BA<.A, JR. } m,t D1stn .. t !-oL•..:ond Obtrid Cha1rmJ.n, ·uurd D1~trn.:t l ourth Dbtr1d \"1'-c ChJir, 1-tfth Di~trid Luther Snoke
CJlie( Eucutive Officer
3546
DISTRICT 8
464 WEST 4TH STREET
SAN BERNARDINO CA, 92401 (909) 925-7520
www.dot.ca.gov
City of Ontario
Principle Planner
Thomas Grahn
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
April 20, 2026 Route I-10, I-15, SR-60, SR-83
GTS I D: 39418
SCH #:2025110102
Subject: Ontario Plan 2050 Plan Amendment
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, 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:

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 A7-
Intro
A7-1

CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR California Department of Transportation
3547
(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 SR-60, five years following the completion of the Active Transportation Master Plan.

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 leftturn 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.

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.

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.

A7-1
cont.

A7-2
A7-3
A7-4
--
3548
Sincerely,
Janki Patel
Branch Chief – Local Development Review
Division of Transportation Planning
Caltrans District 08
3549

BLUM, COLLINS & HO LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW
10250 CONSTELLATION BOULEVARD
SUITE 2300
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067
(213) 572-0400
April 16, 2026
Thomas Grahn Via Email to:

Principal Planner [email protected]
City of Ontario
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Subject: Comments on Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan / The Ontario Plan 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Supplemental Environmental Impact Report EIR (SCH NO. 2025110102) Dear Mr. Grahn,
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 O1-1
3550
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 2 ends

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.

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.

O1-1 cont.

O1-2
3551
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 3 ends

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.

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.

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-infrastructure-and-solar O1-2
cont.

O1-3
3552
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 4 ends

CEQA Section 15161 describes Project EIRs as examining “the environmental impacts of a specific development Project. This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development Project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the Project, including planning, construction, and operation.” The specific development Project is the construction and operation of all Sares Regis buildings as a whole, including, at a minimum, the projects listed above and any future projects associated with the undisclosed increase of 1,395,416 square feet of nonresidential building area in the TOP, as fully discussed in the Project Description section below.

Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15146 requires that the degree of specificity in an EIR “will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. (a) An EIR on a construction Project will necessarily be more detailed in the specific effects of the Project than will be an EIR on the adoption of a local general plan or comprehensive zoning ordinance because the effects of the construction can be predicted with greater accuracy.” Because there are multiple buildings as part of a single Project, the Project EIR must be more detailed in the specific effects of the Project.

A Project EIR must be prepared, which accurately represents the whole of the action without piecemealing the Project into separate, smaller development projects to present unduly low environmental impacts. The EIR must be revised to comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15161 by preparing a Project EIR to adequately and accurately disclose the Project-specific and cumulative impacts of all Sares Regis projects.

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.

O1-3 cont.

O1-4
3553
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 5 ends

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 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.

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.

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.

O1-5
O1-6
O1-7
3554
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 6 ends

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 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 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/diesel-particulate-matter 7 OEHHA Groundwater Threats https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/groundwater-threats O1-8
3555
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 7 ends

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.

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 8 OEHHA Drinking Water https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/drinking-water 9 OEHHA Impaired Waters https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/impaired-water-bodies 10 Ibid. 11 OEHHA Solid Waste Facilities https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/solid-waste-sites-and-facilities 12 OEHHA Cleanup Sites https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/cleanup-sites 13 OEHHA Toxic Releases https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/toxic-releases-facilities 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.

O1-8 cont.
3556
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 8 ends

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.

3.9 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.”
Even though the City of Ontario has adopted an ALUCP for the Chino Airport, analysis of compliance with the City’s ALUCP does not satisfy the statutory requirements of Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1. Only the City of Chino is authorized via the approved Alternative Process as the local jurisdiction responsible for the compatibility planning process for the Chino Airport. The City of Ontario is not authorized to determine this statutorily required review. The EIR must be revised to disclose this information and utilize it for analysis. The proposed Project extensively amends seven of nine TOP chapters, amends a specific plan, and amends the City’s development code; all of these actions require ALUCP compatibility review by the City of 18 https://lus.sbcounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/48/Airports/Chino.pdf 19 https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2024- 12/Reference%20I_Chino%20Airport%20Land%20Use%20Compatibility%20Plan_Rev%2005.02.2023.pdf O1-8
cont.

O1-9
3557
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 9 ends

Chino, which is the authorized lead. The EIR has not provided any substantial evidence to support a less-than-significant finding; the Project directly conflicts with Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1 and all statutory requirements for airport compatibility planning, and a revised EIR must be prepared to include a finding of significance.

Further, the EIR has not included substantial evidence to demonstrate that the Project has obtained a “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation” from the FAA. The EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance.

3.11 Land Use and Planning
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 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.

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.

O1-9 cont.

O1-10
O1-11
3558
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 10 ends

The EIR excludes from its analysis the Project’s required General Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications to allow development of the proposed uses on the Project site. The site was not anticipated to be developed with the proposed use and is therefore not accounted for in regional and local plans adopted for purposes of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects, including but not limited to the AQMP, RTP/SCS, and General Plan. A revised EIR must be prepared to include this information for analysis and include a finding of significance.

The EBSP aspect of the Project proposes to change the land use designations of several sites identified for residential development in the Housing Element sites inventory to non-residential land use designations. This requires the proposed Policy Plan Amendment (PPA) to revise the existing inventory to remove the EBSP sites, include new additional replacement sites, and revise the land use/zoning designations on multiple sites within the existing inventory as part of the Policy Plan Amendment (PPA). The EIR is not clear regarding the acreage of land attributed to each existing land use designations for the overall Project site (EBSP and PPA) in order to calculate if there is a net loss of housing capacity. Specifically, the EIR only provides a list of all APNs affected by the PPA beginning on pages 2-18. The EIR excludes meaningful information for these sites, including but not limited to the existing/proposed General Plan land use designation, existing/proposed Zoning designation, acreage, total unit capacity, realistic unit capacity for HCD Housing Element analysis, and whether the parcel is in the existing sites inventory.

Government Code Section 66300(b)(1)(A) requires that agencies shall not “change the general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning to a less intensive use below what was allowed under the land use designation and zoning ordinances in effect at the time of the proposed change.” Under Government Code Section 66300(b)(1)(A), a “less intensive use” includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, or new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, or any other action that would individually or cumulatively reduce residential development capacity. Pursuant to SB 330, replacement capacity for any displaced residential units must be provided concurrently at the time of Project approval.

Government Code Section 66300 (h)(i)(1) states that, “this section does not prohibit an affected county or an affected city, including the local electorate acting through the initiative process, from changing a land use designation or zoning ordinance to a less intensive use, or reducing the intensity of land use, if the city or county concurrently changes the development standards, O1-12
O1-13
O1-14
O1-15
3559
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 11 ends

policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity.” The EIR is inadequate in that it does not provide the acreage of each existing General Plan land use and Zoning designation within the overall Project area.

The total acreage for each existing General Plan land use and Zoning designation is necessary to calculate the existing total residential development capacity to ensure there is no net loss of capacity. The EIR must be revised to include this information for analysis.

As an example, the total residential unit capacity of only the EBSP parcels that are within the existing HCD Certified Housing Element sites inventory may be calculated because the existing Housing Element includes the necessary information.

Table B-2: Housing Element Sites Inventory within the City’s HCD Certified Housing Element20 identifies 16 parcels from the EBSP portion of the Project site as part of its identified sites inventory to accommodate its RHNA allocation.

1. APN 0216-322-01
Site 2-70
Acres: 9.1
Current GP: MDR
Proposed GP: MU-BC
Current Zoning: SP-AG
Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 25
Max Density: 45
Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
VLI: 40 units
Low: 24 units
Mod: 32 units
Above Mod: 32 units
Total HE Capacity: 127 units
Max Density Capacity: 409 units

2. APN 0216-322-02
Site 2-71
20 https://hcdpowerbi.blob.core.windows.net/housing-elements/ontario-6th-adopted031122.pdf O1-15
cont.
3560
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 12 ends

Acres: 3.1
Current GP: MDR
Proposed GP: MU-BC
Current Zoning: SP-AG
Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 25
Max Density: 45
Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
VLI: 13 units
Low: 8 units
Mod: 11 units
Above Mod: 11 units
Total HE Capacity: 42 units
Max Density Capacity: 139 units

3. APN 0216-321-06
Site 2-67
Acres: 5.7
Current GP: MDR
Proposed GP: MU-BC
Current Zoning: SP-AG
Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 25
Max Density: 45
Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
VLI: 25 units
Low: 15 units
Mod: 20 units
Above Mod: 20 units
Total HE Capacity: 79 units
Max Density Capacity: 256 units

4. APN 0216-321-07
Site 2-68
Acres: 9.1
Current GP: MDR
O1-15
cont.
3561
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 13 ends

Proposed GP: MU-BC
Current Zoning: SP-AG
Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 25
Max Density: 45
Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
VLI: 40 units
Low: 24 units
Mod: 32 units
Above Mod: 32 units
Total HE Capacity: 128 units
Max Density Capacity: 409 units

5. APN 0216-322-10a
Site 2-129
Acres: 11.8
Current GP: MDR
Proposed GP: MDR
Current Zoning: SP-AG
Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 20
Max Density: 30
Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
VLI: 81 units
Low: 48 units
Mod: 65 units
Above Mod: 65 units
Total HE Capacity: 258 units
Max Density Capacity: 354 units

6. APN 0216-322-10b
Site 2-130
Acres: 11.8
Current GP: MDR
Proposed GP: MU-BC
Current Zoning: SP-AG
O1-15 cont.
3562
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 14 ends

Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 25
Max Density: 45
Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
VLI: 52 units
Low: 31 units
Mod: 41 units
Above Mod: 41 units
Total HE Capacity: 165 units
Max Density Capacity: 531 units

7. APN 0216-321-01
Site 2-64
Acres: 8.8
Current GP: MDR
Proposed GP: MU-BC
Current Zoning: SP-AG
Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 25
Max Density: 45
Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
VLI: 38 units
Low: 22 units
Mod: 31 units
Above Mod: 31 units
Total HE Capacity: 121 units
Max Density Capacity: 396 units

8. APN 0216-321-02
Site 2-65
Acres: 7.5
Current GP: MDR
Proposed GP: MU-BC
Current Zoning: SP-AG
Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 25
O1-15 cont.
3563
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 15 ends

Max Density: 45
Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
VLI: 32 units
Low: 19 units
Mod: 26 units
Above Mod: 26 units
Total HE Capacity: 103 units
Max Density Capacity: 337 units

9. APN 1053-551-01
Site 2-118
Acres: 26.7
Current GP: MDR
Proposed GP: MU-BC
Current Zoning: SP-AG
Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 25
Max Density: 45
Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
VLI: 118 units
Low: 69 units
Mod: 93 units
Above Mod: 93 units
Total HE Capacity: 373 units
Max Density Capacity: 1,201 units

10. APN 1053-541-01
Site 2-117
Acres: 5.5
Current GP: MDR
Proposed GP: MDR
Current Zoning: SP-AG
Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 20
Max Density: 30
Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
O1-15 cont.
3564
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 16 ends

VLI: 38 units
Low: 22 units
Mod: 30 units
Above Mod: 30 units
Total HE Capacity: 121 units
Max Density Capacity: 165 units

11. APN 1053-571-01
Site 2-119
Acres: 9.1
Current GP: MDR
Proposed GP: MDR
Current Zoning: SP-AG
Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 20
Max Density: 30
Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
VLI: 62 units
Low: 37 units
Mod: 50 units
Above Mod: 50 units
Total HE Capacity: 199 units
Max Density Capacity: 273 units

12. APN 1053-571-02
Site 2-120
Acres: 9.1
Current GP: MDR
Proposed GP: MDR
Current Zoning: SP-AG
Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 20
Max Density: 30
Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
VLI: 62 units
Low: 37 units
O1-15 cont.
3565
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 17 ends

Mod: 50 units
Above Mod: 50 units
Total HE Capacity: 200 units
Max Density Capacity: 273 units

13. APN 1053-531-01
Site 2-115
Acres: 3.0
Current GP: MDR
Proposed GP: MDR
Current Zoning: SP-AG
Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 20
Max Density: 30
Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
VLI: 21 units
Low: 12 units
Mod: 17 units
Above Mod: 17 units
Total HE Capacity: 66 units
Max Density Capacity: 90 units

14. APN 1053-531-04
Site 2-116
Acres: 2.9
Current GP: MDR
Proposed GP: MDR
Current Zoning: SP-AG
Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 20
Max Density: 30
Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
VLI: 20 units
Low: 12 units
Mod: 16 units
Above Mod: 16 units
O1-15 cont.
3566
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 18 ends

Total HE Capacity: 63 units
Max Density Capacity: 87 units

15. APN 1053-581-04
Site 2-122
Acres: 9.0
Current GP: MDR
Proposed GP: MDR
Current Zoning: SP-AG
Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 20
Max Density: 30
Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
VLI: 62 units
Low: 36 units
Mod: 50 units
Above Mod: 50 units
Total HE Capacity: 197 units
Max Density Capacity: 270 units

16. APN 1053-581-03
Site 2-121
Acres: 9.1
Current GP: MDR
Proposed GP: MDR
Current Zoning: SP-AG
Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 20
Max Density: 30
Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
VLI: 63 units
Low: 37 units
Mod: 50 units
Above Mod: 50 units
Total HE Capacity: 200 units
Max Density Capacity: 273 units
O1-15 cont.
3567
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 19 ends

Total EBSP Sites Maximum Density: 5,463 units
The EBSP area sites have a maximum density of 5,463 residential units. The Project proposes to change the General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations for these sites, which will reduce their total residential capacity to 0 dwelling units. It is not possible to calculate if the identified replacement sites provide zoning capacity for at least 5,463 units because the EIR does not provide the necessary information to conduct this analysis. It is also not possible to calculate the overall existing zoning capacity of all affected APNs at each income level, nor the proposed overall zoning capacity of all affected APNs at each income level, because the EIR does not provide the necessary information to conduct this analysis.

The EIR does not provide any information to determine the Project’s compliance or noncompliance with statutory requirements of the Housing Crisis Act (HCA) of 2019/Senate Bill (SB) 33021/SB 822. The HCA/SB 330/SB 8 requires replacement housing sites when any land designated for housing development (including land not in the Housing Element sites inventory) experiences land use changes to ensure no net loss of housing capacity. The EIR has not included substantial evidence to support compliance with these laws nor a less-than-significant finding. The EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance and recirculated for public review.

Table 3.11-1 Policy Plan Amendment Consistency with SCAG Connect SoCal includes a general and broad discussion of the Project and excludes analysis with specific policies of the RTP/SCS.

The sweeping generalizations exclude analysis that the project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality (inconsistent with AQMP, local and regional construction emissions, localized construction emissions, and cumulative health risks), Greenhouse Gases (project-related emissions and inconsistency with the City’s Community Climate Action Plan), and Transportation (increase in VMT). The EIR’s findings of significance directly conflict with its generalizations that the Project is consistent with key goals related to mobility and environmental goals and policies related to sustainable development, air quality, clean transportation, and climate resilience. The EIR has not provided any analysis here with the policies of SCAG’s Connect SoCal RTP/SCS, and a revised EIR must be prepared to at minimum include consistency analysis of the following:
21 Housing Crisis Act of 2019/SB 330
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB330 22 SB 8 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB8 O1-15
O1-16
3568
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 20 ends

1. Equitable Engagement and Decision-Making Policy 46. Promote racial equity that is grounded in the recognition of the past and current harms of systemic racism and one that advances restorative justice.

2. Equitable Engagement and Decision-Making Policy 47. Increase equitable, inclusive, and meaningful representation and participation of people of color and disadvantaged communities in planning processes.

3. Sustainable Development Policy 48. Promote sustainable development and best practices that enhance resource conservation, reduce resource consumption, and promote resilience.

4. Sustainable Development Policy 49. Support communities across the region to advance innovative, sustainable development practices.

5. Sustainable Development Policy 50. Recognize and support the diversity of communities across the region by promoting local place-making, planning, and development efforts that advance equity, mobility, resilience, and sustainability.

6. Air Quality Policy 51. Reduce hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality throughout the region through planning and implementation efforts.

7. Air Quality Policy 52. Support investments that reduce hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.

8. Air Quality Policy 53. Reduce the exposure and impacts of emissions and pollutants and promote local and regional efforts that improve air quality for vulnerable populations, including but not limited to Priority Equity Communities and the AB 617 Communities.

9. Climate Resilience Policy 64. Prioritize the most vulnerable populations and communities subject to climate hazards to help the people, places, and infrastructure that are most at risk for climate change impacts. In doing so, recognize that disadvantaged communities are often overburdened.

10. Climate Resilience Policy 65. Support local and regional climate and hazard planning and implementation efforts for transportation, land use, and other factors.

11. Climate Resilience Policy 66. Support nature-based solutions to increase regional resilience of the natural and built environment.

A revised EIR must be prepared to disclose the Project’s inconsistency with these policies and include a finding of significance.

Additionally, the EIR has not analyzed the Policy Plan Amendment in accordance with the existing General Plan policies. The EIR concludes that the Project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality (inconsistent with AQMP, local and regional construction emissions, localized construction emissions, and cumulative health risks), Cultural Resources O1-16
O1-17
3569
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 21 ends

(Historic Resources), Noise (Construction Noise, Traffic Noise, Construction Vibration, Heavy Truck Vibration, and Exterior Airport Noise Exposure), Greenhouse Gases (Project related emissions and inconsistency with the City’s Community Climate Action Plan), Transportation (increase in VMT). The PPA is directly inconsistent with several TOP items listed below, including but not limited to Policy LU-2.4, Policy LU-2.10, Policy LU-5.1, Policy LU-5.2, Policy LU-5.6, Policy H-2.4, Policy H-4.6, Goal ER-4, Policy ER-4.6, Goal CE-3, and Policy CE3-1. The EIR relying upon approval of the PPA itself to determine consistency with TOP circumvents CEQA’s requirements for meaningful disclosure and informational documents. The EIR must be revised to include an analysis of the proposed PPA in accordance with the existing TOP goals and policies in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis.

Further, Table 3.11-3 EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis has not provided consistency analysis with all TOP items, and a revised EIR must be prepared to include a consistency analysis with all goals and policies of the TOP, including but not limited to the following:

1. Goal LU-1. A community that has a spectrum of housing types and price ranges that match the jobs in the City and that make it possible for people to live and work in Ontario and maintain a quality of life.

2. Policy LU-1.7 Revenues and Costs. We require future amendments to our Land Use Plan to be accompanied by analyses of fiscal impacts.

3. Policy LU-2.4 Regulation of Nuisances. We regulate the location, concentration, and operation of potential nuisances.

4. Policy LU-2.10 Sensitive Uses. We monitor and share information with the community about stationary and non-stationary emission sources. We encourage siting and design of facilities to minimize health and safety risks on existing and proposed sensitive uses, especially in environmental justice areas.

5. Policy LU-2.11 Context-Aware Transitions and Connections. We require new development projects and land-planning efforts to provide context-aware and appropriate transitions and connections between existing and planned neighborhoods, blocks, sites, and buildings.

6. Goal LU-5. Integrated airport systems and facilities that minimize negative impacts on the community and maximize economic benefits.

7. Policy LU-5.1 Coordination with Airport Authorities. We collaborate with the FAA, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, airport owners, neighboring jurisdictions, and other stakeholders in the preparation, update, and maintenance of airport-related plans.

O1-17
cont.

O1-18
3570
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 22 ends

8. Policy LU-5.2 Airport Planning Consistency. We coordinate with airport authorities to ensure The Ontario Plan is consistent with state law, federal regulations, and/or adopted master plans, and airport land use compatibility plans for ONT and Chino Airport.

9. Policy LU-5.6 Alternative Process. We fulfill our responsibilities and comply with state law with regard to the Alternative Process for proper airport land use compatibility planning.

10. Policy H-2.4 Ontario Ranch. We support a premier lifestyle community in the Ontario Ranch, distinguished by diverse housing, the highest design quality, and cohesive and highly amenitized neighborhoods.

11. Policy H-4.6 Fair Housing. We further fair housing by prohibiting discrimination in the housing market, lifting barriers that restrict access to housing, and providing education, support, and enforcement services to address discriminatory practices.

12. Policy PR-1.5 Acreage Standard. We strive to provide 5 acres of parkland (public and private) per 1,000 residents.

13. Policy PR-1.6 Private Parks. We expect development to provide a minimum of 2 acres of developed private park space per 1,000 residents.

14. Goal ER-1. A reliable and cost-effective system that permits the City to manage its diverse water resources and needs.

15. 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.

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

17. Goal ER-4. Improved indoor and outdoor air quality and reduced locally generated pollutant emissions.

18. Policy ER-4.6 Particulate Matter. We support efforts to reduce particulate matter to meet State and Federal Clean Air Standards.

19. Policy ER-4.9. New Localized Air Pollution Sources Near Existing Sensitive Receptors.

We require new developments to conduct a Health Risk Assessment for land uses that generate more than 100 trucks per day or 40 trucks per day by trucks operating transportation refrigeration units (TRUs) within 1,000 feet of sensitive land uses (California Health and Safety Code § 42705.5(a)(5)). If the health risk assessment determines the new development poses health hazards that increase the incremental cancer risk above the threshold established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD), we will only approve permits upon the condition that adequate mitigation measures are proposed and implemented for potential impacts on the sensitive uses around O1-18 cont.
3571
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 23 ends

the site and along the route within Ontario taken by the trucks to and from freeways. We require new developments that must perform a health risk assessment to conduct additional public outreach by sending notifications in multiple languages to all residents living within 500 feet, and encourage hosting a public meeting.

20. Goal CE-3. Decision-making deliberations that incorporate the full short-term and longterm economic and fiscal implications of proposed City Council actions.

21. Policy CE3-1 Fiscal Impact Disclosure. We require requests for City Council action to disclose the full fiscal impacts, including direct and indirect costs.

22. Policy CE-3.2 General Plan Amendments. We require those proposing General Plan amendments to disclose reasonably foreseeable impacts through a fiscal analysis.

23. Policy CE-3.3 Long-Term Funding Disclosure. We require those requesting City support or funding for projects or programs to disclose if and how they can be continued without further City support.

24. Policy SR-2.7 Community Engagement. We promote targeted outreach and education to historically underrepresented groups to encourage meaningful participation in the decisionmaking process for projects whose outcomes will affect land use in environmental justice areas.

25. Policy M-3.2 Alternative Transit Facilities at New Development. We require new development adjacent to an existing or planned transit stop to contribute to the creation of transit facilities, such as bus shelters, transit bays and turnouts, and bicycle facilities, such as secure storage areas.

It is vital for the EIR to provide an analysis of the project in accordance with these General Plan items, particularly as there are requirements for fiscal impact disclosure and fiscal analysis applicable to the proposed Project that are not provided for analysis. Additionally, as discussed fully in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section, the Project has not met the statutory requirements for airport compatibility planning via the Alternative Process for the Chino Airport.

The EIR is inadequate as an informational document and does not meet CEQA’s requirements for meaningful disclosure due to the lack of analysis with these requirements. The Project ultimately does not comply with these requirements, and the EIR must be revised to include a statement regarding the inconsistency and include a finding of significance.

Table 3.11-3 EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis includes misleading and erroneous consistency analysis for several items, and the EIR must be revised to remove these statements and provide accurate information. For example, the EIR concludes the project is consistent with “Policy ER-4.1. Land Use. We reduce GHG and other local pollutant emissions through O1-18
cont.

O1-19
3572
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 24 ends

compact, mixed use, and transit-oriented development and development that improves the regional jobs-housing balance,” because, “The EBPSP would provide employment land uses in close proximity to major transportation corridors (Interstate 10, Interstate 15, State Route 60, State Route 83, State Route 71, and State Route 91) and near bus rapid transit (BRT) corridors along Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road and Euclid Avenue. Therefore, the Specific Plan area provides local employment opportunities for residents and serves to improve the regional jobshousing balance.

Additionally, the Specific Plan area provides an integrated system of sidewalks, bikeways, and multipurpose trails on internal and perimeter roadways to encourage non-vehicular modes of transportation.” The analysis here excludes the possibility that the proposed Project will result in significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable GHG emissions and impacts. The EIR has not provided substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the Project does not conflict with this policy, and the EIR’s own findings conclude that the Project will have significant and unavoidable impacts. A revised EIR must be prepared to include an accurate analysis that discloses and employs the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts for analysis and includes a finding of significance due to direct inconsistencies with this policy.

Similarly, the EIR concludes the project is consistent with, “Policy ER-4.3: Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Emissions Reductions. We will reduce GHG emissions in accordance with regional, state, and federal regulations,” because, “As discussed in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Specific Plan would be consistent with applicable regional, State, and federal regulations related to the reduction of GHG emissions and would not obstruct implementation of any GHG reduction plans/programs.” The analysis here excludes the possibility that the proposed Project will result in significant and unavoidable cumulative GHG emissions and impacts, including inconsistency with the City’s Community Climate Action Plan and emissions that will impede regional, state, and federal GHG reduction targets. A revised EIR must be prepared to include an accurate analysis that discloses and employs the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts for analysis and includes a finding of significance due to direct inconsistencies with this policy.

The EIR also concludes that the Project is consistent with “Policy M1-6: Reduced Vehicle Miles Traveled. We will strive to reduce VMT through a combination of land use, transportation projects, travel demand management strategies, and other trip reduction measures in coordination with development projects and public capital improvement projects,” because, “Uses internal to the Specific Plan would be connected through internal circulation systems, including sidewalks, O1-19 cont.

O1-20
O1-21
O1-22
3573
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 25 ends

bike lanes, and multi-purpose trails, reducing vehicle miles traveled.” The analysis here excludes the possibility that the proposed Project will increase VMT and result in significant and unavoidable cumulative considerable VMT impacts. A revised EIR must be prepared to include an accurate analysis that discloses and employs the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts for analysis and includes a finding of significance due to direct inconsistencies with this policy.

The EIR concludes the Project is consistent with “Policy M1-5: Level of Service. Maintain a peak hour Level of Service (LOS) E or better at all intersections. Maintain Level of Service D or better on arterial streets in the City. Develop and maintain a list of locations where LOS E or LOS F is considered acceptable and would be exempt from this level of service policy.

Considerations for LOS exemption include being restricted by environmental constraints, lacking available right-of-way, deterring an increase in VMT, or degrading other modes of travel (such as bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure),” because, “The Traffic Analysis identifies improvements and fair share contributions to be assessed of the EBPSP to maintain acceptable LOS at affected intersections.” However, as stated in the Transportation analysis below, none of these improvements and fair share contributions are included as Mitigation Measures in the EIR nor discussed as required improvements. Without implementation of these requirements, the impacts remain significant and unavoidable, and a finding of significance must be included in a revised EIR.

3.14 Population and Housing
The EIR has excluded the revised Draft Housing Element as an appendix to 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 revised Draft Housing Element contributes 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 revised Draft Housing Element as an appendix to the EIR for review, analysis, and comment by the public and decision makers.

The Project faces significant inconsistency with the State Housing Element Law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6586323, a jurisdiction shall ensure that its housing element sites inventory “can accommodate, at all times throughout the planning period, its remaining unmet share of the regional housing need allocated pursuant to Section 65584” and “at no time…shall a 23 Government Code Section 65863
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=65863 O1-22
cont.

O1-23
O1-24
O1-25
3574
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 26 ends

city, county, or city and county by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action permit or cause its inventory of sites identified in the housing element to be insufficient to meet its remaining unmet share of the regional housing need.” Further, this Section states the following:
“No city, county, or city and county shall, by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action, reduce, or require or permit the reduction of, the residential density for any parcel to, or allow development of any parcel at, a lower residential density, as defined in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (g), unless the city, county, or city and county makes written findings supported by substantial evidence of both of the following:
(A)The reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element.
(B) The remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. The finding shall include a quantification of the remaining unmet need for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need at each income level and the remaining capacity of sites identified in the housing element to accommodate that need by income level.” Table B-2: Housing Element Sites Inventory within the City’s HCD Certified Housing Element24 identifies 16 parcels from the EBSP portion of the Project site as part of its identified sites inventory to accommodate its RHNA allocation.

1. APN 0216-322-01
Site 2-70
Acres: 9.1
Current GP: MDR
Proposed GP: MU-BC
Current Zoning: SP-AG
Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 25
Max Density: 45
24 https://hcdpowerbi.blob.core.windows.net/housing-elements/ontario-6th-adopted031122.pdf O1-25
cont.
3575
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 27 ends

Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
VLI: 40 units
Low: 24 units
Mod: 32 units
Above Mod: 32 units
Total HE Capacity: 127 units
Max Density Capacity: 409 units

2. APN 0216-322-02
Site 2-71
Acres: 3.1
Current GP: MDR
Proposed GP: MU-BC
Current Zoning: SP-AG
Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 25
Max Density: 45
Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
VLI: 13 units
Low: 8 units
Mod: 11 units
Above Mod: 11 units
Total HE Capacity: 42 units
Max Density Capacity: 139 units

Page 28 ends

Low: 15 units
Mod: 20 units
Above Mod: 20 units
Total HE Capacity: 79 units
Max Density Capacity: 256 units

4. APN 0216-321-07
Site 2-68
Acres: 9.1
Current GP: MDR
Proposed GP: MU-BC
Current Zoning: SP-AG
Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 25
Max Density: 45
Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
VLI: 40 units
Low: 24 units
Mod: 32 units
Above Mod: 32 units
Total HE Capacity: 128 units
Max Density Capacity: 409 units

Page 29 ends

Above Mod: 65 units
Total HE Capacity: 258 units
Max Density Capacity: 354 units

6. APN 0216-322-10b
Site 2-130
Acres: 11.8
Current GP: MDR
Proposed GP: MU-BC
Current Zoning: SP-AG
Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 25
Max Density: 45
Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
VLI: 52 units
Low: 31 units
Mod: 41 units
Above Mod: 41 units
Total HE Capacity: 165 units
Max Density Capacity: 531 units

Page 30 ends

8. APN 0216-321-02
Site 2-65
Acres: 7.5
Current GP: MDR
Proposed GP: MU-BC
Current Zoning: SP-AG
Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 25
Max Density: 45
Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
VLI: 32 units
Low: 19 units
Mod: 26 units
Above Mod: 26 units
Total HE Capacity: 103 units
Max Density Capacity: 337 units

10. APN 1053-541-01
Site 2-117
O1-25 cont.
3579
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 31 ends

Acres: 5.5
Current GP: MDR
Proposed GP: MDR
Current Zoning: SP-AG
Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 20
Max Density: 30
Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
VLI: 38 units
Low: 22 units
Mod: 30 units
Above Mod: 30 units
Total HE Capacity: 121 units
Max Density Capacity: 165 units

12. APN 1053-571-02
Site 2-120
Acres: 9.1
Current GP: MDR
O1-25 cont.
3580
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 32 ends

Proposed GP: MDR
Current Zoning: SP-AG
Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 20
Max Density: 30
Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
VLI: 62 units
Low: 37 units
Mod: 50 units
Above Mod: 50 units
Total HE Capacity: 200 units
Max Density Capacity: 273 units

14. APN 1053-531-04
Site 2-116
Acres: 2.9
Current GP: MDR
Proposed GP: MDR
Current Zoning: SP-AG
O1-25 cont.
3581
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 33 ends

Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 20
Max Density: 30
Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
VLI: 20 units
Low: 12 units
Mod: 16 units
Above Mod: 16 units
Total HE Capacity: 63 units
Max Density Capacity: 87 units

16. APN 1053-581-03
Site 2-121
Acres: 9.1
Current GP: MDR
Proposed GP: MDR
Current Zoning: SP-AG
Proposed Zoning: SP-AG-AH
Min Density: 20
O1-25 cont.
3582
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 34 ends

Max Density: 30
Opportunity Area: Great Park Corridor
VLI: 63 units
Low: 37 units
Mod: 50 units
Above Mod: 50 units
Total HE Capacity: 200 units
Max Density Capacity: 273 units
Total EBSP Sites Maximum Density: 5,463 units
The EBSP area sites have a maximum density of 5,463 residential units. The Project proposes to change the General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations for these sites, which will reduce their total residential capacity to 0 dwelling units. The EIR has not provided substantial evidence to demonstrate that the remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to meet the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Government Code Section 65584 through the end of the 2021-2029 planning period. As an example, Table B-2: Housing Element Sites Inventory within the Housing Element was not updated to reflect or disclose the proposed changes associated with the overall Project. This means that the EIR’s calculations to accommodate the City’s RHNA are not supported by substantial evidence, such as the list of parcels in the inventory, parcel size, existing/proposed land use and zoning designations, and quantity of units per income level, which are not specified. The EIR has not demonstrated that the City’s Housing Element can accommodate at all times throughout the planning period its remaining unmet share of the regional housing need. The EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance because it has not demonstrated that the City can continue to accommodate its RHNA following the potential approval of the proposed Project.

Government Code Section 65585(b)(1) requires that prior to submitting the revised draft Housing Element to HCD, the City must provide seven days' notice prior to submitting to HCD, post the draft revised document on its website, and send an email notification to interested parties. The City has not posted the draft revised Housing Element on its website in compliance with Government Code Section 65585(b)(1). The document is not posted as part of the Project webpage25 and this page does not include any information regarding submittal to HCD. The 25 https://www.myinput.com/OntarioPPA
O1-25 cont.

O1-26
3583
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 35 ends

document is buried at the bottom of the CEQA documents for the overall Project, which is unusual and misleading since the draft revised Housing Element is not listed in the EIR as an attachment or appendix for public review and was not forwarded to the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (formerly OPR) CEQAnet clearinghouse as part of the CEQA record. The EIR does not provide substantial evidence to demonstrate that the lead agency has complied with these requirements. A finding of significance must be included in a revised EIR, and the lead agency must take action to comply.

The EIR has not addressed the Second District Court of Appeal’s October 10, 2025, decision in the New Commune DTLA LLC et al. v. City Redondo Beach et al.(2025) Cal.App.5th, 2025 WL 288632226. The Court held that, “An overlay cannot be used to satisfy the minimum density and residential use requirements set out in section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2) (hereafter section 65583.2(h)(2)), where the base zoning expressly permits development that does not include housing.” The proposed Mixed-Use designations for the affected APNs in the revised Housing Element sites inventory permit the development of a variety of non-residential land uses, including but not limited to office, commercial, hospitality, and retail. The underlying land use and zoning designations permit development that does not include housing on the identified sites.

This fails to satisfy the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2. Additionally, the Mixed-Use designation violates the requirement of section 65583.2(h)(2) that at least 50 percent of lower-income housing sites be “designated for residential use and for which nonresidential uses or mixed uses are not permitted” because it does not satisfy the mixed-use exception.

Further, as a result of the Redondo Beach case, any other zoning overlay in the Housing Element that is utilized to accommodate the City’s RHNA does not meet statutory requirements. All zoning overlays applied to sites where the base zoning expressly permits development that does not include housing must be removed and replaced with residential zoning designations to accommodate the RHNA.

The Project website indicates that “Discovery” was conducted from August to October 2025, and Environmental Review was conducted from November 2025 to February 2026. The case decision was issued during the Discovery phase and was available throughout the entirety of the Environmental Review phase. The EIR is inadequate as an informational document and must be revised to include this information for analysis and include a finding of significance due to the Project’s noncompliance with the Housing Element law.
26 https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B336042.PDF O1-26
cont.

O1-27
3584
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 36 ends

Further, since Table B-2: Housing Element Sites Inventory within the Housing Element was not updated to reflect or disclose the proposed changes associated with the overall Project, it is not possible to determine if the revised site inventory meets all statutory requirements because parcel-level data is excluded. Government Code Section 65583(a)(3) requires that the Housing Element contain an, “inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level . . .” Government Code Section 65583.2 contains additional specific requirements for the sites inventory. Neither the EIR nor the draft revised Housing Element as posted on the Project EIR webpage of the City’s website contains the statutorily required information. The EIR must be revised to include this information for analysis and provide a finding of significance due to these inconsistencies with state law.

It must be noted that the only information the public can ascertain regarding the site's inventory is found in Figure 2-7 Policy Plan Amendment Affordability Sites Inventory Changes. This figure demonstrates that the only identified RHNA sites within the highest resource area of the City are located within the EBSP area. These sites are proposed to be removed from the inventory as part of project implementation, meaning that no RHNA sites will be located within a Highest Resource Area of the City. Figure 2-7 depicts that new sites are added on the south side of Holt Boulevard, west of Grove Avenue near the Ontario Airport. The TCAC Opportunity Map27 identifies these sites as within a Low Resource Area (Census Tract06071001600). HUD also identifies these sites as within a Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty (R/ECAP – Tract 001600)28. These actions directly conflict with the City’s statutory requirements to affirmatively further fair housing (Government Code Article 10.6).

As a result of the proposed changes to the site's inventory, the following figures must be revised and included as part of the draft revised Housing Element:

1. Figure 3-14 Sites Inventory and Median Income

2. Figure 3-15 Sites Inventory and R/ECAPs

3. Figure 3-16 Sites Inventory and Familial Status

4. Figure 3-17 Sites Inventory and Population with Disability

5. Figure 3-18 Sites Inventory and Proximity to Jobs
27 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/2026-ctcachcd-affh-mapping-tool 28 https://hudgis-hud.opendata.arcgis.com/maps/HUD::racially-or-ethnically-concentrated-areas-of-poverty-recaps/about O1-28
O1-29
3585
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 37 ends

6. Figure 3-19 Sites Inventory and CalEnviroScreen

7. Figure 3-20 Sites Inventory and Overcrowding

8. Figure 3-21 Sites Inventory and Overpayment (Owner-Occupied Housing)

9. Figure 3-22 Sites Inventory and Overpayment (Renter-Occupied Housing) The EIR relies upon the regional SCAG jobs-housing balance to conclude that the Project will have less than significant impacts. This does not address the impacts of the Project on the City.

Notably, Table 3.14-7: Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 and Proposed Project to SCAG Forecasts incorrectly calculated the SCAG projected jobs-housing ratio for 2050. Table 3.14-7 depicts SCAG projecting a 2.2 jobs-housing ratio, which is the same as the proposed Project.

However, the calculation of 187,700 jobs divided by 95,500 housing units yields a 1.9 jobshousing ratio. The EIR must be revised to correct the calculation and accurately state that the proposed Project increases the severity of the imbalanced jobs-housing ratio in the City. As stated and sourced by the EIR, the American Planning Association recommends a target of 1.5 jobs per housing unit and recommends a range of 1.3 to 1.7 jobs per housing unit. SCAG considers an area balanced when the jobs-housing balance is 1.36; communities with more than

1.36 jobs per dwelling unit are considered jobs-rich, while those with fewer than 1.36 are housing-rich29. The approval of the proposed Project will exacerbate the City’s imbalance of jobs and housing by adding more jobs without providing the residential capacity to help achieve a jobs-housing balance in accordance with SCAG’s threshold. The EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance due to this.

SCAG’s Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast30 notes that the City will add 42,100 jobs from 2019 – 2035 and 23,600 jobs from 2035 – 2050, with an overall total of 187,700 jobs in the City in 2050. Table 3.14-7 Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 and Proposed Project to SCAG Forecasts depicts that the existing approved TOP would accommodate a total of 299,204 jobs in 2050, and the proposed Project would accommodate a total of 301,035 jobs in 2050. The total jobs accommodated by the proposed Project are more than 1.5 times the SCAG projection. The proposed Project is inconsistent with regional forecasts and would generate substantial unplanned population growth in the area. A revised EIR must be prepared with a finding of significance.
29 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/old/file-attachments/neweconomyjobshousingbalance.pdf 30 SCAG Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast adopted April 2024 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/23-2987-tr-demographics-growth-forecast-final-040424.pdf O1--29
cont.

O1-30
3586
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 38 ends

The EIR states that “Operations of the EBPSP land uses have the potential to generate up to 1,590 employees,” but there is no methodology or source provided to disclose how this number of employees was generated. 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 methodology for EBPSP employment generation contributes directly to the analysis of the problem at hand by providing the methodology for calculating the jobs generated by the Project. A revised EIR must be prepared to include the methodology for EBPSP employment generation for review, analysis, and comment by the public and decision makers.

Utilizing the EIR’s calculation of 1,590 employees in the interim, the Project represents 3.7% of the City’s employment growth from 2019 to 2035. A single project accounting for this amount of the projected growth over 16 years (SCAG) represents a significant amount of growth. The EIR must be revised to include this information for analysis and include a finding of significance due to this significant and unavoidable cumulative considerable impact.

The EIR does not provide any cumulative analysis discussion of projects approved since 2016 and projects “in the pipeline” to determine if the Project will exceed the employment/population growth forecasts by SCAG and/or the General Plan. For example, other recent industrial projects such as PDEV21-00331 (23,100 square foot industrial building), PDEV21-00732 (808,639 sf of industrial buildings), PDEV21-01033 (1,438,926 sf industrial building), PDEV21-01634 (38,445 sf industrial building), PDEV21-01835 (168,772 sf of industrial buildings), PDEV21-02036 (50,121 sf industrial building), PDEV21-02437 (198,496 sf industrial building), PDEV21-02638 31 Ontario Monthly Application Activity February 2021 https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Monthly-Activity-Reports/2021/02-2021%20Monthly%20Activity%20Report%20- %20New%20Apps.pdf 32 Ibid.
33 Ontario Monthly Application Activity March 2021 https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Monthly-Activity-Reports/2021/03-2021%20Monthly%20Activity%20Report%20- %20New%20Apps.pdf 34 Ontario Monthly Application Activity April 2021 https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/04-2021%20Monthly%20Activity%20Report%20-%20New%20Apps.pdf 35 Ontario Monthly Application Activity May 2021 https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/05-2021%20Monthly%20Activity%20Report%20-%20New%20Apps.pdf 36 Ontario Monthly Application Activity June 2021 https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/06-2021%20Monthly%20Activity%20Report%20-%20New%20Apps.pdf 37 Ontario Monthly Application Activity July 2021 https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/07-2021%20Monthly%20Activity%20Report%20-%20New%20Apps.pdf 38 Ibid.

O1-31
O1-32
3587
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 39 ends

(45,000 sf industrial building), PDEV21-02839 (32,425 sf industrial building), PDEV21-02940 (15,132 sf industrial building), PDEV21-03041 (175,047 sf industrial building), PDEV21-03142 (38,155 sf industrial building), PDEV21-03443 (32,000 sf industrial building), PDEV21-03544 (60,455 sf industrial building), PDEV21-04045 (1,255,320 sf industrial building), PDEV21-04746 (4,281,128 sf industrial building), PDEV21-03747 (167,600 sf industrial building), PDEV22-010 & PMTT22-008: East State Street Warehouse Project48 (336,761 square foot warehouse), South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan49 (5,333,518 sf industrial space), 5355 East Airport Drive50 (270,337 sf industrial building), and Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan (1,386,777 s.f. industrial space) combined with the EBPSP aspect of the proposed Project will cumulatively generate 19,500,154 sf of industrial space. This is approximately 16,318 employees (utilizing SCAG employment generation factors for warehouses51), which is 38.7% of the City’s employment growth forecast over 16 years, accounted for only by a limited quantity of industrial projects. When combined with the PPA total increase in nonresidential building area of 4,334,416 s.f., the proposed Project will cumulatively generate 20,895,570 s.f. of industrial space. This is approximately 17,485 employees, which is 41.5% of the City’s employment growth forecast over 16 years, accounted for only by a limited quantity of industrial projects.

These totals increase exponentially when other industrial and commercial development activities are added to the calculation. A revised EIR must be prepared to include this information for analysis, and also provide a cumulative analysis discussion of projects approved since 2019 and projects “in the pipeline” to determine the City’s progress towards SCAG and TOP employment/population growth forecasts and buildout scenarios. 39 Ibid.
40 Ontario Monthly Application Activity August 2021 https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/08-2021%20Monthly%20Activity%20Report%20-%20New%20Apps.pdf 41 Ontario Monthly Application Activity September 2021 https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/09-2021%20Monthly%20Activity%20Report%20-%20New%20Apps.pdf 42 Ibid.
43 Ibid.
44 Ontario Monthly Application Activity October 2021 https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/10-2021%20Monthly%20Activity%20Report%20-%20New%20Apps.pdf 45 Ontario Monthly Application Activity November 2021 https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/11-2021%20Monthly%20Activity%20Report%20-%20New%20Apps.pdf 46 Ontario Monthly Application Activity December 2021 https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/12-2021%20Monthly%20Activity%20Report%20-%20New%20Apps.pdf 47 PDEV21-037 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022110019 48 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022120581 49 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/Project/2021010318 50 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022090006/2 51 https://www.mwcog.org/file.aspx?A=QTTlTR24POOOUIw5mPNzK8F4d8djdJe4LF9Exj6lXOU%3D O1-32
3588
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 40 ends

3.17 Transportation
The EIR includes a general and broad discussion of the Project and excludes analysis with specific policies of the RTP/SCS. The sweeping generalizations exclude analysis that the Project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality (inconsistent with AQMP, local and regional construction emissions, localized construction emissions, and cumulative health risks), Greenhouse Gases (Project-related emissions and inconsistency with the City’s Community Climate Action Plan), and Transportation (increase in VMT). The EIR’s findings of significance directly conflict with its generalizations that the Project is consistent with key goals related to mobility and environmental goals and policies related to sustainable development, air quality, clean transportation, and climate resilience. The EIR has not provided any analysis here with the policies of SCAG’s Connect SoCal RTP/SCS, and a revised EIR must be prepared to at minimum include consistency analysis of the following:

3. Sustainable Development Policy 48. Promote sustainable development and best practices that enhance resource conservation, reduce resource consumption, and promote resilience.

4. Sustainable Development Policy 49. Support communities across the region to advance innovative, sustainable development practices.

6. Air Quality Policy 51. Reduce hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality throughout the region through planning and implementation efforts.

7. Air Quality Policy 52. Support investments that reduce hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.

Page 41 ends

for climate change impacts. In doing so, recognize that disadvantaged communities are often overburdened.

10. Climate Resilience Policy 65. Support local and regional climate and hazard planning and implementation efforts for transportation, land use, and other factors.

11. Climate Resilience Policy 66. Support nature-based solutions to increase regional resilience of the natural and built environment.

A revised EIR must be prepared to disclose the Project’s inconsistency with these policies and include a finding of significance.

Appendix K3 includes several requirements necessary to implement the Project, including lists of requirements in Table 1-5: Existing and E+P Improvements Required to Maintain General Plan Consistency, Table 1-6: Improvements Required to Maintain General Plan Consistency, and a list of 55 on-site circulation improvements necessary for the EBPSP, “based on the minimum improvements needed to accommodate site access and maintain acceptable peak hour operations for the proposed EBPSP.” It must be noted that several of the requirements in Tables 1-5 and 1- 6 are outside the jurisdiction of the lead agency and under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, City of Chino, or City of Eastvale. There is no reasonable assurance or substantial evidence that implementation of these requirements will be achieved in order to maintain General Plan consistency; a finding of significance must be included in a revised EIR due to inconsistency with the General Plan.

The EIR does not acknowledge these extensive lists of requirements. As stated in Appendix K3, these requirements are necessary for General Plan Consistency and to ensure adequate site access and operational safety of the EBPSP. The EIR also has not included these requirements as Mitigation Measures. The EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance, as there is no substantial evidence to support a less-than-significant finding.

The EIR has not adequately analyzed the Project’s potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, or the Project’s potential to result in inadequate emergency access. The EIR has not provided any exhibits depicting the available truck/trailer turning radius at the intersection of the Project driveways and adjacent streets to determine if there is enough space available to accommodate heavy truck maneuvering. Further, there are no exhibits providing on-site analysis regarding available space on the property to accommodate heavy truck maneuvering. Several O1-33
cont.
01-34
3590
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 42 ends

areas for potential conflicts exist. For example, passenger vehicle parking stalls are located within the truck/trailer loading courts of Buildings 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 17.

Similarly, truck/trailer parking stalls are located within the gated truck/trailer loading dock court of Buildings 1, 2, 8, 9, and 14. These parking stalls may be in use at any time and further restrict truck/trailer movement on the site and present a safety hazard with potential for conflicts between passenger cars and trucks/trailers. Additionally, this will increase truck idling time as trucks waiting for passenger cars require additional time to maneuver, which will also result in increased queuing duration and associated increased queuing area for trucks/trailers. These issues and overall truck/trailer access at the site have not been analyzed. The EIR states it provides a Project-level environmental analysis for the EBPSP, and excluding this information does not provide an adequate Project-level review. The EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance, as it has not provided any substantial evidence to support a less-than-significant finding.

The EIR states that, “Efficient and safe access within, and access to, the EBPSP land uses would be provided by the design concept, site access improvements, and site adjacent roadway improvements included as components of the Specific Plan.” However, the EBPSP document is not included as an attachment for public review, and the alleged components of the EBPSP are not presented here for analysis. The EIR has not included substantial evidence to support this claim, and the EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance.

The EIR also states that, “Driveways, on-site traffic signing and striping would be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the site. Sight distance at each access point would be reviewed to ensure conformance with City sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans. The City of Ontario has adopted engineering standards to ensure consistency in the geometric design of its mobility facilities. All plans undergo an extensive review process at the City to ensure consistency with these adopted standards. Given that all future projects will be subject to these reviews, the EBPSP would be consistent with the City design standards.” This does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA Guidelines Section 15121 and PRC Section 21003(b)). Deferring this environmental analysis required by CEQA to the construction permitting phase is improper mitigation and does not comply with CEQA’s requirement for meaningful disclosure and adequate informational documents. The EIR states that it is a project EIR document for CEQA compliance yet it has not provided Project-specific information, which renders it inadequate as an informational document.

O1-34
cont.

O1-35
3591
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 43 ends

A revised EIR must be prepared to include a finding of significance, as the EIR has not provided any substantial evidence to support a less-than-significant finding.

There are also no exhibits depicting emergency vehicle access and maneuvering. The EIR states that, “The EBPSP does not propose elements or aspects that would obstruct or restrict emergency access to or through the area.” However, the EBPSP document is not included as an attachment for public review, and the alleged components of the EBPSP are not presented here for analysis.

The EIR has not included substantial evidence to support this claim, and the EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance.

The EIR also states regarding emergency access that, “…representatives of the Ontario Fire Department and Ontario Police Department would review all development plans to ensure that emergency access is provided consistent with applicable requirements.” However, the EIR has not listed the fire code and/or Police/Fire Department requirements or provided their review of the Project. Deferring this environmental analysis required by CEQA to the construction permitting phase is improper mitigation and does not comply with CEQA’s requirement for meaningful disclosure and adequate informational documents (CEQA Guidelines Section 15121 and PRC Section 21003(b)). A revised EIR must be prepared to include a finding of significance, as the EIR has not provided any substantial evidence to support a less-thansignificant finding.

4.0 Alternatives
The EIR is required to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project, which will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project (CEQA § 15126.6).

The alternatives chosen for analysis include the CEQA-required “No Project/Current TOP 2050” alternative and only two others – Truck Route Scenario 3 Alternative and Reduced Intensity Alternative. The EIR does not evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives, as only two alternatives beyond the required No Project alternative are analyzed. The EIR must be revised to include analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives and foster informed decision making (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). This could include alternatives such as development of the site with a Project that reduces all the proposed Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to less than significant levels, or a mixed-use Project that provides affordable housing and localserving commercial uses, which may reduce VMT, GHG emissions, and improve Air Quality.

O1-35
cont.

O1-36
O1-37
O1-38
3592
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 44 ends

5.3 Significant Irreversible Changes
The EIR does not discuss its own conclusion that implementation of the proposed Project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality (inconsistent with AQMP, local and regional construction emissions, localized construction emissions, and cumulative health risks), Cultural Resources (Historic Resources), Noise (Construction Noise, Traffic Noise, Construction Vibration, Heavy Truck Vibration, and Exterior Airport Noise Exposure), Greenhouse Gases (Project related emissions and inconsistency with the City’s Community Climate Action Plan), Transportation (increase in VMT). The EIR does not adequately discuss or and analyze the commitment of resources is not consistent with regional and local growth forecasts and does not address the EIR’s own conclusion that the Project will result in impacts (Air Quality, GHG) that exceed with the forecasts of the applicable plans (AQMP, 2030/2050 GHG reduction goals, City’s Climate Action Plan). The EIR must be revised to include these findings for analysis in its discussion.

5.4 Growth-Inducing Effects
A revised EIR must be prepared to include an accurate cumulative analysis discussion here to demonstrate the impact of the proposed Project in a cumulative setting. The EIR does not include any information regarding the buildout conditions of the existing TOP in order to provide an adequate and accurate cumulative analysis. The revised EIR must provide the horizon year of the existing TOP, the total developable building floor area analyzed within the Project site’s land use designations, and cumulative development since adoption of the existing TOP. This is particularly vital as growth generated by the proposed Project is in conflict with the AQMP and state/regional/local GHG reduction plans and targets.

The EIR has not provided an adequate or accurate cumulative analysis discussion here to demonstrate the impact of the proposed Project in a cumulative setting. For example, recent industrial projects combined with the EBPSP aspect of the proposed Project will cumulatively generate 19,500,154 sf of industrial space. This is approximately 16,318 employees (utilizing SCAG employment generation factors for warehouses52), which is 38.7% of the City’s employment growth forecast over 16 years, accounted for only by a limited quantity of industrial projects. When combined with the PPA total increase in nonresidential building area of 4,334,416 s.f., the proposed Project will cumulatively generate 20,895,570 s.f. of industrial space. This is approximately 17,485 employees, which is 41.5% of the City’s employment growth forecast over 16 years, accounted for only by a limited quantity of industrial projects. 52 https://www.mwcog.org/file.aspx?A=QTTlTR24POOOUIw5mPNzK8F4d8djdJe4LF9Exj6lXOU%3D O1-39
O1-40
3593
Thomas Grahn
April 16, 2026

Page 45 ends

Impact on Biological Resources
Please see the attached comments and analysis from Dr. Smallwood.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, GSEJA believes the EIR is flawed, and a revised EIR must be prepared for the proposed Project and circulated for public review. Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance 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.

Sincerely,
Vashon Simien
Blum, Collins & Ho, LLP
Attachments:

1. SWAPE Technical Analysis

2. Shawn Smallwood, PhD Analysis Report
O1-40
cont.

O1-41
O1-42
3594
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
April 14, 2026
Gary Ho
Blum, Collins & Ho LLP
9255 W. Sunset Boulevard, Ste. 810
Los Angeles, CA 90069
Subject: Comments on the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment (SCH No. 2025110102) Dear Mr. Ho,
We have reviewed the March 2026 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“DSEIR”) for the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment (“Project”) located in the City of Ontario (“City”). The DSEIR assesses the environmental effects associated with the implementation of the proposed Policy Plan Amendment to The Ontario Plan (“TOP”) as well as the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (“EBPSP” or “Specific Plan”).

Our review concludes that the DSEIR fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project may be underestimated and inadequately addressed. A revised Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the environment.

Air Quality
Failure to Evaluate Combined Construction and Operational Emissions The DSEIR’s air quality analysis is inadequate because it fails to evaluate criteria air pollutant emissions associated with simultaneous construction and operational activities. The DSEIR proposes construction of the EBPSP in three overall phases, with each phase becoming operational upon completion (p. 2-75, Table 2-9). As a result, construction of Phases 2 and 3 would occur concurrently with the previously completed portions of the Specific Plan. Under these circumstances, the appropriate methodology is to evaluate combined construction and operational emissions during overlapping phases, consistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (“SCAQMD”) recommended approach for phased O1-43
O1-44
Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the Environment
3595
2 projects.1 The DSEIR’s failure to calculate construction and operational emissions together results in a vast underestimation of peak daily emissions and, consequently, the Project’s air quality impacts.

In order to analyze the EBPSP’s actual peak emissions scenario, we summed the DSEIR’s construction and operational criteria air pollutant emissions estimates for the overlapping phases (p. 3.3-56, Table

3.3-12, Table 3.3-13; p. 3.3-64 – 3.3-65, Table 3.3-15, Table 3.3-16). Our analysis demonstrates that the combined reactive organic gas (“ROG”) and nitrogen oxide (“NOX”) emissions, as calculated by the DSEIR’s air modeling, exceed the applicable SCAQMD construction and operational daily thresholds (see table below).

DSEIR Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Estimates
Emission Source ROG (lbs/day) NOX (lbs/day)
Phase 2 Construction Emissions1 51 48
Phase 1 Operational Emissions 55 84
Combined Emissions 106 132
SCAQMD Construction/Operational Threshold 55/75 55/100
Exceeds? Yes Yes
Phase 3 Construction Emissions1 61 47
Phase 1 and 2 Operational Emissions 89 169
Combined Emissions 150 216
SCAQMD Construction/Operational Threshold 55/75 55/100
Exceeds? Yes Yes
1 Presented emissions represent the annual maximum.

As shown in our analysis, when construction and operational emissions are properly combined for concurrent phases, ROG and NOX emissions exceed the applicable SCAQMD daily significance thresholds.

This finding indicates a potentially significant air quality impact that the DSEIR did not identify or address. In our opinion, a revised EIR should be prepared to provide an accurate evaluation of the combined air quality impacts from overlapping EBPSP construction and operation incorporate mitigation measures accordingly.
1 “Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) for the Proposed Tesoro del Valle (Phases A, B, and C) (SCH No.: 2016101032),” SCAQMD, April 2018, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/comment-letters/2018/dseirtesorodelvalle040418.pdf#:~:text=Therefore%2C%20it%20is%20recommended%20that%20the%20Lead,for%20operation%2C%2 0mitigation%20measures%20will%20be%20required.

O1-44
3596
3 Failure to Implement All Feasible Mitigation to Reduce Emissions The DSEIR’s standalone operational air quality analysis also presents inadequacies. The DSEIR estimates that the operational ROG, NOX, CO, and PM10 emissions associated with the EBPSP would exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds (see screenshot below) (p. 3.3-64 – 3.3-65, Table 3.3-15, Table 3.3-16, Table 3.3-17).

The DSEIR concludes that the impacts associated with operation of the EBPSP would be significant-andunavoidable, stating:
“Although Mitigation Measures AIR-1-SP through AIR-8-SP are designed to reduce operationalsource criteria pollutant emissions of the EBPSP, there is no way to meaningfully quantify these reductions in CalEEMod, and therefore no numeric emissions credit has been taken in the Therefore, even with application of these measures, EBPSP operational-source emissions impacts are considered significant and unavoidable” (p. 3.3-74 – 3.3-75).

While we agree that the Specific Plan would result in significant air quality impacts, the DSEIR’s assertion that this impact is significant-and-unavoidable is unreliable. According to CEQA Guidelines §15096(g)(2):
“When an updated EIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible O1-45
Table 3.3-17 EBPSP Peak Operational Emissions Summary: Phases 1, 2, and 3 Emissions (lbs/day)
Source ROG NO, co so, PM,oT PM,.,T
summer
Mobile 34.57 186.25 448.56 2.50 168.99 45.93
Area 91 .72 1.08 127.82 0 .01 0 .23 0.17
Stationary 1.80 5.05 4.60 0.01 0.27 0.27
Cargo Handling Equipment 1.27 4 .09 178.00 0 .00 0 .32 0 .30 Maximum Daily Emissions 129.36 196.45 758.99 2.52 169.81 46.66 South Coast AQMD Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? YES YES YES NO YES NO
Winter
Mobile 32.95 195.55 380.69 2.43 168.99 45.93
Area 70.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Stationary 1.80 5.05 4.60 0.01 0.27 0.27
Cargo Handling Equipment 1.27 4.09 178.00 0.00 0.32 0.30 Maximum Daily Emissions 106.74 204.68 563.29 2.44 169.58 46.49 South Coast AQMD Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? YES YES YES NO YES NO
Source: Appendix C3 .

Note: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. 3597
4 mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment.”2
As such, the DSEIR is required under CEQA to implement all feasible mitigation to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. To reduce the EBPSP’s air quality impacts to the maximum extent possible, additional feasible mitigation measures should be incorporated, such as those suggested in the section of this letter titled “Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions.” The Project should not be approved until a revised EIR is prepared, incorporating all feasible mitigation to reduce emissions to the maximum extent possible.

Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions The DSEIR is required under CEQA to implement all feasible mitigation to reduce the Project’s potential impacts. As demonstrated in the sections above, the EBPSP would result in potentially significant air quality impacts—during both construction and operation—that should be mitigated further.

To reduce the ROG emissions associated with construction and operation, we recommend the DSEIR require the use of super compliant, low-VOC paints less than 10 g/L during the architectural coating construction phase and during Project maintenance, as recommended by the California Department of Justice (“CA DOJ”).3 Further mitigation used by other land use development projects to address ROG emissions includes: 4
• Recycle leftover paint. Take any leftover paint to a hazardous waste center; do not mix leftover water-based and oil-based paints.
• Keep lids closed on all paint containers when not in use to prevent VOC emissions and excessive odors.
• For water-based paints, clean up with water only. Whenever possible, do not rinse the cleanup water down the drain or pour it directly into the ground or the storm drain • Use compliant low-VOC cleaning solvents to clean paint application equipment. • Keep all paint- and solvent-laden rags in sealed containers to prevent VOC emissions. • Contractors shall construct/build with materials that do not require painting and use prepainted construction materials to the extent practicable. 2 “Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15096.” California Legislature, available at: https://casetext.com/regulation/californiacode-of-regulations/title-14-natural-resources/division-6-resources-agency/chapter-3-guidelines-forimplementation-of-the-california-environmental-quality-act/article-7-eir-process/section-15096-process-for-aresponsible-agency. 3 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, September 2022, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 8 – 10. 4 “Banning Commerce Center Project.” Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., June 2024, available at:
https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022090102/2; Draft Environmental Impact Report, p. 1-7.

O1-45
cont.

O1-46
3598
5 • Use high-pressure/low-volume paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50 percent or other application techniques with equivalent or higher transfer efficiency.

In order to reduce the NOX and PM10 emissions associated with EBPSP construction and operation, we recommend the DSEIR consider incorporating several mitigation measures as listed below. The California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) recommends:5
• Require all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction to be equipped with Tier 4 or cleaner engines, except for specialized construction equipment in which Tier 4 engines are not available. In place of Tier 4 engines, off-road equipment can incorporate retrofits, such that, emission reductions achieved are equal to or exceed that of a Tier 4 engine. • Require all off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) used during project construction be battery powered. • Require all heavy-duty trucks entering the construction site during the grading and building construction phases be model year 2014 or later. All heavy-duty haul trucks should also meet CARB’s lowest optional low-oxides of nitrogen (NOx) standard starting in the year 2022. • Require all loading/unloading docks and trailer spaces be equipped with electrical hookups for trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRU) or auxiliary power units. • Requiring all TRUs entering the project-site be plug-in capable. • Require all heavy-duty trucks entering or on the project site to be zero-emission vehicles, and be fully zero-emission. A list of commercially available zero-emission trucks can be obtained from the Hybrid and Zero-emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP). • Restrict trucks and support equipment from idling longer than two minutes while on site. • Require the installation of vegetative walls or other effective barriers that separate loading docks and people living or working nearby.

The CA DOJ suggests:6
• Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
• Providing information on transit and ridesharing programs and services to construction employees.
• Constructing zero-emission truck charging/fueling stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project.
• Constructing and maintaining electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of employee parking spaces
5 “Recommended Air Pollution Emission Reduction Measures for Warehouses and Distribution Centers.” CARB, August 2023, available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/CARB%20Comments%20- %20NOP%20for%20the%20%20Oak%20Valley%20North%20Project%20DEIR.pdf; Attachment A, p. 5 – 8. 6 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, September 2022, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 8 – 10.

O1-46
cont.
3599
6 Lastly, SCAQMD staff recommends a phase-in schedule to incentivize the use of cleaner operating trucks to reduce any significant adverse air quality impacts. 7 We have provided several mitigation measures that would reduce Project-generated emissions. These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Specific Plan, which would subsequently reduce emissions released during construction and operation.

A revised EIR should be prepared that includes all feasible mitigation measures, as well as an updated air analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible. The revised EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s potentially significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
7 “Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project (Proposed Project).” SCAQMD, April 2024, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/comment-letters/2024/april-2024/RVC240313-05.pdf?sfvrsn=8, p. 2 - 3.

O1-46
cont.

O1-47
·'/;1/c !kz~r__---
l I e~~\
3600
Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment B: Paul Rosenfeld CV
3601
1 2219 Main Street, Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
MatthewF. Hagemann,P.G., C.Hg.
• Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization, Investigation and Remediation Strategies • Industrial Stormwater Compliance
• CEQAReview
• Expert Testimony
Professional Certifications:

California Professional Geologist, P.G.

California Certified Hydrogeologist, C.Hg.

Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

Professional Experience:
30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. Spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where I identified emerging threats to groundwater. While with EPA, I served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. Led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, I developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultations as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and managing projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions held include:

Government:

Attachment A
Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998); O1-48
Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the Environment
3602
2 Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998).

Educational:

Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998); Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995).

Private Sector:

Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert, for both plaintiffs and defendants, in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards.
• Recommending additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce exposure to hazards from toxins.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation, for both government agencies and corporate clients, at more than 150 industrial facilities. • Serving as expert witness for both plaintiffs and defendants in cases including contamination of groundwater, CERCLAcompliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vaporintrusion concerns, for both government agencies and corporate clients.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applicationsfor large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., duties included the following:

Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking O1-48
cont.
3603
3 Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities included:
• Leading efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiating a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identifying emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. Used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Prepared geologic reports, conducted hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties included:
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
• Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in LosAngeles that met strict Sate of California regulatory requirements. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation withclients and regulators.
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliancewith Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.EPA legal counsel.

O1-48
cont.
3604
4 With the National Park Service, directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served as senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advising the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential forthe gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinkingwater supplies.
• Shaping EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributingto guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water:

Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improving the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earning an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy‐making process.
• Establishing national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities included:
• Mapping geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinating research with community stakeholders who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterizing the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for thecity of Medford, Oregon.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

O1-48
cont.
3605
5 Duties included the following:
• Supervising year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducting aquifertests.
• Investigating active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. • Part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Summary of Testimony Experience Over Past Four Years
In Re New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection et al. vs. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-14766-RMB-JBC. Deposition in 2025.

Representing Plaintiffs in matters regarding contamination of groundwater, wastewater, soil, and air with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

In Re Edmond Asher, et al., vs. RTX Corporation (f/k/a Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al.) in the County of Huntington Superior Court, Indiana, Cause number 35D01-2006-CT-000338. Deposition in 2024. Representing Plaintiffs in matters regarding contamination of groundwater and soil vapor with trichlorethylene.

In Re Wright vs Consolidated Rail Corporation In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Case No: 21L3966.

Deposition in 2023, Representing Plaintiff in matters involving groundwater and drinking water contamination of perchloroethylene, trichlorethylene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and carbon tetrachloride.

In Re Behr Dayton Thermal Products LLC In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division at Dayton, Case No: 08-cv-326. Deposition in 2022. Representing Plaintiff in matters regarding contamination of groundwater and indoor air with perchloroethylene and trichloethelene.

Orange County Water District vs. Sabic Innovative Plastics US, LLC, et al. In the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, As a consultant with Dames and Moore, led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large RCRA hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon.

O1-48
cont.
3606
6 Los Angeles Waterkeeper vs. AAA Plating and Inspection, Inc. In the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No: No. CV 18-5916 PA (GJSx). Deposition in 2019. Expert witness representing Plaintiff in matters involving contaminated stormwater runoff at an industrial facility in Compton, California.

Californians for Alternatives to Toxics vs. Schneider Dock and Intermodal Facility. In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No: 3:17-cv-05287-JST. Deposition in 2019. Expert witness representing Plaintiff in matters involving contaminated stormwater runoff at an industrial facility in Eureka, California.

Bells et al. vs. The 3M Company et al. In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Case No: 1:16-CV02531-RBJ. Deposition in 2018. Expert witness representing Plaintiff on matters regarding the general hydrogeological conditions present in an area impacted by per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances.

Ungar vs. Foundation for Affordable Housing. In the Superior Court, State of California, Los Angeles County, Case No.

BC628890 Deposition in 2017. Expert witness representing defendant on matters involving alleged drinking water contamination.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making andPublic Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins atschools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Division 1, California, Case No: D070553. Deposition in 2020. Representing Plaintiff in matters involving compliance with The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

O1-48
3607
7 Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Waterin the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to atribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to ameeting of tribal representatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies.

Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting ofthe National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to ameeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA andState Underground Storage Tank Program managers.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground StorageTanks.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Waterin O1-48
cont.
3608
8 Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal WatercraftUsage.

Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George WrightSociety Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval AirStation, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Airand Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Basesin California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations,2009‐2011.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage.

O1-48
cont.
3609

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2219 Main Street, Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 17 March 2025
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.

Attachment B
O1-49
lswAPEI Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the Environment
3610
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 17 March 2025
Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Rosenfeld, P.E., Spaeth, K.R., McCarthy, S.J. et al. Camp Lejeune Marine Cancer Risk Assessment for Exposure to Contaminated Drinking Water From 1955 to 1987. Water Air Soil Pollut 235, 124 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-023-06863-y.

Rosenfeld P.E., Spaeth K.R., Remy L.L., Byers V., Muerth S.A., Hallman R,C., Summers-Evans J., Barker S. (2023) Perfluoroalkyl substances exposure in firefighters: Sources and implications, Environmental Research, Volume 220, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.115164.

Rosenfeld P.E. and Spaeth K.R., (2023) Authors’ Response to Letter to the Editor from Bullock and Ramacciotti, Water Air Soil Pollution Volume 234, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-023-06165-3 Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

O1-49
cont.
3611
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 17 March 2025
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E., (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., Rosenfeld, P.E. Davletshin, A.R. (2008). Responsible Care. Gulf Publishing. Texas.

Tam L. K., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy of Odour Wheels for Odours of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme for The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated with Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49(9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

O1-49
cont.
3612
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 17 March 2025
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affects on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook for Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation on St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Master’s thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelor’s Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

O1-49
cont.
3613
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 17 March 2025
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted at University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus on Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

O1-49
cont.
3614
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 17 March 2025
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model for PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium on Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium on Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting for Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

O1-49
cont.
3615
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 17 March 2025
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation with High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation with High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. The course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate the effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

O1-49
cont.
3616
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 17 March 2025
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate the effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the District Court of Harris County Texas
Mt Davis Interest, Inc v Sesco Cement Corp
Cause No 2023-26512
Trial 6-6-2-25
In the United States Southern District of New York
Gallo vs Avon Products Inc., et al
Civil Action No.: 1:23-cv-2023
Deposition 4-24-2025
In Vanderburgh Superior Court 5, County of Vanderburgh, Indiana Markello v CSX
Civil Action No 82D05-2011-CT-004962
Deposition 3-26-25
Iin the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jarosiewicz v Northeast Regional Railroad
Case No 2023 L 002290
Deposition 2-27-25
In the District Court 191st Judicial District Dallas County Acklin v Poly America International
Cause No DC-22-08610
Deposition 1-8-2025
United States District Court, Norther District of California Asustin Vs Monsanto
Case No 2:23-cv-272
Deposition 12-20-25
In Jefferson Circuit Court Division One, Louisville, Kentucky Stafford vs, CSX
Case No. 18-CI-001790
O1-49
cont.
3617
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 17 March 2025
Deposition: 8-27-24
In the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit of St. Louis. State of Missouri Patricia Godfrey vs, Amtrak
Case No. 2122-CC-00525
Deposition: 7-17-24
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Linda Early Vs. CSX
Case number CV-2021-00241
Deposition 6-24-24
In the Court of Common Please Lucas County, Ohio
Brenda Conkright vs. CSX
Case No. G-4801-CI-0202102664-000
Deposition: 6-4-24
In the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Greenup Circuit Court
Patsy Sue Napier vs. CSX
Case No. 19-CI-0012
Deposition: 5-8-2-24
In United States District Court of Hawaii
Patrick Feindt, Jr. et al. vs. The United States of America Case No. 1:22-cv-LEK-KJM
Trial 3-29-24 and 4-5-24
In the District Court of Hood County State of Texas
Artie Gray vs. Exxon Mobil
Case No. C-2018047
Rosenfeld Deposition:4-22-2024
In the Elkhart Superior Court State of Indiana
Estate of Clark Stacy vs. Penn Central Corporation
Cause No 2D01-2001-CT-00007
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-25-2024 and 3-7-2024
In the Circuit Court of Trempealeau County, State of Wisconsin Michael J. Sylla et al. vs. High-Crush Whitehall LLC
Case No. 2019-CV-63, 2019-CV-64, 2019-CV-65, 2019-CV-66 Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-5-2024
In the Circuit Court of Trempealeau County, State of Wisconsin Leland Drangstveit vs. High-Crush Blair LLC
Case No. 19-CV-66
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-5-2024
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Donald Lee Ashworth vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No CV-2021-901261
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-23-2024
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Gary L Siepe vs. Soo Line Railroad
Case No. 2:21-cv-00919
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-19-2024
O1-49
cont.
3618
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 17 March 2025
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana Ricky Bush v. Clean Harbors Colfax LLC
Case No. 1:22-cv-02026-DDD-JPM
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-18-2023 and 1-15-2024
In United States District Court of Hawaii
Patrick Feindt, Jr. et al. vs. The United States of America Case No. 1:22-cv-LEK-KJM
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-29-2023
In the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit St. Clair County, Illinois Timothy Gray vs. Rural King et al.

Case No 2022-LA-355
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-26-2023
In United States District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin Gary L. Siepe vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 2:21-cv-00919
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2023
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Fox vs. BNSF
Case No. 2021 L12
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-12-2023
In the Court of Common Please Cuyahoga County, Ohio
Thomas Schleich vs. Penn Central Corporation
Lead Case No. CV-20-939184
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-27-2023
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County Missouri at Kansas City Timothy Dalsing vs. BNSF
Case No. No. 2216-cv06539
Rosenfeld Deposition 7-28-2023
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division International Terminals Company LLC Deer Park Fire Litigation Lead Case No. 4:19-cv-01460
Rosenfeld Deposition 7-25-2023
In the Circuit Court of Livingston County Missouri
Shirley Ralls vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Lind Railroad Case No. 28LV-CV0020
Rosenfeld Daubert Hearing 7-18-2023 Trial Testimony 7-19-2023 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Brenda Wright vs. Penn Central and Conrail
Case No. No. 2032L003966
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-13-2023
In the Circuit Court Common Please Philadelphia of Jefferson County Alabama Frank Belle vs. Birmingham Southern Railroad Company et al.

Case No. 01-cv-2021-900901.00
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-6-2023
O1-49 cont.
3619
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 17 March 2025
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Linda De Gregorio vs. Penn Central
Case No. 002278
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-27-20203
In the United States District Court Eastern District of New York Rosalie Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-16-2023
In the Superior Court of Washington, Spokane County
Judy Cundy vs. BNSF
Case No. 21-2-03718-32
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-9-2023
In The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, PA Civil Trial Division Feaster v Conrail
Case No. 001075
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-1-2023
In United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois Sherman vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:17-cv-01192
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2023
In United States District Court District of Colorado
Gonzales vs. BNSF
Case No. 1:21-cv-01690
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-17-2023
In United States District Court District of Colorado
Abeyta vs. BNSF
Case No. 1:21-cv-01689-KMT
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-3-2023
In United States District Court For The Easter District of Louisiana Nathaniel Smith vs. Illinois Central Railroad
Case No. 2:21-cv-01235
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-30-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022
In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.

Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022
In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division O1-49 cont.
3620
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 17 March 2025
Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022
In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.

Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022
In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022
In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022
In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022, Trial 1-10-2023
In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.

Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022
In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
O1-49 cont.
3621
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 13 of 17 March 2025
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021
In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al. vs Cerro Flow Products, Inc.

Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a

AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois O1-49 cont.
3622
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 14 of 17 March 2025
Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No. 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants O1-49 cont.
3623
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 15 of 17 March 2025
Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintifs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. vs. Antero, et al.

Civil Action No. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015
In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

O1-49
cont.
3624
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 16 of 17 March 2025
Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants.

Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the County of Kern, Unlimited Jurisdiction
Rose Propagation Services vs. Heppe Enterprises
Case No. S-1500-CV-278190, LHB
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2014
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
In the Court of Galveston County, Texas 56th Judicial District MDL Litigation Regarding Texas City Refinery Ultracracker Emission Event Litigation Cause No. 10-UC-0001
Rosenfeld Deposition: March 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: September 2013
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.

Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the United States District court of Southern District of California United States of America, Plaintiff vs. 2,560 Acres of Land, more or less, located in Imperial County, State of California; and Donald L. Crawford, et. al.

Civil No. 3:11-cv-02258-IEG-RBB
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2012, January 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

O1-49
cont.
3625
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 17 of 17 March 2025
Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011
O1-49
cont.
3626
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Gary Ho
Blum Collins Ho LLP
707 Wilshire Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 572-0400 13 April 2026
RE: Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan
Dear Mr. Ho,
I write to comment on potential impacts to biological resources that would result from development of the proposed 189-acre Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (EBPSP or “project”), which is addressed in the City’s Ontario Policy Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). The EBPSP would add 2,939,000 sf of industrial and commercial buildings on 137.9 acres, roadway improvements on

14.97 acres, and parkland on 36.15 acres at the northwest corner of Eucalyptus Ave and Walker Ave. My comments that follow address my concerns that the SEIR and its supporting biological resources technical report (ELMT 2025), mischaracterize the wildlife community as part of the existing environmental setting, and that its impacts analysis is flawed and its mitigation measures are inadequate.

My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a postgraduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for fortyone years. My CV is attached.

THE WILDLIFE COMMUNITY AS A BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE
Most environmental reviews pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) focus on special-status species because CEQA’s Checklist Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Question IV(a) asks specifically whether the project would adversely affect special-status species. However, this narrowly focused question is part of a larger policy goal of CEQA, which is “to prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all O1-50
O1-51
3627
2 plant and animal communities and examples of the major periods of California history.” Pub. Res. Code § 21001(c). This policy is not restricted to special-status species; it also applies to wildlife populations and plant and animal communities, as it must, because special-status species are inter-dependent members of ecological communities. The CEQA Guidelines Section 21155.1 defines wildlife habitat as “the ecological communities upon which wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and invertebrates depend for their conservation and protection.” This definition is consistent with the scientific definition of habitat, which is that portion of the environment that is used by members of a species for survival and reproduction (Hall et al. 1997). An essential portion of the environment used by any special-status species is composed of the collection of other species of plants and wildlife, because these species provide for special-status species their forage, refugia and nest substrates, and some serve as ecological mutualists. The CEQA Checklist Evaluation assigns priority to special-status species to balance information and cost, but it does not exclude the need to evaluate environmental impacts to other species, which, after all, are members of the very communities within which special-status species inter-depend for survival and reproduction.

The species I consider to be special-status species are those listed in California’s Special Animals List inclusive of threatened and endangered species under the California and federal Endangered Species Acts, candidates for listing under CESA and FESA, California’s Fully Protected Species, California species of special concern, and California’s Taxa to Watch List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx? DocumentID=109406), continental and region-specific US Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf), and naturally rare species such as raptors protected by California’s Birds of Prey laws, Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3505 and 3513 (see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/ Birds/Raptors).

What follows is a summary of a site visit to detect as many of the species of wildlife as possible within the short time available. The visit was also intended to detect as many of the special-status species as possible, but with the understanding that most specialstatus species are less readily detectable due to rarity and crypticity. Nonetheless, the species detected can indicate the ecological integrity of the site and thus the likelihood of occurrence of special-status species not yet detected.

SITE VISIT
On my behalf, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master of Science Degree from California State University Los Angeles, visited the site of the proposed project for

1.13 hours of diurnal survey starting at 18:08, and for 2.67 hours of nocturnal survey starting at 19:16 on 6 April 2026, and for 3 hours of diurnal survey starting at 06:26 on 9 April 2026. During daylight, Noriko walked the site’s perimeter where accessible, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of binoculars. At night, Noriko affixed a Pettersson M500 acoustic bat detector to a 25-foot pole, and cabled the detector to her computer, which ran SonoBat Live. SonoBat Live identifies bat species based on the bats’ sonograms that are detected by the M500. She also scanned for nocturnal wildlife using a Pulsar Telos LRF XG50 5.5-14x 50 mm thermal-imaging monocular. Noriko recorded O1-51
cont.

O1-52
3628
3 all species of vertebrate wildlife she detected, including those whose members flew over the site or were seen on the site’s fringe. Conditions were sunny with 9 MPH west wind and temperatures of 74-64° F on 6 April 2026, and partly cloudy with 3 MPH west wind and temperatures of 56-68° F on 9 April 2026. The site contains dairy farms, open fields of annual grassland, eucalyptus groves, row crops, and houses (Photo 1).

Photo 1. View of the project site, 9 April 2026. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

Noriko saw American barn owl (Photo 2), red-tailed hawk and turkey vulture (Photos 3 and 4), merlin and American kestrel (Photos 5 and 6), ring-billed gull and Hudsonian whimbrel (Photos 7 and 8), mallard and black-necked stilt (Photos 9-11), double-crested cormorant, Canada goose, and white-faced ibis (Photos 12-14), great blue heron and common raven (Photos 15 and 16), mourning dove and northern mockingbird (Photos 17 and 18), killdeer and California horned lark (Photos 19 and 20), house finch and Cassin’s kingbird (Photos 21 and 22), song sparrow and white-crowned sparrow (Photos 23 and 24), red-winged blackbird and barn swallow (Photos 25 and 26), brown-headed cowbird (Photos 27 and 28), great-tailed grackle and Bullock’s oriole (Photos 29 and 30), Mexican free-tailed bat (Photo 31), desert cottontail and California ground squirrel (Photos 32-34). Noriko detected 43 species of vertebrate wildlife at or adjacent to the project site, including nine species with special status (Table 1).

Photo 2. American barn
owl on the project site
detected using a thermal
imaging camera, 6 April
2026. Photo by Noriko
Smallwood.

O1-52
cont.
3629
4 Photos 3 and 4. Red-tailed hawks (left), and turkey vulture (right) on the project site, 6 April 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 5 and 6. Merlin (left), and American kestrel (right) on the project site, 6 and 9 April 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

O1-52
cont.
3630
5 Photos 7 and 8. Ring-billed gull (top), and whimbrel (bottom) on the project site, 9 April 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

O1-52
cont.
3631
6 Photos 9, 10, and 11. Black-necked stilt harassing a mallard (top), mallard (bottom left), and black-necked stilt (bottom right) on the project site, 6 and 9 April 2026.

Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

O1-52
cont.
3632
7 Photos 12, 13, and 14. Double-crested cormorant (top), and Canada goose (middle), and white-faced ibis (bottom) on the project site, 9 April 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

O1-52
cont.
_.._
---
.L .t
....... --- .....
-----
3633
8 Photos 15 and 16. Great blue heron (left), and common raven with nest material (right) on the project site, 9 April 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 17 and 18. Mourning dove (left), and northern mockingbird (right) on the project site, 6 and 9 April 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

O1-52
cont.
3634
9 Photos 19 and 20. Killdeer (left), and California horned lark (right) on the project site, 9 and 6 April 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 21 and 22. House finch (left), and Cassin’s kingbird and brown-headed cowbird (right) on the project site, 9 April 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

O1-52
cont.
3635
10 Photos 23 and 24. Song sparrow (left), and white-crowned sparrow (right) on the project site, 6 and 9 April 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 25 and 26. Red-winged blackbird (left), and barn swallow (right) on the project site, 9 April 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

O1-52
cont.
3636
11 Photos 27 and 28. Brown-headed cowbirds on the project site, 9 April 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

O1-52
cont.
3637
12 Photos 29 and 30. Great-tailed grackle (left), and Bullock’s oriole (right) on the project site, 9 April 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photo 31. Sonogram of Mexican free-tailed bat on the project site detected using SonoBat Live and a Pettersson M500, 6 April 2026. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

O1-52
cont.

I ,.
3638
13 Photos 32, 33, and 34. Desert cottontail (top left and bottom), and California ground squirrel (top right) on the project site, 6 and 9 April 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

O1-52
cont.
3639
14 Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported.

Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko observed during 1.13 hours of diurnal survey and 2.67 hours of nocturnal survey on 6 April 2026, and during 3 hours of diurnal survey on 9 April 2026.

Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Canada goose Branta canadensis Flock flew over
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos On pond; flocks flew over
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native Many
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native Just off site Mourning dove Zenaida macroura
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna
Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus On pond; flew over Killdeer Charadrius vociferus On pond; flew over
Hudsonian whimbrel Numenius hudsonicus Flocks flew over Western sandpiper Calidris mauri On pond; flew over
Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis Flocks flew over
Double-crested cormorant Nannopterum auritum WL Flock flew over Great blue heron Ardea herodias Flew over
White-faced ibis Pledagis chihi WL
Flocks flew over, landed on
site
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Many roosted in eucalyptus Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Pair
American barn owl Tyto furcata BOP Multiple foraged in evening American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP
Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
Common raven Corvus corax Gathered nest material
California horned lark
Eremophila alpestris
actia WL
Northern rough-winged
swallow
Stelgidopteryx
serripennis
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica
Gathered nest material,
foraged
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native Many, murmurations House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native
American pipit Anthus rubescens
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus Foraged
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Foraged
O1-52
cont.

Noriko
~~ Smallwood
3640
15 Song sparrow Melospiza melodia
Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Just off site
Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Multiple in eucalyptus Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Many foraged, flew over Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater Many, murmurations
Great-tailed grackle Quiscalus mexicanus
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG: L
Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii Foraged
California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi
Coyote Canis latrans Scat
Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae Burrows 1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx? DocumentID=109406) as WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H); BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-ofconservation-concern-2021.pdf); and BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors).

ANALYSIS OF RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY DATA
Noriko detected 43 species of vertebrate wildlife, which was a relatively large number for the brevity of her survey effort. All the species in Table 1 would lose due to the project and its replacement of natural ground covers with impervious surfaces.

Assuming the habitat that would remain within the region is at carrying capacity for each species at issue, habitat loss translates directly to a numerical decline in the species. Smallwood and Smallwood (2023) confirmed this habitat loss by measuring the impacts of similar development projects on species richness and the abundances of wildlife. Smallwood and Smallwood (2023) directly compared the species and the numbers of animals observed prior to development to the those observed after development, while they did the same at control sites. The measured losses of these species resulting from development is indicative of habitat loss, because habitat is defined as that portion of the environment that is used for survival and reproduction by members of a species (Hall et al. 1997).

However, the species of wildlife Noriko detected at the project site were not the only species that were present during her survey, as there are always species that are not detected. To demonstrate this, I fit nonlinear regression models to Noriko’s accumulation of first detections of vertebrate wildlife species with time into her daytime surveys to predict the number of species that she would have detected with longer surveys or perhaps with additional biologists available to assist her. The type of model is a logistic growth model, which reaches an asymptote that corresponds with the theoretical maximum number of vertebrate wildlife species that could have been detected during the survey. The model that I fit to Noriko’s survey data from the morning of 9 April predicts 41 species of vertebrate wildlife were available to be detected, or 3 more species than she detected that morning (Figure 1). Noriko’s rate of species detections on the evening of 6 April nearly matched her rate of detections on the morning of 9 April (Figure 1). Noriko’s rate of species detections exceeded the upper O1-52
cont.

O1-53
3641
16 bound of the 95% confidence interval estimated from many other morning surveys we have completed in the Inland Empire region, thus indicating the project site is relatively species-rich for the region.

Figure 1. Actual
and predicted
relationships
between the
numbers of
vertebrate wildlife
species detected
and the elapsed
survey time based
on Noriko’s visualscan surveys at the
project site on 6
and 9 April 2026.

Note the confidence
interval (orange)
applies only to the
morning survey
(red line).

Unknown are the identities of the species Noriko missed, but the species that Noriko did and did not detect on composed only a fraction of the species that would occur at the project site over the period of a year or longer. This is because many species are seasonal in their occurrence, some require more survey effort because they are highly cryptic, and the members of other species would visit the site only periodically while patrolling large home ranges. Surveys on only two days cannot possibly detect all of the species of the local wildlife community.

At least a year’s worth of surveys would be needed to more accurately report the number of vertebrate species that occur at the project site, but I only have Noriko’s one survey.

However, by use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely make use of the site over the longer term. This analytical bridge draws inference from the pattern of species detections more than it does from the research site, and I note that the pattern, i.e., rate, of species detections is consistent from site to site. ! "! #!! #"! $!! $"! %!!
C'()*+I-'(*.-I)/M+1
!
"
#!
#"
$!
$"
%!
%"
2!
3)4)56*'M+-()47+/-.8-9'5:5'8+-I;+<'+I-:+*+<*+:
!"# !=>>?
!$# !=>>@
/$---------
>"A-3B-$!#>C$!$"-'(-/+a'.( O1-53
cont.
1 0.024435+0.471709(X +1)-1.049908
1 0.024077 +0.586662(X +1)-1.037756
3642
17 As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I and other consulting biologists use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: 𝑅" = ! ! "# $%×(()*+,)! , where 𝑅"
represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r2, of the models ranged 0.88 to 1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data.

I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations of my research site. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I would have detected 15.5 species over my first 4.13 hours of diurnal surveys at my research site in the Altamont Pass (4.13 hours to match the 4.13 hours Noriko surveyed during daylight hours at the project site), which composed 27.2% of the predicted total number of species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at the research site. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 41 vertebrate wildlife species that Noriko detected in her 4.13 hours of daylight survey at the project site likely represented 27.2% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer.

With many more repeat surveys through the year, Noriko would likely detect 41

0.272 + =
151 species of vertebrate wildlife in daylight surveys at the site. Assuming Noriko’s ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 151 predicted species, then continued daylight surveys would eventually detect 29 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife.

Because my prediction of 151 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 29 special-status species, is derived from daytime visual-scan surveys, and would detect few nocturnal mammals such as bats, the true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. Proof of this in Noriko’s brief nocturnal survey in which she added two more species of vertebrate wildlife to her tally. Noriko’s reconnaissance survey should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of the site’s wildlife community, but it certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. More surveys are needed than could be accomplished in her one site visit to produce a species inventory the project site’s wildlife community. Nevertheless, the large number of species I predict at the project site is indicative of a relatively speciesrich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort.

O1-53
cont
3643
18 Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, 𝑅", as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015‒2019. Note
that the location of the
study is largely irrelevant
to the utility of the graph
to the interpretation of
survey outcomes at the
project site. It is the
pattern in the data that is
relevant, because the
pattern is typical of the
pattern seen elsewhere.

MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING CEQA’s primary objectives should guide the design and conduct of CEQA review. Four of CEQA’s primary objectives are to (1) accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, (2) disclose potential project impacts to the public and decisionmakers, (3) foster public participation with decision-making over proposed projects, and (4) identify issues and feasible alternative mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts. The first objective is essential to the other three, because an accurate understanding of the existing environmental setting is needed to predict impacts, provide the public with the means to meaningfully participate with issues of importance, and effectively strategize mitigation and project alternatives (Figure 3). For biological resources, essential information includes the species composition of the plant and wildlife communities, key ecological interactions, identification of ecological keystone species, determining the presence of special-status species or their habitats, and identifying risk factors that could result in significant direct, indirect and cumulative impacts should the project go forward.

The public and decision-makers need to know which species are susceptible to harm potentially caused by the project and its associated activities, and which are known to be vulnerable to harm once exposed to the environmental changes brought by the project.

For these reasons, field studies are needed to identify as many of the species that occur on the project site as reasonably feasible, and to otherwise examine the environmental conditions for their likelihood to support species that are not detected, otherwise known as “habitat assessment.” A review of species occurrence records – also known as ! "! #! $! %! C!!
!
C!
"!
'!
#!
(!
)*+*I-./0123*+415267 8*501982:;6*58<
:=(>2)?<
O1-53
cont.

O1-54
-0..
s,-
0 0
---
3644
19 “desktop review” – is needed to identify the other species that potentially occur on the site – a process that is also referred to as “habitat assessment.” Because habitat assessments that are based on either or both field study and desktop review are prone to uncertainty, emphasis needs to be directed to adequate field study to reduce the pool of species subjected to habitat assessment, thereby weighing the review more towards certainty. Appropriately weighted reviews are less susceptible to speculation over species occurrence likelihoods. For this reason, protocol-level detection surveys have been formulated for numerous special-status species of plants and wildlife, and otherwise best scientific practices are needed to provide a reasonable likelihood of detection of species that truly occur on the project site. The negative findings of a properly conducted detection survey are the only findings that can support a determination of species absence.

Figure 3. General flow of information from its gathering through characterizing the existing environment to predicting impacts and their significance.

Even among reviews founded on the best of field studies, there is always uncertainty over some of the determinations of species occurrences. The uncertainties of habitat assessments need to be managed to achieve CEQA’s primary objectives. This means that the methodological details of both the field studies and desktop review need to be carefully and thoroughly reported, and it means that results need to be reported in context of their uncertainties. For example, the reporting of having detected 10 species in a reconnaissance survey is nearly meaningless without also reporting the numbers of species found in surveys of similar methods and effort levels, and the reporting of the failure to detect a given species is nearly entirely meaningless without also reporting the likelihood that species would be detected given the survey methods and effort level. The same is true of desktop review; that is, there should be some means of validating habitat assessments based on the thousands of habitat assessments that have already been !""#""A"%#CD#"A(CCF**#HC#AID-#ID.((L"A
0NAO#"-P(%A*#4D#R
SNA7%#CD#"A8#(8*S%.DCA*SH8#A(4#*IS%A(*ALSPS9S"#A(CCF**#HC#A*#C(*L" 9NA:*(""RSI-A.S9DPSPAS""(CDSPD(H"ARDP.A;S%%#LA8*(FHLAC(4#* <NA=#C(HHSD""SHC#A"F*4#>?@S9DPSPAS""#"";#HP
ANAO#P#CPD(HA"F*4#>"AB(*A"%#CDSIC"PSPF"A"%#CD#"
aFPC(;#"
bNAc*#LDCPAD;%SCP"
dNAe(*;FISP#A;DPD8SPD(HA"P*SP#8>
fNAO#P#*;DH#A"D8HDBDCSHC#A(BAD;%SCP"
:.S*SCP#*Dg#ARDILIDB#AC(;;FHDP>
hNAiD"P"A(BA"%#CD#"AL#P#CP#LASHLA(BAP.("#A#M%#CP#LA9FPAAAAA H(PA>#PAL#P#CP#LkASHLASH>A-H(RHAP*#HL"
l(P#mAn;%SCPA%*#LDCPD(H"ASHLA
"D8HDBDCSHC#AL#P#*;DHSPD(H"A.S4#A
9##HA(BAFH-H(RHASCCF*SC>ADHAP.#A
S9"#HC#A(BA#M%#*D;#HPSIA
;#S"F*#;#HP
O1-54
cont.

O1-55
3645
20 conducted in support of CEQA reviews. If industry standards in environmental review are to be credible, then they must include the use of the comparative method.

In the case of the proposed project, the SEIR fails to explain how or why the steps taken to characterize the ecological community relate to CEQA’s primary objectives.

Additionally, the ecological community is inaccurately characterized as composed of only those species detected in a reconnaissance survey or deemed likely to occur based on desktop review of occurrence records. Furthermore, the SEIR reports nothing about the uncertainties of ELMT’s (2025) findings, which vastly diminishes the accuracy of the characterization of the existing environmental setting.

Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys
ELMT (2025) deployed two biologists on 18 April 2025 to document existing conditions, verify plant communities identified in aerial imagery, and assess the potential for special-status biological resources to occur, and in the same survey to evaluate the site for its potential to support wetland features. ELMT does not explain how its survey contributes to CEQA’s objectives, but it is my opinion that each documentation of a species detected in a survey lessens the uncertainty of the species composition of the local ecological community, and it hence improves the accuracy of the characterization of the environmental setting. ELMT (2025) does not state the detection of wildlife species as one of its objectives, but it does report the species it detected. However, more information needs to be reported so that survey findings can be considered in an appropriate comparative context to reveal the degree of uncertainty that remains in how many species, and which species, truly comprise the wildlife community. ELMT (2025) fails to report its survey start time, its survey duration, and how its findings compare to other similar surveys in the region.

ELMT (2025) reports 20 species of vertebrate wildlife were found on the project site.

Four of these species are special-status species, despite the SEIR’s (p. 3.4-55) claim that “No special-status wildlife species were observed within the Specific Plan area during the habitat assessment..” In comparison, Noriko detected 43 species of vertebrate wildlife. ELMT detected 3 species that Noriko did not, but Noriko detected 26 species that ELMT did not, and ultimately Noriko’s survey effort brings the total number of vertebrate wildlife species detected on the site to 46, which is more than double the number ELMT (2025) reports. A comparison between ELMT’s and Noriko’s surveys reveals that the wildlife community depicted by ELMT (2025) is nowhere close to accurate, and the comparison indicates that additional surveys would further increase the number of species known to the site.

ELMT (2025) documented three fewer than the average number of vertebrate wildlife species detected among surveys by consulting biologists at California project sites, and Noriko detected 1.42 times the number we average in our surveys of the same sites (Figure 4). ELMT (2024) documented the same number of special-status species of vertebrate wildlife as the average among surveys reported by consulting biologists at California project sites, and Noriko detected 1.5 times the number we average in our surveys of the same sites (Figure 5). Relative to the corresponding averages, ELMT O1-55
cont.

O1-56
3646
21 found fewer species of wildlife while Noriko found 50% more – a difference that needs an explanation.

Two comparative contexts are needed to fully disclose the meanings of survey findings in the SEIR. The first is to contextualize the survey findings relative to the survey effort, because otherwise it is misleading to insinuate that the species detected were definitive of the wildlife community. As Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate, additional surveys contribute to an increasingly more accurate characterization of the wildlife community, but eventually to a point at which the species inventory would be obtained. Quicker progress toward an accurate characterization of the wildlife community can be achieved by adding nocturnal surveys as well as specialized surveys for detecting bats, small mammals, reptiles and amphibians. However the surveys are done, it is imperative to compare survey findings to the findings from other surveys and their associated survey attributes to provide interpretive context such as to quantify the uncertainty of the findings, or alternatively to understand whether the findings fall within the expected range of findings given the survey methods and level of effort. If no such comparison is possible, then the lack of comparability should be discussed as a survey limitation.

Another example of how once can contextualize survey findings can be found in Figure 6, which compares Noriko’s findings to hundreds of other survey results at other proposed project sites, developed sites, and at relatively intact “references sites,” but it does so relative to the survey effort. This approach is more informative than the other comparative contexts because it factors in survey effort. Figure 6 reveals that considering her survey effort, the number of wildlife species that Noriko detected was more indicative of nearly pristine reference sites than it was of the project sites we have surveyed throughout California, again showing the site to be relatively rich in species. It is possible that as one of the very last remaining fragments of habitat in the region, the project site attracts members of more species. Because ELMT (2025) fails to report key survey attributes, I cannot compare its reconnaissance survey findings to past consultant findings relative to survey effort.

The second comparative context is to assess the probabilities of detection considering the survey effort of each special-status species, whether detected or not. The SEIR inaccurately claims that ELMT (2025) failed to detect any special-status species.

However, even if ELMT had failed to detect special-status species, such a failure can mean that the survey was inadequate. Each species presents survey personnel with a unique range of detection probabilities based on the species’ natural history, its behavior patterns, survey effort, the study area’s distance from known activity areas of the species, and the levels of skill of survey personnel. Many animals maintain home ranges that are larger than most project sites, and they periodically shift their foraging activities to various parts of their home range, hence occurring on a particular site only periodically. To detect these species, survey personnel must be at the site on the same date and time as the one or more members of the species. The probability of detection of any given species during any given survey is less than 100%, and for many species that truly occur on a given site, it is closer to 0%.

O1-56
cont.
3647
22 Figure 4. Frequency distribution of the number of vertebrate wildlife species detected by consulting biologists (left graph) and by me and Noriko (right graph) among project sites surveyed in support of environmental reviews in California.

Figure 5. Frequency distribution of the number of special-status species of wildlife detected by consulting biologists (left graph) and by me and Noriko (right graph) among project sites surveyed in support of environmental reviews. ! "! #! $! B! C!! C"! C#! C$! CB! "!!
'E)*E+),*E-.LMNML2E-P4E5LEP-NE*E5*EN
!
"!
#!
$!
B!
C!!
C"!
C#! ST8PVM*,8*P
:V;+E)-T2-4)T<E5*-PL*EP
! C! "! =! #! >! $! ?! B! @! C!!
!
"!
#!
$!
B!
C!!
A;,MM.TTNP
:V;+E)-T2-4)T<E5*-PL*EP
B-""CB
B-=!C=
abcd-,*
aefAf-J"!K
:T)LiT-,*
aefAf-J#=K
'E)*E+),*E-.LMNML2E-P4E5LEP-NE*E5*EN
! " #! #" $! $" B! B" C!
!
$!
C!
'!
E!
#!!
)*+,-.LMN2.2PN4N*+,-+N45S4
T+82+98.2+4:-L;L-S+4;+2+,2+;
<5=NPL2.=2N
>P?9+845S4*85@+,24N-2+N
! $ C ' E #! #$ #C #' #E $! $$ $C $' $E
!
#!
$!
B!
C!
"!
'!
A!
E!
)*+,-.LMN2.2PN4N*+,-+N45S4
T+82+98.2+4:-L;L-S+4;+2+,2+;
)?.LL:55;N
>P?9+845S4*85@+,24N-2+N
B4C
B4'
Cabc4.2
Cde)e4fCJ
>58-K54.2
Cde)e4fiJ
O1-56
cont.
x
x
x
>----0 7
1-0 ~
3648
23 Figure 6. Noriko Smallwood’s survey findings at the Project site relative to our survey findings at other project sites (red), at developed sites (black), and at more pristine sites that we survey as reference sites (green). Noriko’s findings exceed the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval based on the results of hundreds of surveys at project sites, and they approach the lower bound of the 95% CI from many surveys at reference sites.

For example, white-tailed kite was detected by neither ELMT nor Noriko, but among our hundreds of surveys at project sites, Noriko and I have found white-tailed kites in environments similar to the project site. Based on hundreds of surveys within the geographic range of white-tailed kite, Noriko’s 4.13 hours of daylight survey combined with the knowledge that white-tailed kite has been documented within 1.5 miles of the project site afforded Noriko an 11% likelihood of detection of white-tailed kite (Figure 7).

Noriko would need to conduct many more surveys to accumulate a reasonable likelihood of detecting white-tailed kite, but the patterns of our findings in our many other surveys depicted in Figure 7 reveal that it is highly unlikely that the white-tailed kite is absent from the project site. This use of the comparative method leads to a fundamentally different way of interpreting survey results than is expressed in ELMT (2025) and the SEIR, and it provides for more accurate disclosure of potential project impacts. ! "! #!! #"! $!! $"! B!!
CDE)*+I-DE*.-I)/M+N
!
#!
$!
B!
2!
"!
P! 4R/SN-7./EDE8-I)/M+NI-9./-M+/*+:/R*+-;DS<SD9+
=+9+/+E>+-ID*+I
?/[email protected]+<-@/.A+>*-ID*+I
B+M+S.@+<-ID*+I
C+RE-Ca"b-cde->)7)SR*DM+-I@+>D+I-<+*+>*+<
f./Dg.KI-7./EDE8-*RSSN-.9-Bi M+/*+:/R*+-
;DS<SD9+-I@+>D+I-R*-4j?k?
O1-56
cont.
3649
24 Figure 7. Probability
of detection of whitetailed kite as a
function of survey
effort and proximity
of occurrence records
to a project site, based
on hundreds of
reconnaissance
surveys we completed
2019–2024.

This second comparative context is very important because it is the basis for the formulation of detection survey protocols. Experienced biologists are aware of survey limitations due to ranges of variation in the activity periods, levels of crypticity, and periodic movement patterns of wildlife species, and due to variation in the skill and commitment of survey personnel. This second comparative context acknowledges that the occurrence likelihood of a species on a particular site is rarely if ever zero, so long as the site is within the species’ geographic range and it provides habitat. This second comparative context reveals that a determination of zero likelihood of occurrence is typically indicative of insufficient survey effort. A common goal of detection survey protocols is to support absence determinations with a survey effort that should have resulted in a detection if the species had been present at the time of the surveys, but it does not prove that the species is always absent from the site. This second comparative context and its implications should not be neglected in CEQA review, but it is neglected in the case of the SEIR prepared for this project.

ELMT (2025) conducted no protocol-level detection surveys for rare plants (see CDFW 2018), Crotch’s bumble bee (see CDFW 2023), burrowing owl (see CDFW 2012) nor for any other special-status species. The appropriate surveys were not implemented for various other types of wildlife, hence leaving conclusions in ELMT (2025) and the SEIR !"#$B C'(F*H,-"'(.

LB0N LB0O B0O B0N $0B $0P $04 O0O
B0O
B0P
B0N
B04
$0B
B
5("S7S898WH,";,<*W*=W8">
$0?,7><,PB,@89*.

A8W-8>,$0?,@89*.

B>,.8W*,"(,7<C7=*>W
a*7(*.W,*b8(<,(*="(<.

A-8W*LW789*<,c8W*,!"#$%& "'%E%)%&
d798;"(>87,e'99H,5("W*=W*<
B0P $ P $B,f"'(. $?4
5,g,B0$$
O1-56
cont.
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3650
25 unfounded. For example, ELMT (2025) reports that no amphibians were detected, but it does not describe its likelihood of detecting amphibians had amphibians been present.

ELMT (2025) reports the same for reptiles, but it again fails to report the likelihood of detecting any reptiles had they in truth been present. If ELMT surveyed in the middle of the day, then its likelihood of detecting amphibians would have been near 0%, and if ELMT surveyed for only an hour, then its likelihood of detecting reptiles would have been near 0%. Survey findings need to be contextualized by reporting of survey method and survey effort. Similarly, no acoustic surveys were conducted for bats, and no livetrapping was conducted for small mammals. Noriko detected bats because she implemented the appropriate survey method for doing so. ELMT (2025) reports its survey results as if they are definitive, but they are not.

Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review
ELMT (2025) relies on occurrence records in the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) to establish its pool of special-status species for assessing occurrence likelihoods, otherwise referred to as habitat assessments. ELMT (2025) queried the CNDDB for occurrence records of special-status species within four USGS 7.5’ Quadrangles inclusive of the project site. Special-status species represented by occurrence records in these Quads were moved forward in the habitat assessment, but species lacking records were screened out of further analysis. However, the CNDDB is a volunteer, positive-sightings database, and as such it is useful for confirming presence but not for confirming absence of species because such databases are not designed for this purpose. As noted by the CNDDB, “The CNDDB is a positive sighting database. It does not predict where something may be found. We map occurrences only where we have documentation that the species was found at the site. There are many areas of the state where no surveys have been conducted and therefore there is nothing on the map.

That does not mean that there are no special status species present.” ELMT (2025) and hence the SEIR misuse the CNDDB.

The CNDDB relies entirely on volunteer reporting from biologists who were allowed access to whatever properties they report from. Many properties have never been surveyed by biologists. Many properties have been surveyed, but the survey outcomes never reported to the CNDDB. Many properties have been surveyed multiple times, but not all survey outcomes reported to the CNDDB. Furthermore, the CNDDB is interested only in the findings of special-status species, which means that species more recently assigned special status will have been reported many fewer times to the CNDDB than were species assigned special status since the inception of the CNDDB. Therefore, occurrence records in the CNDDB are most abundant for species assigned special status decades ago, but fewest for species only recently assigned special status. And because negative findings are not reported to the CNDDB, the CNDDB is also inappropriate as a basis for weighting occurrence likelihoods such as absent, not expected, unlikely, low, moderate or high. Whereas the CNDDB can be confirmatory of species presence, it cannot support absence determinations or assignments of low likelihood of occurrence.

And again, the screening out of a species due to lack of occurrence records in the CNDDB is the same as an absence determination, but without the support of the detection surveys that have been formulated for this purpose.

O1-56
cont.

O1-57
3651
26 As suggested above, ELMT (2025) also weighs the likelihoods of occurrence of those species that passed the initial screening for inclusion. South assigns occurrence likelihood categories of Absent (reported as Presumed absent, which effectively means absent), Low, Moderate, and High. As noted above, however, the absence of occurrence records is not evidence of absence, nor is it evidence of any likelihood of occurrence. At best, CNDDB records can serve as evidence of the likelihood of detection of a species, but again, this likelihood does not parallel the likelihood of occurrence because species often occur where never detected by biologists.

In my assessment based on a database review and site visits, 137 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential (Table 2). Not all these species should be expected to occur at the project site, but each of them should be given a closer look to determine occurrence likelihoods and whether additional surveys are needed, or implementation of detection surveys, or whether it would be reasonable to assume presence. Of these 137 species, 20 were recorded on or just off (on the fringe) the project site, and another 18 (13%) have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (Very close), another 40 (29%) between 1.5 and 4 miles (Nearby), and another 48 (35%) between 4 and 30 miles (In region). Over half (57%) of the special-status species in Table 2 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. The site therefore supports at least 20 special-status species of wildlife, and it carries the potential for supporting many more special-status species of wildlife based on the proximities of recorded occurrences. Evidence certainly suggests that habitat assessments are needed for these species.

ELMT (2025) considers the occurrence likelihoods of only 64 (47%) of the special-status species listed in Table 2, which means that 73 (53%) of the special-status species in Table 2 were screened out of the analysis in the first step of the desktop review. Of the 64 special-status species considered by ELMT, 50 of them are determined to be absent from the project site. However, of these 50 “absent” species, five of them – Swainson’s hawk, peregrine falcon, vermilion flycatcher, yellow-headed blackbird, and doublecrested cormorant, were detected on the project site, nine of them have been documented within 1.5 miles of the project site, and another 15 of them have been documented within 4 miles of the project site. Of the 6 special-status species ELMT determines to have a low likelihood of occurrence, 2 – merlin and loggerhead shrike – have been documented on the project site, and 2 have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site. ELMT’s process for determining occurrence likelihoods is flawed and inaccurate.

Although ELMT (2025) presumes yellow-headed blackbird to be absent from the project site, ELMT (2025:D-7) also reports having detected this species on the site. Perhaps whomever prepared Table D-1 was unaware of which species ELMT’s biologists detected on the project site. Whatever the reason for it, this glaring inconsistency involves a special-status species that warrants greater care.

Of the special-status species in Table 2 but not included in ELMT’s analyses of occurrence likelihoods, 7 have been documented on the project site, 6 have been O1-57
cont.
3652
27 documented within 1.5 miles of the site, and 25 have been documented between 1.5 and 4 miles from the project site. None of these 38 special-status species should have been omitted from the analyses in EMLT (2025) and the SEIR.

Despite the SEIR’s assertion that the certified 2022 SEIR provides the logical baseline from which to predict project impacts on biological resources, ELMT (2025) analyzes the occurrence likelihoods of special-status species. Had the 2022 SEIR been the logical baseline, then ELMT would have had no need to conduct a field survey or desktop review. Regardless, the 2022 SEIR was not an appropriate baseline because its assignments of special status to the species it assesses for occurrence likelihoods date to circa 2001.

The same reliance on outdated species statuses is true of ELMT (2025) and the SEIR prepared for this project. For example, numerous species are assigned California Species of Special Concern, but which are now on CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List. More important, however, are the many species that have been assigned special status or have had their status upgraded since 2009 EIR from which the 2022 SEIR tiered. Circumstances have changed for 31 special-status species that were either designated with special status or were upgraded in status since the 2009 EIR (Table 2). Of these 31 special-status species, four have been documented on the project site, three have been documented within 1.5 miles, and 13 have been documented between 4 and 30 miles from the project site.

These changes in circumstance directly bear on the accuracy and the potential consequences of the characterization of the existing environmental setting.

Mischaracterization of the Wildlife Community
ELMT (2025) reports on a field survey and a desktop review having been completed.

However, its field survey was much too cursory, and its results are poorly interpreted, even misinterpreted. Its desktop review is incomplete and inaccurate. Greater care is warranted, but even if ELMT was not authorized or supported to complete a more suitable field survey effort and desktop review, its conclusions needed to be appropriately cautious. This more cautious approach would be consistent with the Precautionary Principle in rick analysis – or CEQA review – involving precious or rare resources such as special-status species (National Research Council 1986). The true wildlife community remains to be described with sufficient accuracy. Without a more accurate characterization of the wildlife community, the basis remains inadequate for predicting impacts and formulating appropriate mitigation strategies.

O1-57
cont.

O1-58
3653
28 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status species of wildlife at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Species highlighted in orange indicate changes in special status since 2009. Entries in bold font identify species detected by Noriko Smallwood during her site visit.

Common name Species name Status1
ELMT
(2025)
Records,
Surveys
Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi FT In region San Diego fairy shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis FE In region Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni FE In region Monarch Danaus plexippus FC (2019) Very close
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE (2019) Absent In region Western spadefoot Spea hammondii FC (2023), SSC Absent In region Southwestern pond turtle Actinemys pallida FC (2023), SSC Absent In region Coast horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Absent In region Orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra WL Absent In region Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC Absent In region San Diegan legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC (2016) Absent In region California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC (2016) In region Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC Absent In region Two-striped gartersnake Thamnophis hammondii SSC In region South coast gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis pop. 1 SSC Absent In region Red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber SSC Absent Nearby Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 Absent Nearby
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL Nearby Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Nearby
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC (2021) Nearby Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC (2021) Nearby
Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT (2014), CE Absent In region Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC In region
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Absent Very close
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Moderate Nearby
Calliope hummingbird Selasphorus calliope BCC (2021) In region O1-58
cont.
3654
29 Common name Species name Status1
ELMT
(2025)
Records,
Surveys
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC (2021) Absent Nearby Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Nearby
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC Absent In region Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC In region
Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC In region Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL Very close
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC Nearby
Red knot Calidris canutus BCC In region
Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos BCC (2021) On site Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC Nearby
Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes BCC Very close
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC (2021) Nearby
Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL Nearby
Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan BCC In region
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC (2021) Nearby
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC (2021) Nearby
California gull Larus californicus BCC (2021), WL Moderate On site California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, CFP Nearby Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC (2021) Nearby
Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans BCC, WL In region
Black skimmer Rynchops niger BCC, SSC3 Nearby
Common loon Gavia immer SSC Nearby
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Absent On site/On site American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Absent Very close Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 Absent Nearby
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Moderate On site/On site Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP On site/On site
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Absent Very close
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP Low Very close Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP, BOP, WL Absent Nearby Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC (2021), SSC3, BOP High On site O1-
cont.
3655
30 Common name Species name Status1
ELMT
(2025)
Records,
Surveys
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Moderate On site Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Moderate On site Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA, BOP Absent Very close Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Absent On site
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP On site/On site
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Absent Very close Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP Nearby
Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP In region
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP In region
American barn owl Tyto furcata BOP Very close/On site
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Nearby
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Nearby
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, CCE, SSC2, BOP Moderate Very close Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC (2021), SSC3, BOP Absent In region Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC (2021), SSC3, BOP Absent Nearby Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Nearby
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Nearby
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP On site/On site
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Low On site/On site
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Absent On site
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Low Very close
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 (2011) Absent Nearby Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Absent Very close Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE Absent Nearby Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Absent On site Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Absent Nearby Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 Low On site
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Very close
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Moderate On site/On site Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Very close
O1-58
cont.
3656
31 Common name Species name Status1
ELMT
(2025)
Records,
Surveys
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Nearby
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC (2021) Nearby
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 (2016) Absent Nearby California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC (2021) Nearby Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC (2021) In region Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Absent Very close Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Absent Nearby Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC In region Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL In region
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL Absent Nearby
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 (2017) In range Southern California rufouscrowned sparrowAimophila ruficeps canescens WL Absent Nearby Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Absent Nearby
Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 Absent On site Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC (2021) Very close/On site Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT (2018), BCC, SSC1 Absent Very close Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea BCC In region
Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3 In region
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC (2021) Nearby Northern yellow warbler Setophaga aestiva SSC2 Absent Very close Prairie warbler Setophaga discolor BCC In region
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Absent Nearby
Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus WBWG: M In region
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG: LM Absent In region Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis WBWG: M In region
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG: H In range
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG: H In range
California myotis Myotis californicus WBWG:L In region
Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum WBWG: M In range Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG: M In region
O1-
58 cont.
3657
32 Common name Species name Status1
ELMT
(2025)
Records,
Surveys
Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG: L In region
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG: M In range Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG: M Low In region
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG: H Absent In region Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG: H Low In region Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC, WBWG: H In range
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG: H In range Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG: H In region
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG: L Nearby/On site Pocketed free-tailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus SSC, WBWG: M Absent In range Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG: H Absent In range San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit
Lepus californicus bennettii SSC Absent In region
Northwestern San Diego pocket
mouse
Chaetodipus fallax fallax SSC Absent In region
Pallid San Diego pocket mouse Chaetodipus fallax pallidus SSC In range Stephens’ kangaroo rat Dipodomys stephensi FT (2022), CT Absent In region Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus
SSC In region
San Diego Bryant’s woodrat Neotoma bryanti intermedia SSC Absent In region Southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona SSC In range American badger Taxidea taxus SSC Absent In region
1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406) as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered; FC = federal candidate for listing; CT or CE = California threatened or endangered; CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered; CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511); SSCi = California Species of Special Concern with i = priorities 1, 2 and 3; WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H); BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-ofconservation-concern-2021.pdf); and BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors).

O1-5
8 cont.
3658
33 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
The impacts analysis in CEQA review involves prediction. Impact predictions are necessary in environmental review because measuring a project’s impacts directly could not happen until after the impacts occur, and the timing of this type of measurement would come too late for formulating a mitigation strategy or deciding on a project alternative. As noted earlier, the accuracy of the predictions of impacts and their significance ultimately relies on the degree of accuracy in the characterization of the existing environmental setting (Figure 3). Prediction accuracy also relies on experience, of which development projects subjected to CEQA review have been made amply available (Figure 8). CEQA prohibits the use of speculation to predict that potential project impacts would be less than significant (see CEQA Guidelines section 15145.

SPECULATION), so it is experience that must be used. The type of experience proven most effective, and therefore most amenable to achieving CEQA’s primary objectives, is scientific inference, as generally depicted in Figure 8. Scientific inference can be drawn from scientific studies or from the many other projects that have undergone CEQA review. The comparative method enables the use of scientific inference to predict impacts and to predict the efficacies of mitigation strategies, the latter of which should be also amply available in the record.

Figure 8. A framework for arriving at predicted project impacts based on experience with other project sites. Ideally, there is a pool of similar projects in similar circumstances where predicted impacts were compared to realized impacts, and into which the proposed project can also contribute to experience. !"#$%$"&$
'%()$&* +I*$
'%$&("+*%-&*I(".
+*-/0
'%$/I&*
1%()$&*.I21P&*+
'%$&("+*%-&*I(".
+*-/I$+
'(+*4&("+*%-&*I(".
+*-/I$+
'((5.(#.$61$%I$"&$
'(+*4&("+*%-&*I(".
+*-/0
T$+*.1%$/I&*I("+
O1-59
3659
34 In the following, I analyze several types of impacts likely to result from the project, none of which are analyzed adequately by ELMT (2025) or the SEIR, and some of which are not analyzed at all.

REDUCED PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY FROM HABITAT LOSS
Habitat loss results in a reduced productive capacity of affected wildlife species. The site is proven to serve as habitat to at least 46 species of vertebrate wildlife which ELMT and Noriko observed on the site, but the number of avian nest sites remains unknown. The surveys that have been conducted on the project site were unsuitable for detecting all bird nests or for estimating total nest density. The alternative method for estimating avian productive capacity is to infer it from estimates of total nest density elsewhere.

Noriko and I have completed studies to estimate total avian nest density in various environments, but not in an environment that would match the project site.

The projection of inferences of total nest density from study sites to the project site would benefit from knowledge of the acreages of vegetation or ground cover classifications on the project site. ELMT (2025) includes the stated objective to produce a vegetation map, but it reports only a map that crudely classifies covers as Disturbed, Developed, Active Dairy, and Stock Pond. No acreages are reported of these classes, and these classes are only crudely described to vegetative structure. Notably, the reporting is silent on the numbers and arrangements of trees and shrubs on and around the project site, lumping them all as “ornamentals.” Nor is there any discussion of the management of grassland, wetland and ruderal vegetation that could affect ground-nesting birds.

Therefore, my projection of inferences of total nest density from study sites to the project site is necessarily crude, and they must rely on assumptions that likely vary in accuracy. Nonetheless, my approach at least serves as an example of how a needed analysis can be conducted with a better foundation.

Noriko estimated an average 3.22 nests/acre among three of her grassland study sites in southern California, two of which were in nearby Murrieta. I estimated a weighted mean of 15.59 nests/acre on 11.42 acres of abandoned walnut trees bounded by hedge shrubs and trees in Rancho Cordova, California in 2023. Assuming Noriko’s estimates represent the total nest density of the portion of the project site lacking trees and artificial structures, and my total nest density represents the rest of the site, and assuming the acreage of these two types of environment are about equally divided, then I estimate 1,778 nest sites. Assuming 1.39 broods per nest site based on a review of 322 North American bird species, which averaged 1.39 broods per year, then I estimate 2,471 nest attempts per year. Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity of

2.9 fledged birds per nest attempt, then I predict 7,166 fledglings/year at the project site.

The loss of 1,778 nest sites and 2,471 nest attempts per year would easily qualify as significant impacts that have not been analyzed in the SEIR. But the impacts would not end with the immediate loss of nest sites. The reproductive capacity of the site would be lost. The project would prevent the production of 7,166 fledglings per year. Assuming an average bird generation time of 4 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual O1-59
cont.

O1-60
3660
35 fledgling production can be estimated from an equation in Smallwood (2022):
{(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + (2 adults/nest × nests/year) × (number of years ÷ years/generation)} ÷ (number of years) = 8,055 birds per year lost to California.

The loss of 8,055 birds per year would be a loss of significant habitat value that is currently provided by the project site. Most of these birds are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act, both of which are intended to most strongly protect breeding migratory birds. The loss of 8,055 birds per year would easily qualify as an unmitigated significant impact.

INTERFERENCE WITH WILDLIFE MOVEMENT
One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. Unfortunately, this concern has not motivated any serious analysis of whether or how the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. As part of its field survey, ELMT (2025:D-3) reportedly searched for “any natural corridors and linkages that could support the movement of wildlife through the area...,” but no specific methodology was described for doing so, and no results of the search for corridors and linkages is reported. Lacking field data, ELMT and the SEIR only speculate that the project site does not function as a corridor or linkage in wildlife movement.

ELMT (2025) and the SEIR rely on the red-herring argument that the project site must act as a wildlife movement corridor or linkage before changes to it could result in significant interference with wildlife movement in the region. The premise of the argument is not true. The CEQA standard expressed in Question (d) of the CEQA’s App.

G Checklist applies to all types of movement and not just the movement channeled by corridors. As habitat fragmentation proceeds, the remaining patches of open space increase in their importance as stopover opportunities for wildlife on long-distance dispersal or migration. In the case of this project, the project site is one of the last remaining fragments of habitat in the region, and is therefore of critical importance to many wild animals on the move.

TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE
The SEIR neglects to address one of the project’s most obvious, substantial impacts on wildlife, and that is wildlife mortality and injuries caused by project-generated traffic.

Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic (Photos 32―35), including along roads far from the project footprint but which would nevertheless by traversed by automobiles head to or from the project’s building. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003).

Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to O1-60
cont.

O1-61
O1-62
3661
36 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally.

Photos 32 and 33. A
desert cottontail runs
across the road in
Murietta, California (top),
and a great-tailed grackle
crosses a road in the
Imperial Valley (bottom).

Photos 34 and 35.

Raccoon killed on Road 31
just east of Highway 505
in Solano County (left;
photo taken on 10
November 2018), and
California kingsnake
killed by a vehicle on a
rural road in El Dorado
County in 2024.

O1-62
cont.
3662
37 The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). Brown et al.’s (2016) adjustment factors for carcass persistence resembled those of Santos et al. (2011). Also applying searcher detection rates from Brown et al. (2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 9,462 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number projected over 1.25 years and 2.5 miles of road translates to 3,028 wild animals per mile per year. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 188,191 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 22 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 53 times the Canadian estimate.

An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.

For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,028 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. The estimated numbers of fatalities were 1.75% birds, 26.4% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others), 67.4% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 4.4% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). VMT is useful for predicting wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach of Vasco Road during the period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates.

Predicting project-generated traffic impacts on wildlife The SEIR predicts 130,631,620 annual VMT will be generated by the project. During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road in Contra Costa County daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 9,462 wildlife fatalities, or 2,351 vehicle miles per fatality.

This rate divided into the predicted into annual operational VMT predicts 55,564 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year due to project-generated traffic.

However, some might argue that this prediction relies too much on a study along a road through less-disturbed rangeland that likely supports more non-volant wildlife that is O1-62
cont.

O1-63
3663
38 more vulnerable to collision mortality. I would argue that the project-generated traffic would pass through similar rural environments with ample wildlife available to be crushed under automobile tires. Nevertheless, to better represent those reaches of road that are more urban than rural, or that would become more urban with the development of the project, I recently completed my own study of wildlife mortality caused by automobiles along roads that were urban and interfaced between urban and agricultural land uses.

I completed one year of daily pedestrian surveys along 2.7 km (1.713 miles) of local, collector and minor arterial roads in north Davis, California, where I tallied 314 fatalities of 40 species of vertebrate wildlife. Most of the fatalities were small-bodied animals such as Sierran treefrogs, western toads, western fence lizards, 10”- to 16”-long juvenile Pacific gophersnakes, valley gartersnakes and California kingsnakes, as well as bushtits, yellow-rumped warblers, deer mice and California ground squirrels. Most of the animals I found would never have been detected from a moving vehicle, which is why people often underestimate how many wild animals are killed by vehicle traffic.

The animals I found in my study did not include all the animals killed by vehicles on the roads I searched. Many had been removed by scavengers before I could find and count them. (American crows patrol the roads every morning, and so does a large flock of wild turkeys.) Some of the animals are knocked off the road in places where I could never find them, and some were undoubtedly caught and carried away in the grills of vehicles or in tire treads. Most of the Sierran treefrogs disappeared from where I found them within several hours, so daily searches missed many of the fatalities. To adjust for these undetected fatalities, I fit a logit regression model to my fatality finds, all of which transitioned to carcass detection trials after I initially found them. Starting with the first day after each detection, I monitored the carcass trials for 30 days, and I assigned each a body mass estimate based on typical body mass reported in the literature. Predictor variables were days since detection and log10 body mass. The relationship between carcass detection probability and the predictor variables is depicted in Figure 9. My fatality finds adjusted by the model results in an estimate of 2,126 vertebrate wildlife fatalities over 1.713 miles of roads in one year, or 1,241 vertebrate wildlife fatalities/mile/year. This rate is 40.9% of the rate measured at Vasco Road, or an estimated 5,748 vehicle miles per fatality. Applying this urban fatality rate to the predicted construction MT predicts 830 vertebrate wildlife fatalities, and applying it to annual operational VMT predicts 22,726 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year in the area around the project that is traveled by project-generated traffic.

O1-63
cont.
3664
39 Figure 9.

Wildlife
carcass
detection
probability
is a
function of
the number
of days
since
discovery
and log10
body mass.

A reasonable range of predicted mortality is therefore 22,726 to 55,564 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year due to project-generated traffic.

Based on my analysis, the project-generated traffic would cause significant impacts on wildlife. The SEIR does not address this potential impact, let alone propose to mitigate it. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project. Given the predicted level of project-generated traffic-caused mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts, and that these impacts would be unmitigated.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would contribute significantly to cumulative impacts of past, present and future projects, or to multiple types of impacts that are cumulatively considerable.

Unfortunately, the SEIR fails to seriously analyze the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts on biological resources. According to the SEIR (p. 3.4-76), “The proposed project, including the EBPSP, would comply with the City’s Habitat Mitigation Fee per Ontario Ranch Settlement Agreement, which would reduce impacts with respect O1-63
cont.

O1-64
o.7

0.6 CJ o.5
~
~ C!'- o.4
0 :,
!( o.3 g. .
§-
-;;::: · o.z ~
o.1
~ :,9
0 :P
9 /11i
0 if§
0 0
3665
40 to the cumulative loss of habitat for sensitive species. Additionally, mitigation measures would reduce impacts to sensitive species that may be present on future development sites, as well as the EBPSP and off-site improvements, to less than significant. Projects in the CDFW inland deserts region, including future development in accordance with the Policy Plan Amendment, would be required to comply with existing state regulations protecting biological resources, which could include the preparation of biological reports and surveys. Impacts of the proposed project would be less than cumulatively considerable with implementation of mitigation. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.” However, the CEQA Guidelines (§15064(h)(3)) states, “When relying on a plan, regulation or program, the lead agency should explain how implementing the particular requirements in the plan, regulation or program ensure that the project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable.” The SEIR fails to explain how payment of a mitigation fee per the settlement agreement would minimize, avoid or offset the project’s contributions to cumulative impacts. Nor does the SEIR summarize the performance of the settlement agreement to date.

Following a settlement agreement between the City and Endangered Habitats League and Sierra Club, who challenged the City’s 1998 General Plan Amendment EIR, the City “established a habitat mitigation fee to cover potential environmental impacts to the burrowing owl, DSFLF [Delhi Sands flower-loving fly], raptor foraging, loss of open space, and agricultural lands” (SEIR p. 3.4-11). Following disfunction over the implementation of the City’s settlement agreement, the City entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) on 21 November 2023 with the Inland Empire Resource Conservation District to administer the mitigation fund. The SEIR (p. 3.4-12) reports, “With respect to burrowing owl and DSFLF, this MOA ensures:
§ A mitigation fee will be applied to development projects within Ontario Ranch that will impact burrowing owls or their habitat;
§ The City of Ontario will identify lands occupied by burrowing owl or DSFLF and suitable long-term habitat for these species to be avoided and maintained; § In the case of burrowing owls being present on proposed development sites that are not viable long-term habitat, developers can pay the Habitat Mitigation Fee and relocate the owls in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife; and
§ Up to 25 percent of the Habitat Mitigation Fee collected for burrowing owls can be used for the recovery of the DSFLF.”
An explanation is needed, however, how the relocation of burrowing owls would be allowed without an CDFW-issued incidental take permit for a species that is now a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act. And considering the SEIR’s assertion (p. 3.4-12) that “Native habitats and vegetation communities are mostly gone throughout Ontario,” explanations are needed as to where burrowing owls could be relocated and where burrowing owl habitat that can be protected. As written, the MOA’s requirements are not credible Also important to the MOA’s credibility, a O1-64
cont.
3666
41 summary is needed of the number of burrowing owls that have benefitted from this MOA to date.

A burrowing owl expert cited by Miller (2024) as a personal communication cautioned that “Most remaining owl colonies in western San Bernardino County were small, highly fragmented, unprotected, and on the brink of extirpation” (Pete Bloom, 2002). Another expert, “Kidd et al. (2007) reported that burrowing owls continued to decline in southwestern San Bernardino County, where they nested in native habitat and on dairy lands; of 78 known pairs in the southwest corner of the county, 26 were eliminated due to habitat loss; and of 54 known breeding pairs in the high desert portion of their study area, 21 pairs were eliminated, also from habitat loss. Most remaining breeding pairs and colonies were small, highly fragmented, unprotected, and declining rapidly in the absence of adequate mitigation for habitat loss.” The local threats to burrowing owls mirror the regional threats from habitat loss, habitat degradation, and habitat fragmentation. It is therefore essential that the City summarize the performance of its MOA with the Inland Empire Resource Conservation District.

As for the notion that implementation of the project-specific mitigation measures would avoid significant cumulative impacts, this notion is inconsistent with CEQA’s definition of a cumulative impact. CEQA defines a cumulative impact as an impact “created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts” (CEQA Guidelines §15065 (a)(3)). Even though a project’s direct or indirect effects might be mitigated to a less than significant impact at the project level, it can still incrementally contribute to the effects of other projects for a significant cumulative impact.

The SEIR’s conclusion that an existing settlement agreement and project-specific mitigation would avoid significant cumulative impacts lacks evidentiary support, and it is readily refutable. Noriko Smallwood and I performed an experiment to measure the efficacy of applicable laws and regulations, permitting requirements, and required mitigation measures at avoiding or minimizing project impacts including cumulative impacts. We revisited the project sites we had surveyed as experts to repeat the survey methods at the same time of year, the same start time in the day, and the same methods and survey duration to control these sources of variation to cleanly measure the effects of mitigated development on wildlife. We structured the experiment in a before-after, control-impact experimental design, as some of the sites had been developed since our initial survey and some had remained undeveloped. All the developed sites had included mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or compensate for impacts to wildlife.

Nevertheless, we found that mitigated development resulted in a 66% loss of species on site, and 48% loss of species in the project area. Counts of vertebrate animals declined 90%. We found that “Development impacts measured by the mean number of species detected per survey were greatest for amphibians (-100%), followed by mammals (-86%), grassland birds (-75%), raptors (-53%), special-status species (-49%), all birds as a group (-48%), non-native birds (-44%), and synanthropic birds (-28%). Our results indicated that urban development substantially reduced vertebrate species richness and numerical abundance, even after richness and abundance had likely already been depleted by the cumulative effects of loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat in O1-64
cont.

O1-65
3667
42 the urbanizing environment,” and despite all the mitigation measures and existing policies and regulations. Experimental evidence demonstrates the need to analyze a project’s potentially significant contributions to cumulative impacts on wildlife despite existing laws, policies, previous settlement agreements and project-by-project requirements of mitigation. The environmental review for this project needs to include an appropriate cumulative impacts analysis as required by CEQA.

FLAWED MITIGATION STRATEGY
The mitigation strategy needs to be based on a sound understanding of the existing wildlife community. It needs to be known which species occur or are likely to occur on the project site as well as the nature of their occurrences. It needs to known which species are resident and which are migratory. For special-status species, detection surveys should have been completed to either detect the species or to obtain evidence of its absence. Surveys should have been completed to understand how wildlife use the site in their movement patterns. And what was found of wildlife species needs to be carefully interpreted by comparing the findings to the findings from other survey efforts at other sites. Failures to detect species should be interpreted relative to the probabilities of their detections given the survey effort. The mitigation strategy needs to follow the steps under Assess species occurrence likelihoods and Characterize wildlife community, followed by Step 7: Predict impacts (Figure 3). However, the IS/MND’s mitigation strategy does not follow from these steps. This pointed out, my comments follow in regular font the summary of each required mitigation measure in italics.

Policy Plan Amendment (These are new measures that did not appear in 2022 EIR)
Mitigation Measure BIO-1-PPA: Biological Resources Assessment.

Applicants for future development projects on non-infill sites with suitable natural habitat shall conduct a biological resources assessment of the proposed project ... by a qualified biologist and summarized in a biological resources letter report or biological resources technical report that will be submitted to the Ontario Planning Department for review and approval prior to being issued a grading permit. … Mitigation Measure BIO-2-PPA: Biological Reconnaissance-Level Survey.

The biological reconnaissance-level survey shall include, but not be limited to:

An analysis of available literature and biological databases including ... California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB); California Native Plant Society (CNPS) ... The literature review shall be performed prior to the field survey to identify sensitive biological resources that were reported previously from the proposed development project vicinity and to help determine the type of sensitive biological resources that may be in the survey area. … A field assessment survey that includes mapping vegetation communities in the proposed development project ... An evaluation of each mapped vegetation community’s State and Global rarity ranks shall be determined using CDFW’s O1-65
cont.

O1-66
3668
43 Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP) … the proposed development project’s potential to support special status plant and wildlife species ... nesting habitat for migratory and special status bird species ... potential impacts to bats and roosts ... potential jurisdictional areas, including wetlands and riparian habitats ... potential local and regional wildlife movement corridors.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3-PPA: Focused Species Surveys. If one or more special status plant or animal species has the potential to occur within the proposed development project area … a qualified biologist shall conduct additional focused surveys for said species using the most recently updated protocols recommended by natural resource agencies or, if not available, standards accepted in the professional biological community to survey that taxonomic group, community, or species. … Mitigation Measure BIO-4-PPA: Biological Resources Report. The results of the biological survey for proposed development projects with no significant impacts may be presented in a biological survey letter report. For proposed development projects with significant impacts that require mitigation to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance, and/or agency consultation and permitting, the results of the biological survey shall be presented in a biological technical report. The impact analysis shall consider impacts from areas subject to fuel modification and grading to accommodate the development.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5-PPA: Special-Status Species, Sensitive Habitats, Wetlands, Other Non-wetland Waters, Native Wildlife Nursery Sites, and Wildlife Corridors. If a sensitive biological resource is identified during field surveys (see Mitigation Measures BIO-2-PPA and BIO-3-PPA), the City shall require implementation of mitigation measures at the project level that fully account for the adversely affected resource. Mitigation measures shall adhere to the following order of priority to reduce adverse impacts of a proposed project to the resource: avoid impacts, minimize impacts, and compensate for impacts. Mitigation measures shall be used on a project-level basis and be tailored to on-site conditions and sensitive biological resources present.

Priority 1, Avoidance of Impacts. … Priority 2, Minimize Impacts. … Priority 3, Offset Impacts. … The applicant shall obtain incidental take authorization from USFWS (16 US Code Section 1531 et seq.) or CDFW (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2050–2115.5) prior to commencing development of the project site [for Endangered, Rare, Threatened, or Candidate Species…
Mitigation Measure BIO-6-PPA: Demarcate Work Area Boundary. ...

Mitigation Measure BIO-7-PPA: Preconstruction Special Status Species Surveys. ...

Mitigation Measure BIO-8-PPA: Pre-disturbance Nesting Bird Surveys. The City of Ontario shall require applicants for future development projects with suitable natural habitat, to contract with a qualified biologist with experience in conducting O1-66
cont.
3669
44 breeding bird surveys to conduct a preconstruction general nesting bird survey …. no more than 5 days prior to initiation of construction...

Mitigation Measure BIO-9-PPA: Active Nest Avoidance and No-Work Buffers. If active nests of avian species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code are detected within the proposed development project area or within a 300-foot buffer (500-foot buffer for raptors and listed species) of the proposed development project area, a no-work buffer will be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors and listed species) and construction shall be restricted in the area until the young have fledged; there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting if the nest attempt has failed, as determined by the qualified biologist …
Mitigation Measure BIO-10-PPA: Nest Monitoring. …
Mitigation Measures BIO-1-PPA through BIO-10-PPA generally represent the City’s view of industry standards, but without any statement of nexus between CEQA’s primary objectives and these measures. These perceived industry standards introduce many shortfalls that leave the reports that follow from them vulnerable to challenge, as exemplified by my comments on ELMT (2025).

For example, BIO-1-PPA insufficiently defines the scope of the letter report where it refers to a “biological resources assessment,” and what it means by “suitable natural habitat,” and “qualified biologist.” More detail is needed, such as whether the biological resources assessment is intended to achieve CEQAs primary objectives, and how it would do so. There is no such thing in wildlife ecology as “suitable habitat,” just as there is no such thing as “unsuitable habitat” (see Krausman 2016). It needs to also be explained whether protocol-level detection surveys are to be conducted.

BIO-2-PPA would continue to misuse the CNDDB to obtain incomplete lists of specialstatus species for analysis of occurrence likelihoods, and it would continue to present findings from the desktop review and field surveys as definitive rather than in contexts facilitated by comparative analysis.

BIO-3-PPA requires protocol-level detection surveys for special-status species determined by a qualified biologist to potentially occur on the project site. Problems with this requirement start with the lack of any definition of what qualifies as a qualified biologist. In the case of this project, the consulting biologist fails to recognize that species it detected in its reconnaissance survey, such as yellow-headed blackbird, are special-status species. As for the burrowing owl, no protocol-level detection survey was completed despite the consulting biologist determining that burrowing owls have a high likelihood of occurrence. The language of BIO-3-PPA is too subjective for it to be enforceable. Moreover, in situations where a candidate or listed species potentially occurs, such as the burrowing owl, the applicant needs to consult with the appropriate regulatory authority prior to conducting the surveys.

O1-66 cont.
3670
45 BIO-4-PPA requires a letter report for biological studies leading to determinations of less-than-significant impacts with mitigation, but otherwise a technical report.

However, whether the report is letter form or report form is irrelevant to the need to achieve CEQA’s primary objectives.

BIO-5-PPA requires a prioritized series of mitigation actions in response to survey results that reveal sensitive biological resources on the project site. It requires the attainment of an ITP for resources that cannot be mitigated through avoidance or minimization measures, but if such a resource is found on site or determined to potentially occur, then the priority is to put consultation with the regulatory agencies ahead of any decision over whether avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation is appropriate. The agencies must be consulted first.

BIO-6-PPA and BIO-7-PPA should be implemented if the project goes forward, but it needs to be understood that the conservation benefits of these measures are de minimis relative to the potential project impacts on the resources at issue.

BIO-8-PPA should be implemented if the project goes forward, but it needs to be understood that the conservation benefits of these measures are de minimis relative to the potential project impacts on the resources at issue. Moreover, this measure suffers the same shortfalls as BIO-1-PPA, where it lacks suitable definitions for “suitable natural habitat” and “qualified biologist.”
BIO-8-PPA would not detect and salvage more than a small fraction of the bird nests on the project site in the time allotted. Preconstruction, take-avoidance surveys should consist of two steps, both of which are very difficult. First, the biologist(s) performing the survey must identify birds that are breeding. Second, the biologist(s) must locate the breeding birds’ nests. The first step is typically completed by observing bird behaviors such as food deliveries and nest territory defense. To be successful, these types of observations typically require many surveys on many dates spread throughout the breeding season even for a single species. To identify and locate the birds of all species nesting on a site would require a much greater survey effort than can be accomplished in BIO-2’s allotted timespan. Many bird nests would be missed.

I estimate the project site supports 1,778 nest sites in the average year, and this number does not include those that would need to be located within the defined buffer area beyond the project site’s boundary. Even assuming all these nests could be found (not likely), the mitigation measure would apply only to the breeding season of the survey.

After the breeding season of the preconstruction survey, there would be no further production of birds from the project site. The long-established principle of carrying capacity would ensures that the numbers of birds residing in California would be recued by the numbers lost from the breeding populations on the project site. The project’s impact on birds would be permanent and of large magnitude. The conservation benefits of this measure would be de minimis compared to the project’s potential impacts on breeding birds.

O1-66
cont.
3671
46 BIO-9-PPA and BIO-10-PPA allow a single individual to make subjective decisions, outside the public’s view, to determine the buffer area and buffer timing for any given species. These measures lack objective criteria, and they are therefore unenforceable.

Lastly, Mitigation Measures BIO-1-PPA through BIO-10-PPA lack any summary of their efficacy, neither for any single Measure nor for the collection of Measures. After thousands of projects have required similar mitigation measures throughout California, there surely must be a record of their performance. Some record of performance is especially warranted in this SEIR, because the City of Ontario is nearly built out while the burrowing owl and many other special-status species have declined within the City.

As Pete Bloom informed Miller (2024), the burrowing owl is approach extirpation throughout southwest San Bernardino County. And as a test of the general collection of Mitigation Measures BIO-1-PPA through Bio-10-PPA, Smallwood and Smallwood (2023) measured substantial declines in various types of vertebrate wildlife species despite the requirements of these measures. The evidence is overwhelming that Mitigation Measures BIO-1-PPA through BIO-10-PPA are ineffective.

Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure BIO-1-SP: Pre-disturbance Nesting Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Monitoring. If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds shall be conducted within 3 days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the preconstruction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside of a no-disturbance buffer, which is typically 50 to 100 feet for songbird nests and 100 to 300 feet for raptors; however, the ultimate size of the nodisturbance buffer will be determined by the wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of construction noise and/or surrounding anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between the nest and the construction activity, type and duration of construction activity, species habituation, and topographical barriers. These factors will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis when developing buffer distances. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest will be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel will be instructed about the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor shall be present to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction activities within the buffer area can occur.

If the project goes forward, preconstruction surveys for nesting birds should be implemented, but this measure would not avoid the permanent loss of habitat, nor the collision mortality with automobiles. Preconstruction, take-avoidance surveys should consist of two steps, both of which are very difficult. First, the biologist(s) performing the survey must identify birds that are breeding. Second, the biologist(s) must locate the O1-66
cont.

O1-67
3672
47 breeding birds’ nests. The first step is typically completed by observing bird behaviors such as food deliveries and nest territory defense. To be successful, these types of observations typically require many surveys on many dates spread throughout the breeding season even for a single species. To identify and locate the birds of all species nesting on a site would require a much greater survey effort than can be accomplished in BIO-1-SP’s allotted timespan. Many bird nests would be missed.

After the breeding season of the preconstruction survey, there would be no further production of birds from the project site. The project’s impact on birds would be permanent and of large magnitude. The conservation benefits of this measure would be de minimis compared to the project’s potential impacts on breeding birds.

Furthermore, the mitigation language allows a single individual to make a subjective decision, outside the public’s view, to determine the buffer area and buffer timing for any given species. This measure lacks objective criteria, and it is therefore unenforceable.

Lastly, the mitigation language includes the requirement that the preconstruction nest survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, and this requirement carries over to determinations of the buffer areas and buffer timing to avoid take caused by construction activities. Undefined, however, is what qualifies as a “qualified biologist” in these contexts. As mentioned earlier in this letter, Noriko Smallwood and I have been conducting surveys over the past several years to estimate total nest density, which is relevant to a preconstruction, take-avoidance survey because our surveys were likewise directed to all bird species that could be concurrently nesting on a site. Searching for the nests of one species is difficult, but searching for nests of all bird species at once is vastly more difficult. For this reason, there are very few published estimates of total nest density, and there are very few wildlife biologists who have experience with surveys for the nest attempts of all bird species on a given site. A technical way to qualify a wildlife biologist for the tasks outlined in this measure would be to obtain an agency Memorandum of Understanding in which the biologist is named and said to be qualified for conducting the preconstruction survey and for determining the take-avoidance buffer area and timing. However, a more compelling means of qualifying the biologist would be to require that the biologist has achieved demonstrable experience with nest surveys and avian nesting behavior. Without a better definition of what is a qualified biologist in the contexts of these tasks, BIO-1-SP lacks objective criteria, and it is therefore unenforceable.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2-SP: Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Surveys.

To ensure burrowing owl are still absent from the Specific Plan area, a preconstruction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted in accordance with CDFW’s 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Two surveys shall be conducted, the first 14 to 30 days prior to ground-disturbing activities, and the second O1-67
cont.

O1-68
3673
48 within 24 hours before ground-disturbing activities. ... If burrowing owls are found within the Specific Plan area during the pre-construction clearance surveys, coordination with the CDFW will be required to determine if avoidance and minimization measures can be implemented to avoid any direct or indirect impacts to burrowing owl, or if an Incidental Take Permit under Section 2081 of the CESA will need to be prepared and approved by CDFW.

Due to a rapid decline throughout California (Miller 2024), the California Fish and Game Commission voted unanimously in 2024 to designate the burrowing owl as a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act. It is therefore imperative to first consult with the CDFW about whether and how to obtain an incidental take permit (ITP), and otherwise to adhere to the CDFW (2012) survey and mitigation guidelines. The SEIR does not indicate that there has been any consultation with CDFW, and it misrepresents CDFW’s (2012) survey and mitigation guidelines by skipping breeding-season detection surveys before performing preconstruction takeavoidance surveys.

For the burrowing owl, there are three types of surveys recommended and described in the CDFW’s (2012) survey and mitigation guidelines: (1) Habitat assessment, (2) Detection surveys, and (3) Preconstruction survey. The habitat assessment is intended to evaluate the likelihood that the site supports burrowing owls, and to decide whether detection surveys should be performed. The detection survey, otherwise described as either or both breeding-season or non-breeding-season survey, is intended to detect whether the site truly supports burrowing owls, and if so, where and how many. The preconstruction survey, otherwise known as a take-avoidance survey, is intended to determine whether burrowing owls immigrated to the site since completion of the detection survey, or whether they returned to the site since passive or active relocations were performed as mitigation. The three types of survey carry distinct but inter-related purposes, and CDFW (2012) intends them to be completed in chronological order as numbered above.

The first two types of survey support impacts analysis, whereas the third type of survey is a mitigation measure. Burrowing owls can be determined absent at the time of the survey based on evidence derived from the habitat assessment or detection survey, but only if the surveys achieved the minimum standards of CDFW (2012). Whereas an absence determination naturally follows from the negative findings of properly performed detection surveys, the following three questions must be answered negatively to determine absence based on the habitat assessment:

A) Are there occurrence records nearby the project site? B) Is the site’s vegetation cover and height typical of where burrowing owls are found? C) Are there fossorial mammals present which typically construct burrows useable by burrowing owls, or are there surrogate cavities that can serve as nest sites? If the answers to these questions are compellingly negative, then detection surveys are not necessary, but they could be implemented to make certain that burrowing owls are absent on the project site. If the answers to these questions are affirmative or not O1-68
cont.
3674
49 compellingly negative, then it should be assumed that burrowing owl habitat exists on the site until detection surveys prove otherwise.

To question A, the nearest burrowing owl occurrence records are within 1.5 miles of the project site. Moreover, ELMT (2024) determines a moderate likelihood of occurrence.

The evidence easily justifies an affirmative answer to question A, and so this part of the habitat assessment warrants a detection survey effort.

To question B, the vegetation cover is typical of conditions where burrowing owls often occur. The answer to question B is affirmative, and so this part of the habitat assessment warrants a detection survey effort.

To question C, ground squirrels are known to occur on the project site. Ground squirrels construct burrows used by burrowing owls, and these two species mutually alarm-call for predators and survive better together (K. S. Smallwood, unpublished data). The answer to question C is affirmative, and so this part of the habitat assessment warrants a detection survey effort.

The answers to all three questions are affirmative. Therefore, breeding-season detection surveys are needed, and these surveys are not to be confused with preconstruction takeavoidance surveys. Breeding-season detection surveys are needed to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting and to publicly disclose potential impacts on the burrowing owl.

Lastly, regardless of the survey outcome, the project would permanently eliminate potential burrowing owl habitat from the project site, and in doing so it would reduce the region’s carrying capacity for supporting burrowing owls.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3-SP: Pre-disturbance Roosting Site Survey and Bat Management Plan. If on-site clearing or grading will take place between late spring and late summer and/or in the fall (generally mid-March through late October), a qualified biologist shall be retained to determine whether potential roosting sites for bats may be affected. For large ornamental trees and palms suitable for bat roosting/nursery, exit counts and acoustic surveys shall be performed prior to initial ground disturbance or vegetation or structure removal to determine whether the Specific Plan area (and a 300-foot buffer) supports a nursery or roost. ... If the results of the bat survey find a single roosting individual of a special-status bat species or 25 or more individuals of a non-special status bat species with potential to be present in the Specific Plan area (i.e., hoary bat, western yellow bat), a Bat Management Plan shall be developed to ensure mortality to bats does not occur. For each location confirmed to be occupied by bats, the plan shall provide details both in text and graphically where exclusion devises and/or staged tree removal will need to occur, the timing for exclusion work, and the timeline and methodology needed to exclude the bats. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by CDFW prior to disturbance of the roosts.

O1-68
cont.

O1-69
3675
50 If the project goes forward, I concur that preconstruction surveys for roosting bats should be completed, but I would extend the surveys to all bats whether roosting or not.

Further, these surveys should be the second set of surveys, the first having been detection surveys to inform the characterization of the existing environmental setting, to disclose potential project impacts on bats, and to formulate an effective mitigation strategy. The detection surveys should have already been completed. The SEIR should be withdrawn from public circulation until an adequate detection survey is completed and its results disclosed in a more complete draft of the CEQA review.

Finally, regardless of survey outcome and unless a substantial mitigation strategy is required, the survey alone cannot avoid or minimize the loss of the region’s carrying capacity due to habitat destruction caused by the project. The carrying capacity of bats cannot be relocated unless an already degraded portion of the environment is restored to increase the carrying capacity of bats at another site.

Wildlife Movement
To mitigate impacts on project interference with wildlife movement in the region, the SEIR refers to requirements under the Policy Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to complete preconstruction surveys for nesting birds and roosting bats. However, the SEIR fails to explain how these surveys would avoid or minimize project interference with wildlife movement in the region. These surveys would accomplish nothing in the ways of avoiding or minimizing the losses of stopover and roosting opportunities for migrating birds or bats. In no way does the SEIR mitigate for these potential impacts.

NEEDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by collisions with automobiles due to project-generated road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife under-crossings or overcrossings of particularly dangerous road segments. Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below).

Wildlife overcrossings and under-crossings have been built and tested for wildlife use.

Strategic fencing and speed controls have also been implemented, as speed is an important factor to wildlife mortality (Illner 1992), and whereas a required mitigation includes an onsite speed limit, this measure would not apply to commuter traffic off the project site.

Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation is needed, and it ought to also include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured during construction and by collisions with automobiles traveling to and from the project site during project operations.

O1-69
cont.

O1-70
O1-71
O1-72
3676
51 Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
______________________
Thank you for your consideration,

LITERATURE CITED
Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACEcollisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. 00604-080202.

Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Resources, Livermore, California.

Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Sacramento, California.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species.

California.

Business Park Specific Plan Located in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, ELMT Consulting. 2025. Biological Resources Assessment for the Proposed Eucalyptus Report to Ontario Ranch Venture II, LLC, Newport Beach, California.

Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.

Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.

Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.

Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. “The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82.

Illner, H. 1992. Road deaths of Westphalian owls: methodological problems, influence

5. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, UK Nature Conservation No.

I. R. Taylor, and S. Percival, eds. The ecology and conservation of European owls. of road type and possible effects on population levels. Pp. 94-100 in C. A. Galbraith, Kidd, J. W., P. H. Bloom, C. W. Barrows and C. T. Collins. 2007. Status of Burrowing Owls in Southwestern California. Pages 76-89 in Proceedings of the California Albion Environmental, Inc. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1.

Burrowing Owl Symposium, November 2003. Institute for Bird Populations and Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality on U.S. roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.

O1-72 cont.

O1-73
t
3677
52 Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.

Miller, J. 2024. Petition Before the California Fish and Game Commission to list California populations of the Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) as Endangered or Threatened Under the California Endangered Species Act. Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Burrowing Owl Preservation Society, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Urban Bird Foundation, Central Valley Bird Club, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society.

National Research Council. 1986. Ecological knowledge and environmental problemsolving: concepts and case studies. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road? Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring surveys.

PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383 Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J.

Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L.

Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2023. Measured effects of anthropogenic development on vertebrate wildlife diversity. Diversity 15, 1037. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15101037.

Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47.

O1-73
cont.
3678
April 20, 2026
Sent via email
Mr. Thomas Grahn
Principal Planner
City of Ontario Planning Department
303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764
(909) 395-2036
[email protected]
Re: Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Ontario Plan 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Project, SCH# 2025110102 Dear Mr. Grahn:

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (the “Center”) regarding the Ontario Plan 2050 (“TOP 2050”) Policy Plan Amendment (“PPA”) and Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (“EBPSP”) Project (“Project”). The Center has reviewed the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“DSEIR”) for the Project closely and is concerned that the City of Ontario (“City”) has failed to adequately analyze and mitigate the potential environmental impacts of the Project. Critical deficiencies in the DSEIR include, but are not limited to, the DSEIR’s Project Description, and analysis of and mitigation for the Project’s emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases. The Center urges the City to recirculate a revised DSEIR that, inter alia, sufficiently analyzes and mitigates Project impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, and includes a legally sufficient Project description.

The Center is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center has over 1.8 million members and online activists throughout California and the United States. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in the Inland Empire, including the City of Ontario.

I. THE DSEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE LAND USE

CHANGES PROPOSED UNDER THE PROJECT
An accurate, stable, and finite project description remains the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR. (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193.) For planning projects, like the proposed amendments to TOP 2050, this requires the inclusion of relevant details available to the lead agency and prohibits conflicting or inconsistent descriptions of the nature of the project or its main elements. (Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036 at 1052-1055.) Here, the DSEIR fails to adequately describe the Project because it fails to include relevant details regarding the land use changes that would result from its adoption, and because the description of the industrial land use expansion under the project is inconsistent.

O2-Intro
O2-1
CENTER for BI OLOG I CA L DI VERS IT Y Because life is good.

Arizona . California . Colorado. Florida . N. Carolina . Nevada . New Mexico . New York . Oregon . Washington, D.C. . La Paz, Mexico Biological Diversity.erg
3679
CBD Comments on TOP 2050 PPA & EBPSP DSEIR
April 20, 2026
2 A. The DSEIR’s Project Description Lacks Sufficient Detail and Contains Out-of-Date Information
Nowhere in the DSEIR is a clear and comprehensive accounting of the land use changes that would occur under the PPA. In many places, the Project is only generally summarized, for example as “modifying the currently permitted and planned TOP land use pattern across more than 1,300 acres in southern Ontario” or as affecting “approximately 1,300” acres. (DSEIR at ES-10, 2-17, 2-

34.) These modifications are summarized vaguely as including, in part, “a handful” of changes in northern Ontario. (DSEIR at ES-10, 2-20.) The DSEIR does include a list of parcels affected by the PPA, but does not describe the location or acreage of the parcels, nor does it indicate how the land use designation of the parcels would change under the Project. (DSEIR at 2-18–2-20.) The DSEIR does include maps that purport to show the land use designations under the adopted TOP 2050 and those proposed under the Project (See DSEIR 2-13, 2-21.) However, Figure 2-4: Current TOP Land Use Plan includes text stating that “this figure is out of date” at the top of the map. (DSEIR at 2-13.) The DSEIR fails to explain in what way this map of current land uses is out of date. Given the lack of accurate information displaying the geographic extent and distribution of current land uses, it is impossible to accurately identify the changes proposed under the Project.

The DSEIR should be revised to clearly and accurately describe the changes proposed under the PPA in order to render the DSEIR adequate as an informational document under CEQA.

B. The DSEIR Provides Conflicting Data Regarding Industrial Land Use Changes Proposed Under the Project
In addition to failing to clearly and accurately describe the overall land use designation changes proposed by the Project, the DSEIR also fails specifically to provide an accurate, stable, and definite description of the industrial land use component of the Project. In the Executive Summary, a quantification of the total industrial square-footage increase under the Project is provided, but the figure is not included in the summary of the proposed Project, instead being included in the description of the reduced intensity project alternative. (DSEIR at ES-26 [describing a net increase of 6,370,304 square feet of industrial land use designated area under the proposed Project.]) However, this figure is inconsistent with other data regarding the prospective change in land use area provided in the DSEIR. For example, elsewhere the Executive Summary includes quantifications of the total square footage impacted by the PPA as compared to the TOP 2050, categorized only as “residential” and “non-residential.” (DSEIR at ES-20.) Here, the net increase in non-residential land uses is stated to be 4,344,416 square feet. (Id.) Because the total nonresidential square footage stated in the Executive Summary (which can reasonably be assumed to include industrial uses and is not explained to do otherwise) is considerably smaller than the industrial square footage stated earlier in the same section of the DSEIR, the accuracy of both figures cannot be determined. Also, in Tables 2-1 and 2-3 of the Project Description, the DSEIR identifies the total industrial land use area under the approved TOP 2050 as 7,591.3 acres, and the total industrial land use area under the Project as 7,606.2 acres. (DSEIR at 2-10, 2-33.) The difference between these areas, 14.9 acres, corresponds to approximately 649,044 square feet, not the 6,370,304 square feet described in the Executive Summary. Because the DSEIR includes inconsistent and apparently conflicting descriptions of the changes in the total industrial buildout O2-2
O2-3
3680
CBD Comments on TOP 2050 PPA & EBPSP DSEIR
April 20, 2026
3 allowed under the Project as compared to the adopted TOP 2050, it fails to provide a clear, accurate, and stable description of the Project.

II. THE DSEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DISCLOSE, ANALYZE, OR

MITIGATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IMPACTS
The climate crisis is an immediate and significant threat to Californian communities. Climate change is already transforming California, increasing ambient temperatures and the frequency and severity of wildfires, reducing the quantity and longevity of snowpack, and changing water availability patterns. (Turco et al., 2023.) Climate change is causing sea level rise, extreme weather events, and “irreversible losses” at the species and ecosystem levels. (IPCC, 2023; US Global Change Research Program, 2023.) And it is increasing stress on species and ecosystems, causing species-level changes in morphology, behavior, phenology, and geographic range shifts, and ecosystem-level changes such as the increasing frequency of extreme weather events, widespread changes in productivity, species interactions, and vulnerability to biological invasions. (Weiskopf et al., 2020.) In fact, climate-change-related local extinctions are already widespread and have occurred for hundreds of species. (Wiens, 2016.) And catastrophic levels of species extinctions are projected in the coming decades if climate change continues unabated. (Maclean & Wilson, 2011; Thomas et al., 2004; Urban, 2015.)
Despite the fact that the United States has contributed more to the climate crisis than any other country, neither domestic nor international climate policy is on pace to avert catastrophic levels of warming. (Climate Action Tracker, 2023; Friedlingstein et al., 2023; Friedrich et al., 2023.) As a result, California has taken steps through legislation and regulation to fight climate change and reduce statewide greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions in lieu of competent federal or international action. The California Climate Crisis Act (AB 1279) requires the State to achieve net zero GHG emissions by no later than 2040, to achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter, and to ensure that by 2045, statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 85 percent the level in 1990. (AB 1279 (2022).) And Governor Newsom has issued several executive orders to help the State meet this mandate. (See, e.g., Executive Order N-19-19 (2019); Executive Order N-79-20 (2020).) However, the State’s climate goals require the active involvement of local governments like the City when considering industrial projects with potentially far-reaching climate impacts. Indeed, “the extent to which current and future generations will experience a hotter and different world depends on [the] choices [made at the local level] now and in the near term.” (IPCC, 2023.) Given this background, and the increasingly urgent need for drastic action to reduce GHG emissions, the DSEIR’s failure to adequately analyze and mitigate Project-related GHG emissions is alarming.

The City must amend the DSEIR in the following ways to more thoroughly analyze and more comprehensively minimize Project-related GHG emissions.

A. The DSEIR’s Analysis of Project GHG Impacts Improperly Excludes GHG Impacts Resulting from Vegetation Changes
The DSEIR’s GHG analysis omits one of the key sources of Project construction and operational GHG emissions: the conversion of working lands and grasslands into developed areas.

O2-3 cont.

O2-4
O2-5
3681
CBD Comments on TOP 2050 PPA & EBPSP DSEIR
April 20, 2026
4 Currently, much of the Project area is comprised of dairy operations and associated agricultural land uses. (DSEIR at 3.2-6.) The Project would impact hundreds of acres of these areas. (DSEIR at ES-17.) Despite this, the DSEIR does not reflect any accounting of the GHG impacts associated with the loss of above and below ground carbon storage, or any consideration of how altering the land cover of this acreage will change the carbon sequestration potential of the area. (See DSEIR at 3.8-21 – 3.8-24.)
As detailed in a 2023 Center report, “Hidden in Plain Sight: California’s Native Habitats are Valuable Carbon Sinks” (Yap et al., 2023), California habitats, including grasslands, are important carbon sinks that should be included in carbon calculations. Although the carbon storage and sequestration potential of such habitats are often overlooked, carbon in these systems is stored in the form of soil organic carbon (e.g., extensive root networks, soil microbial communities, and mycorrhizae), soil inorganic carbon (e.g., calcite/caliche), and above-ground vegetation. (Janzen, 2004; Meyer, 2012; Mi et al., 2008; Thomey et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2010; Zamanian et al., 2016.) Non-native grasslands have been found to store, on average, 38.4 to 60.3 metric tons of carbon per acres in their soils, and to sequester an estimated 1.3 to 1.8 metric tons of carbon per acre, per year (Koteen et al., 2011). Cultivation grasses for dairy production can also result in carbon net carbon storage from the atmosphere. (Cavallo et al., 2011.)
Estimating the quantity of existing carbon stock can be done using RePlan, a core component of the California Strategic Growth Council’s (“SGC”) Integrated Regional Conservation and Development (“IRCAD”) initiative. (California Strategic Growth Council, 2026b). This sophisticated online tool provides a myriad of functionality, including the ability to estimate carbon stocks throughout California. The tool takes as input a shapefile or drawn polygonal map area and outputs an estimate of the total carbon over the defined acreage. The data backing this tool comes from the California Natural and Working Lands Inventory conducted by CARB. (California Strategic Growth Council, 2026a). The City thus has no excuse for overlooking emissions associated with the loss of vegetation, topsoil, and grasslands, all of which sequester carbon.

Because the DSEIR does not account for either carbon emissions resulting from land use conversion or the loss of carbon sequestration capacity that would result from such land use conversion, the estimate of total emissions is inaccurate, and the true amount of GHG emissions resulting from the proposed Project is likely to be higher than stated in the DSEIR. The omission of any sequestration analysis is particularly concerning, as the loss of the sequestration ability of existing landscapes will lead to a continued increase in net emissions into the future. The DSEIR fails to account for these decades of lost sequestration opportunity, in violation of CEQA, and the City must consequently amend its analysis and recirculate an updated DSEIR to account for this deficiency. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15126, 15378.)
B. The DSEIR Fails to Adequately Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Warehouses
The Center recognizes that the City has already identified several mitigation measures that relate to GHG emission reductions. (See DSEIR at ES-81, 3.8-36 [mitigation measure GHG-1- O2-5 cont.

O2-6
3682
CBD Comments on TOP 2050 PPA & EBPSP DSEIR
April 20, 2026
5 PPA: “measures may include…encouraging the construction of solar arrays above parking lots and the integration of solar and other renewable energy generation technologies”; GHG-1-SP Reduction Measure 2: “Installation of rooftop solar energy system which generates enough electricity to meet 45 percent of annual warehouse electricity demand.”]) However, despite these measures, the DSEIR concludes that the Project would result in significant and unavoidable GHG emissions without mandating feasible, commonsense mitigation to the maximum extent possible, as required. (DSEIR at 3.8-35 – 3.8-39; Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002.1(b); 21081(a)(1); CEQA Guidelines § 15021(a).) The City should require, at a minimum, current common GHG emission mitigation measures that have been used throughout the state for future warehouse developments within the planning area. Examples of such measures include those listed in the Fontana Ordinance No. 1891, which were specifically formulated to mitigate impacts from warehouse development and protect residents and the air basin from cumulative environmental impacts. (Fontana Warehouse Ordinance, 2022.) The California Office of the Attorney General memorandum detailing warehouse best practices should also assist the City in complying with its mitigation requirements. (See California Attorney General, 2022.) Nearly all the example mitigation measures in this document have been adopted at other warehouse projects in California, demonstrating their feasibility.
i. The City Must Require Rooftop Solar Sufficient for 100 Percent of Warehouse Energy Demands
Installing solar on the roofs of large warehouses in California is a crucial opportunity to use miles of flat, sunny space that would otherwise be underutilized. The technology exists now to feasibly require all future building sites to install enough rooftop solar photovoltaic panels to meet 100 percent of projected energy needs or be built with the capacity for these panels to be added later. In order to meet its decarbonization targets, California needs to double its clean energy generation in the next decade, which will require a “record-breaking” expansion of clean energy infrastructure. (Gill et al., 2021.) The Joint Agency SB 100 Report calls for building 2.8 GW/year of solar every year for 25 years, which is higher than the previous maximum annual build. (Id.) The biggest obstacle to increasing solar energy capacity as fast as needed is the large amount of flat, sunny land that solar farms require. (Groom, 2022.) Building solar infrastructure across undeveloped land is an imperfect solution that hurts important ecosystems, eliminates opportunities for natural carbon sinks, and is often opposed by local residents. (Courage, 2021; Groom, 2022.)
Each warehouse built with the capacity to provide 100 percent of its own clean energy via rooftop solar brings California closer to the clean energy targets we must meet to avoid the climate crisis’s most devastating effects. The California Attorney General recommends that new warehouses are built with this capacity, and companies and municipalities are realizing it makes sense. (California Attorney General, 2022.) The City of Fontana already requires that every warehouse over 400,000 square feet generate all required power from rooftop solar. (Fontana Warehouse Ordinance, 2022) However, despite this potential, the DSEIR does not require solar panels; rather, just updates to the Community Climate Action Plan, based on which future projects “may include” solar or other renewable energy sources. (DSEIR at 3.8-33 [emphasis added].) First, O2-6 cont.

O2-7
3683
CBD Comments on TOP 2050 PPA & EBPSP DSEIR
April 20, 2026
6 this improperly deferred and overly vague mitigation violates CEQA. (See San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 670 [EIR inadequate where the success or failure of mitigation efforts “may largely depend upon management plans that have not yet been formulated and have not been subject to analysis and review within the EIR”].) In the limited circumstances in which deferred mitigation is appropriate, the agency must meet all of the following elements: (1) practical considerations prevented the formulation of mitigation measures during the planning process; (2) the agency committed itself to developing mitigation measures in the future; (3) the agency adopted specific performance criteria prior to project approval; and (4) the EIR lists the mitigation measures to be considered, analyzed, and possibly incorporated into the mitigation plan. (See POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 736 – 737 [review denied].) Here, the DSEIR fails to meet these criteria. It does not attempt to explain why it is not possible to formulate and disclose a mitigation plan now, and it does not list the mitigation measures to be considered.

Also, because this is a feasible mitigation measure, the DSEIR must go beyond the vague and future planning actions identified in GHG-1-PPA and the inadequate 45 percent requirement in GHG-1-SP and require rooftop solar to meet 100 percent of each building’s energy needs. In particular, the City should amend the mitigation measures related to renewable energy use to require sufficient photovoltaic generation capacity to meet 100 percent of the warehouse energy demand, including the total demand of expanded electric vehicle charging onsite as well. To achieve this, warehouses should be required to build out the maximum available photovoltaic coverage consistent with the California Attorney General’s recommendation that new warehouses be built “to accommodate the maximum future coverage of solar panels and installing the maximum solar power generation capacity feasible.” (California Attorney General, 2022.) The City must therefore strengthen mitigation measures GHG-1-PPA and GHG-1-SP to require future developers to install the maximum feasible solar generation capacity, sufficient to meet any demand attendant to medium- and heavy-duty electric truck charging onsite. (Uphold Our Heritage, 147 Cal.App.4th at 600; Citizens of Goleta Valley, 197 Cal.App.3d at 1180.) If the City declines to adopt such a measure, it must explain the basis for its decision. (Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., 58 Cal.App.4th at 1029.) Failure to do so would violate CEQA. ii. The City Must Require Warehouse Developments to Maximize Electric Truck Infrastructure
The DSEIR must require concrete, enforceable measures that prepare future developments to operate with an all-electric fleet, as it will soon be required to do. CARB has developed strategies to completely electrify heavy-duty trucks in the state by 2045, and specifically to achieve 100 percent zero-emissions drayage trucks by 2035. (CARB, 2022.) Substantial evidence shows that requiring the usage of zero-emission heavy-duty trucks in lieu of diesel trucks is an effective means of reducing the GHG implications of heavy-duty truck traffic. (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2025.) Battery-electric trucks have lower lifecycle GHG emissions than diesel trucks no matter the operating characteristics of the vehicle or the electric grid. (Id.) Battery-electric heavy-duty trucks operating in the United States result in only 18 percent of the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with analogous diesel trucks. (Id.) This is notable because although battery-electric vehicles do not O2-7 cont.

O2-8
3684
CBD Comments on TOP 2050 PPA & EBPSP DSEIR
April 20, 2026
7 have tailpipe GHG emissions like diesel vehicles, there are still GHG emissions associated with the generation of the electricity used to charge and thereby power the vehicles. California has a larger proportion of renewable electricity generation sources than the national average, so electric heavy-duty trucks operating and charging in California would reduce the GHG emissions associated with Project-related truck traffic even more. (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2022) And as discussed infra, it would be feasible for future developments to comply with a mitigation measure requiring the use of medium- and heavy-duty electric trucks as often and as quickly as possible. (Uphold Our Heritage, 147 Cal.App.4th at 600; Citizens of Goleta Valley, 197 Cal.App.3d at 1180.) The DSEIR must require more electric truck charging infrastructure to meet the demands of the fleet mix of 2045. Otherwise, the City will lag sorely behind the much-needed transition and will cement diesel emissions for decades.

Heavy-duty electric trucks are already available for purchase, and many freight facilities and other distribution centers have committed to utilizing such vehicles. (Fadhil & Xie, 2025.) Based on company announcements, there are at least ten Class 7 or 8 models with ranges up to 550 miles that have already been commercially deployed or are slated for commercial deployment in the coming years. (Fadhil & Xie, 2025; Good Car, Bad Car, 2024) Tesla is projecting to complete construction of its “Tesla Semi” production line so that it can begin volume production in 2026, and the company expects to produce 50,000 semi-trucks per year upon reaching full capacity. (Fred Lambert, 2025.) And several international companies, including the Chinese manufacturer BYD and the German manufacturer Daimler, produce heavy-duty electric trucks and have already sold hundreds of zero-emission electric heavy-duty trucks in the United States. (Fred Lambert, 2020.) As a result, sales of new medium- and heavy-duty electric trucks in California jumped from just a few hundred in 2021 to one in 12 medium- and heavy-duty trucks sold in 2022, one in six in 2023, and one in four in 2024. (California Air Resources Board, 2023, 2024, 2025.) Many companies involved in the warehousing industry, including UPS, Fedex, Anheuser-Busch, Frito-Lay, PepsiCo, and IKEA, have already purchased thousands of heavy-duty electric trucks and are on pace to purchase even more such vehicles. (See, e.g., Fedex, 2025; Frito-Lay, 2019; IKEA, 2025; Mark Matousek, 2018; Nora Manthey, 2022; WattEV, 2025.)
Moreover, many warehouse and distribution facilities throughout California have committed to requirements mandating that medium- and heavy-duty truck electrification be attained and maintained early in the occupancy process, including the Beaumont Pointe Project in Beaumont, California, the Compass Danbe Centerpointe Project in Moreno Valley, California, the Citrus and Oleander Project in Fontana, California, among others. (City of Beaumont, 2023 [referring mitigation measures B-41 and B-42 therein and stating that they require that “all heavy-duty vehicles engaged in drayage to or from the project site to be zero-emission beginning in 2030” and that “tenants to use zero-emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations”]; City of Fontana, 2023; Compass Danbe Settlement, 2021 [requiring that all heavyduty trucks serving the warehouse be electric within three years of occupancy or whenever “widely commercially available” and establishing an enforceable, aggressive schedule by which specified portions of all other warehouse-related commercial vehicles must be electric by dates certain].) In 2022, Walmart opened a fulfillment center in Canada which will feature a fully electric fleet. (Walmart, 2022.) And the South Coast Air Quality Management District has committed to O2-8 cont.
3685
CBD Comments on TOP 2050 PPA & EBPSP DSEIR
April 20, 2026
8 deploying 23 Class 8 Volvo battery-electric trucks to move freight across the Inland Empire and another 100 Battery-electric trucks broadly throughout California via a partnership with NFI Industries and Schneider. (NFI, 2021.)
Additionally, government regulators are increasingly investing in programs to facilitate medium- and heavy-duty truck electrification. California offers significant incentives to assist warehousing companies attain and utilize heavy-duty electric trucks, with the most prominent being the Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project, which provides $150,000 as a voucher to offset some of the purchase price for certain vehicles. (See, e.g., California Air Resources Board, 2020, 2018, 2019, 2024; California Public Utilities Commission, 2018; San Diego Gas & Electric Co., 2024.) And California utilities have already committed to support the development of heavy-duty charging infrastructure and are likely to continue to do so in the future as well. (California Public Utilities Commission, 2018.) The South Coast Air Quality Management District, for instance, allows for the purchase and use of electric heavy-duty trucks as one way to comply with its indirect source rule for warehouses (referred to as the Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions or WAIRE program). (South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2020.) In fact, in enacting that rule, that Air District expressly found that battery-electric heavy-duty trucks are commercially available. And on June 12, 2025, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-27-25, reaffirming California’s commitment to deploying zero-emission vehicle technologies to improve air quality.

As a result of these programs, in part, the total cost of ownership for electric heavy-duty trucks is likely to be less than for analogous diesel trucks. (California Air Resources Board, 2021.) One study found that when incentives and utilities’ investments were incorporated into a total-cost-ofownership analysis, battery-electric heavy-duty trucks currently have a favorable total cost of ownership compared to diesel equivalents. (ICF, 2019.) That study further indicates that batteryelectric trucks should be able to compete with equivalent diesel trucks on a total-cost-of-ownership basis without regulatory incentives by 2030. (Id. at 32.) It is therefore feasible for the City to require future developers and subsequent tenants and/or lessees of warehouse developments to utilize medium- and heavy-duty electric trucks as often and as quickly as possible. (Uphold Our Heritage, 147 Cal.App.4th at 600; Citizens of Goleta Valley, 197 Cal.App.3d at 1180.) If the City declines to adopt a mitigation measure requiring future operators to utilize medium- and heavy-duty electric trucks as often and as quickly as possible, it must explain the basis for its decision as to each measure. (Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., 58 Cal.App.4th at 1029.) Failure to do so would violate CEQA.

III. THE CITY MUST IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE

DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENT
The DSEIR concludes that the PPA would have the potential to result in significant impacts due to the generation of additional, long-term emissions of criteria air pollutants in exceedance of the relevant SCAQMD thresholds and would contribute to the air basin’s nonattainment status.

O2-8 cont.

O2-9
3686
CBD Comments on TOP 2050 PPA & EBPSP DSEIR
April 20, 2026
9 (See e.g. DSEIR at ES-33.) For this reason, the DSEIR incorporates into the PPA mitigation measure AIR-3-PPA. This measure establishes that “[p]rior to future discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA review” the City will review and approve applicant-prepared assessments of “project operation-phase-related air quality impacts,” based on which the City will require mitigation measures to reduce operational emissions be included as conditions of permit approval. Despite the implementation of this mitigation measure, the DSEIR concludes the Project would result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts due to exceedances of criteria pollutant thresholds. (DSEIR at ES-33.) The DSEIR makes a similar conclusion for GHG emissions, with the Project projected to result in a 3 percent increase over that of the approved TOP 2050. (DSEIR at 3.8-28)
The Center is concerned that the potential for data center development within areas of the City with the Industrial or Business Park designation could ultimately result in air quality, GHG, and other impacts that exceed the assumptions of the DSEIR. Data centers are associated with significant environmental impacts. These include air quality, GHG, energy use, water use, and noise. (Xiao et al., 2025; Yarñez-Barnuevo, 2026.) Currently, data centers are allowed by right in the City under the zoning that conforms to the general plan Business Park and Industrial land use designations. (Ontario Development Code at 5.02-19.) As a result, DSEIR mitigation such as AIR3-PPA would not apply to these developments, which would not require discretionary approval.

The zoning for the proposed EBPSP shows that data centers require a conditional use permit, allowing the City to evaluate the impacts of any proposed development and impose appropriate conditions on their approval. (Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan at 5-9.) The Center urges the City to make data center developments conditional when zoning all areas with the Business Park and Industrial land use designations proposed under the Project. Further, the Center recommends the adoption of the following as best practices to mitigate the potential environmental impacts of data centers within the City.

A. If approved, data centers should be responsibly sited and use on-site renewable energy, storage, and micro-grids
As a threshold matter, data centers should be responsibly sited. State and local governments should require companies to determine the availability of renewable resources like solar and wind, along with water availability so that local water resources are not depleted. The companies should be required to assess the potential site’s effects on any nearby communities and wildlife, especially imperiled species.

If approved, data centers provide the opportunity to generate electricity where it is consumed on-site or “on campus.” Therefore, once sited, data centers should be constructed to maximize energy efficiency and be powered by on-site renewables like solar and wind, batteries and microgrids, eliminating the need for fossil and diesel generators for backup power.

Solar and wind energy co-location with data centers is not a new concept, as multiple companies have begun exploring this arrangement both in the U.S. and globally. (See e.g. He et al., 2024; Mock & Bush, 2024.) For example, Google and partners Intersect Power and TPG Rise O2-9 cont.

O2-10
3687
CBD Comments on TOP 2050 PPA & EBPSP DSEIR
April 20, 2026
10 Climate recently announced plans to co-locate data centers with high capacity, clean electricity such as solar alongside battery storage in the United States. (Howland, 2024.) Apple claims that 100% renewable energy powers its data center in Maiden, North Carolina, of which a large percentage comes from onsite solar. (Apple, 2018.) A data center co-located with Japan Renewable Energy Corporation’s solar farm runs entirely on solar. (Butler, 2023.) Powering data centers with renewable energy and storage instead of fossil fuels curbs greenhouse gas emissions, yields more resilience in climate disasters, and avoids environmental justice, public-health, and wildlife harms.

Moreover, powering data centers with on-site renewables bypasses the pitfalls of relying on the country’s antiquated and fragile fossil-fueled grid. It avoids the risk of blackouts because of increased load demand, particularly from extreme heat, as well as longer development timelines due to cumbersome transmission buildout, interconnection and process delays, and greater infrastructure costs.

B. For any additional energy demand, data centers must pay for all new energy infrastructure, instead of passing costs onto ratepayers, and deploy distributed energy to open grid capacity
To the extent that on-site renewable energy and storage is insufficient to power AI data centers, companies may seek to use grid resources. In that case the costs of providing power to data centers should be borne entirely by the data center company or operators, not subsidized by captured residential and other commercial customers. State regulators should require that these corporations invest their own money in any new energy generation and related infrastructure as a portion of the company’s overall investment. This rectifies the current practice, where ratepayers are subsidizing the data center industry by paying for new gas power plants and pipelines for data center infrastructure, some of which is eventually unused by technology companies. (See, e.g Kunkel, 2025.)
Any new energy infrastructure should start with the deployment of distributed energy resources for existing grid customers to free up grid capacity for data center needs. Specifically, data centers should pay for existing grid customers — prioritizing low-income and historically marginalized communities — to obtain rooftop solar, storage, microgrids and energy-conservation technologies like heat pumps and bi-directional electric vehicle charging. This will allow those customers to locally generate sufficient power to offset grid power consumed by the data center. Grid-enhancing technologies and virtual power plants can also ensure that data center needs on the grid can be adaptable to serve new loads. (See, e.g., Environmental Law and Policy Center, 2025 [also discussing emerging mechanisms like clean transition tariffs, which help carry out continued clean energy sourcing.])
C. To curb water usage, data centers must adopt best practices such as advanced cooling technologies to optimize water efficiency
In addition to being sited responsibly, data centers should utilize technologies for minimizing water usage. Closed-loop designs can reduce water consumption by enabling the reuse of water to O2-10 cont.

O2-11
O2-12
3688
CBD Comments on TOP 2050 PPA & EBPSP DSEIR
April 20, 2026
11 cool servers, while zero-water cooling systems, using PFAS-free cooling fluid, can be employed in especially water-stressed regions. To reduce water quality impacts, data centers should pre-treat any cooling system discharges before releasing them into wastewater or stormwater systems.

To supply closed-loop systems, data centers should use recycled or reclaimed water and avoid unsustainable withdrawals of surface and groundwater sources used for drinking water. Where possible, data centers should be co-located with existing water recycling facilities or wastewater treatment plants to supply recycled water for cooling purposes. Developers should factor water risks into early planning decisions, including site selection and infrastructure design, and local governments should require that data centers disclose sources of water, as well as anticipated and actual water usage. Data centers should adopt and make publicly available monitoring and mitigation plans for water usage at the time of project approval. Monitoring and mitigation plans should include on-going obligations that ensure the surrounding ecosystems and nearby communities’ water supplies are not negatively impacted by the data center’s water usage throughout the life of the project. As with data center infrastructure, water infrastructure costs should not be passed onto ratepayers. Data center developers should not only pay for water infrastructure, but also fees for every centum cubic feet or thousand gallons of potable water used.

D. Noise impacts should be considered early in the planning stage, and state regulators should regulate noise impacts of data centers
State and local governments should utilize legislative solutions to reduce the noise impacts of data centers on surrounding communities. (Hammer et al., 2013.) Noise code limits should fall below 55 decibels near residential areas, schools, hospitals, and public lands, and buffers of at least 500 feet should be required. In addition, local noise ordinances should address noise factors beyond A-weighted decibels (dBA) over set periods, as data centers’ tonality and frequency content can also impact surrounding communities. To address concerns regarding the character of noise, state and local governments should also engage stakeholders early in the planning process, such as local businesses and public health experts, to gain broader insights on data center noise impacts.

Data center developers should take noise minimization into account at the planning stage. An early design-level acoustical analysis can help optimize site layouts and identify noise management strategies. Technologies such as rooftop screening, acoustical wraps, physical acoustical screening (such as a noise wall), noise attenuation wraps for air cooled chillers, and other soundproofing materials can reduce data center noise and minimize impacts on the local community. Data centers should continue to monitor noise levels to document and ensure compliance with local and/or state regulations for the duration of their operation.

IV. CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the DSEIR for the Project. As detailed above, the Center is concerned that the DSEIR lacks an adequate project description and analysis of, and mitigation for, Project impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. The O2-12 cont.

O2-13
O2-14
3689
CBD Comments on TOP 2050 PPA & EBPSP DSEIR
April 20, 2026
12 Center urges the City to revise the DSEIR to correct these deficiencies, consistent with the City’s obligations as a lead agency under CEQA, and to recirculate the revised DSEIR for public review and comment.

Given the possibility that the Center will be required to pursue legal remedies in order to ensure that the City complies with its legal obligations including those arising under CEQA, we would like to remind the City of its statutory duty to maintain and preserve all documents and communications that may constitute part of the “administrative record” of this proceeding. (Pub.

Res. Code § 21167.6(e); Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Superior Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 733, 763) The administrative record encompasses any and all documents and communications that relate to any and all actions taken by the City with respect to the Project, and includes “pretty much everything that ever came near a proposed [project] or [] the agency’s compliance with CEQA. . . .” (County of Orange v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.) The administrative record further includes all correspondence, emails, and text messages sent to or received by the City’s representatives or employees, that relate to the Project. Maintenance and preservation of the administrative record requires that, inter alia, the City (1) suspend all data destruction policies; and (2) preserve all relevant hardware unless an exact replica of each file is made.

Please add the Center to your notice list for all future updates to the Project, using the contact information below, and do not hesitate to contact the Center with any questions.

Sincerely,
Seth Alston, Associate Attorney
2100 Franklin St., Suite 375
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: (510) 844-7100
[email protected]
O2-14 cont.
3690
References
Apple. (2018, April 9). Press Release: Apple now globally powered by 100 percent renewable energy. Apple. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/04/apple-now-globally-powered-by-100- percent-renewable-energy/
Butler, G. (2023, May 9). JRE’s 100% onsite solar-powered data center in Japan achieves stable operations. Data Center Dynamics. Data Center Dynamics. https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/jres-100-onsite-solar-powered-data-center-injapan-achieves-stable-operations/ California Air Resources Board. (2018, September 26). CARB Announces More than $200 Million in New Funding for Clean Freight Transportation. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/carbannounces-more-200-million-new-funding-clean-freight-transportation California Air Resources Board. (2019). Heavy-Duty Investment Strategy. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/fy1920fundingplan-appd.pdf California Air Resources Board. (2021). Draft Advanced Clean Trucks Total Cost of Ownership Discussion Document. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021- 08/210909costdoc_ADA.pdf
California Air Resources Board. (2023, October 23). California Meets its Target for ZeroEmissions Truck Sales Two Years Ahead of Schedule. California Air Resources Board. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-meets-its-target-zero-emissions-truck-sales-two-yearsahead-schedule California Air Resources Board. (2024, June 6). 1 in 6 New Trucks, Buses, and Vans in California are Zero-Emission. California Air Resources Board. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/1-6- new-trucks-buses-and-vans-california-are-zero-emission
California Air Resources Board. (2025, September 23). Nearly 1 in 4 New Trucks, Buses and Vans in California go Zero-Emission, 2 Years Ahead of Schedule. California Air Resources Board. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/nearly-1-4-new-trucks-buses-and-vans-california-go-zeroemission-2-years-ahead-schedule California Air Resources Board. (2026). Drive Forward. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/drive-forward California Attorney General. (2022). Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. State of California Department of Justice.

California Public Utilities Commission. (2018). Transportation Electrification Activities Pursuant to Senate Bill 350. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/sb350te/ O2-15
CENTER for BI OLOG I CA L DI VERS IT Y Because life is good.

Arizona . California . Colorado. Florida . N. Carolina . Nevada . New Mexico . New York . Oregon . Washington, D.C. . La Paz, Mexico Biological Diversity.erg
3691
References for CBD Comments on TOP 2050 PPA & EBPSP DSEIR April 20, 2026
2 California Strategic Growth Council. (2026a). About the Data. RePlan: Regional Conservation and Development Planning Tool. https://replan-tool.org/ California Strategic Growth Council. (2026b). Background and Overview. RePlan: Regional Conservation and Development Planning Tool. https://replan-tool.org/ CARB. (2022). 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. California Air Resources Board. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf Cavallo, G., Shrestha, R., Mayes, M., & Maijar, S. (2011). Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2): A Sustained Assessment Report. USGCRP. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.7930/SOCCR2.2018
City of Beaumont. (2023). Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2020099007). https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/38586/FinalEnvironmental-Impact-Report City of Fontana. (2023). Final Environmental Impact Report for Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project (SCH No. 2022110389).
https://fonopengislayers.fontana.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1764544&dbid=0&repo=Fonta naRecords&cr=1
Climate Action Tracker. (2023). Warming Projections Global Update.

Courage, K. H. (2021, August 18). Solar farms are often bad for biodiversity—But they don’t have to be. Vox. https://www.vox.com/2021/8/18/22556193/solar-energy-biodiversity-birdspollinator-land Environmental Law and Policy Center. (2025). Powering Data Centers with Clean Energy. https://elpc.org/projects/powering-data-centers-with-clean-energy/ Fadhil, I., & Xie, Y. (2025). Zero-Emission Bus and Truck Market in the United States (January—December 2024). The International Council on Clean Transportation.

Fedex. (2025). 2025 Corporate Responsibility Report.
https://www.fedex.com/content/dam/fedex/us-unitedstates/sustainability/gcrs/FedEx_2025_CR_Report.pdf Fontana Warehouse Ordinance, Ordinance No. 1891, City of Fontana (2022).

Fred Lambert. (2020, March 4). Daimler delivers more electric Freightliner eCascadia semitrucks. Eletrek. https://electrek.co/2020/03/04/daimler-electric-freightliner-semi-trucksecascadia/; O2-15 cont.
3692
References for CBD Comments on TOP 2050 PPA & EBPSP DSEIR April 20, 2026
3 Fred Lambert. (2025, April 28). Tesla gives update on Tesla Semi factory, says on track for volume production in 2026. Eletrek. https://electrek.co/2025/04/28/tesla-gives-update-semifactory-on-track-volume-production-2026/ Friedlingstein, P., O’Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Bakker, D. C. E., Hauck, J., Landschützer, P., Le Quéré, C., Luijkx, I. T., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Anthoni, P., … Zheng, B. (2023). Global Carbon Budget 2023. Earth System Science Data, 15(12), 5301–5369. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023
Friedrich, J., Ge, M., Pickens, A., & Vigna, L. (2023). This Interactive Chart Shows Changes in the World’s Top 10 Emitters. World Resources Institute.

Frito-Lay. (2019, October 3). Frito-Lay Transforms California Production Site into First-of-itsKind Showcase for Sustainability. https://www.fritolay.com/news/frito-lay-transforms-californiaproduction-site-into-first-of-its-kind-showcase-for-sustainability Gill, L., Gutierrez, A., & Weeks, T. (2021). SB 100 Joint Agency Report: Charting a Path to a 100% Clean Energy Future. California Air Resources Board, California Energy Commission, and California Public Utilities Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2021/2021- sb-100-joint-agency-report-achieving-100-percent-clean-electricity Good Car, Bad Car. (2024, October 2). A Look at Every Major EV Semi-Truck Actually in Customer Hands. https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/a-look-at-every-major-ev-semi-truck-actuallyin-customer-hands/ Groom, N. (2022, April 7). U.S. solar expansion stalled by rural land-use protests. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-solar-expansion-stalled-by-rural-land-use-protests-2022- 04-07/
Hammer, M., Swinburn, T., & Neitzel, R. (2013). Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States: Developing and Effective Public Health Response. Environmental Health Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307272
He, W., Xu, Q., Guo, R., & Liu, S. (2024). Optimization analysis of different distributed energy configurations for data centers. Sustainable Minerals and Technologies, 41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2024.e01005
Howland, E. (2024, December 11). Google, Intersect Power to develop co-located energy parks with $20B of renewables, storage. Utility Drive. Utility Drive. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/google-intersect-power-co-located-energy-park-data-centerferc/735198/ O2-15 cont.
3693
References for CBD Comments on TOP 2050 PPA & EBPSP DSEIR April 20, 2026
4 ICF. (2019). Comparison of Medium- and HeavyDuty Technologies in California. https://caletc.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ICF-Truck-Report_Final_December-2019.pdf IKEA. (2025, October 31). New Volvo long-range electric trucks for IKEA zero emissions deliveries. https://www.fedex.com/content/dam/fedex/us-unitedstates/sustainability/gcrs/FedEx_2025_CR_Report.pdf IPCC. (2023). Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report: Summary for Policymakers.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Janzen, H. H. (2004). Carbon cycling in earth systems—A soil science perspective. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 104, 399–417.

Koteen, L. E., Baldocchi, D. D., & Harte, J. (2011). Invasion of non-native grasses causes a drop in soil carbon storage in California grasslands. Environmental Research Letters, 6.

Kunkel, C. (2025, January 29). Data Centers Drive Buildout of Gas Power Plans and Pipelines in the Southeast. IEEFA. https://ieefa.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/UPDATED-REVIEWEDSoutheast%20Gas%20Infrastructure%20and%20Data%20Cente.pdf Maclean, I. M. D., & Wilson, Robert. J. (2011). Recent ecological responses to climate change support predictions of high extinction risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(30), 12337–12342.

Mark Matousek. (2018, April 25). Tesla has a new customer for its electric Semi—Here are all the companies that have ordered the big rig. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/companies-that-ordered-tesla-semi-2017-12 Meyer, S. E. (2012). Restoring and managing cold desert shrublands for climate change mitigation. In D. M. Finch (Ed.), Climate Change in grasslands, shrublands, and deserts of the interior American West: A review and needs assessment. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR285 (pp. 21–34). USDA Forest Service.

Mi, N., Wang, S., Liu, J., Yu, G., Zhang, W., & Jobbágy, E. (2008). Soil inorganic carbon storage pattern in China. Global Change Biology, 14, 2380–2387.

Mock, D., & Bush, J. (2024). DERs Role in a More Reliable, Sustainable, and Resilient Power System. UNC Energy Center. https://www.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2024/10/DER-Paper.pdf NFI. (2021, September 2). SouthCoast AQMD Leads North America’s Largest Deployment of Class 8 Battery‐Electric Trucks with NFI. https://www.nfiindustries.com/aboutO2-15 cont. 3694
References for CBD Comments on TOP 2050 PPA & EBPSP DSEIR April 20, 2026
5 nfi/news/southcoast-aqmd-leads-northamericas-largest-deployment-of-class-8-batteryelectrictrucks-with-nfi/ Nora Manthey. (2022, February 14). Anheuser-Busch showcases Zero-Emission Beer Delivery.

Eletrive. https://www.electrive.com/2022/02/14/anheuser-busch-showcases-zero-emission-beerdelivery/ Nuclear Energy Institute. (2022, August). State Electricity Generation Fuel Shares. https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics/state-electricity-generation-fuel-shares San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2024, April 11). First Class 8 Heavy-Duty Electric Freight Truck Makes Historic Crossing of U.S.-Mexico Border. https://www.sdgetoday.com/news/first-class-8- heavy-duty-electric-freight-truck-makes-historic-crossing-us-mexico-border Settlement Agreement: Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice v. City of Moreno Valley Riverside Superior Court Case No, CVRI2200683. (2021).

South Coast Air Quality Management District. (2020). Draft WAIRE Menu Technical Report. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/fbmsm-docs/waire-menu- technicalreport_draft_3-3-20.pdf?sfvrsn=6 Thomas, C. D., Cameron, A., Green, R. E., Bakkenes, M., Beaumont, L. J., Collingham, Y. C., Erasmus, B. F. N., de Siqueira, M. F., Grainger, A., Hannah, L., Hughes, L., Huntley, B., van Jaarsveld, A. S., Midgley, G. F., Miles, L., Ortega-Huerta, M. A., Peterson, A. T., Phillips, O. L., & Williams, S. E. (2004). Extinction risk from climate change. Nature.

Thomey, M. L., Ford, P. L., Reeves, M. C., Finch, D. M., Litvak, M. E., & Collins, S. L. (2014).

Review of climate change impacts on future carbon stores and management of warm deserts of the United States. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-316.

Turco, M., Abatzoglou, J. T., Herrera, S., Zhuang, Y., Jerez, S., Lucas, D. D., AghaKouchak, A., & Cvijanovic, I. (2023). Anthropogenic climate change impacts exacerbate summer forest fires in California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(25), e2213815120.

Union of Concerned Scientists. (2025). Ready for Work: 2.0 On the Road to Clean Trucks. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/ready-for-work-2.pdf Urban, M. C. (2015). Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science, 348(6234), 571– 573. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa4984
US Global Change Research Program. (2023). Fifth National Climate Assessment.

Walmart. (2022, April 13). Almart Canada opens high-tech, sustainable grocery distribution centre in Surrey, B.C. https://www.walmartcanada.ca/content/walmartO2-15 cont. 3695
References for CBD Comments on TOP 2050 PPA & EBPSP DSEIR April 20, 2026
6 canada/en_ca/news/2022/04/13/walmart-canada-opens-high-tech-sustainable-grocerydistribution-centre-in-surrey-b-c.html/.

Wang, Y., Li, Y., Ye, X., Chu, Y., & Wang, X. (2010). Profile storage of organic/inorganic carbon in soil: From forest to desert. Science of the Total Environment, 408(8), 1925–1931.

WattEV. (2025, April 6). WattEV adds Tesla Semis to its zero-emission fleet at Port of Long Beach. WattEV. https://www.wattev.com/post/wattev-adds-tesla-semis-to-its-zero-emission-fleetat-port-of-long-beach Weiskopf, S. R., Rubenstein, M. A., Crozier, L. G., Gaichas, S., Griffis, R., Halofsky, J. E., Hyde, K. J. W., Morelli, T. L., Morisette, J. T., Muñoz, R. C., Pershing, A. J., Peterson, D. L., Poudel, R., Staudinger, M. D., Sutton-Grier, A. E., Thompson, L., Vose, J., Weltzin, J. F., & Whyte, K. P. (2020). Climate change effects on biodiversity, ecosystems, ecosystem services, and natural resource management in the United States. Science of The Total Environment, 733, 137782.

Wiens, J. J. (2016). Climate-related local extinctions are already widespread among plant and animal species. PLoS Biology, 14(12), 1–18.

Xiao, T., Nerini, F., & Matthews, H. D. (2025). Environmental impact and net-zero pathways for sustainable artificial intelligence servers in the USA. Nature Sustainability. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-025-01681-y Yap, T. A., Prabhala, A., & Anderson, I. (2023). Hidden in Plain Sight: California’s Native Habitats are Valuable Carbon Sinks. Center for Biological Diversity.

Yarñez-Barnuevo, M. (2026, March 23). Communities Are Raising Noise Pollution Concerns About Data Centers. Environmental and Energy Study Institute. https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/communities-are-raising-noise-pollution-concernsabout-datacenters Zamanian, K., Pustovoytov, K., & Kuzyakov, Y. (2016). Pedogenic carbonates: Forms and formation processes. Earth-Science Reviews, 157, 1–17.

O2-15 cont.
3696
1131 W 6th St, Ontario, CA 91762 | [email protected] | (909) 490-3237

VIA EMAIL
[email protected]
April 20, 2026
Thomas Grahn
Principal Planner
Planning Department
City of Ontario
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Subject: Public Comment – Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) Ontario Plan 2050 Amendment & Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2025110102)
Dear Mr. Grahn,
Fair Ontario submits these comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the proposed Ontario Plan 2050 Amendment and Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan.

The proposed project would enable development of approximately 189 acres, including up to nearly 3 million square feet of industrial-scale uses under the label of a “business park.” In substance, the project facilitates large-scale warehouse and logistics operations with significant environmental, land use, and public trust implications.

LEGALLY INADEQUATE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
CEQA requires a “stable, finite and accurate” project description (CEQA Guidelines §15124; County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185).

Here, the DSEIR repeatedly characterizes the project as a “business park” while the Specific Plan expressly allows warehousing and distribution uses.

This inconsistency obscures:
• The scale of logistics operations
• Truck traffic generation
• Air quality impacts
An EIR that fails to disclose the project’s true operational characteristics is legally inadequate.

O3-Intro
O3-1
3697
Comments: DSEIR State Clearinghouse No. 2025110102
April 20, 2026

Page 2 ends

Ontario City CouncilJune 16, 2026

Ontario City Council
June 16, 2026