Ontario City Council
June 16, 2026

The proposed project would also establish the planning and regulatory framework necessary to support infrastructure investment, future development review, and implementation of the EBPSP and related development activities. The City finds that these comprehensive planning, land use coordination, infrastructure, housing, mobility, and policy considerations benefits constitute substantial public benefits that outweigh the project’s significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.

7. PROVIDES INFRASTRUCTURE TO SERVE THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND

LOCAL AREA
Development in the Ontario Ranch area has been constrained by a lack of infrastructure.

The proposed EBPSP would establish a coordinated framework for the phased construction and financing of transportation, utility, drainage, and public infrastructure improvements necessary to support planned development within the EBPSP area and surrounding portions of Ontario Ranch. The City finds that provision of coordinated infrastructure planning and implementation constitutes a substantial public benefit because it facilitates orderly urban development, improves service delivery, supports mobility and utility needs, and promotes efficient long-term infrastructure investment.

The EBPSP includes required infrastructure facilities, including financing and phasing.  Roadway Improvements. The developer(s) of the EBPSP would be responsible for the construction of vicinity roadway improvements, including segments of Campus Avenue, Bon View Avenue, Grove Avenue, Walker Avenue, and Eucalyptus Avenue.

Additionally, the full width of ‘A’ Street would be constructed. The project would also 4225
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations
- 20 -
pay fair share costs for offsite improvements at 18 intersections identified in Table 8- 1 the Traffic Analysis.
 Transit Service Improvements. The EBPSP would construct a new bus turnout near the intersection of Grove Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue in anticipation of future Omnitrans service.
 Potable Water Infrastructure. The EBPSP includes extension of potable water to the plan area. Additional water lines would be installed in conjunction with new development. Potable water system improvements include potable water lines along Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue from Eucalyptus Avenue to the northern boundary of the Specific Plan area and a potable water line along Bon View Avenue from Eucalyptus Avenue to the northern boundary of the Specific Plan area and Public Street ‘A’ between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue.

The EBPSP would also participate in the future Phase 2 Water System Improvements that provide for broader improvements for surrounding area.  Recycled Water Infrastructure. The EBPSP includes extension of recycled water to the plan area. Recycled water system improvements necessary to serve the Specific Plan area include recycled water lines in Grove Avenue and Walker Avenue.  Sewer Infrastructure. The EBPSP includes extension of sewer to the plan area.

Sanitary sewer infrastructure improvements include new sewer lines in Campus Avenue, Bon View Avenue, Grove Avenue, Walker Avenue, and Public Street ‘A’ between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue.
 Stormwater Infrastructure. Planned site drainage improvements include the construction of necessary on-site stormwater management facilities.  Dry Utilities. The EBPSP would also construct electrical and telecommunications services utilities in the plan area.

By establishing a comprehensive infrastructure planning and financing framework, the proposed project would reduce the potential for fragmented or inefficient infrastructure expansion, facilitate coordinated delivery of public facilities and utility services, and support implementation of the City’s long-range planning and development objectives.

The City finds that these infrastructure, circulation, utility, and public service benefits constitute substantial public benefits that outweigh the project’s significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.

8. PROVIDES PARKLAND NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT THE GRAND PARK Situated between the northern boundary of the EBPSP and new Public Street ‘A’, Planning Areas 7, 8, and 9 would be designated Open Space–Parkland. Implementation 4226
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations
- 21 -
of the EBPSP would allow for the acquisition of this open space property by the City. This

36.15-acre area would implement a segment of the City’s public “Grand Park.” Grand Park is planned as a 3.7-mile, 340-acre greenbelt between Haven Avenue and Campus Avenue. The EBPSP would implement the southern half of a 1.25-mile stretch of the park. The northern half of this segment of Grand Park would be installed by the Center Park Specific Plan, which is currently proposed to the north of the EBPSP.1 Passive recreational opportunities for future employees, visitors, and City residents would be provided through features such as pedestrian paths, gathering areas, turf areas, and botanical gardens.

These improvements would support active and passive recreational opportunities, improve pedestrian connectivity, enhance urban open space resources, and contribute to overall quality of life within the surrounding community. The City finds that the open space, recreational, community, aesthetic, and connectivity benefits associated with implementation of this portion of Grand Park constitute substantial public benefits that outweigh the project’s significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.

9. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The SEIR identifies significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project in the areas of Air Quality, Cultural Resources, GHG Emissions, Noise, and Transportation. The City has carefully considered these impacts, the mitigation measures incorporated into the project, the alternatives analyzed in the SEIR, and the economic, social, environmental, infrastructure, housing, mobility, recreational, and planning benefits associated with the proposed project.
 If the City does not adopt the Policy Plan Amendment, there would still be significant impacts relating to air quality, cultural resources, GHG emissions, noise, and transportation. Even without any growth in the City, which is not a realistic scenario, regional growth will still cause significant impacts from air quality and GHG emissions.
 Impacts relating to construction noise and vibration and construction emissions are temporary and intermittent in nature. The project includes mitigation measures, regulatory compliance requirements, and construction management practices to reduce the duration, intensity, and geographic extent of these temporary construction-related impacts to the extent feasible..
1 It is noted that although only the southern half of the Grand Park is included in the EBPSP, development of the entire park area has been assumed and analyzed in the EBPSP’s technical studies in the case of no northern development.
4227
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations
- 22 -

CONCLUSION
The City Ontario has independently reviewed and considered the entire administrative record, including the SEIR, technical studies, public comments, mitigation measures, alternatives analysis, mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and all other information presented to the City Council regarding the proposed project. Based upon this review, the City Council has balanced the project’s significant and unavoidable environmental impacts against the project’s economic, social, environmental, infrastructure, housing, mobility, recreational, fiscal, and long-range planning benefits.

The City finds that the proposed project would provide substantial public benefits by, among other things, advancing implementation of state housing and land use policies; increasing housing capacity; supporting jobs-housing balance objectives; improving transportation, mobility, and infrastructure systems; facilitating coordinated long-range planning; expanding employment opportunities; generating fiscal and economic benefits; implementing open space and recreational amenities; and supporting coordinated development within the EBPSP area.

The City Council further finds that the proposed project incorporates all feasible mitigation measures identified in the SEIR and that all feasible mitigation within the City’s authority has been adopted to reduce environmental impacts to the maximum extent feasible. Nevertheless, certain significant environmental impacts related to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation would remain significant and unavoidable even after implementation of feasible mitigation measures.

The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through the approval and implementation of the proposed project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impact of the proposed project that cannot be mitigated. The City Council finds that each of the proposed project benefits separately and individually outweighs all of the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the SEIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable on the basis of overriding considerations.
4228
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 1 -
EXHIBIT A: CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT

REGARDING THE

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2025110102

1. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the SEIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft SEIR that would require recirculation. The City Council further finds pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that revisions to the Draft SEIR do not constitute “significant new information” requiring recirculation of the Draft SEIR because no new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measures proposed; no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would occur; no feasible project alternative or mitigation measures considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft SEIR was identified that would clearly lessen significant impacts and the project applicant declined to adopt; and the revisions, clarifications, and amplifications contained in the Final EIR merely clarify and refine the analysis contained in the Draft SEIR and do not deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment. Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the SEIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.

2. PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE WITH

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The City published a Draft SEIR on March 5, 2026. A Final SEIR was prepared on June 3, 2026, in compliance with CEQA requirements. The Final SEIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended. As authorized in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15084(d)(2), the City retained a consultant to assist with the preparation of the environmental documents. City staff from multiple departments, representing the Lead Agency, have directed, reviewed, and modified where appropriate all material prepared by the consultant. The Final SEIR reflects the City’s independent analysis and judgement. The key milestones associated with the preparation of the EIR are summarized below. As presented below, an extensive public 4229
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 2 -
involvement and agency notification effort was conducted to solicit input on the scope and content of the EIR and to solicit comments on the results of the environmental analysis presented in the Draft SEIR.

2.1 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND OUTREACH
In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario CEQA Guidelines, the City of Ontario conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed project.  Completion of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) ON November 4, 2025. The NOP was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on November 4, 2025. The NOP was posted at the San Bernardino County Clerk’s office on November 3, 2025. The NOP was posted on CEQAnet at the State Clearinghouse on November 4, 2025. Copies of the NOP were made available for public review at the City of Ontario and the City’s website.  A scoping meeting was held on November 20, 2025, at De Anza Community and Teen Center at 1405 S Fern Ave., Ontario, CA, 91762. The notice of a public scoping meeting was included in the NOP.
 Preparation of a Draft SEIR, which was made available for a 45-day public review period beginning March 5, 2026, and ending April 20, 2026. The scope of the Draft SEIR was determined based on the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist, comments received in response to the NOP, and comments received at the scoping meeting conducted by the City of Ontario. Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, of the Draft SEIR describes the issues identified for analysis in the Draft SEIR. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft SEIR was sent to interested persons and organizations, sent to the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to public agencies, posted at the City of Ontario, and published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. The NOA was posted at the San Bernardino County Clerk’s office and published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on March 5, 2026. Additionally, copies of the Draft SEIR were made available for review at the City Hall and Ovitt Family Community Library, the Lewis Family Branch Library, as well as on the City’s website.  Preparation of a Final SEIR, including the responses to comments to the Draft SEIR. The Final SEIR was released on June 3, 2026, for a 10-day agency review period prior to certification of the Final SEIR.
 Public hearings on the proposed project, including a Planning Commission study session, hearing, and a City Council hearing.

In summary, the City conducted all required noticing and scoping for the proposed project in accordance with Section 15083 of the CEQA Guidelines, and conducted the public review for the EIR, which exceeded the requirements of Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines. 4230
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 3 -

2.2 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND

CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
The City prepared a Final SEIR, including Responses to Comments to the Draft SEIR. The Final SEIR/Response to Comments contains comments on the Draft SEIR, responses to those comments, revisions to the Draft SEIR, and appended documents. A total of 17 comment letters were received. Of the 17 comment letters, 7 letters were from public agencies, 3 letters were from organizations, and 7 letters were from residents and/or organizations.

The Final SEIR found that prior to mitigation, implementation of the proposed project will result in potentially significant impacts to Biological Resources (PPA + EBPSP), Cultural Resources – Archeological Resources (PPA + EBPSP), Geology and Soils - Paleontological Resources (PPA + EBPSP), Hazards and Hazardous Materials (EBPSP), and Tribal Cultural Resources (PPA + EBPSP).

However, mitigation measures have been developed to avoid or reduce all of these impacts to levels considered less than significant. The Final SEIR also found that despite the implementation of recommended mitigation measures, impacts to Air Quality (PPA + EBPSP), Cultural Resources – Historic Resources (PPA), Noise (PPA + EBPSP), and Transportation (PPA + EBPSP) were significant and unavoidable. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared for the Council’s consideration.

Members of the public can view searchable agendas for scheduled City Council meetings and access agenda-related City information and services directly on the following website:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/Planning/Reports/EnvironmentalImpact The Final SEIR document will be posted for viewing and download with the previously posted Draft SEIR prior to the City’s consideration of the Final SEIR and project recommendations on the City’s website.

A date for consideration of the Final SEIR and project recommendations at the City Council was set for the proposed project and notice of the meeting was provided consistent with the Brown Act (Government Code Sections 54950 et seq.). The City Council will take testimony on the proposed project and may continue on its calendar to a subsequent meeting date in its discretion.

2.3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
 The NOP, NOA, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed project.
 The Draft SEIR and Final SEIR for the proposed project. 4231
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 4 -
 All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft SEIR.
 All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft SEIR.
 All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the proposed project.
 The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).  The Statement of Overriding Considerations.
 The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Final SEIR.  All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR.
 The Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the proposed project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment period and responses thereto.
 Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
 Any documents expressly cited in these Findings.
 Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e).

2.4 CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City’s actions related to the proposed project are at the City of Ontario’s City Hall – 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764. The City Planning Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the offices of the Planning Department. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and Guidelines Section 15091(e).

2.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Ontario (City) is the lead agency for a proposed project that is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is a Policy Plan Amendment to TOP 2050, which includes Zoning amendments, processed concurrently with the EBPSP 4232
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 5 -
project to strategically evaluate a single set of amendments, allow for a thoughtful and holistic assessment of proposed land use modifications, and ensure consistency with the Policy Plan's overarching purpose and intent.

2.5.1 Policy Plan Amendment Project
Policy Plan Amendment
The Policy Plan Amendment project component primarily involves modifying the currently permitted and planned TOP land use pattern across more than 1,435 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 regional employment and logistics center. A critical aspect of these proposed Policy Plan Amendments is to ensure compliance with state laws, including requirements enacted by the following Senate and Assembly Bills (SB/AB).  SB 330 (No-Net-Loss Provisions): If any proposed rezonings convert land from uses that allow housing to uses that do not allow housing, the City must offset this by concurrently upzoning another property elsewhere to prevent a net loss of housing capacity. Since some of the requested changes would reduce potential housing buildout, the overall amendments include additional land use changes specifically for this offset.  SB 166 (Affordable Housing Sites): The City must maintain enough appropriately zoned sites to accommodate its fair share of lower- and moderate-income housing units according to the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA). If properties currently used to meet the City’s lower-income RHNA requirement are rezoned, new suitable sites must be identified on the land use plan. These changes would only be to the Policy Plan; no individual housing projects are being proposed through this process.
 SB 1000 (Environmental Justice): The City is required to evaluate its environmental justice policies to comply with SB 1000, which is triggered when two or more elements of the General Plan (such as Land Use, Housing, Mobility, Community Design) are updated, but the review found the current policies and objectives adequate to meet the requirements of state law and no changes are proposed as part of the project.  AB 98 (Truck Routes): The City’s network of truck routes that will be impacted by the proposed land use changes will be evaluated for opportunities to minimize impacts to sensitive receptors and ensure direct access and compliance with AB 98.

The proposed land use changes necessitate updates and modifications across the Land Use Element and various other elements of TOP 2050 Policy Plan.  Land Use: Changes to TOP Figures LU-01, LU-02, LU-03, LU-04. 4233
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 6 -
 Parks and Recreation: Changes to TOP Figure PR-01 to maintain consistency with the Land Use Element.
 Environmental Resources: Policy Amendment ER-5.4.
 Safety: TOP Figure S-06a.
 Mobility: New Policies: M-1.9, M-1.10, and M-4.6; New Implementation Actions M-1.1, and M-4.2; TOP Figures M-01, M-02, and M-04.
 Community Design:
 Substantive updates include TOP Figures CD-01, CD-02, CD-06, CD-07, CD-08, and CD-09-

2.  Minor updates include maps and key map revisions in TOP Figures CD-03, CD-04, CD-05, and CD-09-1 to maintain consistency with the Land Use Element.

Table 1, Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment, provides a statistical summary of the buildout potential of TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment compared to the buildout potential under the currently approved TOP 2050. As shown in this table, the Policy Plan Amendment would increase population, dwelling units, nonresidential building square footage, and employment.

Table 1 Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment Scenario Units Population
Nonresidential
Square Feet Employment
Approved TOP 2050 129,951 411,268 263,828,479 299,204
Policy Plan Amendment 137,177 427,741 268,162,895 301,035 Net Difference
(Proposed Project –
Approved Project)
7,225 16,473 4,334,416 1,831
Zoning
In addition to changes to TOP 2050, the proposed project includes amendments to the City’s development code to implement the land-use changes, including updates to the zoning map and the affordable housing overlay, see Draft SEIR Figure 2-10, Proposed Zoning Map. There are no separate environmental impacts associated with the Zoning update since these changes reflect the changes to the Policy Plan associated with the proposed Policy Plan Amendment.

2.5.2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan Project
The EBPSP establishes 9 planning areas that would provide for development of the site with approximately 2,939,000 square feet of Business Park uses on 137.9 acres and 35.88 acres of Open Space–Parkland. The remaining 15.24 acres would be utilized for roadway dedications and 4234
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 7 -
improvements. Table 2, EBPSP Land Use Statistical Summary, provides a breakdown of acreages by planning area.

Table 2 EBPSP Land Use Statistical Summary
Planning Area
(PA) Land Use Designation Acres
Target Buildout
Square Feet
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 8.00 —
8 Open Space–Parkland 13.99 —
9 Open Space–Parkland 13.89 —
- Roadway 15.24 —
TOTAL 189.0 2,939,000
Notes:
 A maximum of 10,000 SF of Commercial uses may be provided in Business Park planning areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6.

This square footage is included in the total in the table.  A publicly operated animal resource center may be provided in any of the Business Park planning areas. The animal resource center shall not exceed 35,000 SF.
 The EBPSP allows the transfer of development square footage (15 percent or less) within the same land use designation, provided that the shift in square footage would not exceed the maximum allowable overall square footage (2,939,000) and the maximum building FAR (0.55).  Total acreage of 189.0 is rounded to the nearest one-tenth of an acre.

2.6 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Objectives for Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP will aid decision-makers in their review of the project and associated environmental impacts:

2.6.1 Policy Plan Amendment
 Comprehensively plan for and assess land use changes requested by property owners while ensuring compliance with state laws and maintaining the vision and objectives of current TOP 2050.
 Reposition the planned employment center in southwest Ontario from a mix of office, retail, and residential uses to a concentration of business park uses.  Ensure there is no net loss in overall housing capacity within the City, consistent with the requirements of state law.
4235
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 8 -
 Plan for adequate housing capacity to ensure the City continues to meet the requirements of the City’s sixth-cycle RHNA obligation.
 Update the City’s truck routes based on proposed land use changes to ensure the City continues to comply with state law and ensures a safe and efficient goods movement network while minimizing the exposure of existing and future sensitive receptors to noise, vibration, and air pollution generated by heavy trucks.  Update the Policy Plan component of TOP 2050 for internal consistency with proposed land use and circulation changes.

2.6.2 Specific Plan
 To provide a land use plan that implements The Ontario Plan’s vision and appropriately positions business park and public parkland uses north of Eucalyptus Avenue, between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue.
 To facilitate the development of a variety of employment-generating uses in a business park setting.
 To provide business park uses that are compatible with surrounding land uses.  To provide opportunities for positive economic benefit to the City, including new net revenues to the General Fund that can be used for vital City services.  To provide opportunities for the development of passive use parks consistent with the City of Ontario’s Grand Park Master Plan.
 To provide landscaped open space within the Specific Plan area, including pedestrian trails adjacent to public arterial and collector streets.
 To improve connectivity in the area by providing pedestrian paths, bicycle routes, and comfort amenities such as bike racks that encourage circulation by means not dependent on a motorized vehicle.
 To identify and construct capital improvements for water, recycled water, sewer, storm drain, and circulation facilities that serve planned land uses within and adjacent to the Specific Plan area.
 To set forth a development phasing sequence that allows for logical development and aligns with installation of on-site and off-site infrastructure.  To define guidelines and standards that provide a cohesive design for architecture, landscaping, streetscapes, entry monuments, corner treatments, walls and fencing, lighting, and signage within the Specific Plan area.
4236
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 9 -

3. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

FINDINGS

3.1 INTRODUCTION
CEQA requires that a number of written findings be made by the lead agency in connection with certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) prior to approval of the project pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. This document provides the findings required by CEQA. The potential environmental effects of the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment (proposed project), which include the Policy Plan Amendment, Zoning amendment, and Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (EBPSP), have been analyzed in a Draft SEIR (State Clearinghouse [SCH] 2025110102) dated March 2026. A Final SEIR (Final SEIR) has also been prepared that incorporates the Draft SEIR and contains comments received on the Draft SEIR, responses to the individual comments, revisions to the Draft SEIR including any clarifications based on the comments and the responses to the comments, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the proposed project. This document provides the findings required by CEQA for approval of the proposed project.

3.1.1 Statutory Requirements for Findings
The CEQA (Pub. Res. Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) (14 Ca. Code Regs Section 15000 et seq.) promulgated thereunder, require the environmental impacts of a project be examined before a project is approved. Specifically, regarding findings, Guidelines Section 15091 provides:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.

2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
4237
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 10 -

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
(b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based.
(f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section.

The “changes or alterations” referred to in Section 15091(a)(1) above, that are required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects of the project, may include a wide variety of measures or actions as set forth in Guidelines Section 15370, including:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
4238
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 11 -
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments, including through permanent protection of such resources in the form of conservation easements.

As indicated above, Section 21002 requires an agency to “avoid or substantially lessen” significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that “substantially lessen” significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002’s mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 [“CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level”]; Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed., Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 300, 309 [“[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance . . . if such would render the project unfeasible”].)
While CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts, an agency need not adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (Pub. Resources Code, Section 21002.1(c) [if “economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects on the environment of a project, the project may nonetheless be carried out or approved at the discretion of a public agency”]; see also State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(a) [an “EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible”].) CEQA defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Pub. Resources Code, Section 21061.1.) The State CEQA Guidelines add “legal” considerations as another indicia of feasibility. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15364.) Project objectives also inform the determination of “feasibility.” (Jones v. U.C. Regents (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 818, 828-829.) “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) “Broader considerations of policy thus come into play when the decision making body is considering actual feasibility[.]” (Cal. Native Plant Soc’y v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1000 (“Native Plant”); see also Pub. Resources Code, Section 21081(a)(3) [“economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations” may justify rejecting mitigation and alternatives as infeasible] (emphasis added).) Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347.) The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions.

The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 4239
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 12 -
576.) In addition, perfection in a project or a project’s environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that sufficient information be produced “to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned.” Outside agencies (including courts) are not to “impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves] within the area of discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken.” (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287.)

3.1.2 Findings
Having received, reviewed, and considered the EIR for the No. 2021070364, as well as other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the City of Ontario Council adopts the following Findings (Findings) in its capacity as the legislative body for the City of Ontario (City), which is the CEQA Lead Agency. The Findings set forth the environmental and other bases for current and subsequent discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City and responsible agencies for the implementation of the proposed project.

In addition, the City of Ontario City Council (City Council) hereby make findings pursuant to and in accordance with Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15090 and 15091 and hereby certifies that:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.

3.1.3 Project Environmental Report and Discretionary Actions The Final SEIR addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of construction and operation activities associated with the proposed project. The Final SEIR provides the environmental information necessary for the City to make a final decision on the requested discretionary actions for all phases of this project. The Final SEIR was also intended to support discretionary reviews and decisions by other responsible agencies.

Discretionary actions to be considered by the City may include, but are not limited to, the following:
4240
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 13 -
 Approve the project; adopt the MMRP, finding that the MMRP is adequately designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation; and determine that the significant adverse effects of the project either have been reduced to an acceptable level, or are outweighed by the specific overriding considerations of the project as outlined in the CEQA Findings of Fact, as set forth herein.  Approve the proposed project and related discretionary actions.

3.1.4 Format
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a Lead Agency make a finding for each significant effect for the project. This section summarizes the significant environmental impacts of the project, describes how these impacts are to be mitigated, and discusses various alternatives to the proposed project, which were developed in an effort to reduce the remaining significant environmental impacts. All impacts are considered potentially significant prior to mitigation unless otherwise stated in the findings.

The remainder of this section is divided into the following subsections:

Section 3.2B, Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts Not Requiring Mitigation, presents topical areas that would result in no impact or less than significant impacts in the Draft SEIR.

Section 3.3, Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts Requiring Mitigation, presents potentially significant impacts identified in the Draft SEIR, which includes:
 Section 3.3.1, Findings on Significant Environmental Impacts that can be Reduced to Less Than Significant, presents significant impacts of the proposed project that were identified in the Final SEIR, the mitigation measures identified in the MMRP, and the rationales for the findings.
 Section 3.3.2, Significant Unavoidable Impacts that cannot be Mitigated to Below the Level of Significance, presents significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project that were identified in the Final SEIR, the mitigation measures identified in the MMRP, and the rationales for the findings.

Section 3.4, Cumulative Impacts, presents the summary of cumulative impacts of the proposed project.

Section 4, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, presents alternatives to the project and evaluates them in relation to the findings set forth in Section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, which allows a public agency to approve a project that would result in one or more significant environmental effects if the project alternatives are found to be infeasible because of specific economic, social, or other considerations.
4241
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 14 -
Section 5, Additional CEQA Considerations, presents additional CEQA considerations including significant irreversible changes due to the proposed project and growth inducing impacts of the proposed project.

Section 6, Findings on Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR and Revisions to the Final SEIR, presents the City’s findings on the response to comments and revisions to Final SEIR, and decision on whether a recirculated Draft SEIR is necessary or not.

Section 7, Statement of Overriding Considerations, presents a description of the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable adverse impacts and the justification for adopting a statement of overriding considerations.

Section 8, Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program, presents the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Section 9, Certification, identifies the requirements for certification of the SEIR.

3.2 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION

3.2.1 Issues Deemed No Impact Or Less Than Significant Impact Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d) and 15063 that allow a lead agency to skip preparation of an Initial Study and begin work directly on the EIR process. As such, here, an NOP was issued without an accompanying Initial Study.

3.2.2 Findings on “No Impact” and “Less Than Significant Impacts”
Based on the environmental assessments in the Final SEIR, the City determined that the proposed project would have no impact or less than significant impacts, including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, for the environmental issues summarized below. The rationale for the conclusion that no significant impact would occur in each of the issue areas is based on the environmental evaluation in the listed topical EIR sections in Chapter 3 of the Draft SEIR, which include Environmental Setting, Environmental Impacts, Cumulative Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.

The EIR concluded that all or some of the impacts of the proposed project with respect to the following issues either will not be significant or will be reduced to below a level of significance by implementing project design features or existing plans, programs, and policies as detailed in Chapter 3 of the Draft SEIR. Those issues include the following topical areas in their entirety or portions thereof: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards 4242
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 15 -
and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. CEQA Guidelines Section 15901 requires that an EIR may not be certified for a project which has one or more significant environmental effects unless one of three possible findings is made for each significance effect. Since the following environmental issue areas were determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact, no findings for these issues are required. Environmental Protection Info. Ctr. v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 522; Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477, 493.

AESTHETICS
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact AES-1 (PPA + EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially alter scenic vistas in Ontario. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.1-11) Scenic vistas generally provide visual access or panoramic views to a large geographic area.

Panoramic views are usually associated with vantage points over a section of urban or natural areas that provide a geographic orientation not commonly available. Examples of scenic or panoramic views might include an urban skyline, valley, mountain range, large open space, the ocean, or other bodies of water. As described in Section 3.1.2, Existing Conditions, the San Gabriel Mountains are the most prominent scenic vista in or around Ontario.

The Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would not substantially alter scenic vistas in the City, as proposed growth is primarily concentrated in undeveloped areas interspersed in existing residential areas.

Policy Plan Amendment
The City of Ontario does not designate scenic vistas. The proposed project would increase the number of housing units, non-residential square feet, employment, and population in comparison to the approved project, as shown in Table 2-4, Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment, in Chapter 2, Project Description.

Increased development under the policy plan amendment would occur within the City limits and already urbanized areas of the City. The proposed project would alter the allowable type or intensity of land use on their properties as well as land use changes required to improve land use compatibility, maintain compliance with state laws, uphold long-term planning goals, and plan for a cohesive land use pattern that repositions the southwest portion of the City as a central business center. Additionally, the proposed project would include alterations to the mixed-use areas to create new district “District Place Type” that would define a vision for new mixed-use areas, primarily near the Ontario Field (ONT Field); however, these changes would 4243
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 16 -
improve land use compatibility near the Ontario Sports Empire and would not affect scenic quality within the City.

Specific Plan
The City of Ontario does not designate scenic vistas; however, Policy CD-1.5 of the TOP 2050 Policy Plan requires all north-south streets be designed and developed to feature views of the San Gabriel Mountains. The Policy goes on to state that views should be free of visual clutter, such as billboards, and may be enhanced by framing with trees.

Four north-south streets would be improved as part of the Specific Plan. The segments of Campus Avenue, Bon View Avenue, Grove Avenue, Walker Avenue that abut the Specific Plan area would all be improved with landscaped parkways and sidewalks. Grove Avenue would also feature a landscaped median, which is a continuation of the median previously established as part of the existing development located to the south. Streetscape landscaping would include a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and groundcovers acting to reinforce views of the San Gabriel Mountains. Additionally, Chapter 6, Design Guidelines, of the EBPSP includes reference to Signage Guidelines to ensure aesthetically pleasing (and non-intrusive) signage within the site.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to scenic corridors. Similarly, the scale and design of the City under the proposed project would not deter views of the San Gabriel Mountains. The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project and impacts identified in the Certified EIR.

Specific Plan
Based on the preceding, the Specific Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and would be implemented consistent with Policy CD-1.5 of TOP 2050. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Impact AES-2 (PPA + EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project would not alter scenic resources within a State scenic highway. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.1-13) The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would have no impact on State scenic highways.
4244
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 17 -
Policy Plan Amendment
The Euclid Avenue corridor and the Mission Boulevard corridor are the primary scenic corridors in Ontario; however, these are not identified as State-designated scenic highways, and Ontario does not have any State scenic highways through or in the vicinity of the City (Caltrans 2025).

The closest designated State scenic highway is a portion of State Route 142 in Chino Hills, approximately 5 miles west of the Ontario City limit. Increased development under the policy plan amendment would occur within the city limits and already urbanized areas of the City. The proposed project would alter the allowable type or intensity of land use on their properties as well as land use changes required to improve land use compatibility, maintain compliance with state laws, uphold long-term planning goals, and plan for a cohesive land use pattern that repositions the southwest portion of the city as a central business center. As such, the proposed project would have no impact on State scenic highways.

Specific Plan
The City of Ontario is served by three freeways: I-10, I-15, and SR-60. I-10 and SR-60 traverse the northern and central portion of the City, respectively, in an east–west direction. I-15 traverses the northeastern portion of the City in a north–south direction. None of these segments are designated as scenic highways. The nearest officially designated State scenic highway is State Route 142 located approximately 5 miles west of the Specific Plan area (Caltrans 2025). The Specific Plan area is not visible from State Route 142 due to intervening topography and development. As such, the EBPSP would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. No impact would occur.

Findings
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Specific Plan
No impacts related to scenic resources within a State scenic highway were identified within the 2022 Certified EIR. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Impact AES-3 (PPA + EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.1- 14)
The Certified EIR concluded that while buildout in accordance with the approved project would alter the visual appearance of the City, it would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. An “urbanized area,” as defined by CEQA 4245
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 18 -
Section 21071, is an incorporated city that either has a population of at least 100,000 persons, or if the population of that city and not more than 2 contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR, the population of Ontario was approximately 184,404 as of 2025 (see also Table 3.14-1 in the Draft SEIR). Therefore, this impact analysis addresses whether, for an urbanized area, the proposed project would conflict with zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality.

Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project modifies the land-use pattern and updates related Policy Plan elements while maintaining the overall planning and regulatory framework established by the approved project.

The 2022 Certified EIR and TOP 2050 included goals and policies to ensure that new development would be compatible with the existing community (Policy LU-2.6) and would be of quality design (Policies CD-2.1 through CD-2.9). The Community Design Element includes policies to ensure that the urban environment is appealing (Policies CD 3.2, CD-3.3, and CD-3.5) and to preserve the historic neighborhood character (Policy CD-4.2). Adherence to the Land Use Element and Community Design Element policies described above would reduce visual impacts.

Additionally, the proposed project would not change any regulations for scenic quality, and future development under the proposed project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code, which, as described in Section 3.1.1, Regulatory Background, includes general development requirements for density, screening and setback, signage, landscaping, lighting, height limitations, and other aspects related to the aesthetics of the City.

The proposed project would alter the allowable type or intensity of land use on their properties as well as land use changes required to improve land use compatibility, maintain compliance with state laws, uphold long-term planning goals, and plan for a cohesive land use pattern that repositions the southwest portion of the City as a central business center. Additionally, the proposed project would include alterations to the mixed-use areas to create a new district— “District Place Type”—that would define a vision for new mixed-use areas, primarily near the ONT Field. These changes would improve land use compatibility near the Ontario Sports Empire and would not affect scenic quality within the City.

Specific Plan
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15387, urban areas mean a central city or group of contiguous cities with a population of 50,000 or more, together with adjacent densely populated areas having a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile. The City encompasses 50 square miles and has a population of 184,404 (DOF 2025). As such, the potential impacts under this threshold are assessed based on whether the EBPSP would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

As part of the Policy Plan Amendment being processed in conjunction with the EBPSP, new designations would be processed for the Specific Plan area. The Policy Plan land use designation 4246
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 19 -
would be changed from Medium Density Residential (with an Affordable Housing Overlay) (MDR-AH), Mixed Use (with an Affordable Housing Overlay) (MU-BC-AH), and Open Space – Parkland (OS-R) to Business Park (BP) and Open Space – Parkland (OS-R). A Consistency Analysis of the Policy Plan’s Community Design Element policies was prepared and included as Draft SEIR Table 3.11-3, EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis. As demonstrated, the Specific Plan would be consistent with the City’s policies governing scenic quality, including Policies CD1-4 and CD1- 5 which require the enhancement of transportation and view corridors, Policies CD2-1, CD2-5, CD2-8, and CD2-9, which require safe and attractive architecture and design, and Policies CD5-1 and CD5-2 which address ongoing maintenance of facilities and infrastructure.

The City of Ontario’s Zoning Map designates the Specific Plan area’s zoning as Specific Plan (SP) with an Agricultural (AG) overlay and an Affordable Housing AH Overlay. Upon adoption of the EBPSP zoning of the site would become Specific Plan – EBPSP.

The Specific Plan establishes Development Regulations and Design Guidelines to guide future development within the site through regulations for architecture, lighting, signage, landscape, streetscape, and entries and monuments. The City would review and approve future development proposals for conformance with the Specific Plan and the City’s Development Code to ensure scenic quality and visually compatible development prior to issuance of building permit.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Because the Policy Plan Amendment is an overriding planning document for the City, and because it is intended to improve consistency with existing regulations and conditions, the proposed project would not have a significant impact with respect to being inconsistent with policies or regulations governing scenic quality. The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
Conformance with EBPSP Development Regulations and Design Guidelines, as well as the City’s Development Code would minimize the potential for implementation of the Specific Plan to adversely affect scenic resources or result in development that would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is Less than significant.
4247
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 20 -
Impact AES-4 (PPA + EBPSP): Buildout of the proposed project would generate additional light and glare, which would be minimized through adherence to the City of Ontario Development Code. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.1-17)
The Certified EIR concluded that development the approved project would result in new sources of light or glare, but with adherence to the design standards of the City of Ontario Development Code impacts were less than significant.

Sources of light and glare in the City include building lighting (interior and exterior), security lighting, sign illumination, ballfield lighting, and parking-area lighting. These sources are mostly associated with residential, commercial, and industrial uses and the larger community parks in the more developed areas of the City. Other sources of nighttime light and glare include streetlights, vehicular traffic along surrounding roadways, and ambient lighting from surrounding communities.

Policy Plan Amendment
New development would generate new sources of light and glare through increased urbanization and densification of the city, affecting day or nighttime views. Sources of light include nighttime street and building illumination, security lighting, nighttime traffic, and lighting associated with construction activities. Lighting introduced to undeveloped and open space areas has the potential to impact visual quality of the nighttime sky.

Like the approved project, the proposed project would result in additional sources of light or glare; however, the City of Ontario Development Code contains standards addressing lighting through its design policies. Adherence to the design standards of the City of Ontario Development Code would ensure that light and glare from new developments would be minimized and that significant impacts would not occur.

Specific Plan
Existing sources of artificial, exterior lighting associated with on-site uses include buildingmounted fixtures, streetlights, vehicle headlights, and lighting from surrounding developed properties.

New lighting introduced to the Specific Plan area would be subject to the requirements of the Specific Plan’s Development Regulations and Design Guidelines for lighting. In this regard, Section 6.7 of the EBPSP requires lighting to be shielded, diffused or indirect, to avoid glare to pedestrians or motorists. In addition, lighting fixtures are required to be selected and located to confine the area of illumination and minimize light spillage to surrounding properties. Lighting that could be mistaken for airport lighting in the eyes of pilots of aircraft using the nearby Chino Airport (CNO) or Ontario International Airport (ONT) would be prohibited.

Future development lighting plans would be subject to review and approval by the City’s Planning Department and Ontario Police Department (pursuant to the City’s Building Security 4248
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 21 -
Ordinance). Conformance with applicable glare provisions of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans for the nearby CNO and ONT would also be required prior to issuance of building permits.

With respect to glare, a majority of building materials within the Specific Plan would consist of tilt-up concrete panels. Secondary materials would include natural or fabricated stone, and fireresistant or synthetic wood siding, which are low reflective materials. Windows would be clear or lightly tinted with subtle reflectivity; highly reflective or silver-tinted glass would not be allowed. Glare effects would be further minimized by required setbacks and buffered by landscaping.

The EBPSP requires building roofs to be designed to accommodate solar photovoltaic (PV) systems. Rooftop PV panels are produced by numerous manufacturers with a variety of specifications and the exact configuration and specifications will be determined in conjunction with each building's architectural design in the future. Regardless, industry standard rooftop PV panels exhibit low reflectivity due to anti-reflective coatings and the industry objective of maximizing absorption rather than reflection. Because rooftop panels are mounted at shallow angles and generally face the sun’s path, any potential glare would be directed upward rather than horizontally toward roadways or sensitive viewers. Public vantage points are at-grade, substantially below the rooftop plane, limiting opportunities for direct reflection of glare towards sensitive receivers.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Compared to the approved project, the proposed project does not introduce substantial new sources of light and glare, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project and this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
Based on the preceding, implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in a significant source of light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views, and impacts would be less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Impact AGF-1 (PPA + EBPSP): The proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance in Ontario to nonagricultural use. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.2-17)
4249
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 22 -
The 2022 Certified EIR concluded that the City of Ontario’s land use plan no longer designates agricultural land uses in the City; therefore, TOP 2050 would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural uses and would have no impact on land zoned for the purpose of agricultural uses. The 2010 Ontario Plan Certified EIR concluded that buildout of the City would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance because it converted all of the then-existing land under these categories to residential, commercial, mixed-use, and industrial land uses. Existing agricultural uses have been allowed to persist as nonconforming uses.

Policy Plan Amendment
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the Draft SEIR evaluates the potential impacts from the change in land use designations and policies of the current TOP 2050 compared to the Policy Plan Amendment. Consistent with the TOP 2050, the City of Ontario no longer designates agricultural land uses within the City. While there is currently agricultural use in the Ontario Ranch, the planning framework to convert the land to nonagricultural land already occurred as a result of adoption of the current TOP 2050 in 2010, and prior to that as a result of annexation of the New Model Colony in 1999 from the County of San Bernardino. The proposed project would not result in any additional conversion of agricultural land in Ontario compared to the approved project.

The proposed project would redesignate land currently designated for residential to business park, increase residential densities, and allow mixed uses within developed areas, primarily on land in Ontario Ranch that is currently used for agricultural purposes. In addition, new mixeduse designations would be added for land surrounding the Ontario Sports Empire to align with recreational uses currently under development.

Specific Plan
As shown in Draft SEIR Figure 3.2-3, the majority of the Specific Plan area (170.72 acres) is mapped as “other land,” but small areas of grazing land (11.62 acres) and Prime Farmland (6.6 acres) are located on-site. The City of Ontario no longer has land designated for agricultural use.

The 2010 Ontario Plan Certified EIR concluded that buildout of the City would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance because it converted all of the then-existing land under these categories to residential, commercial, mixed-use, and industrial land uses. Subsequently, the 2022 Certified EIR concluded that, because the City of Ontario’s land use plan no longer designates agricultural land uses, TOP 2050 would not result in farmland impacts that were not previously disclosed.

On this basis, the 2022 Certified EIR concluded that no impacts to farmland would result.

Existing agricultural uses have been allowed to persist as non-conforming uses. The City adopted the Agricultural Overlay Zoning District in Section 9-1.2700 of the Ontario Municipal Code and Section 6.01.035.C.1 of the Development Code, which allows for the continuation of agricultural uses until development is approved for the Ontario Ranch subareas. 4250
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 23 -
Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Although the proposed project would increase residential densities and allow mixed uses in areas currently used for agricultural purposes and designated as Prime Farmland within the City, the land use plan no longer designates agricultural land uses and would not convert land from Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural uses. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on land zoned for agricultural purposes, and this impact would be less than significant.

Specific Plan
Impacts associated with the loss of farmland within the City were previously analyzed and disclosed as part of the 2010 Certified EIR. The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify further impacts regarding farmland. Similarly, implementation of the EBPSP, including the conversion of grazing land and Prime Farmland to a non-agricultural use, would not result in impacts not already previously disclosed. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Impact AGF-2 (PPA + EBPSP): The proposed project would not result in conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.2- 19)
Policy Plan Amendment
The City of Ontario no longer designates agricultural land uses in the City. There are existing Williamson Act contracts in the City, as shown in Draft SEIR Figure 3-2.2, and any land held in a Williamson Act contract would have to be filed for nonrenewal, and the contract would have to be allowed to expire before any development occurs on it.

Specific Plan
Two parcels within the Specific Plan area have an active Williamson Act contract in place (APNs:
0216-231-01 and 0216-321-07). An application to cancel the contract is required to be submitted to the City. The existing zoning of the site is Specific Plan with an Agricultural Overlay and Affordable Housing Overlay. The Agricultural Overlay was developed to allow for the continuation of agricultural uses until development is approved for the Ontario Ranch subareas.

Eventual removal of the Agricultural Overlay was anticipated in the 2022 Certified EIR. 4251
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 24 -
Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The 2022 Certified EIR determined that buildout of the approved project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts within the City. The 2022 Certified EIR would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
The EBPSP would not result in impacts not already previously disclosed. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Impact AGF-3 (PPA + EBPSP): The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.2-20)
The 2022 Certified EIR determined there are no land use designations or zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production in the City of Ontario, and impacts were less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
Consistent with the 2022 Certified EIR, there are no land use designations or zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production in the City of Ontario.

Consequently, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, there is no land in Ontario that would be considered forest land. Consequently, implementation of the proposed project would not result in loss or conversion of timberland to non-forest uses, and no impact would occur.

Specific Plan
There are no land use designations or zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production in the City of Ontario. The existing zoning of the site is Specific Plan with an Agricultural Overlay and Affordable Housing Overlay. The EBPSP would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland production. Therefore, no impacts would occur. 4252
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 25 -
Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. No impacts would occur.

Specific Plan
The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. No impacts would occur.

Impact AGF-4 (PPA + EBPSP): No forest land would be affected by the proposed project. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.2-21)
The 2022 Certified EIR determined that there are no land use designations or zoning for forest land in the City of Ontario and there were no impacts.

Policy Plan Amendment
Consistent with the Certified EIR, there are no land use designations or zoning for forest land in the City of Ontario. Consequently, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land. There is no land in Ontario that would be considered forest land and implementation of the proposed project would not result in loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses.

Specific Plan
The City of Ontario does not contain any forest land or timberland that could fall under the definition of forest land per California Public Resource Code Section 12220(g). As such, no forestry resources are located within the Specific Plan area or in the immediate vicinity. The EBPSP would have no impact in this regard.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The 2022 Certified EIR concluded that because the City of Ontario’s land use plan no longer designates agricultural land uses in the City, the TOP 2050 would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural uses and would have no impact on land zoned for the purpose of agricultural uses. No impact would occur.

Specific Plan
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify any impacts regarding the loss or conversion of forest land. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. No impact would occur. 4253
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 26 -
Impact AGF-5 (PPA + EBPSP): The proposed project would not involve other changes that would result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use that have not been previously disclosed. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.2-22)
The 2022 Certified EIR determined that there are no land use designations or zoning for forest land in the City of Ontario and there were no impacts.

Policy Plan Amendment
Consistent with the 2010 TOP and the TOP 2050, the City of Ontario no longer designates agricultural land uses. While the proposed project would redesignate some areas currently used for agricultural activities, these sites are not zoned or designated for agricultural purposes.

Similarly, TOP 2050 does not identify any land use designations or zoning for forest land within the City. As a result, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land.

Specific Plan
Although the majority of the Specific Plan area is currently used for agricultural purposes, the zoning of the site is Specific Plan, denoting the site’s eventual transition to more urban uses. All former agriculture areas in the City are now designated for nonagricultural uses. As previously discussed, impacts associated with the conversion of agricultural areas were disclosed as part of the 2010 Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report. The 2010 Certified EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources because buildout would result in all agricultural areas being converted to nonagricultural uses, and because buildout would lead to cancellation or expiration of Williamson Act contracts (Ontario 2010).

Since impacts were analyzed and disclosed as part of the 2010 Certified EIR, the 2022 Certified EIR did not identify any further impacts related to the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and concluded that impacts would be less than significant. EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would not result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.

Because no forest land exists within the City of Ontario, the proposed project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. The proposed project will not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. This impact is less than significant
4254
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 27 -
Specific Plan
There is no forest land located within the City; therefore, the Specific Plan would not result in conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-2 (EBPSP): Construction activities associated with future development that would be accommodated under the EBPSP would not generate short-term emissions in exceedance of the South Coast AQMD’s threshold criteria. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.3-57)
Specific Plan
Construction activities associated with the EBPSP would result in emissions of ROGs, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction-related emissions are expected from the following construction activities:
 Demolition/Crushing
 Site Preparation
 Grading
 Building Construction
 Paving
 Architectural Coating
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.
 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. 4255
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 28 -
Estimated maximum daily construction emissions for Phases 1, 2, and 3 are summarized in Draft SEIR Table 3.3-11, EBPSP Construction Emissions Summary: Phase 1; Draft SEIR Table 3.3-12, EBPSP Construction Emissions Summary: Phase 2; and Draft SEIR Table 3.3-13, EBPSP Construction Emissions Summary: Phase 3.

Finding
Specific Plan
As identified in these tables, EBPSP construction would not exceed any criteria pollutant thresholds established by the South Coast AQMD, and impacts would be less than significant.

Construction impacts associated with the approved project were identified as significant and unavoidable in the 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.

Impact AQ-4 (EBPSP): Construction activities associated with the EBPSP would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations. (Draft SEIR pg.

3.3-76)
Specific Plan
LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable National AAQS and California AAQS at the nearest residence or sensitive receptor. Receptor locations are off-site locations where individuals may be exposed to emissions from project activities. Receptors in the EBPSP study area are described below and illustrated in Draft SEIR Figure 3.3-6, EBPSP Sensitive Receptor Locations.  Location R1 represents the existing residence at 7697 Edison Avenue, approximately 668 feet north of the EBPSP site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the site, receptor point R1 in the model is placed at the building’s façade.  Location R2 represents the existing residence at 14213 Bon View Avenue, approximately 89 feet north of the EBPSP site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the site, receptor point R2 in the model is placed at the building’s façade.  Location R3 represents the existing residence at 14117 Grove Avenue, approximately 900 feet north of the EBPSP site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the site, receptor point R3 in the model is placed at the building’s façade.  Location R4 represents the existing residence at 8377 Edison Avenue, approximately 639 feet north of the EBPSP site. Receptor point R4 in the model is placed in the private outdoor living area (backyard) facing the site.
 Location R5 represents the existing residence at 14303 Walker Avenue, approximately 109 feet east of the EBPSP site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the site, receptor point R5 in the model is placed at the building’s façade. 4256
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 29 -
 Location R6 represents the Ontario Fire Station 11 located at 7721 Eucalyptus Avenue, approximately 166 feet south of the EBPSP site. R6 is placed at the nearest building façade facing the site.
 Location R7 represents the existing residence at 7566 Eucalyptus Avenue, approximately 164 feet south of the EBPSP site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the site, receptor point R7 in the model is placed at the building’s façade.  Location R8 represents the existing residence at 7511 Eucalyptus Avenue, approximately 105 feet west of the EBPSP site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the site, receptor point R8 in the model is placed at the building’s façade.  Location R9 represents the Crosspoint Children’s Center at 6950 Edison Avenue, approximately 3,442 feet northwest of the EBPSP site. Receptor point R9 in the model is placed at the nearest building façade facing the site.

Construction-Phase Localized Significance Thresholds
Based on South Coast AQMD’s LST Methodology, emissions of concern during construction activities include NOX, CO, PM2.5, and PM10. Draft SEIR Table 3.3-18, EBPSP Construction Source LST Summary: Phase 1; Draft SEIR Table 3.3-19, EBPSP Construction Source LST Summary: Phase 2; and Draft SEIR Table 3.3-20, EBPSP Construction Source LST Summary: Buildout, present the construction-source 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.

Construction-Phase Toxic Air Contaminants
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.

Draft SEIR Table 3.3-21, Summary of EBPSP Construction Health Risks, presents a summary of the previous discussions of EBPSP construction health risks.

Residential Exposure Scenario
The location with the greatest potential exposure to construction-source DPM emissions is Location R5, approximately 109 feet east of the EBPSP site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the site, R5 is placed at the building façade facing the site. For the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR), the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to EBPSP construction-source DPM emissions is estimated at 1.39 in one million, which is less than the significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, noncancer risks were estimated to be ≤0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. Although Location R5 is not the nearest receptor to the EBPSP site, it would experience the highest concentrations of DPM during construction due to its location and meteorological conditions. Because all other modeled receptors would experience lower concentrations of DPM during construction, all other receptors in the vicinity of the EBPSP would be exposed to 4257
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 30 -
less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIR identified. Therefore, the EBPSP would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of construction activity.

Worker Exposure Scenario
The worker receptor land use with the greatest potential exposure to EBPSP constructionsource DPM emissions is Location R6, which represents the potential worker receptor approximately 166 feet south of the site. The maximally exposed individual worker (MEIW) is the worker receptor location that would experience the highest modeled concentrations of DPM, and thus the highest risk. For the MEIW, the maximum incremental cancer risk impact is calculated to be 0.04 in one million, which is less than the South Coast AQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. Maximum non-cancer risks at this same location were estimated to be ≤0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. Because all other modeled worker receptors would be exposed to lower concentrations of DPM, all other worker receptors in the vicinity of the EBPSP would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIW identified. Therefore, construction would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent workers.

School Child Exposure Scenario
The nearest school and location of the maximally exposed individual school child (MEISC) is Crosspoint Children’s Center, approximately 3,442 feet northwest of the EBPSP site and represented by Location R9. For the MEISC, the maximum incremental cancer risk impact attributable to construction is calculated to be ≤0.01 in one million, which is less than the significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks attributable to the EBPSP were calculated to be ≤0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. Because all other modeled school receptors would be exposed to lower concentrations of DPM, all other school receptors in the vicinity of the EBPSP would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEISC identified.

Finding
Specific Plan
Based on the preceding, the potential for construction of the Specific Plan to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. 4258
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 31 -
Impact AQ-5 (EBPSP): Operation of EBPSP would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.3-101) Specific Plan
CO Hotspots
A CO hotspot is defined as a localized concentration of CO exceeding the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm. At the time the most recent CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) was published by South Coast AQMD, the air basin was designated as non-attainment, requiring projects to perform hotspot analyses to ensure they did not worsen the existing conditions. Over the last 2 decades, background CO concentrations have been significantly reduced due to regulatory controls on tailpipe emissions, which have culminated in the air basin achieving attainment status for CO.

In 2003, the South Coast AQMD, as part of its AQMP development process, prepared modeling to determine the potential for CO Hotspots at the four busiest intersections in the air basin. As summarized in the 2003 AQMP, even at one of the busiest intersections at that time, only 0.7 ppm of CO is attributable to vehicular traffic and the remaining 7.7 ppm were due to ambient background conditions. The 2003 AQMP’s findings underscore that CO hotspots are highly unlikely due to the reduced background concentrations and the effectiveness of California's air quality management strategies. The substantial reduction in CO levels from the vehicle fleet and the state’s attainment status for CO further diminish the need for detailed microscale hotspot analyses, reinforcing that existing monitoring and regulatory frameworks adequately address potential air quality concerns.

As such, EBPSP-related traffic at any intersections within the study area would not cause or contribute to a CO hotspot since the background concentrations are low and any contribution from EBPSP traffic would be negligible.

Operational-Source Localized Significance Thresholds
Draft SEIR Table 3.3-24, EBPSP Operational Source LST Summary: Phase 1; Draft SEIR Table 3.3- 25, EBPSP Operational Source LST Summary: Phases 1 and 2; and Draft SEIR Table 3.3-26, 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.

Operational-Source Health Risk Assessment
Draft SEIR Table 3.3-27, Summary of EBPSP Operational Health Risks, presents a summary of the EBPSP operational health risk analysis.
4259
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 32 -
Residential Exposure Scenario
The residential land use with the greatest potential exposure to operational-source DPM emissions is Location R5, which is 109 feet east of the EBPSP site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the EBPSP site, R5 is placed at the building façade facing the site. At this location, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to operationalsource DPM emissions is estimated at 2.27 in one million, which would not exceed the South Coast AQMD’s significance 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 significance threshold of 1.0.

Although Location R5 is not the nearest receptor to the EBPSP site, it would experience the highest concentrations of DPM from operations due to its location and meteorological conditions. Because all other modeled receptors would be exposed to lower concentrations of DPM, all other receptors in the vicinity would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIR identified herein. As such, operations of the EBPSP would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to nearby residences.

Worker Exposure Scenario
The worker receptor land use with the greatest potential exposure to operational-source DPM emissions is Location R6, which represents the potential worker receptor 166 feet south of the EBPSP site. The MEIW is the worker receptor location that would experience the highest modeled concentrations of DPM, and thus the highest risk. For the MEIW, the maximum incremental cancer risk impact is calculated to be 0.21 in one million, which is less than the South Coast AQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. Maximum non-cancer risks at this same location were estimated to be ≤0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. Because all other modeled worker receptors would be exposed to lower concentrations of DPM, all other worker receptors in the vicinity would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIW identified herein. As such, EBPSP operations would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent workers.

School Exposure Scenario
Proximity to sources of toxics is critical to determining the impact. In traffic-related studies, the additional non-cancer risk attributable to proximity was seen within 1,000 feet and was strongest within 300 feet. California freeway studies show about a 70 percent drop-off in particulate pollution levels at 500 feet. Based on CARB and South Coast AQMD emissions and modeling analyses, an 80 percent drop-off in pollutant concentrations is expected at approximately 1,000 feet from a distribution center.

The 1,000-foot evaluation distance is supported by research-based findings concerning TAC emission dispersion rates from roadways and large sources showing that emissions diminish substantially between 500 and 1,000 feet from emission sources. 4260
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 33 -
A one-quarter mile radius, or 1,320 feet, is commonly utilized for identifying sensitive receptors, such as schools, that may be impacted by a proposed project. This radius is more robust than and therefore provides a more health protective scenario for evaluation than the 1,000-foot impact radius identified above. Notwithstanding, for full disclosure purposes, the nearest school was also evaluated.

The nearest school and location of the MEISC is Crosspoint Children’s Center, approximately 3,442 feet northwest of the EBPSP site and represented by Location R9. At the MEISC, the maximum incremental cancer risk impact attributable to operations is calculated to be 0.04 in one million, which is less than the significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks attributable to the EBPSP were calculated to be ≤0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. Because all other modeled school receptors would be exposed to lower concentrations of DPM, all other school receptors in the vicinity would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEISC identified herein.

Construction and Operational Impacts Combined
The analysis considers a conservative scenario in which a child at a nearby residence is exposed to construction-related DPM emissions from birth for the expected 4.5 years of construction, and is then exposed to operational emissions for the remaining 25.5 years of the 30-year residential exposure scenario.

The land use with the greatest potential exposure to construction-source and operationalsource DPM emissions is Location R5. As shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.3-28, 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.

Finding
Specific Plan
Based on the preceding, the potential for operations of the EBPSP to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations is considered less than significant. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.
4261
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 34 -
Impact AQ-6 (PPA+EBPSP): Operation of land uses accommodated under the proposed project would not result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors, that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. (Draft SEIR pg.

3.3-107)
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify any significant odor impacts associated with the approved project. Growth within the City under the proposed project could generate new sources of odors. Nuisance odors from land uses in the SoCAB are regulated under South Coast AQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.

Policy Plan Amendment
Industrial Land Uses
Buildout permitted under the approved project and the proposed project could include new sources of odors, such as compost facilities, landfills, solid-waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), asphalt batch manufacturing plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. Similar to the approved project, areas where these types of uses could be developed under the proposed project would be generally limited to the areas designated Industrial (see Draft SEIR Figure 2-5, Proposed TOP 2050 Land Use Plan). Future environmental review would be required for these types of industrial projects, which would ensure that sensitive land uses are not exposed to objectionable odors. Industrial land uses associated with the proposed project also would be required to comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 402. Therefore, impacts from potential odors generated from industrial land uses associated with the proposed project are considered less than significant.

Residential and Other Land Uses
Like the approved project, residential and other nonresidential, nonindustrial land uses that would be accommodated by the proposed project could result in the generation of odors such as exhaust from landscaping equipment and from cooking. Unlike industrial land uses, these are not considered potential generators of odor that could affect a substantial number of people.

Nuisance odors are regulated under South Coast AQMD Rule 402, which requires abatement of any nuisance generating a verified odor complaint. Therefore, impacts from potential odors 4262
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 35 -
generated from residential and other nonresidential land uses associated with the proposed project are considered less than significant.

Construction
Like the approved project, during construction activities of development projects that would be accommodated by the proposed project, construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt and architectural coatings would temporarily generate odors. Any construction-related odor emissions would be temporary and intermittent. Noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment in use. By the time such emissions reached any sensitive receptor sites, they would be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern.

Short-term construction-related odors are expected to cease upon the drying or hardening of odor-producing materials. Therefore, impacts associated with construction-generated odors from development under the proposed project are considered less than significant.

Specific Plan
The odor impacts of the Specific Plan are the same as for the Policy Plan Amendment.

Therefore, the Specific Plan would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project.

Moreover, the Specific Plan does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential odor sources may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with long-term operational uses.

Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. Any construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction. It is expected that refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with current solid waste regulations. The EBPSP would also be required to comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Odors generated from future land uses and construction of future land uses in the City would not generate odors that would adversely affect sensitive receptors. Impact are less than significant. The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project.

Specific Plan
Odors and other emissions (such as those leading to odors) associated with construction and operations activities within the Specific Plan area would be less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.
4263
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 36 -

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-2 (PPA+EBPSP): Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that implementation of the proposed project would not have an adverse impact on riparian or sensitive habitats. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.4-65) Policy Plan Amendment
Surface water areas are assumed to contain sensitive natural communities if they support plants such as mulefat and willow, which are member plants of sensitive communities listed in the CNDDB as occurring in the region. Surface water areas in the city include detention basins and other man-made lakes, such as those in golf courses, as well as dairy manure water retention basins, irrigation ponds, and livestock-watering ponds associated with agricultural uses in Ontario Ranch.

Detention basins would retain the Open Space–Non-recreation and Open Space–Parkland designations under the Policy Plan Amendment. The basins would not be developed with other land uses.

The Policy Plan Amendment primarily involves modifying the TOP land use pattern and making associated updates to the various elements of the TOP Policy Plan. Implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment would not result in direct vegetation removal in surface water areas in the city; however, projects approved pursuant to the Policy Plan Amendment could indirectly result in such removal. Projects that would result in impacts to surface water areas determined to be jurisdictional to the state would require CDFW approval pursuant to the Fish and Game Code in the form of Streambed Alteration Agreements (Section 1600, et. seq.). Such impacts would require mitigation, also subject to CDFW approval. Furthermore, TOP Policy ER-5.1 would support avoidance of adverse impacts to protected wetlands, waters of the United States, and waters of the State.

Compared to the approved project, the proposed project would have similar impacts to sensitive habitat because it would not result in development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the city that were not planned for under the approved project, even though it would result in an increase in land use intensity. Individual projects undergoing environmental review under CEQA would be required to determine whether there is potential habitat on-site for sensitive species. If sensitive species were found on-site, the project proponent would be required to consult with the CDFW regarding impacts to sensitive species and ensuing mitigation. Projects in Ontario Ranch would pay a mitigation fee that would be deposited into a trust fund to be used for the acquisition, restoration, rehabilitation, and maintenance of lands deemed to have long-term conservation value.
4264
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 37 -
Specific Plan
The existing on-site stock ponds are artificially created in upland areas primarily for dairy effluence. They do not exhibit hydraulic connectivity to upstream or downstream aquatic resources. Plant species surrounding the stock ponds include several ruderal, invasive, and/or weedy species. No hydrophytic or riparian vegetation was observed in the stock pond areas. No riparian or other special-status plant communities were observed within the Specific Plan area.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
In conclusion, projects affecting riparian habitat in the city would be required to mitigate potential impacts to riparian areas through the existing permitting process. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities compared to the approved project.

This impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
The EBPSP would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities compared to the approved project.

This impact is less than significant.

Impact BIO-3 (PPA+EBPSP): Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that implementation of the proposed project would not have an adverse impact on jurisdictional waters. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.4-67)
The 2022 Certified EIR found that the approved project would not have substantial adverse impacts on jurisdictional waters. Flood control channels and detention basins would be designated Open Space–Non-recreation or Open Space–Parkland. Projects that have the potential to result in impacts to waters of the state would be subject to approval by CDFW or USACE; require a Section 404 permit under the CWA or consultation with EPA for a Section 7 take permit, as applicable; and require mitigation in accordance with the applicable permits.

Policy Plan Amendment
The Cucamonga Creek and Deer Creek channels and portions of the Lower Deer Creek, Day Creek, Etiwanda Creek, and West Cucamonga Creek channels are owned and maintained by San Bernardino County (Ontario 2022); they are not subject to land use controls by the City of Ontario and would not be affected by the proposed project. Remaining segments of the Lower Deer Creek, Day Creek, Etiwanda Creek, and West Cucamonga Creek channels that are owned by the City would retain the Open Space–Non-recreation designation under the Policy Plan Amendment and would not be developed with other land uses. The Cucamonga, Ely, Wineville, 4265
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 38 -
and Chris detention basins are also owned and maintained by the County (Ontario 2022) and would not be affected by the proposed project.

Ontario Ranch contains dairy manure water retention basins, irrigation ponds, livestockwatering, and man-made lakes. In addition, fields under cultivation or left fallow accumulate surface water in ponds or ditches. The CDFW may have jurisdiction over these water bodies, but they are not expected to come under USACE jurisdiction.

The Policy Plan Amendment primarily involves modifying the TOP land use pattern and making associated updates to the various elements of the TOP Policy Plan. Implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment would not result in direct impacts to waters of the State because the Policy Plan Amendment does not grant specific entitlements for development. Tributaries to any channels in the city, plus areas that are fed by surface waters, are considered waters of the State and are jurisdictional to CDFW. Projects resulting in impacts to waters of the State would be subject to approval by CDFW through Streambed Alteration Agreements and would require mitigation as determined by the CDFW for any consequent impacts.

Individual projects undergoing environmental review under CEQA would be required to determine whether there is potential habitat on-site for sensitive species. If sensitive species were found, the project proponent would be required to consult with the CDFW regarding impacts to sensitive species and ensuing mitigation. Projects in Ontario Ranch would pay a mitigation fee that would be deposited into a trust fund to be used for the acquisition, restoration, rehabilitation, and maintenance of lands deemed to have long-term conservation value.

Compared to the approved project, the proposed project would have similar impacts to jurisdictional waters. This is because the proposed project would result in an increase in land use intensity but would not result in development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the city that were not planned for under the approved project.

Specific Plan
No wetlands are in the Specific Plan area. The existing on-site stock ponds are artificially created in upland areas primarily for dairy effluence. Plant species surrounding the stock ponds include several ruderal, invasive, and/or weedy species. All of the retention ponds are devoid of wetland vegetation.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
In conclusion, because projects that have the potential to result in impact to waters of the State would be subject to approval by CDFW and USACE, require a Section 404 permit under the CQA or consultation with the EPA for a Section 7 take permit, and mitigation would be required in accordance with the applicable permits, impacts to jurisdictional waters in the city associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would 4266
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 39 -
not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to jurisdictional waters compared to the approved project. This impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
The EBPSP would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to jurisdictional waters compared to the approved project. This impact is less than significant.

Impact BIO-5 (PPA+EBPSP): Compliance with the City’s Biological Resources Habitat Mitigation Fee would ensure that implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources in the city. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.4-72)
The 2022 Certified EIR found that the approved project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

Policy Plan Amendment
As a condition of developing in Ontario Ranch, projects would be required to pay the City’s habitat mitigation fee, which was established to cover potential environmental impacts to burrowing owl, DSFLF, raptor foraging, loss of open space, and agricultural lands.1 Projects in Ontario Ranch would also comply with City procedures requiring a habitat assessment to determine potential habitat for sensitive species through focused protocol surveys.

The City also requires that projects comply with the City’s Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures (Development Code Section 6.05.020).

The proposed project primarily involves modifying the TOP land use pattern and making associated updates to the various elements of the TOP 2050. The proposed project would not grant specific entitlements for development; therefore, implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment would not directly conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Such projects would be required to comply local policies and ordinances, as outlined in Section 3.4.1, Regulatory Framework, under “Local,” including the Tree Preservation Policy.

Therefore, the proposed project would comply with all applicable local regulations and plans that protect biological resources.

Compared to the approved project, the proposed project would have similar impacts related to conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources. Though the proposed project would increase land use intensity, projects would still be required to comply with local 1 While the habitat mitigation fee would cover potential impacts to the burrowing owl, DSFLF, raptor foraging and wildlife habitat, loss of open space, and agricultural land in Ontario Ranch, impacts related to federal- and statecovered species and habitat would be subject to a separate process under FESA and CESA (see impact discussion (a)).
4267
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 40 -
policies and ordinances. Like the approved project, the proposed project would not conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources.

Specific Plan
Uses implemented pursuant to the Specific Plan would be required to pay the City’s habitat mitigation fee, which is specific to the Settlement Agreement regarding potential environmental impacts within Ontario Ranch addressing the burrowing owl, DSFLF, raptor foraging, loss of open space, and agricultural lands.2
City of Ontario Municipal Code Section 6.05.020, Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures, establishes policies and measures related to the preservation, protection, and maintenance of established and healthy heritage trees within the City (see Section 3.4.1).

Healthy Heritage Trees that are approved for removal shall be replaced with new trees with a total trunk diameter equal to the tree(s) removed, or as deemed appropriate by the City based on lot size and available planting space. Replacement trees are to be in addition to the quantity of trees required for landscaping. The City is responsible for reviewing the landscape plan and approving appropriate species for tree replacement.

Consistent with City Municipal Code requirements, a tree inventory would be prepared by a City approved certified arborist or qualified horticulturalist, to determine the presence/absence of Heritage Trees including assessment of health, structure, condition, and expected life span of all affected specimens.

If Heritage Trees are identified as occurring, a Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan would be prepared by a licensed landscape architect, horticulturalist, certified arborist, or other related professional. Said plan would be submitted concurrent with a Development Plan or building permit request for any on-site alterations, and reviewed and approved by the City.

The Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan would show all existing on-site trees, and those existing trees on abutting lots and public rights-of-way with a canopy or root zone that extends onto the site or within 8 feet of a construction, staging or storage area, or graded site.

Furthermore, the Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan would identify Tree Protection Areas and trees requested to be removed, and shall show replacement trees.

Mandatory compliance with existing Municipal Code requirements would ensure that implementation of the EBPSP would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
2 While the habitat mitigation fee would cover potential impacts to the burrowing owl, DSFLF, raptor foraging and wildlife habitat, loss of open space, and agricultural land in Ontario Ranch, impacts related to federal- and statecovered species and habitat would be subject to a separate process under FESA and CESA (see impact discussion (a)).
4268
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 41 -
Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources compared to the approved project and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

This impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
The EBPSP would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts when compared to the approved project. This impact is less than significant.

Impact BIO-6 (PPA+EBPSP): The proposed project would not conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Communities Conservation Plan. (Draft SEIR pg.

3.4-74)
The 2022 Certified EIR found that the approved project would not conflict with the requirements of the DSFLF Ontario Recovery Unit or critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Since 2008, the critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat is no longer in Ontario (USFWS 2008; DataBasin 2012).

Policy Plan Amendment
The Ontario Recovery Unit for the DSFLF includes 21.7 square miles of Ontario, mostly in the eastern and southwestern portions of the city, including portions of Ontario Ranch. Projects proposed within the Ontario Recovery Unit would be required to conduct focused surveys for DSFLF on the project site and consult with the USFWS regarding mitigation of impacts on any DSFLF found, pursuant to Section 7 of the FESA. In some parts of Ontario Ranch that were previously used as dairies, the USFWS has concluded from the findings of previous focused surveys that DSFLS is very unlikely to occur; therefore, no focused surveys for DSFLF areas are required in these areas. Projects proposed pursuant to the proposed project would need to ascertain requirements for focused surveys for DSFLF from the USFWS on a case-by-case basis.

There is one HCP in the city, a 19-acre area near the intersection of Greystone Drive and the eastern city boundary, established to protect the DSFLF. The HCP area would remain designated Industrial under the proposed project. Any project proposed for development within this HCP pursuant to the proposed project would be required to consult with the USFWS regarding project impacts on DSFLF and mitigation of any such impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with this HCP.

The proposed project primarily involves modifying the TOP land use pattern and making associated updates to the various elements of the TOP 2050 Policy Plan. The proposed project would not grant specific entitlements for development and would not conflict with FESA 4269
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 42 -
requirements and USFWS regulations regarding critical habitat. Furthermore, TOP Policy ER-5.1 would support efforts to conserve high-quality habitat for the DSFLF. Individual projects undergoing environmental review under CEQA would be required to determine whether there is a potential for habitat on-site for sensitive species. If sensitive species were found on-site, the project proponent would be required to consult with the CDFW regarding impacts to sensitive species and ensuing mitigation.

Compared to the approved project, the proposed project would have similar impacts regarding consistency with an HCP. This is because the proposed project would increase land use intensity but would not result in development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the city that were not planned for under the approved project. Like the approved project, the proposed project would not conflict with the DSFLF HCP.

Specific Plan
The Specific Plan area is not located within any adopted Habitat Conservation, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify any significant habitat or conservation plan conflicts.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to an HCP compared to the approved project and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. This impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
The EBPSP would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to an HCP when compared to the approved project. This impact is less than significant.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CUL-1 (EBPSP): Implementation of the EBPSP would not impact historical resources. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.5-37)
Specific Plan
The 15 historic-age sites listed in Draft SEIR Table 3.5-4 and illustrated in Draft SEIR Figure 3.5-2 were evaluated under the seven aspects of integrity, as well as NRHP and CRHR eligibility criteria. Resources were also evaluated under the City of Ontario Historic Landmark Designation criteria. These sites collectively contain 25 historic single-family residences, 15 historic detached garages, 12 historic dairy farms, one historic farm, and several ancillary structures. 4270
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 43 -
Twelve of the sites were determined not eligible for the NRHP, CRHR or local listing under the City of Ontario’s Historic Landmark Designation. Therefore, removal of any structures within these sites would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. These sites include 7634, 7556 Eucalyptus Avenue; 14330 Bon View Avenue; 14366, 14316, 14306 Bon View Avenue; 14451, 14457, 14343, 14353 Bon View Avenue; 14213, 14239, 14297, 14283 Bon View Avenue; 14400 South Grove Avenue; 14441, 14474 South Grove Avenue; 14361 South Grove Avenue; 14350 Walker Avenue, 8485 Edison Avenue; 7721-7891 Edison Avenue, 14203 Bon View Avenue; 8061 Edison Avenue; and 8245-8295 Edison Avenue.3 Several buildings associated with 7587-7697 Edison Avenue; 8185 Edison Avenue, 14117 South Grove Avenue; and 8335-8381 Edison Avenue are eligible under NRHP, CRHR, and City of Ontario criteria. These findings are consistent with the Ontario Ranch Historic Resources Survey (Appendix E2). However, as previously noted, no historic-age buildings or structures within these sites would be directly impacted by development of the Specific Plan. The portions of these parcels that may be affected by development of the EBPSP would not adversely impact the resources’ integrity or NRHP and CRHR eligibility since the buildings being removed are modern and non-contributing elements.

Finding
Specific Plan
Development of the EBPSP would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the approved project. This impact is less than significant.

Impact CUL-3 (PPA+EBPSP): The proposed project could result in the discovery of human remains; however, compliance with existing law would ensure that significant impacts to human remains would not occur. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.5-49) The 2022 Certified EIR found that grading activities in Ontario would comply with PRC Section 5079.98 so as not to disturb human remains.

Policy Plan Amendment
There are known Native American gravesites and cemeteries in the City, including Bellevue Memorial Park on the north side of G Street, between Benson Avenue and Mountain Avenue.

The proposed project in itself does not involve grading activities and would not directly disturb any human remains. Long-term implementation of the proposed project would allow 3 Note that some sites include more than one street address. Refer to Draft SEIR Table 3.5-3 and Draft SEIR Figure

3.5-2.
4271
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 44 -
development and redevelopment, including grading, of sensitive areas, possibly disturbing human remains, including those outside of formal cemeteries.

California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5; CEQA Section 15064.5; and PRC Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. Specifically, the California Health and Safety Code requires that if human remains are discovered on a project site, disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in PRC Section 5097.98. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. Although soil-disturbing activities associated with development in accordance with the proposed project could result in the discovery of human remains, compliance with existing law would ensure that significant impacts to human remains would not occur. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.

Specific Plan
The Specific Plan area does not contain a cemetery, and no known cemeteries are within the immediate site vicinity. Field surveys did not identify the presence of any human remains and no human remains are known to exist beneath the surface of the Specific Plan area.

Nevertheless, the remote potential exists that human remains may be unearthed during grading and excavation activities associated with construction.

If human remains are unearthed during construction, the construction contractor would be required by law to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 “Disturbance of Human Remains.” According to Section 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the NAHC by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or their authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. According to Public Resources Code Section 5097.94(k), the NAHC is authorized to mediate disputes arising between landowners and known descendants relating to the treatment and 4272
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 45 -
disposition of Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to human remains compared to the approved project. Impacts are less than significant.

Specific Plan
With mandatory compliance to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, any potential impacts to human remains, including human remains of Native American ancestry, that may result from development of the Specific Plan would be less than significant. These actions are also required by Mitigation Measure CUL-2-SP, presented previously. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

ENERGY
Impact ENE-1 (PPA+EBPSP): The proposed project would not result in significant impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during construction. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.6-20)
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation.

Policy Plan Amendment
Development projects constructed under the proposed project would create temporary demand for electricity. Natural gas is not generally required to power construction equipment, and its use is not anticipated during construction phases. Electricity use would fluctuate according to the phase of construction. Additionally, it is anticipated that most electric-powered construction equipment would be hand tools (e.g., power drills, table saws, compressors) and lighting, which would use minimal electricity during construction activities.

Construction of development projects facilitated by the proposed project would also temporarily increase demands for energy associated with transportation fuels. Transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, VMT, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Energy use during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel or gasoline fuel. The use of energy resources by these vehicles would fluctuate 4273
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 46 -
according to the phase of construction and would be temporary. It is anticipated that most offroad construction equipment, such as those used during demolition and grading, would be gasoline or diesel powered. In addition, operation of construction equipment would cease upon completion of construction for individual development projects. Moreover, the construction contractors would be required to minimize nonessential idling of construction equipment during construction in accordance with the CCR Title 13, Chapter 9, Article 4.8, Section 2449. Such required practices would limit wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption.

Overall, the proposed project does not envision any unusual development or project characteristics that require less energy-efficient construction equipment. Construction processes would be comparable to those used at similar sites citywide and projects accommodated under the approved project.

Specific Plan
Electricity Usage
The total construction electricity usage is the summation of the products of the power cost by the utility provider cost per kWh of electricity. Total electricity usage from on-site EBPSP construction-related activities is estimated to be approximately 886,886 kWh.

Equipment Fuel Consumption
Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended over the course of construction associated with EBPSP. Construction activities would consume an estimated total of 311,914 gallons of diesel fuel.

Worker Fuel Estimates
It is assumed that 50 percent of all worker trips are from light-duty-auto vehicles (LDA), 25 percent are from light-duty-trucks (LDT14), and 25 percent are from light-duty-trucks (LDT25).

Approximately 269,810 gallons of fuel would be consumed related to construction worker trips during full construction.

Vendor and Hauling Fuel Estimates
It is assumed that 50 percent of all vendor trips are from medium-heavy-duty trucks (MHDT) and 50 percent of vendor trips are from heavy-heavy-duty trucks (HHDT). All hauling trips were assumed to be performed by HHDT vehicles. Approximately 214,130 gallons of fuel would be consumed related to construction vendor and hauling trips during full construction. 4 Vehicles under the LDT1 category have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 6,000 lbs. and equivalent test weight (ETW) of less than or equal to 3,750 lbs. 5 Vehicles under the LDT2 category have a GVWR of less than 6,000 lbs. and ETW between 3,751 lbs. and 5,750 lbs. 4274
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 47 -
Construction Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures
Starting in 2014, CARB adopted the nation’s first regulation aimed at cleaning up off-road construction equipment such as bulldozers, graders, and backhoes. These requirements ensure fleets gradually turn over the oldest and dirtiest equipment to newer, cleaner models and prevent fleets from adding older, dirtier equipment. Therefore, the equipment used for EBPSP construction would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards. It should also be noted that there are no unusual characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Equipment employed in the construction of the EBPSP would therefore not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel.

Construction contractors would be required to comply with applicable CARB regulation regarding retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of diesel off-road construction equipment.

Additionally, CARB has adopted the Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling in order to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other toxic air contaminants. Compliance with anti-idling and emissions regulations would result in a more efficient use of construction-related energy and the minimization or elimination of wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy. Idling restrictions and the use of newer engines and equipment would result in less fuel combustion and energy consumption.

Additional construction-source energy efficiencies would occur due to required California regulations and best available control measures (BACM). For example, 13 CCR Section 2449(d)(3), Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes, precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Section 2449(d)(3) requires that grading plans reference the requirement that a sign shall be posted on-site stating that construction workers need to shut off engines at or before 5 minutes of idling. Enforcement of idling limitations is realized through periodic site inspections conducted by City building officials and/or in response to citizen complaints.

In general, commercial construction processes promote conservation and efficient use of energy by reducing raw materials demands, with related reduction in energy demands associated with raw materials extraction, transportation, processing, and refinement. Use of materials in bulk for large-scale projects reduces energy demands associated with preparation and transport of construction materials as well as the transport and disposal of construction waste and solid waste in general, with corollary reduced demands on area landfill capacities and energy consumed by waste transport and landfill operations.

Summary
EBPSP land uses would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted energy efficiency standards, which are based on the CCR Title 24 energy efficiency standards (Part 6 and Part 11 of the California Building Standards Code). Title 24 standards 4275
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 48 -
include a broad set of energy conservation requirements that apply to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building.

Due to the temporary nature of construction and the financial incentives for developers and contractors to use energy-consuming resources in an efficient manner, the construction phase would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to that of the approved project and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

Accordingly, the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel use during construction. Impacts would be less than significant.

Specific Plan
The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Impact ENE-2 (PPA+EBPSP): The proposed project would not result in significant impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during operation. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.6-23)
Policy Plan Amendment
Operation of potential future development accommodated under the proposed project would create additional demands for energy resources compared to existing conditions. Operational use of electricity and heating fuels (e.g., natural gas) would include heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings; water heating; operation of electrical systems; use of on-site equipment and appliances; lighting; and charging electric vehicles. Land uses accommodated under the proposed project would also result in additional demands for transportation fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas, and electricity) associated with on-road vehicles.

Nontransportation Energy
Electrical service to future individual development projects in the City would be provided by SCE through connections to existing off-site electrical lines and new on-site infrastructure. As shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.6-2, Year 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Forecast Electricity Consumption, by horizon year 2050, electricity use in the Ontario under the proposed project is estimated to increase by 92,312,370 kWh/year, or approximately 3 percent, compared to the approved project.
4276
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 49 -
As shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.6-3, Year 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Forecast Natural Gas Consumption, natural gas use under the proposed project would increase by 3,416,970 therms annually, or approximately 3 percent, compared to the approved project. While the electricity and natural gas demand would both slightly increase for the City compared to the estimates for the approved project, developments accommodated under the proposed project would continue to be required to comply with the current and future updates to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, which would contribute to reducing the energy demands shown in the table. New and replacement buildings in compliance with these standards would generally have greater energy efficiency than existing buildings. It is anticipated that each update to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen would result in greater building energy efficiency and move closer to buildings achieving zero net energy.

In addition to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, the Policy Plan Amendment includes various goals and policies to increase energy efficiency and reduce wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy resources. The Environmental Resources (ER) Element policies ER-3.1 and ER-3.6 would promote applicable energy-saving standards and the use of renewable energy sources (e.g., solar, wind, biomass) in public and private sector development. Policies ER-3.2 and ER-3.4 would encourage implementation of the LEED Neighborhood Development rating system in new communities and LEED Silver Certification for certain new and substantially renovated City buildings. Policy ER-3.3 would require energyefficient building and site design strategies for future development projects. Encouraging sustainable and energy-efficient building practices and using more renewable energy strategies will further reduce energy consumption in the city and move closer to achieving zero net energy.

Transportation Energy
The growth accommodated under the proposed project would consume transportation energy from the use of motor vehicles (e.g., gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas, and electricity).

Draft SEIR Table 3.6-4, Policy Plan Amendment Operation-Related Annual Fuel Usage, shows the net change in VMT, fuel usage, and fuel efficiency under forecast year 2050 of the proposed project compared to the conditions under the approved project.

As shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.6-4, when compared to the approved project, the proposed project would result in an overall increase in VMT for gasoline-, diesel-, compressed natural gas- , and electricity-powered vehicles. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an increase in annual VMT and fuel usage for all vehicles, primarily due to the increase in projected population growth. Fuel efficiency will be the same as the approved project, and implementation of the proposed project would not result in less efficiency in transportation fuel usage.

The overall VMT shown in the Draft SEIR Table 3.6-4 would be primarily attributable to the increase in population compared to the approved project. Although fuel efficiency between the proposed project and the approved project would be the same, the VMT per service person (VMT/SP) would slightly increase under the proposed project (see Section 3.17, Transportation, 4277
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 50 -
Draft SEIR Table 3.17-4, VMT Comparison of Policy Plan Amendment to TOP 2050). An increase in VMT/SP suggests more vehicle trips and longer trip distances as the number of residents in employees living and/or working in Ontario increases.

While VMT related to electric vehicles and electricity use are expected to increase under the proposed project compared to the approved project, improvements in electric vehicle energy efficiency are anticipated. Consistent with broader market trends and advancements in energy generation, a greater share of electricity used to power electric vehicles is anticipated to be derived from renewable sources in future years, such as onsite photovoltaic systems, community choice aggregation programs, and utility-supplied renewable electricity.

The Policy Plan Amendment also includes various policies that contribute to minimizing overall VMT, and thus fuel usage. These proposed policies focus on minimizing VMT through land use and transportation planning efforts that work in combination. The Mobility (M) Element policy M-3.3 and Land Use (LU) Element policies LU-1.4, LU-1.5, and LU-1.6, focus on situating residential development near commercial land uses to promote public transit use. Policies M2.1, M-2.2, M-2.3, and M-2.4, and Community Design (CD) Element policy CD-3.2 would promote improvements for public transportation and active transit (e.g., biking and walking) infrastructure in the City. Locating residential and nonresidential uses near one another through mixed-use development can shorten distances between homes, jobs, and amenities, reducing average vehicle trip lengths and overall VMT. These shorter distances can also encourage walking, biking, and public transit use, further minimizing VMT.

Specific Plan
Transportation Energy Demands
Annual vehicular trips and related VMT generated by the operation of the EBPSP would result in a fuel demand of 4,213,944 gallons.

Fuel would be provided by current and future industrial vendors. Trip generation and VMT generated by the EBPSP are consistent with other industrial uses of similar scale and configuration, as reflected, respectively, in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th ed.) and CalEEMod. Therefore, operations would not result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and VMT, nor excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption compared to other industrial uses.

It should be noted that the State strategy for the transportation sector for medium- and heavyduty trucks is focused on making trucks more efficient and expediting truck turnover rather than reducing VMT from trucks. This is in contrast to the passenger vehicle component of the transportation sector, where both per-capita VMT reductions and an increase in vehicle efficiency would be needed to achieve the overall state emissions reductions goals.

Heavy-duty trucks involved in goods movements are generally controlled on the technology side and through fleet turnover of older trucks and engines to newer and cleaner trucks and engines. The first battery-electric heavy-heavy duty trucks are being tested this year, and South 4278
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 51 -
Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) is looking to integrate this new technology into large-scale truck operations. The following state strategies reduce GHG emissions from the medium- and heavy-duty trucks and would also contribute to reductions in transportationrelated energy consumption:
 CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy focuses on reducing GHGs through the transition to zero and low emission vehicles and from medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks.  CARB’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan establishes a goal to improve freight efficiency by 25 percent by 2030, deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and equipment capable of zero emission operation and maximize both zero and near-zero emission freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030.
 CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement (Goods Movement Plan) in California focuses on reducing heavy-duty truck-related emissions, fleet turnover, truck retrofits, and restriction on truck idling (CARB 2006). While the focus of Goods Movement Plan is to reduce criteria air pollutant and air toxic emissions, the strategies to reduce these pollutants would also generally have a beneficial effect in reducing GHG emissions.  CARB’s On-Road Truck and Bus Regulation (2010) requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses must meet particulate matter filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. As of January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses have 2010 model year engines or equivalent.  CARB’s Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) GHG Regulation requires SmartWay tractor trailers that include idle-reduction technologies, aerodynamic technologies, and low-rolling resistant tires that would reduce fuel consumption and associated GHG emissions.

Enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and state regulatory actions and the transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT. The EBPSP’s location near regional and local road networks helps decrease VMT in the area, which in turn reduces the overall energy demand for vehicles in the region. Specifically, the EBPSP would implement sidewalks to encourage pedestrian and bicycle access, which would help reduce VMT and associated energy consumption.

Emergency Engine Fuel Demands
The EBPSP was conservatively assumed to include a total of 2 emergency fire pumps in Phase 1, 4 emergency fire pumps in Phase 2, and 5 emergency fire pumps in Phase 3. Emergency engine operation for maintenance and testing purposes would consume an estimated 2,070 gallons of diesel fuel per year at buildout.
4279
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 52 -
On-Site Cargo Handling Equipment Fuel Demands
Assuming the operation of 5 pieces of equipment in Phase 1, 9 pieces of equipment in Phase 2, and 11 pieces of equipment in Phase 3, on-site operational cargo handling equipment is estimated to consume approximately 51,071 gallons of fuel per year at buildout.

Facility Energy Demands
EBPSP facility operational energy demands are estimated to result in 15,807,558 kWh per year of electricity demand, which would be supplied through rooftop solar as well as SCE. The EBPSP would not use natural gas for the building envelope. The Specific Plan proposes conventional business park uses reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. The Specific Plan does not propose uses that are inherently energy intensive, and the energy demands in total would be comparable to other industrial uses of similar scale and configuration.

The EBPSP would comply with the applicable CCR Title 24 standards. Compliance with applicable Title 24 standards ensures that the energy demands would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Operational Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures
Energy efficiency/energy conservation attributes of the EBPSP would be complemented by increasingly stringent State and federal regulatory actions addressing vehicle fuel economies and vehicle emissions standards and by enhanced building/utilities energy efficiencies mandated under California building codes (i.e., CCR Title 24).

The Specific Plan incorporates a series of measures that generally serve to reduce energy demands. As previously stated, the EBPSP would comply with CCR Title 24 Standards, which include incorporating contemporary design features such as photovoltaic systems or renewable energy. Specifically, the EBPSP would install rooftop solar systems to offset 45 percent of electrical demands.

The EBPSP would also not result in a substantial increase in demand for transmission service, resulting in the need for new or expanded sources of energy supply or new or expanded energy delivery systems or infrastructure (other than site-adjacent and on-site connections to local utilities).

Annual fuel consumption estimates likely represent potential maximums. Under future conditions, average fuel economies of vehicles accessing the site can be expected to improve as older, less fuel-efficient vehicles are removed from circulation. Enhanced fuel economies and transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT. 4280
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 53 -
Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Overall, implementation of TOP 2050 policies, together with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, would ensure that energy demand from future growth is not inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project and that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, energy impacts associated with implementation and operation of land uses accommodated under the proposed project would be less than significant.

Specific Plan
It is also noted that the measures to be implemented by the EBPSP pursuant to the City CCAP (see Draft SEIR Table 3.8-12, in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions) would also reduce energy consumption through energy efficiency and the generation of renewable energy.

Additionally, although Mitigation Measures AIR-5-SP through AIR-13-SP (see Section 3.3, Air Quality) are designed to reduce EBPSP air emissions, they would also reduce energy consumption.

The Specific Plan area is surrounded by existing transportation facilities and infrastructure that would give future visitors and employees access to a mix of land uses in the area, thus further reducing fuel consumption demand.

Based on the preceding discussions, impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Impact ENE-3 (PPA+EBPSP): The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.6-31) The approved project includes an Environmental Resources Element and Safety Element that support the statewide goal of transitioning the electricity grid to renewable sources and employ best practices regarding energy-saving standards. Therefore, the 2022 Certified EIR identified that implementation of the approved project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

The Policy Plan Amendment’s and Specific Plan’s consistency with the California Energy Action Plan, Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, and the City’s CCAP are discussed separately below.
4281
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 54 -
Policy Plan Amendment
Energy Action Plan
As discussed in Section 3.6.1, Regulatory Framework, the Energy Action Plan was last updated in 2008 and was developed by the CPUC, CEC, and California Power Authority to create a unified State energy policy framework. It serves as one of the State’s strategies for planning for reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible energy procurement and supply. The Energy Action Plan further establishes a “loading order” for statewide energy planning efforts, which translates into first prioritizing meeting existing demand with cost-effective energy efficiency and demand response efforts, then using renewable energy resources and distributed generation, and finally meeting the remaining energy demand with renewable or otherwise “clean” fossil-fuel power generation resources (e.g., renewable natural gas). Other priorities identified in the Energy Action Plan but not directly related to local agencies include modernizing transmission and distribution infrastructure, enhancing reliability in electricity and natural gas markets, and ensuring affordable access to all Californians. Therefore, the proposed project can be assessed for consistency with the Energy Action Plan by examining how its policies generally support or conflict with the strategies of the plan, such as promoting energy resource deployment consistent with the plan’s loading order.

TOP 2050 includes several goals and policies that would support the continued implementation of the Energy Action Plan. For instance, Policy M-1.6, Goal M-2, and Policies M-2.1 and M-2.3 support reduced VMT and active transportation by integrating housing, jobs, and services closely together. Policy M-2.4 further promotes mixed use development and walkable design, reducing reliance on fossil fuels for vehicular transportation. Goal ER-3 and Policy ER-3.6 promote the use of renewable energy sources (e.g., solar, wind, biomass) in public- and privatesector development, further supporting the Energy Action Plans’ loading order prioritization.

Lastly, Policy ER-3.5 requires the purchase of vehicles and equipment that are fuel efficient, aligning with the Energy Action Plan’s energy efficiency and clean energy supply objectives.

Therefore, the proposed project would be considered consistent with the Energy Action Plan strategies.

Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan
As discussed in Section 3.6.1, Regulatory Framework, the Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan was last updated in 2011 and serves as the State’s long-term roadmap to make energy efficiency a top priority in supporting California’s grid harmonization and renewable energy integration efforts. As discussed, its key policies include achieving a zero net energy performance for all new residential construction by 2020 and all new commercial construction by 2030. While the 2020 benchmark goal for new residential construction has passed, the goal continues to underpin the triennial updates to the California Building Standards Code. The LongTerm Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan is a living strategic document for State and local agencies and emphasizes the integration of energy-efficiency policies and measures into planning efforts as a critical component to advancing the objectives of the plan. Therefore, the proposed project can be assessed for consistency with the Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan by 4282
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 55 -
examining how its policies generally support or conflict with the strategies of the plan, such as promoting compact in-fill development, green building standards, and zero net energy readiness.

TOP 2050 includes several goals and policies that would support the continued implementation of the Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan. Goal ER-3 and Policy ER-3.1 directly advance the energy-efficiency objectives of the Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan by highlighting the importance of conservation strategies as the preferred mechanism to meet energy needs.

Policy ER-3.3 requires new construction to incorporate energy efficient building and site design strategies, supporting the plan’s objectives for achieving zero net energy design for new residential and commercial development. Policy ER-3.6 supports the use of renewable energy sources in public and private sector development, directly advancing the plan’s objectives for integrating demand-side efficiency, distributed energy resources, and energy resiliency. Finally, Policy ER-1.3 promotes energy-efficient water use by working with regional water providers to conserve water and ensure sustainable local water supplies. Therefore, the proposed project would be considered consistent with the Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan strategies.

Ontario CCAP
The CCAP provides a strategic roadmap for reducing GHG emissions and energy consumption generated in Ontario through measures that include improving energy efficiency, reducing nonrenewable energy consumption, and promoting the consumption of renewable energy. As identified in Draft SEIR Table 3.6-5, Policy Plan Amendment CCAP Consistency Analysis, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable CCAP strategies.

Specific Plan
As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the EBPSP establishes development standards and design guidelines to guide development of the Specific Plan that would support the continued implementation of the Energy Action Plan and the Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan. Additionally, the EBPSP would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted energy efficiency standards, which are based on the energy efficiency standards in CCR Title 24, Part 6. These standards include a broad set of energy conservation requirements that apply to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building. Standards throughout CCR Title 24 Part 6 are widely regarded as the most advanced energy efficiency standards and would help reduce the amount of energy required for lighting, water heating, and heating and air conditioning in buildings and promote energy conservation.

Specifically, key objectives of the EBPSP include promoting mixed-use development; reducing automobile dependency; and encouraging green building design, including sustainable technologies such as rooftop photovoltaic energy systems to offset warehouse electrical demands. Furthermore, as described above, TOP 2050 includes various policies that would continue to support a community-wide shift to renewable energy and promotion of energyefficient and green construction. These policies would directly help the growth under the EBPSP 4283
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 56 -
to be aligned with the Energy Action Plan, Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, and the City’s CCAP strategies.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
As discussed previously, the proposed project would include policies which directly support the strategies outlined in the Energy Action Plan, Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, and the City’s CCAP. The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project and that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
The EBPSP would be consistent with the Energy Action Plan, Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, and the City’s CCAP strategies, and impacts would be less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact GEO-1 (PPA+EBPSP): Development of proposed project would adhere to the California Building Code to ensure residents, employees, or visitors in Ontario would not be adversely affected by potential seismic-related hazards. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.7-26)
The 2022 Certified EIR found that policies of the Approved Project, and state regulations would ensure that the potential impacts from seismic-related hazards would be less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
Earthquakes
The Upper Santa Ana River Valley and vicinity contain a number of known earthquake faults, which are described above and shown on Draft SEIR Figure 5.7-2. The City of Ontario is not within any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CGS 2025). Of the faults listed, the southern section of the San Andreas Fault is estimated to be capable of generating the greatest magnitude earthquake, 8.0. The most intense peak horizontal ground acceleration that any of these faults is estimated to be capable of generating in Ontario is approximately 0.54 g by the Chino Fault, which passes approximately 4 miles from the southwestern City boundary.

Although there are a number of know earthquake faults in the vicinity, any future projects considered for approval would be required to comply with seismic safety provisions of the CBC 4284
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 57 -
(Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations). Such compliance would reduce hazards arising from ground shaking to less than significant.

Liquefaction
Based on the groundwater levels throughout the City being greater than 50 feet below ground surface, there is currently no potential for liquefaction (Chino Basin Watermaster 2025).

Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Seismically Induced Settlement
The Ontario area is underlain by young, unconsolidated alluvial deposits and artificial fill that may be susceptible to seismically induced settlement (see Draft SEIR Figure 5.7-1).

Implementation of the proposed project could indirectly increase the number of people and structures exposed to earthquake-related hazards. Projects developed under the proposed project would be required to comply with the most current seismic safety standards in the CBC.

Chapter 16 of the CBC establishes design and construction requirements to address structural loads, including earthquake forces, and Chapter 18 includes standards for excavation, grading, fill, and foundation design. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
Ground Rupture
There are no known active or potentially active faults on or trending toward the Specific Plan area. Research of available maps indicates that the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No evidence of faulting was identified during the geotechnical investigations (Appendix F1: Appendix F2). As with the findings of the 2022 Certified EIR, the potential for the Specific Plan to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects related to rupture of a known earthquake fault is considered less than significant.

Seismic Ground Shaking
The Specific Plan area is located in a seismically active area of southern California and is expected to experience moderate to severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the on-site uses. The risk is not substantially different than the risk to other properties throughout the southern California area. As a mandatory condition of approval, future development within the Specific Plan area would be required to construct buildings and associated structures in accordance with the California Building Standards Code (CBSC) and the Ontario Development Code. The CBSC and Ontario Development Code, which have been specifically tailored for California earthquake conditions, provide building standards that must be met to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures. In addition, the CBSC (Chapter 18) requires development sites to be evaluated in preliminary soil reports to identify site-specific geologic and seismic conditions and provide sitespecific recommendations to preclude adverse effects involving unstable soils and strong seismic ground-shaking, including, but not limited to, recommendations related to ground 4285
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 58 -
stabilization, selection of appropriate foundation type and depths, and selection of appropriate structural systems. The geotechnical investigations prepared for the Specific Plan area include recommendations for design, construction, and grading considerations based on the Specific Plan area’s geological conditions. These geotechnical investigations comply with the requirements of Chapter 18 of the CBSC. Mandatory compliance with these standards and sitespecific design and construction measures would ensure future development associated with the Specific Plan would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including loss, injury or death, involving seismic ground shaking. As with the findings of the 2022 Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant.

Seismic-Related Ground Failure
Subsurface conditions within the Specific Plan area are not considered susceptible to liquefaction. Future development implemented pursuant to the Specific Plan would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable seismic safety guidelines, including the standard requirements of the CBSC, as noted above. Furthermore, the Specific Plan would be required (via conditions of approval, as required by the Ontario Municipal Code) to comply with the grading and construction recommendations contained within the geotechnical investigations for the Specific Plan area to further reduce the risk of seismicrelated ground failure. As with the findings of the 2022 Certified EIR, the potential for the Specific Plan to expose people or structures to substantial hazards associated with seismicrelated ground failure is considered less than significant.

Landslides
The Specific Plan area is essentially flat, as is the immediately surrounding area. The Specific Plan area slopes downward to the south at a gradient of about one percent with localized variations, including berms and detention basins. The geotechnical investigations prepared for the Specific Plan area include retaining wall design recommendations for future development, which would ensure their structural soundness. These recommendations would be incorporated into the design and verified by the City during the plan check and permit issuance process.

Mandatory compliance with the recommendations in the geotechnical investigations would ensure that the EBPSP area is engineered and constructed to maximize stability and preclude safety hazards to on-site and abutting off-site areas. Accordingly, the Specific Plan area would not be exposed to substantial landslide risks, and implementation of Specific Plan land uses would not pose a substantial direct or indirect landslide risk to surrounding properties. Impacts would be less than significant.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Based on the preceding, the proposed project would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.
4286
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 59 -
Specific Plan
Based on the preceding, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Impact GEO-2 (PPA+EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.7-29) The 2022 Certified EIR found that policies of the approved project and state regulations would ensure that the potential impacts from erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
The young alluvial sediment and windblown sand underlying the City are generally granular, poorly consolidated, and very susceptible to erosion. Grading increases the potential for erosion by removing protective vegetation, changing natural drainage patterns, and constructing slopes.

Any future project developed consistent with the proposed project would be required to comply with the CBC and undergo review of grading plans for individual projects by the City Engineer which would ensure no significant impacts would occur. In addition, construction activities on project sites larger than one acre are required to prepare a SWPPP that details BMPs to reduce the potential for erosion during construction activities.

Specific Plan
Construction
Development of the Specific Plan area would result in the demolition of all structures on-site.

Additionally, grading and construction activities would occur that would expose and disturb soils that are currently covered by impervious surfaces. Disturbed soils would be subject to potential erosion during rainfall events or high winds due to the removal of stabilizing vegetation and building materials (e.g., existing concrete foundations) and exposure of these erodible materials to wind and water. Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit). The NPDES permit is required for all development projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation, that disturb at least one acre of total land area. In addition, the Specific Plan would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program. Compliance with the NPDES permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction-related activities. The SWPPP would specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the applicant would be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that waterborne pollution—including 4287
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 60 -
erosion/sedimentation—is prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to surface runoff being discharged from the site. Examples of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydro-seeding. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP would ensure that the Specific Plan’s implementation does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities.

Operations
At buildout, the Specific Plan area would be covered by buildings, landscaping, and impervious surfaces. Land uses implemented pursuant to the EBPSP would be required to implement erosion control measures pursuant to Ontario Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 12. Stormwater runoff from the Specific Plan area would be captured, treated to reduce waterborne pollutants (including sediment), and conveyed off-site via an on-site storm drain system. Design for the onsite storm drain system improvements in the Specific Plan area would utilize a variety of Low Impact Development (LID) design concepts to detain, filter, and treat surface runoff.

The applicant would be required to prepare and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to demonstrate compliance with the City’s NPDES municipal stormwater permit, and to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters. The WQMP is a site-specific post-construction water quality management program designed to address the potential release of pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters and other water pollutants through the use of BMPs.

Implementation of the WQMP ensures on-going, long-term protection of the watershed basin.

The Preliminary WQMP for the Specific Plan is included as Technical Appendix H2 to this SEIR.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would result in an increase in land use intensity, but would not result in the development of new or previously undeveloped areas in the city. Therefore, with compliance of safety provision, this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
Potential erosion impacts incurred during construction activities would be less than significant with mandated compliance with a City-approved SWPPP, as well as compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules that prohibit grading activities and site disturbance during high wind events. At Specific Plan buildout, potential soil erosion impacts would not occur, as pavement, roads, buildings, and landscaping would cover previously exposed soils.

Impacts would be less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. 4288
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 61 -
Impact GEO-3 (PPA+EBPSP) The City of Ontario would not exacerbate geologic hazards in the City, such as on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.7-32)
The 2022 Certified EIR found that policies of the approved project and state regulations would ensure that the potential impacts from geology and soils hazards would be less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
Ground Subsidence
The thick alluvial deposits comprising the Chino Subbasin may be susceptible to compaction, with resulting subsidence at the surface, in the event of rapid groundwater withdrawal. Surface subsidence of up to 2.5 feet and ground fissuring from groundwater extraction have been reported in Chino. Projects considered for approval under proposed project could expose structures or persons to potentially significant hazards from ground subsidence; however, compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans for individual projects by the City Engineer would ensure no significant impacts would occur.

Compressible Soils
The young sediments underlying the City are generally dry and loose in the upper few feet, and therefore are susceptible to compression. Much of the Ontario Ranch has been intensively farmed and is especially susceptible to compression. Developments approved pursuant to proposed project could expose persons or structures to potentially significant hazards from compressible soils; however, compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans for individual projects by the City Engineer would ensure no significant impacts would occur.

Specific Plan
Landslide
The Specific Plan area is relatively flat, as is the immediately surrounding area. The site slopes downward to the south at a gradient of approximately one percent with localized variations, including berms and detention basins. As noted in the response to Threshold a, the geotechnical investigations include recommendations for retaining walls and manufactured slopes which would be incorporated into the design and verified by the City during the plan check and permit issuance process.

Subsidence
There is a low potential for subsidence to affect the Specific Plan area (Appendix F1; Appendix F2). Removal and recompaction of the near-surface existing soils is estimated to result in an average shrinkage of 5 to 15 percent for the western side and 6 to 14 percent for the eastern side of the Specific Plan area. Minor ground subsidence is expected to occur in the soils below the zone of removal, due to settlement and machinery working. The subsidence is estimated to be 0.10 feet (Appendix F1; Appendix F2).
4289
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 62 -
Lateral Spreading and Liquefaction
Lateral spreading is primarily associated with liquefaction hazards. As noted above, the Specific Plan area is not susceptible to liquefaction. As such, there is a low potential for lateral spreading to affect the EBPSP.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would have similar geological hazards as the current TOP 2050. This is because while the proposed project would result in an increase in land use intensity, it would not result in development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the City. After compliance with the safety provisions of the CBC implementation of proposed project would have less-thansignificant impacts from geologic hazards. The proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to geology and soils compared to the approved project. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
The Specific Plan would be required to comply with the site-specific ground preparation and construction recommendations contained in the geotechnical investigations through the City’s conditions of approval. As such, the potential for the EBPSP be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse is considered less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Impact GEO-4 (PPA+EBPSP): Development associated with proposed project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Draft SEIR Table 18-1B of the Uniform building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.7-34)
The 2022 Certified EIR found that policies of the approved project and state regulations would ensure that the potential impacts from geology and soils hazards would be less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils are likely in the southern parts of the City, where there are silts, sandy silts, and silty clays. Near-surface soils in the northern and central parts of the City are primarily granular, that is, silty sand, sand, and gravel; such sediments are usually nonexpansive or have very low expansion potential. Future projects in the southern part of the City could expose persons or structures to potentially significant hazards from expansive soils. However, compliance with the 4290
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 63 -
CBC and review of grading plans for individual projects by the City Engineer would ensure no significant impacts would occur.

Specific Plan
Expansive Soils
The near surface soils for the western side of the Specific Plan area generally consist of silty fine sands and sandy silts. These soils are expected to have a very low expansion potential (Appendix F1). The near surface soils for the eastern side of the Specific Plan area generally consist of silty sands, sandy silts and fine sands with occasional thin layers of clayey sands and sandy clays. Laboratory testing indicates that these materials also have a very low expansion potential (Appendix F2). No design considerations related to expansive soils are warranted for the Specific Plan area.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The Policy Plan Amendment would have similar impacts from expansive soils as the current TOP 2050. Therefore, after compliance with the safety provisions of the CBC, this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
The Specific Plan would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property associated with the presence of expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Impact GEO-5 (PPA+EBPSP): Implementation of proposed project would not result in use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems that would not be supported by soils in the City. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.7-35) The 2022 Certified EIR found that policies of the approved project, and state regulations would ensure that the potential impacts from geology and soils hazards would be less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
As further discussed in section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, wastewater from Ontario is treated at wastewater treatment facilities owned and operated by the IEUA. Use of septic tanks would be limited to existing septic tanks, and new septic tanks would be constricted to areas not in practical proximity to existing sewer mains, dependent on approval by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board on a case-by-case basis. 4291
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 64 -
Specific Plan
The Specific Plan would install new sewer lines in Walker Avenue, Grove Avenue, Bon View Avenue, and Campus Avenue, and if needed, in Public Street ‘A’. All existing on-site septic systems would be removed. Land uses implemented pursuant to the Specific Plan would not utilize septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to geology and soils compared to the approved project. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
No impact related to the use of alternative wastewater systems would occur. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact HAZ-1 (PPA+EBPSP): Compliance with existing regulations and policies would ensure that implementation of the proposed project would not adversely affect the environment through transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.9-43)
The Certified EIR concluded that federal and state regulations, City ordinances, and approved project’s policies would help regulate the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. As such, impacts were found to be less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
Similar to the approved project, the proposed project involves the designation of commercial, industrial, and residential land uses in Ontario as well as continued redevelopment and large amounts of infill development. Development associated with the proposed project would result in a concentration of commercial, hospitality, office, and industrial uses around ONT and numerous mixed-use projects throughout the City. The potential buildout of the proposed project would increase the number of businesses and residents in the City, thereby increasing the amount of hazardous materials being transported, stored, and manufactured, and the number of people exposed to these materials (refer to Draft SEIR Table 2-4, Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment). Buildout in accordance with the proposed project would result in an increase in the frequency of transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials associated with commercial and industrial growth in Ontario, especially in the Ontario 4292
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 65 -
Ranch (see Draft SEIR Figure 2-6, Areas of Change). Though businesses and users are required by federal, state, and local regulations to properly transport, use, and dispose of hazardous material, it is possible that upset or accidental conditions may arise that result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

As noted in Section 3.9.2, Existing Conditions, the City also has a number of hazardous pipelines.

A major high-pressure distribution pipeline, operated by Kinder Morgan, serves ONT with jet fuel. However, this pipeline and others running throughout the City are monitored by pipeline operators who are responsible for the upkeep of pipelines and the authorization of excavations around pipeline locations. Buildout of the proposed project would increase the exposure of people and the environment to potential hazards related to pipeline or electrical line rupture.

As with all development in California, development in Ontario would be required to follow the procedural requirements of the Underground Service Alert of Southern California, or DigAlert.

Additionally, because demolition activities have the potential to expose construction workers and/or the public to ACMs or LBP, such activities would be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations, including, but not limited to: South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1403; California Health and Safety Code Section 39650 et seq.; California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 1529; California Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations (8 CCR Section 1529 [Asbestos] and Section 1532.1 [Lead]); and the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 61 (asbestos); Title 40, Part 763 (asbestos); and Title 29, Part 1926 (asbestos and lead).

In conclusion, existing federal and state regulations, City ordinances, and the Policy Plan Amendment policies would continue to regulate the handling of hazardous substances to minimize potential releases, exposure, storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Compared to the approved project, implementation of the proposed project would result in similar impacts because it would increase land use intensity rather than expand development into previously undeveloped areas that require substantial landform modification.

Specific Plan
Construction
Construction activities may require limited transport of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., paints, solvents, fertilizer, etc.) to and from the site. This type of storage, transfer, use and disposal of potentially hazardous materials is extensively regulated at the local, State and federal levels.

Additionally, based on the age of the on-site structures (1930s to mid-1960s), there is a potential for ACMs, ACPs, and/or LBP to be present within the Specific Plan area. Demolition activities within the Specific Plan area would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local hazardous materials regulations, which include mandatory provisions for the safe removal, transport, and disposal of ACMs, ACPs, and LBP. South Coast AQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions) and Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 1, 4293
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 66 -
Chapter 8: Accreditation, Certification, and Work Practices for Lead-Based Paint and Lead Hazards would apply.

Compliance with the existing federal and state regulations, City ordinances, and the Policy Plan Amendment policies would ensure that removal of these materials would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, like the approved project, construction activities associated with implementation of the EBPSP would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials. Accordingly, construction of the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Impacts associated with construction would be less than significant.

Operations
Although the end users are unknown at this time, it is possible that hazardous materials could be used during the future building users’ daily operations. State and federal Community-Rightto-Know laws allow public access to information about the amounts and types of chemicals in use at local businesses. Laws also are in place that require businesses to plan and prepare for possible chemical emergencies.

Any business that occupies the buildings within the Specific Plan area and that handles hazardous materials (as defined in Section 25500 of California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95) would require a permit from the SBCFPD Hazardous Materials Division in order to register the business as a hazardous materials handler. Such businesses also are required to comply with California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, which requires immediate reporting to the SBCFPD and the State Office of Emergency Services regarding any release or threatened release of a hazardous material, regardless of the amount handled by the business, and to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan (HMBEP). An HMBEP is a written set of procedures and information created to help minimize the effects and extent of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material. With mandatory regulatory compliance, the operations of uses implemented pursuant to the EBPSP would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials. Accordingly, operations of EBPSP land uses would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with long-term operation of the EBPSP would be less than significant.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Like the approved project, any additional hazardous materials transport, use, or disposal occurring under the proposed project would be less than significant with continued compliance with applicable regulations. The Policy Plan Amendment would not result in new or substantially greater impacts compared to the approved project. 4294
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 67 -
Specific Plan
Operations of EBPSP land uses would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with longterm operation of the EBPSP would be less than significant.

Impact HAZ-2 (PPA): Existing regulations and policies of TOP 2050 would ensure that development associated with Policy Plan Amendment would not exacerbate the potential release of hazardous materials into the environment. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.9-46)
The Certified EIR concluded that compliance with federal and state regulations, City ordinances, and approved project’s policies would help regulate the handling of hazardous substances, thereby reducing the potential for their release and exposure in the environment. Impacts were found to be less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
As listed in Draft SEIR Table 3.9-1, the City of Ontario has around 36 TRI facilities or active sites that generate, transport, treat, store, and/or dispose of hazardous waste. Draft SEIR Figure 3.9-1 shows the known contaminated sites and facilities in Ontario based on the EnviroStor database.

An increase in the transport of hazardous waste from an increased demand for transport, use, and disposal within or outside the City could result in more accidents, leading to the release of hazardous materials. An increase in the transport of hazardous materials as a result of the commercial and industrial growth in the City would be limited to areas along interstates and rail lines, where commercial and industrial uses would be concentrated. Some transport of hazardous materials may occur near small commercial pockets proposed throughout various areas of the City.

As stated previously in Impact Discussion a), existing federal and state regulations, City ordinances, and the Policy Plan Amendment policies would continue to regulate the handling of hazardous substances to minimize potential releases, exposure, storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Compared to the approved project, implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment would result in similar impacts because it would increase land use intensity rather than expand development into previously undeveloped areas that require substantial landform modification.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Therefore, like the approved project, any potential release and exposure of hazardous materials into the environment under the Policy Plan Amendment would be less than significant with continued compliance with applicable regulations. The Policy Plan Amendment would not result in new or substantially greater impacts compared to the approved project. 4295
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 68 -
Impact HAZ-3 (PPA+EBPSP): Existing regulations and policies identified in the Policy Plan Amendment would ensure that the proposed project would have no adverse impacts to schools from facilities that handle hazardous materials. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.9-50)
The Certified EIR concluded that compliance with federal and state regulations, City ordinances, and approved project’s policies would help regulate the handling of hazardous substances, thereby reducing the potential for their release and exposure in the environment, including in proximity to existing and proposed schools. As such, impacts were found to be less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
Although implementation of the proposed project would increase overall commercial and industrial activity within the City, thereby potentially increasing the use or transport of hazardous materials near existing or proposed schools, future development would remain subject to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations governing the safe handling of such materials. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that hazardous substances are properly managed, stored, and disposed of to prevent releases to the environment near existing or proposed schools. Additionally, the areas of change are concentrated in the southern part of the City, and there are no schools in this area (refer to Draft SEIR Figure 2-6). Moreover, any future projects located near schools would be required to demonstrate compliance with regulatory standards designed to protect sensitive receptors and ensure that hazardous emissions or waste are not generated in proximity to these facilities.

As stated previously in Impact Discussion a), existing federal and state regulations, City ordinances, and the Policy Plan Amendment policies, including policies S-6.1 through S-6.9, would continue to regulate the handling of hazardous substances to minimize potential releases, exposure, storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes, including in proximity to schools. Compared to the approved project, implementation of the proposed project would result in similar impacts because it would increase land use intensity rather than expand development into previously undeveloped areas that require substantial landform modification.

Specific Plan
The Specific Plan area is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

The nearest school is the Park View Elementary School, which is located approximately 1.87 miles southeast of the Specific Plan area. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, and/or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
4296
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 69 -
Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Like the approved project, any potential release and exposure of hazardous materials near existing or proposed schools under the proposed project would be less than significant with continued compliance with applicable regulations. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially greater impacts compared to the approved project.

Specific Plan
Like the approved project, impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Impact HAZ-4 (PPA+EBPSP): Existing regulations and policies of the Policy Plan Amendment would ensure that development associated with the proposed project would not exacerbate existing hazards. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.9-51) The Certified EIR concluded that implementation of the approved project’s policies in addition to compliance with existing regulations ensured that development of the approved project would not exacerbate existing hazards associated with existing hazardous materials sites. As such, impacts were found to be less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
The Policy Plan Amendment guides growth in development within the City and is not a development project. The proposed project primarily involves modifying the currently permitted and planned TOP land use pattern across nearly 1,000 acres in southern Ontario (see Draft SEIR Figure 2-6). Development in accordance with the Policy Plan Amendment land use plan would involve redevelopment and reuse of some sites listed as hazardous materials sites on environmental databases (see Section 3.9.2 under “Hazardous Materials Sites”). The listings document the presence of hazardous materials on those sites but do not document hazardous releases. As a result, redevelopment of these sites could potentially expose future residents and workers to hazards from known hazardous materials releases on and near the sites.

Site assessments for hazardous materials and remediation of hazardous materials releases would be required for redevelopment projects developed in accordance with the Policy Plan Amendment and the regulations and policies of the agency assigned to the site (i.e., DTSC, Water Quality Control Board, CUPA, EPA). Furthermore, there are several Policy Plan Amendment policies that address development on and around known hazardous waste sites.

These policies include:
 LU-2.1: Land Use Decisions. We minimize adverse impacts on adjacent properties when considering land use and zoning requests.
4297
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 70 -
 LU-2.3: Hazardous Uses. We regulate the development of industrial and similar uses that use, store, produce, or transport toxic substances, air emissions, other pollutants, or hazardous materials.
 LU-2.9: Methane Gas Sites. We require sensitive land uses and new uses on former dairy farms or other methane-producing sites be designed to minimize health risks.  S-6.2: Response to Hazardous Materials Releases. We respond to hazardous materials incidents and coordinate these services with other jurisdictions.  S-6.5: Location of Hazardous Material Facilities. We regulate facilities that will be involved in the production, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials, pursuant to federal, state, county, and local regulations, so that impacts to the environment and sensitive land uses are mitigated. We prohibit new hazardous waste facilities in close proximity to sensitive land uses and environmental justice areas.
 S-6.6: Location of Sensitive Land Uses. We prohibit new sensitive land uses from locating within airport safety zones and near existing sites that use, store, or generate large quantities of hazardous materials.
 S-6.8: Mitigation and Remediation of Groundwater Contamination. We actively participate in local and regional efforts directed at both mitigating environmental exposure to contaminated groundwater and taking action to clean up contaminated groundwater once exposure occurs.
 S-6.9: Remediation of Methane. We require development to assess and mitigate the presence of methane, per regulatory standards and guidelines.

Compared to the approved project, buildout under the proposed project would result in similar impacts because it would increase land use intensity rather than expand development into previously undeveloped areas that require substantial landform modification.

Specific Plan
The SWRCB GeoTracker database and the DTSC online EnviroStor database were searched for records related to the Specific Plan area.

The Whitegold property has been permitted and used for dairy farming purposes since at least 1979 with animal wastewater discharge. This facility was listed on the LUST and Cortese databases (CalEPA 2026). Two 1,000-gallon USTs storing gasoline and diesel were removed from the property in 1994. No sampling activities were conducted at the time of removal.

Subsequent soil sampling activities were conducted in 2004 and 2005 to determine the vertical and lateral extent of contamination under the direction of the Santa Ana RWQCB. Soils impacted with TPH and VOCs were reportedly excavated at depths ranging from approximately 32 to 50 feet bgs and disposed offsite, totaling approximately 500 cubic yards (752 tons) of impacted soil. Residual petroleum hydrocarbons were detected at a depth of approximately 30 feet bgs. Based on these remediation activities, the low residual concentrations of TPH and the depth to groundwater (approximately 120 feet bgs), the Santa Ana RWQCB issued a No Further 4298
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 71 -
Action letter for the case on October 18, 2006 (Appendix G1). As the site has received a status of Completed – Case Closed, it would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No other properties within the Specific Plan area are identified on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The 2022 Certified EIR acknowledged that development in accordance with TOP 2050 would affect properties identified on hazardous materials databases. Site assessments for hazardous materials and the remediation of any hazardous materials releases would be required for redevelopment projects implemented under the proposed project, in accordance with the regulations and policies of the agency with jurisdiction over the site (i.e., DTSC, Water Quality Control Board, CUPA, EPA).

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Like the approved project, the proposed project would not expose people to substantial hazards from sites containing hazardous materials listed on environmental databases and impacts would be less than significant. Overall, the proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project.

Specific Plan
Like the approved project, impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Impact HAZ-5 (PPA+EBPSP): The proposed project is within the airport influence area of the Ontario International Airport and Chino Airport; however, land uses are consistent with the airport safety zones. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.9-54) The Certified EIR concluded that the development allowed under the approved project near the airport influence areas would be consistent with the adopted ALUCP for ONT and meet the conditions of the CNO Authority and the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. As a result, impacts were identified as less than significant.

Airport safety hazards include hazards posed to aircraft and hazards posed by aircraft to people and property on the ground. With proper land-use planning, aircraft safety risks can be reduced, primarily by avoiding incompatible land uses. The Federal Aviation Administration and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics provide guidance for land use safety near airports. With adherence to these guidelines, high concentrations of people are not exposed to potential airplane accidents along runways or near airports while airplanes are departing and arriving. There are also guidelines on the placement of housing, schools, and other sensitive land uses near airports because of the noise pollution caused by airplanes (see also Section 3.13, Noise). 4299
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 72 -
Policy Plan Amendment
Ontario International Airport
ONT has the capacity to provide regional air traffic for domestic and international commercial and cargo service, and the necessary support facilities for major and smaller airlines. It operates as a medium-hub, full-service airport serving major US cities and international cities with an average of 90 daily departures (ONT 2025b). The City of Ontario prepared an ALUCP for ONT in accordance with the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics’ 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.

The proposed project would redesignate the area along Holt Boulevard from Business Park to Mixed Use land use and a portion along Grove Avenue from Airport to Industrial land use.

Although the proposed project would redesignate land uses near ONT, any future development facilitated by these changes would remain subject to meet the applicable safety zone restrictions, noise compatibility requirements, and airspace protection policies of the adopted ONT ALUCP. Additionally, the policies under Land Use-5 (LU-5), Airport Planning, of the Policy Plan Amendment require that all new development surrounding ONT be consistent with the adopted ALUCP and be coordinated with airport authorities to ensure that the public is protected from excessive noise and safety hazards. Furthermore, a consistency determination analysis for the ONT was prepared by the City and found that the Policy Plan Amendment is consistent with ALUCP for ONT (Appendix G6). Therefore, the approved project, the Policy Plan Amendment maintains consistency with the ALUCP for ONT since the land use designation change within the airport influence area are consistent.

Chino Airport
The CNO is predominantly a recreational airport. Because the airport is not planned for expansion and would remain primarily recreational, and because only lower-elevation buildings surround it and would continue to surround it upon project implementation, the CNO poses no unique hazards. Similar to the approved project, buildout of the Policy Plan Amendment would involve development within the CNO influence area. The proposed land uses within the Chino Airport Overlay include Business Park, Industrial, Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use, and Open Space–Recreation.

The proposed project would redesignate land south of Edison Avenue from General Commercial, Medium Density Residential, and Mixed Use to Business Park and Open Space– Recreation. In general, these changes would result in a reduction in residential land use within the safety zones of Chino Airport. Any future development in these areas of change would remain subject to meet the applicable safety zone restrictions, and airspace protection policies of the CNO Authority and the Caltrans 2011 Handbook. These requirements include appropriate land uses, maximum population density, maximum site coverage, height restrictions, and required notification/disclosure areas based on the noise contours and runway protection, approach, and Part 77 zones of the adopted Chino Airport Master Plan. A consistency determination analysis for the CNO was also prepared by the City of Ontario found that the Policy Plan Amendment is consistent with ALUCP for CNO (Appendix G6). 4300
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 73 -
Furthermore, the policies under Land Use-5 (LU-5), Airport Planning, of the Policy Plan Amendment promote coordination with airport authorities to ensure land uses near the airport are compatible and that the public is protected from excessive noise and safety hazards. These policies include:
 LU-5.1: Coordination with Airport Authorities. We collaborate with FAA, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, airport owners, neighboring jurisdictions, and other shareholders in the preparation, update, and maintenance of airport-related plans.  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.  LU-5.3: Airport Impacts. We work with agencies to maximize resources to mitigate the impacts and hazards related to airport operations – their homes.  LU-5.4: ONT Growth Forecast. We support and promote an ONT that accommodates 30 million annual passengers and 1.6 million tons of cargo per year, as long as the impacts associated with that level of operations are planned for and mitigated.  LU-5.5: Airport Compatibility Planning for ONT. We create and maintain the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for ONT.
 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.  LU-5.7: ALUCP Consistency with Land Use Regulations. We comply with state law that requires general plans, specific plans, and all new development to be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for any publicuse airport.  LU-5.8: Chino Airport. We will support the creation and implementation of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Chino Airport.
 M-5.2. Land Use Compatibility with Regional Transportation Facilities. We work with ONT, railroads, Caltrans, SBCTA, and other transportation agencies to minimize impacts.

Specific Plan
The Specific Plan area is located approximately 4.5 miles south of ONT. Although the Specific Plan area is located within the ONT AIA, it is located outside any identified safety, airspace protection, and noise impact zones. All properties located within the ONT AIA are subject to a real estate transaction disclosure notice (Ontario 2018).

The Specific Plan area is approximately one-half mile north of CNO, within the CNO AIA. The San Bernardino County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Chino Airport was adopted in 1991 and does not reflect guidance in the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (SBC ALUC 1991). As such, in 2022, the City of Ontario adopted the CNO Overlay District and Reference I:
4301
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 74 -
Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, which provides maps, criteria, and policy language to guide development within the Chino AIA consistent with the Caltrans 2011 Handbook.

The majority of the Specific Plan area is within CNO Safety Zone 6 (low risk), with a very small portion of the southeastern corner located within Safety Zone 4 (moderate risk). Uses permitted by the EBPSP are allowed in both of these safety zones, subject to the criteria and policies of Reference I: Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan in Draft SEIR Table 3.9-2, CNO Compatibility Criteria Matrix (Ontario 2022b).

As discussed within Section 3.14, Population and Housing, of this Draft SEIR the EBPSP uses have the potential to create up to 1,590 employees within the project site. This would equate to an average of 8.41 people per acre. Even with the addition of visitors to the site, the intensity limits set forth above would not be exceeded. Furthermore, the policies under Land Use-5 (LU5), Airport Planning, of the Policy Plan Amendment promote coordination with airport authorities to ensure land uses near the airport are compatible and that the public is protected from excessive noise and safety hazards.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project ensures compatibility with ONT and CNO. As a result, the proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
The EBPSP would not result in greater impacts related to safety hazards or excessive noise for people residing or working in the area compared to the approved project, and impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Impact HAZ-6 (PPA+EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.9-58)
The Certified EIR concluded that substantial transportation infrastructure improvements are planned to accommodate population growth in the City in the event of an emergency; therefore, the approved project would not interfere with an emergency evacuation plan. As a result, impacts were found to be less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
The threat of flood is one of Ontario’s greatest hazard because large portions of the City are within the flood zone. The majority of the population growth associated with the proposed 4302
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 75 -
project would occur in Ontario Ranch. As identified in the City’s Roadway Classification map (see Draft SEIR Figure 3.17-1, Roadway Classifications), there are substantial improvements in transportation infrastructure planned to accommodate the increase in population in the City in the event of an emergency. Interstate highways would also serve as major emergency response and evacuation routes. As further described in Chapter 3.20, Wildfire, the Policy Plan Amendment land use plan would not introduce new roadways or modify existing ones in a manner that would impede emergency vehicle access or evacuation operations. Furthermore, City design review procedures would ensure that all roadway and site designs maintain compliance with emergency access standards and the City’s adopted emergency response plans.

As described in Section 3.9.1, Regulatory Framework, the City’s OEM oversees the City’s emergency plans, which address planned responses to natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies (Ontario 2025a). Compliance with the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and LHMP would help ensure adequate emergency accessibility is provided to the community. Additionally, the OFD reviews development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance.

Specific Plan
The Specific Plan area does not contain any emergency facilities, nor do adjacent roadways serve as emergency evacuation routes. The nearest evacuation routes are Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road (east-west direction), Merrill Avenue (east-west direction), Euclid Avenue (north-south direction) and Grove Avenue (north-south direction) above Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road.

Additionally, the City’s LHMP identifies potential hazards within the City and includes hazard mitigation strategies and actions to be implemented in an effort to minimize risk. Land uses implemented pursuant to the Specific Plan would not interfere with the City’s implementation of any of the actions identified therein.

The EBPSP does not propose or require permanent alteration of major vehicle circulation routes. In addition, no facilities or operations that would interfere with any identified emergency response or emergency evacuation plan are proposed in the Specific Plan area. In accordance with the City’s OEM, LHMP, and coordination with the local fire and police departments during construction would ensure that potential interference with emergency response and evacuation efforts are avoided. Further, potential temporary traffic/access disruption that may occur during construction would be addressed through the implementation of a Temporary Traffic Control Plan, as required by the City. The City, as part of its discretionary review process, would review future development application materials to ensure that appropriate emergency ingress and egress is provided.
4303
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 76 -
Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The development allowed under the proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
The EBPSP would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Impact HAZ-7 (PPA+EBPSP): The proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks in Ontario. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.9-60)
The Certified EIR found that, with the adherence to applicable state and local building standards, development and infrastructure associated with the approved project would result in less than significant risks related to wildfire hazards.

Policy Plan Amendment
Buildout of the proposed project modifies the land-use pattern and updates related Policy Plan elements while maintaining the overall planning and regulatory framework established by the approved project. As further described in Section 3.20, Wildfire, the adopted 2025 CAL FIRE Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone map does not identify areas in Ontario within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. However, the City recognizes that even though fuel loading is light and fire risk comes primarily from urban fires, not wildfires, there is some risk related to wildfire events.

Ontario is supported by multiple local and regional programs for fire prevention and for addressing wildland fires should they arise, including the California Building Code, the California Fire Code, CAL FIRE 2024 Strategic Fire Plan for California, County of San Bernardino Multi-jurisdiction Hazard Management Plan, the Ontario LHMP, and fire services from OFD.

Continued adherence to these regulations and practices would ensure that future development and infrastructure associated with the proposed project do not exacerbate risk in wildfire hazards or result in post-wildfire hazards (e.g., landslides, mudflows, and flooding).

In addition, the Safety Element contains the following policies to prevent wildfire hazards and support the community during wildfire events:
 S-3.4: Special Team Services. We maintain effective special rescue services. 4304
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 77 -
 S-3.6: Interagency Cooperation. In order to back up and supplement our capabilities to respond to emergencies, we participate in the California Fire Rescue and Mutual Aid Plan.  S-3.8: Fire Prevention through Environmental Design. We require new development to incorporate fire prevention consideration in the design of streetscapes, sites, open spaces, and buildings.
 S-3.9: Resource Allocation. We analyze fire data to evaluate the effectiveness of our fire prevention and reduction strategies and allocate resources accordingly.  S-8.3: Emergency/Disaster Training and Exercises. We conduct training and exercises to prepare for and evaluate emergency/disaster response and recovery procedures.  S-8.5: Interdepartmental Coordination. We utilize all City departments to help support emergency/disaster mitigation, preparedness, response, mitigation, and recovery.  CD-2.8: Safe Design. We incorporate defensible space design into new and existing developments to ensure the maximum safe travel and visibility on pathways, corridors, and open space and at building entrances and parking areas by avoiding physically and visually isolated spaces, maintaining visibility and accessibility, and using lighting.

Because the proposed project would not alter topography, slope conditions, or emergency infrastructure design standards, and would continue to implement existing fire-safety programs and policies, it would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

Specific Plan
As detailed in Section 3.20, Wildfire, of this SEIR the Specific Plan area is located within the limits of the City of Ontario, outside of the SRA, and is not located within an identified Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE 2025b).

According to the City’s 2023 LHMP, no high fire severity zones exist within the City, nor does the City have any wildland-urban interface areas (Ontario 2023). The Specific Plan area is located within an LRA, with fire protection services currently provided by the OFD.

Uses implemented pursuant to the EBPSP would comply with the California Building Code, California Fire Code, CAL FIRE 2024 Strategic Fire Plan for California, County of San Bernardino Multi-jurisdiction Hazard Management Plan, the Ontario LHMP, and applicable City policies.

Compliance with these standards and plans would act to prevent or minimize wildfire hazards and would avoid or reduce exposure to wildfire risks. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to the approved project. 4305
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 78 -
Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Accordingly, the Policy Plan Amendment would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to the approved project, and wildfire-related risks would be less than significant.

Specific Plan
The potential for the EBPSP to expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires is considered less than significant.

The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact HYD-1 (PPA+EBPSP): Compliance with existing regulations, City policies, and RWQCB standards would prevent violations of water quality objectives or substantial degradation of water resources associated with the proposed project. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.10-24)
Policy Plan Amendment
Construction
The proposed project involves the designation of commercial, industrial, and residential land uses in Ontario, as well as continued redevelopment and large amounts of infill development.

The potential buildout of the proposed project would increase the number of populations, dwelling units, non-residential building square footage, and employment compared to the approved project (refer to Draft SEIR Table 2-4, Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment). Buildout in accordance with the proposed project would result in an increase in construction activities, which could impact water quality and waste discharge throughout the City of Ontario.

Clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with proposed project have the potential to impact water quality through soil erosion and by increasing the amount of silt and debris carried in runoff. Additionally, the use of construction materials, such as fuels, solvents, and paints, may present a risk to surface water quality. Finally, the refueling and parking of construction vehicles and other equipment on-site during construction may result in oil, grease, or related pollutant leaks and spills that may discharge into the storm drain system.

To minimize these potential impacts, future development associated with proposed project would require compliance with the SWRCB CGP (Order WQ 2022-0057-DWQ). The SWRCB mandates that projects that disturb one or more acres of land must obtain coverage under the 4306
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 79 -
Statewide CGP. The CGP also requires that prior to the start of construction activities, the project applicant must file PRDs with the SWRCB, which includes notice of intent, risk assessment, site map, annual fee, signed certification statement, and SWPPP.

A SWPPP requires the incorporation of BMPs to control sediment, erosion, and hazardous materials contamination of runoff during construction and prevent contaminants from reaching receiving water bodies. The construction contractor is always required to maintain a copy of the SWPPP at the site and implement all construction BMPs identified in the SWPPP during construction activities. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant is required to provide proof of filing of the PRDs with the SWRCB, which include preparation of SWPPP.

In addition, the City of Ontario requires that an ESCP be submitted prior to grading plan approval and the issuance of a grading permit (Ontario 2017). Implementation of the erosion control plan would address any potential erosion issues associated with proposed grading and site preparation activities associated with future buildout under the proposed project. Submittal of the PRDs, implementation of the SWPPP, and the erosion control plan throughout the construction phase of the proposed project would address anticipated and expected pollutants of concern as a result of construction activities.

While the proposed project would accommodate additional development intensity and associated construction activity, compliance with existing state and local regulatory requirements—such as the CGP, preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, and submittal of ESCP —would ensure that construction-related pollutants are effectively managed. The City’s established regulatory framework, combined with BMPs, would continue to minimize potential erosion, sedimentation, and contaminant discharges during construction.

Operation
Pollutants commonly generated during the post-construction phase of urban development include sediment, metals, nutrients, pesticides, hydrocarbons, and other contaminants associated with vehicular use, landscaping, and impervious surfaces. Under the proposed project, future development would continue to comply with the City’s adopted stormwater quality policies and applicable regional and state water quality regulations. Specifically, the Policy Plan Amendment incorporates policies ER-1.5, ER-1.6, and ER-1.7 from the approved project, which direct the City to protect and enhance water quality through coordinated water resource management, implementation of LID strategies, and management of urban runoff in accordance with RWQCB requirements:
 ER-1.5: Water Resource Management. Environmental justice areas are prioritized as we coordinate with local agencies to protect water quality, prevent pollution, address existing contamination, and remediate contaminated surface water and groundwater. 4307
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 80 -
 ER-1.6: Urban Run-off Quantity. We encourage the use of low impact development strategies, to intercept run-off, slow the discharge rate, increase infiltration and ultimately reduce discharge volumes to traditional storm drain systems.  ER-1.7: Urban Run-Off Quality. We require the control and management of urban runoff, consistent with Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations.

In addition, new development under the proposed project would be required to comply with NPDES Permit No. CAS618036 through the preparation of a WQMP. Each WQMP must identify and integrate BMPs to minimize pollutant discharges and protect receiving waters during the operational phase. These measures include:
 Site Design BMPs: Incorporation of permeable surfaces, preservation of natural drainage features such as swales, and use of detention and retention basins to reduce runoff volumes and promote infiltration.
 Source Control BMPs: Minimizing pollutant exposure through impervious paving in fueling and trash storage areas, directing run-on away from pollutant sources, implementing spill containment, and ensuring proper waste handling.
 Non-structural BMPs: Public education, employee training, operational restrictions (e.g., prohibiting fertilizer, pesticide, and waste discharges to streets or storm drains), and routine inspection and maintenance programs.
 Treatment Control BMPs: On-site pollutant removal through vegetated biofiltration swales, infiltration systems, and hydrodynamic separators, designed in accordance with the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for WQMPs (Santa Ana RWQCB 2013).

These regulatory mechanisms and engineering controls would ensure that urban runoff is managed to meet or exceed applicable water quality standards. Implementation of these requirements would minimize pollutant loads to the City’s storm drain system and prevent degradation of surface water or groundwater quality.

The SEIR evaluates whether the proposed project would result in new or more severe operational water quality impacts compared to the approved project. While the proposed project would accommodate additional development intensity and associated increases in impervious surfaces, all new development would remain subject to the same comprehensive regulatory framework governing stormwater quality. Mandatory preparation and implementation of project-specific WQMPs, adherence to LID principles, and enforcement of NPDES permit requirements would continue to ensure that post-construction discharges are effectively controlled and treated prior to entering the storm drain system. 4308
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 81 -
Although the proposed project could incrementally increase the potential for pollutant generation, compliance with existing regulations, City policies, and RWQCB standards would prevent violations of water quality objectives or substantial degradation of water resources.

Specific Plan
Construction
Construction of the Specific Plan would require compliance with the CGP, which requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. Additionally, the City requires the implementation of an ESCP, which would ensure that appropriate BMPs are implemented to prevent, to the maximum extent practicable, pollutants from reaching the City’s storm drain system. Examples of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydroseeding. Submittal, review, and approval of the ESCP by the City are required prior to the issuance of grading permits for development.

Mandatory compliance with the CGP, SWPPP, and ESCP would ensure that implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in a violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities.

Operation
The applicant would be required to implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to demonstrate compliance with the City’s NPDES municipal stormwater permit, and to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters. As identified within the preliminary WQMP (Appendix H2), the Specific Plan has been designed to include onsite structural-source control BMPs, as well as operationalsource controls. Submittal, review, and approval of the WQMP by the City are required prior to the issuance of grading permits for development.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe operational water quality impacts compared to the approved project and that was identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
The Specific Plan would be required to comply with all State, County, and local regulations regarding stormwater runoff during operations. Compliance with these existing requirements would ensure water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would not be exceeded, and surface water and groundwater quality would not be degraded. Impacts would be less than significant. The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify any significant water quality 4309
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 82 -
impacts. Accordingly, the Specific Plan would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Impact HYD-2 (PPA+EBPSP): Buildout of the proposed project would not interfere with sustainable management of the groundwater basin. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.10-28) The 2022 Certified EIR identified less than significant impacts related to groundwater recharge and supply for the approved project.

Policy Plan Amendment
Buildout of proposed project is forecast to increase residential units by 7,225 and increase nonresidential square footage by 4,334,416 square feet compared to the approved project.

Future development would increase the amount of impermeable surfaces in the City and reduce the amount of permeable surfaces available for groundwater recharge. Projects considered for approval under the proposed project, like the approved project, would have to meet the following requirements for limiting impacts to groundwater recharge:
 BMPs for compliance with NPDES regulations, for instance, preservation of existing vegetation.
 Preparation of project-specific hydrology studies estimating project impacts on drainage, in accordance with procedures in the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for WQMPs (2013).

In addition, TOP 2050 includes policies that would promote infiltration of runoff and groundwater recharge, including Policies ER-1.5 and ER-1.6. Policy ER-1.5 prioritizes environmental justice areas in coordination with local agencies to protect water quality, prevent pollution, address existing contamination, and remediate contaminated surface water and groundwater. Policy ER-1.6 encourages the use of LID and green infrastructure to intercept runoff, slow discharge rates, increase infiltration, and reduce discharge volumes to traditional storm drain systems. Groundwater supply and management are discussed further in Section

3.19, Utilities and Service Systems.

The Chino Basin Watermaster Rules & Regulations require monitoring, reporting, and limiting groundwater extractions to ensure sustainable yield of the basin (CBW 2022). New or modified wells must comply with Watermaster rules and state/county permitting requirements, ensuring that project operations would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge in a manner that impedes sustainable groundwater management.

With the implementation of policies that promote LID and infiltration for new development projects and compliance with the Chino Basin Watermaster’s safe yield restrictions, the potential for the proposed project to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere 4310
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 83 -
substantially with groundwater recharge, such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin, is considered less than significant.

The Chino Groundwater Basin is adjudicated and is considered by DWR to be a very low priority groundwater basin (GE 2025). Each water purveyor has an allotted amount of water that can be pumped from the basin so that the safe yield is not exceeded. The City has access to additional water supplies that can accommodate the proposed increase in growth. Buildout of the proposed project would not interfere with sustainable management of the groundwater basin.

Specific Plan
Construction
Direct additions or withdrawals of groundwater are not proposed by the Specific Plan. Further, construction would not involve substructures or other intrusions at depths that would significantly impair or alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater.

Operation
Water is provided to the Specific Plan area by the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC).

According to the Specific Plan’s Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared by the OMUC, the projected operational water demand for the Specific Plan is 571.9 acre-feet per year (AFY). The OMUC has determined that it can meet Citywide water demands (including the Specific Plan) during normal, dry year, and multiple dry years through 2045 (OMUC 2025) Groundwater which may be consumed by the Specific Plan, and the service area as a whole, would be recharged pursuant to the OMUCs policies and programs. The Specific Plan area is not a designated groundwater recharge area. The Specific Plan does not propose or require facilities or operations that would otherwise adversely affect designated recharge areas.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
This impact is less than significant. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts to groundwater supply or recharge compared to the approved project and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan
The potential for the Specific Plan to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that sustainable groundwater management of the basin may be impeded is considered less than significant.

The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify any significant groundwater supply or recharge impacts.

Accordingly, the Specific Plan would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.
4311
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 84 -
Impact HYD-3 (PPA+EBPSP): Implementation of BMPs outlined in project SWPPPs, erosion and sediment control plans, WQMPs, and adherence to TOP policies would address hydrology and water quality impacts related to erosion and flooding. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.10-31)
The 2022 Certified EIR identified less than significant impacts related to increased surface runoff, flooding, stormwater drainage, and flood flows for the approved project.

Policy Plan Amendment
Erosion and Siltation
Similar to the approved project, future development associated with the proposed project would involve site improvements that require grading, excavation, and soil exposure during construction, with the potential for erosion or siltation to occur. If not controlled, the transport of these materials to local waterways could temporarily increase suspended sediment concentrations and release pollutants attached to sediment particles. To minimize this impact, future projects under the proposed project would be required to comply with the requirements in the State’s Construction General Permit, including preparation of a notice of intent and SWPPP prior to the start of construction activities (see Impact a). The SWPPP would describe the BMPs to be implemented during the project’s construction activities. The implementation of the BMPs during the construction phase would include the following measures to minimize erosion and siltation:
 Minimize disturbed areas of the site.
 Install on-site sediment basins to prevent off-site migration of erodible materials.  Implement dust control measures, such as silt fences and regular watering of open areas.  Stabilize construction entrances/exits.
 Install storm drain inlet protection measures.
 Install sediment control measures around the site, including silt fences or gravel bag barriers.

In addition, the City of Ontario requires preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan and implementation of BMPs to control erosion, debris, and construction-related pollutants.

This would further reduce the potential for erosion and siltation during the construction phase.

For post-construction, projects approved under the proposed project would be required to control stormwater discharges under NPDES Permit No. CAS618036 through preparation of a WQMP identifying BMPs for reducing or eliminating runoff (see Impact a). Additionally, the Policy Plan Amendment would follow policies ER-1.5 through ER-1.7 which collectively direct the City to incorporate strategies to capture, slow, or treat run-off that would reduce the potential for erosion and siltation during the operational phase of future development projects. 4312
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 85 -
Collectively, implementation of BMPs outlined in SWPPPs, erosion and sediment control plans, WQMPs, and TOP 2050 policies would address anticipated erosion and siltation impacts.

Flooding On- and Off-Site
Buildout of proposed project is forecast to increase residential units by 7,225 and increase nonresidential square footage by 4,334,416 square feet compared to the approved project (refer to Draft SEIR Table 2-4, Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment). Future development would increase the amount of impermeable surfaces in the City, which could result in future on- and off-site flooding.

As discussed above, under “Erosion and Siltation,” future development projects would implement BMPs outlined in SWPPPs to reduce flooding impacts due to runoff during construction and BMPs included in WQMPs to reduce the potential for post-construction flooding impacts. The City’s standard conditions of approval for new development also require the preparation of hydrology studies and drainage analyses that document the peak runoff rates from the developed site and evaluate the capacity of the storm drain system to accept these flow rates.

Additionally, the Policy Plan Amendment would continue and implement the following TOP policies:
 ER-1.6. Urban Run-off Quantity. We encourage the use of low impact development strategies, to intercept run-off, slow the discharge rate, increase infiltration and ultimately reduce discharge volumes to traditional storm drain systems.  ER-1.7. Urban Run-off Quality. We require the control and management of urban run-off, consistent with Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations.  S-2.1. Entitlement and Permitting Process. We require hydrological studies prepared by a state-certified engineer when new development is located in a 100-year or 500-year floodplain to assess the impact that the new development will have on the flooding potential of existing development down-gradient.
 S-2.5 Stormwater Management. We maintain the storm drain system to convey a 100-year storm, when feasible, and encourage environmental site design practices to minimize flooding and increase groundwater recharge, including natural drainage, green infrastructure, and permeable ground surfaces.
 S-2.6 Use of Flood Control Facilities. We encourage joint use of flood control facilities as open space or other types of recreational facilities.

These policies direct the City to incorporate strategies to capture, slow, or treat runoff and to reduce the flooding potential down-gradient of new development. These policies would reduce 4313
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 86 -
the potential for on- and off-site flooding during the operational phase of future development projects.

Surface Runoff and Capacity of Storm Drain System
There are three major regional drainage channels that convey stormwater runoff from the City’s storm drain system—San Antonio Channel, Cucamonga Channel, and Day Creek Channel. There are also several flood retentions and spreading basins in the City that are used to retain flood flows and recharge the Chino Groundwater Basin.

Projects considered for approval under the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s standard conditions of approval for new development under Resolution No. 2017-027, such as prepare project-specific hydrology and hydraulic studies following the methodology in the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, which describes the approach for estimating stormwater runoff and peak flow rates, for the 100-year storm event (San Bernardino County 1986). In compliance with the MS4 Permit and San Bernardino County Stormwater Program, new development projects would also be mandated to install stormwater treatment BMPs that retain the 2-year, 24-hour rainfall event (Santa Ana RWQCB 2013).

Furthermore, new development under the Policy Plan Amendment would continue and comply with TOP 2050 policies, such as Policy ER-1.6, which encourages the use of LID strategies to intercept runoff, slow the discharge rate, increase infiltration, and ultimately reduce discharge volumes to traditional storm drain systems. In addition, Policy S2-5 would maintain the storm drain system to convey a 100-year storm, when feasible, and encourage environmental site design practices to minimize flooding, thus reducing the impacts of any increases in surface water flows that enter the storm drainage systems.

Although the proposed project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces and potentially increase surface runoff, development in the City would follow the same regulations as identified in the Certified EIR for the approved project, such as preparing a hydrology study and drainage analysis, following the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program, and continuing to follow TOP 2050 policies.

Flood Flows
As shown in Draft SEIR Figure 3.10-2, there are 100-year and 500-year flood zones throughout the City. FEMA periodically updates its FIRMs to incorporate improved topographic data, updated hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, and revised flood risk information. As a result, floodplain boundaries may shift between map versions. These updates do not necessarily indicate an increase in flood risk but reflect improved mapping accuracy. Future development under the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable flood hazard regulations and policies based on the most current FEMA mapping.

Flood hazards are among the most significant environmental concerns in the Ontario Ranch area. New development within Ontario Ranch is assumed to implement the Ontario Master Plan of Drainage, which outlines the regional facilities needed to manage stormwater and reduce 4314
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 87 -
flood risk. The San Bernardino County Flood Control District’s comment letter identifies a parcel (APN 1052-161-03), which is owned by the District and cannot be developed at this time because it is currently occupied by the Grove Basin flood control facility, which provides flood protection for downstream properties (see full comment letter in Appendix A). This indicates that regional drainage improvements, including the Grove Basin project, are active components of flood management within Ontario Ranch.

In addition, the Policy Plan Amendment would not change policies established in the approved project. Therefore, the City would take the following actions to reduce impacts of potential developments within 100-year and 500-year flood zones:
 S-2.1: Entitlement and Permitting Process. We require hydrological studies prepared by a state-certified engineer when new development is located in a 100-year or 500-year floodplain to assess the impact that the new development will have on the flooding potential of existing development down-gradient.
 S-2.2: Floodplain Mapping. We require any new development partially or entirely in 100- year flood zones to provide detailed floodplain mapping for 100- and 200-year storm events as part of the development approval process.
 S-2.3: Facilities that Use Hazardous Materials. We comply with state and federal law and do not permit facilities using, storing, or otherwise involved with substantial quantities of onsite hazardous materials to be located in the 100-year flood zone or 500-year flood zone unless all standards of elevation, flood-proofing, and storage have been implemented to the satisfaction of the Building Department.
 S-2.4: Prohibited Land Uses. We prohibit the development of new essential and critical facilities in the 100-year floodplain and discourage the development of new essential and critical facilities in the 500-year floodplain unless all standards of elevation and flood proofing demonstrate that a facility can be safe and operational during a flood event, implemented to the satisfaction of the Building Department.  S-2.5: Stormwater Management. We maintain the storm drain system to convey a 100-year storm, when feasible, and encourage environmental site design practices to minimize flooding and increase groundwater recharge, including natural drainage, green infrastructure, and permeable ground surfaces.

In addition to these policies, the Ontario Municipal Code, Chapter 13, Flood Damage Prevention Program, requires that a development permit be obtained prior to development in a special flood hazard area to ensure that the site is reasonably safe from flooding and flood hazards. The City requires that all new structures in a special flood hazard area have elevations above the base flood elevation.
4315
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 88 -
Specific Plan
Construction
During site preparation activities, any existing groundcover would be removed from the Specific Plan area, exposing the area to increased wind and water erosion potential. Further, construction site runoff may carry increased loads of sediment, heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons (from machinery) which could degrade water quality. As previously mentioned, in accordance with NPDES requirements, the applicant would be required to prepare and implement an ESCP to alleviate potential erosion, sedimentation and stormwater discharge contamination impacts.

The applicant would also be responsible for compliance with the CGP by filing a Notice of Intent to Commence Construction Activities. Under the CGP, discharge of materials other than stormwater is prohibited. The CGP stipulates further that the applicant shall prepare, retain at the construction site, and implement a SWPPP which identifies the sources of sediments and other pollutants that affect the quality of stormwater discharge, and implement practices to reduce sediment and other pollutants to stormwater discharge. SWPPP requirements include identification of construction and post-construction BMPs that would act to reduce sediments and other pollutants.

Implementation of the SWPPP and compliance with applicable NPDES and RWQCB requirements would ensure that potential construction-source erosion and water quality impacts of the Specific Plan are reduced to levels that would be less than significant.

Operation
The Specific Plan would implement a storm drainage system to convey stormwater runoff. The storm drainage system would include a series of detention and underground filtration systems.

Water quality features within the proposed system include hydrodynamic separators and biofiltration units. Flows would then be routed to existing City storm drain lines located in Campus Avenue, Bon View Avenue, Grove Avenue, and Walker Avenue. In larger storm events, the underground detention systems, located downstream of the underground infiltration systems and upstream of the City’s storm drain lines would detain excess runoff. Final design, configuration, and locations of proposed drainage system improvements will be reviewed and approved by the City prior to, or concurrent with, application for grading permits.

Over the life of the Specific Plan, contaminants such as oil, fuel and grease that are spilled or left behind by vehicular traffic collect and concentrate on paved surfaces. During storm events, these contaminants are washed into the storm drain system and may potentially degrade receiving water quality. Stormwater runoff from paved surfaces within the developed Specific Plan area could carry a variety of urban wastes, including greases and oils and small amounts of metals which are common by-products of vehicular travel. In addition, storm runoff will likely contain residual amounts of fertilizers and plant additives washed off from landscaped areas. 4316
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 89 -
Recognizing the potential hazards of such urban runoff, the EPA has issued regulations which require municipalities to participate in the NPDES program. Compliance with applicable NPDES requirements and performance standards would be achieved through implementation of the WQMP. To ensure adequate and appropriate treatment of stormwater discharges, the stormwater management concept and associated WQMP would implement water quality BMPs that would treat stormwaters onsite prior to release to the regional stormwater system or infiltration to groundwater.

In combination, implementation of the SWPPP, on-site stormwater management system and associated WQMP, and compliance with NPDES Permit requirements, act to protect local and regional water quality by preventing or minimizing potential stormwater pollutant discharges to the watershed.

The Specific Plan would construct portions of four City MDP facilities, including portions of the Walker Storm Drain System, Grove Storm Drain System, Bon View Storm Drain System, and the Campus Storm Drain System. To assess the capacity of these facilities to accommodate flows from the Specific Plan, the design flow rates were compared to the rates that would be expected from the developed Specific Plan, as presented in Draft SEIR Table 3.10-2, Flow Rates for MDP Facilities to be Constructed by the Specific Plan.

As shown in this table, the proposed flow rate of WLKR-XII-1 would be 19.3 cubic foot per second (ft3/s) higher than the design flow rate. This increase represents approximately 2 percent of the design flow rate. Additionally, the proposed flow rate of MERL-XIV-2 would be 5.5 ft3/s higher than the design flow rate. This increase represents approximately 4 percent of the design flow rate. The RWQCB allows for 10 percent error on hydromodification criteria. As such, the increases under the proposed condition are within the acceptable range for hydrological error tolerances and are considered negligible. Proposed flow rates for all other facilities would be less than their respective design flow rates.

Summary
Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Implementation of TOP 2050 policies and existing regulations would ensure less than significant impact associated with erosion and siltation, flooding on- and off-site, surface runoff and capacity of the storm drain system, and flood flows. The proposed project would not result in a new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts related to flood hazards compared to the approved project and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
The Specific Plan would incorporate necessary drainage and stormwater management systems, and would comply with stormwater system design, construction, and operational requirements 4317
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 90 -
mandated under the City Development Code, and with regulations established by other agencies, including the RWQCB and California Department of Water Resources. Based on the preceding, the Specific Plan would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner that would result in substantial erosion, water quality, flooding, or downstream capacity impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.

Similarly, the 2022 Certified EIR did not identify any significant impacts in this regard.

Accordingly, the Specific Plan would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Impact HYD-4 (PPA+EBPSP): With continued implementation of applicable City policies, FEMA regulations, and emergency management procedures, impacts related to the release of pollutants due to project inundation would be less than significant. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.10-38)
The 2022 Certified EIR determined that the approved project would result in less-thansignificant impacts related to flood hazards, tsunamis, seiches, or dam inundation.

Policy Plan Amendment
Flood Hazard
As shown in Draft SEIR Figure 3.10-2, portions of the city are in the 100-year and 500-year floodplains. FEMA periodically updates its Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) using improved topographic and hydrologic data, which may shift floodplain boundaries. These updates primarily reflect enhanced mapping accuracy rather than increased flood risk.

Development associated with the proposed project would continue to implement existing City flood hazard policies, including:
 S-2.2: Floodplain Mapping. We require any new development partially or entirely in 100- year flood zones to provide detailed floodplain mapping for 100- and 200-year storm events as part of the development approval process.
 S-2.3: Facilities that Use Hazardous Materials. We comply with state and federal law and do not permit facilities using, storing, or otherwise involved with substantial quantities of onsite hazardous materials to be located in the 100-year flood zone or 500-year flood zone unless all standards of elevation, flood-proofing, and storage have been implemented to the satisfaction of the Building Department.

Future development under the proposed project would be required to comply with the most current FEMA flood hazard regulations and applicable City policies. 4318
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 91 -
Tsunami
The City is located approximately 30 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and is not subject to tsunami inundation hazards.

Seiche
There are no large natural water bodies within or adjacent to the city that could generate a seiche during seismic activity. Existing reservoirs and aboveground storage tanks are enclosed and engineered to prevent sloshing or overflow, minimizing any potential for seiche-related impacts.

Dam Inundation
The western and southern portions of the City are in the dam inundation zone of San Antonio Dam (see Draft SEIR Figure 3.10-3). The dam is owned and operated by the USACE and functions as a flood control and debris dam for San Antonio Creek. Additionally, there are 2 debris basins in the surrounding areas that impact small areas of the City east of I-15.

The probability of dam failure is very low (Ontario 2023). Dam owners are required to maintain emergency action plans that include procedures for damage assessment and emergency warnings. An EAP identifies potential emergency conditions at a dam and specifies preplanned actions to help minimize property damage and loss of life should those conditions occur. EAPs contain procedures and information that instruct dam owners to issue early warning and notification messages to downstream emergency management authorities, such as the Ontario Fire Department. Because the likelihood of dam or debris basin failure is low and emergency response and notification procedures are in place, the potential for the release of pollutants due to inundation is less than significant.

Specific Plan
Dam Inundation
The Specific Plan area is located within the dam inundation zone of San Antonio Dam.

According to the 2022 Certified EIR, the probability of dam failure is very low, and Ontario has never been impacted by a major dam failure. In addition, dam owners are required to maintain Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) that include procedures for damage assessment and emergency warnings. An EAP identifies potential emergency conditions at a dam and specifies preplanned actions to help minimize property damage and loss of life should those conditions occur. EAPs contain procedures and information that instruct dam owners to issue early warning and notification messages to downstream emergency management authorities, such as the Ontario Fire Department (Ontario 2022).
4319
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 92 -
Flood Hazard, Tsunami, and Seiche
The Specific Plan area is not within a 100-year floodplain, nor are there nearby water bodies or streams that would result in flooding at the Specific Plan area (Ontario 2023). The Specific Plan area is located approximately 30 miles inland; as such, tsunamis are not a concern at the Specific Plan area. The nearest large body of surface water (Lake Norconian) is located approximately 5.5 miles southeast of the Specific Plan area. At this distance, seiches are not a concern.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would not increase exposure to flood zones, tsunami, seiche, or dam inundation hazards beyond what was evaluated in the 2022 Certified EIR. With continued implementation of applicable City policies, FEMA regulations, and emergency management procedures, impacts related to the release of pollutants due to project inundation would remain less than significant. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. The proposed project would not increase exposure to flood hazards compared to the approved project and impacts identified in the Certified EIR.

Specific Plan
The potential for risk release of pollutants due to inundation is considered less than significant.

The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify any significant inundation impacts. Accordingly, the Specific Plan would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Impact HYD-5 (PPA+EBPSP): Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and TOP 2050 policies would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Basin Plan or any groundwater management plan. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.10-41)
The 2022 Certified EIR identified less than significant impacts related to consistency with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Policy Plan Amendment
The City’s groundwater supplies are from the Chino Groundwater Basin, which is adjudicated and managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster. The Chino Basin is exempt from legislative requirements under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) because it is an adjudicated basin and is not required to prepare a groundwater sustainability plan (DWR 2025b; CBW 2016).
4320
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 93 -
During construction, adherence to the State Construction General Permit, implementation of a SWPPP, and compliance with the City’s Erosion and Sediment Control Plan would ensure that surface water and groundwater quality are not adversely affected. During long-term operation, development under the proposed project would be required to comply with the Santa Ana River Basin Plan and the NPDES Permit No. CAS618036. Projects would prepare WQMPs identifying BMPs for the prevention of stormwater pollution, including site design, source control, and treatment measures.

Development projects in the City would also continue to implement Policy ER-1.5, which prioritizes coordination with local agencies to protect water quality, prevent pollution, and remediate contaminated surface water and groundwater, particularly within environmental justice areas. Implementation of this policy further supports consistency with regional and state water quality objectives.

Specific Plan
Adherence to the State CGP, implementation of the SWPPP, and adherence to the City’s ESCP requirements would ensure that surface and groundwater quality are not adversely impacted during construction. In addition, installation of on-site treatment facilities such as hydrodynamic separators and biofiltration units would ensure that water quality is not impacted during operations. As a result, site development will not obstruct or conflict with the implementation of the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan. The Specific Plan area currently uses groundwater from onsite groundwater wells for the irrigation of crops and other agriculturalrelated uses, which would cease with implementation of the Specific Plan. All onsite groundwater wells would be abandoned per the California Department of Water Resources Standards and completion of a DWR Well Completion Form. Upon development, the Specific Plan area would be connected to the City’s public water supply and there would be no onsite wells for use of groundwater. The City manages both the potable and non-potable supplies to ensure withdrawals from the Chino Groundwater Basin do not exceed the safe yield for the Basin, as per the Chino Basin Watermaster's Optimum Basin Management Program (OBMP).

Therefore, the Specific Plan would not obstruct or conflict with the OBMP and impacts would be less than significant.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Through compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and continued implementation of Policy ER-1.5, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Basin Plan or any groundwater management plan. The proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to consistency with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan compared to those identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

Therefore, this impact is less than significant.
4321
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 94 -
Specific Plan
Implementation of the SWPPP and WQMP would ensure the Specific Plan would not conflict with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify any significant conflicts with groundwater management or controls plans. Accordingly, the Specific Plan would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impact LUP-1 (PPA+EBPSP): Project implementation would not divide an established community. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.11-8)
Division of an established community commonly occurs with construction and development of physical features that constitute a barrier to easy and frequent travel between two or more constituent parts of a community. For example, a large freeway structure with few crossings could effectively split a community. The Certified EIR found that the approved project would not conflict with existing land uses and would not divide an established community.

Policy Plan Amendment
Implementation of Policy Plan Amendment would guide future growth within the City of Ontario. Draft SEIR Table 2-1, Approved TOP 2050 Land Use Designations, Draft SEIR Table 2-3, TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Proposed Land Use Summary, and Draft SEIR Table 2-4, Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment, in Chapter 2, Project Description, detail the buildout statistics associated with the current TOP 2050 and the proposed Policy Plan Amendment.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the physical division of an established community. As shown in Draft SEIR Figure 2-6, Policy Plan Amendment: Areas of Change, the proposed project would redesignate land currently designated for residential to business park, increase residential densities, and allow mixed uses in developed areas primarily on land within the Ontario Ranch that is currently used for agricultural purposes. More specifically, the proposed project would redesignate the area along Holt Boulevard from Business Park to Mixed Use land use and a portion along Grove Avenue from Airport to Industrial. These land use changes are consistent with the existing development pattern and would align with the surrounding land uses. Another concentrated area of land use redesignations would occur on the land south of Edison Avenue from General Commercial, Medium Density Residential, and Mixed Use to Business Park and Open Space–Recreation. In general, these changes would result in a reduction in residential land uses and align with the surrounding land uses. In addition, a new mixed use designation would be added for land surrounding the Ontario Sports Empire to align with recreational uses currently under development. Overall, by providing a mix of compatible uses that support connectivity, 4322
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 95 -
accessibility, and cohesive development, the redesignations would not create physical barriers or fragment the area.

Additionally, TOP 2050 Policy Plan includes policies and programs that promote preservation and enhancement of existing neighborhoods and reduce potential conflicts between adjacent land uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not divide an established community or introduce incompatible land uses.

Specific Plan
Although the Specific Plan would result a change of land use when compared to existing conditions, the EBPSP would act to implement the amended Policy Plan land use designations (Business Park and Open Space–Parkland) that are being processed as a companion action to the Specific Plan. The site is zoned Specific Plan, indicating the site’s anticipated transition to more urban uses. Additionally, the proposed business park uses would act as a logical transition from the industrial uses currently located to the south of the Specific Plan area toward the park and residential uses envisioned to the north.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to the division of a community compared to the approved project.

Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
The Specific Plan would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Impact LUP-2 (PPA+EBPSP): Project implementation would not conflict with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.11-10)
Pursuant to CEQA, impacts are considered significant if being inconsistent with a plan or policy would result in a physical impact to the environment. The Certified EIR found that buildout of the approved project would not conflict with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Policy Plan Amendment
The preparation of the Policy Plan Amendment must be consistent with the policies and regulations of existing regional and local plans that are meant to prevent environmental impacts related to population growth and land use conflicts.
4323
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 96 -
Consistency with SCAG’s Regional Plans and Policies
The consistency of Policy Plan Amendment with SCAG’s Connect SoCal is shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.11-1, Policy Plan Amendment Consistency with SCAG Connect SoCal. Connect SoCal is a major advisory plan prepared by SCAG that addresses important regional issues like housing, traffic/transportation, water, and air/quality. Connect SoCal serves as an advisory document to local agencies in the Southern California region for their information and voluntary use when preparing local plans and handling local issues of regional significance. Connect SoCal is advisory only and cannot be used for intergovernmental review. The Policy Plan Amendment is consistent with the majority of Connect SoCal’s goals (see Section 3.14, Population and Housing, for a discussion on consistency with SCAG demographic projections). As shown in this table, the Policy Plan Amendment would be generally supportive of or consistent with the relevant policies and objectives in Connect SoCal 2024.

Airport Plans
Airport operations and their accompanying noise and safety hazards require careful land use planning on adjacent lands to ensure the safety of residents and passengers, and to protect Ontario businesses and property owners from the potential hazards that could be created by airport operations. The Federal Aviation Administration and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics provide guidance for land use safety near airports. With adherence to these guidelines, high concentrations of people are not exposed to potential airplane accidents along runways or near airports while airplanes are departing and arriving. There are also guidelines on the placement of housing, schools, and other sensitive land uses near airports because of the noise pollution caused by airplanes.

Ontario International Airport
Ontario International Airport (ONT) provides regional air service for domestic and international commercial and cargo operations and includes the necessary support facilities for both major and smaller airlines. ONT operates as a medium-hub, full-service airport serving major U.S. and international destinations. The City of Ontario has adopted an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for ONT in accordance with the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics’ California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.

The Policy Plan Amendment would redesignate the area along Holt Boulevard from Business Park to Mixed Use land use and a portion along Grove Avenue from Airport to Industrial land use. Although the Policy Plan Amendment would redesignate land uses near ONT, any future development facilitated by these changes would remain subject to meet the applicable safety zone restrictions, noise compatibility requirements, and airspace protection policies of the adopted ALUCP. The Land Use Element of the existing TOP 2050 requires that all new development surrounding ONT be consistent with the adopted ALUCP and comply with the standards and recommendations of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 77, as adopted through Ordinance 2758 of the Ontario Municipal Code.
4324
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 97 -
A consistency determination analysis for ONT was prepared by the City of Ontario, which found that TOP 2050 is consistent with the ALUCP for ONT (ONT–IAC 2018) (Appendix G6). The Policy Plan Amendment would be consistent with the existing policies related to the ONT in the Land Use Element; therefore, the Policy Plan Amendment would remain consistent with the approved project.

Chino Airport
Chino Airport is operated by the San Bernardino County Department of Airports and functions as a reliever airport for ONT and San Bernardino International Airport. The airport encompasses approximately 1,100 acres and serves private, business, and corporate tenants and customers throughout the Inland Empire. The City of Ontario is also within the Chino Airport Influence Area. The Chino Airport is south of the City of Ontario across Merrill Avenue. The City of Chino adopted its own Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (ACLUP) in November 1991. The Chino Airport Master Plan (AMP) was adopted by the County of San Bernardino in 2006. The 1991 Chino ACLUP does not reflect the 2006 Chino AMP nor does it reflect the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c) requires local jurisdictions that are under the “alternative process” to “rely upon” the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics in October 2011, for preparing Compatibility Plans and to utilize the Handbook’s height, land use, noise, safety, and density criteria. Although the City of Ontario does not have the formal responsibility under the “alternative process” to prepare a compatibility plan for Chino Airport, the City of Ontario has adopted the Chino Airport Overlay Zone and Reference I: Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan that addresses Chino Airport’s impacts on Ontario, consistent with policies and criteria set forth within the Caltrans 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Caltrans 2011).

Draft SEIR Figure 3.9-2, Airport Safety Zones, in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, maps the compatibility zones and land uses surrounding Chino Airport within the City of Ontario.

Land uses within the Chino Airport Overlay Zone include Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use, Business Park, Industrial, and Open Space–Recreation. The Policy Plan Amendment would redesignate land south of Edison Avenue from General Commercial, Medium Density Residential, and Mixed Use to Business Park and Open Space–Recreation. In general, these changes would result in a reduction of residential land use within the safety zones of Chino Airport. Future projects within this area would be required to comply with the conditions of the Chino Airport Overlay Zone , Reference I: Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, that include standards governing allowable land uses, maximum population density, maximum site coverage, height restrictions, and notification/disclosure requirements based on noise contours and the runway protection, approach, and Part 77 zones established by the FAA (Caltrans 2011). 4325
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 98 -
Specific Plan
This section includes an analysis of the EBPSP’s consistency with TOP 2050, the City’s Development Code, and SCAG’s Connect SoCal. Additionally, the Specific Plan’s consistency with nearby airport requirements is discussed.

The Ontario Plan
As part of the Policy Plan Amendment being processed in conjunction with the EBPSP, the land use designations for the site would be changed as shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.11-2, Land Use Designations: Affected Acreage.

The Specific Plan would be implemented consistent with these land use designations, as amended. The following Draft SEIR Table 3.11-3, EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis, provides an analysis of the EBPSP’s consistency with applicable TOP 2050 policies. As demonstrated, no conflicts would occur.

Ontario Development Code
Upon adoption of the Specific Plan, the EBPSP Development Regulations and Design Standards would apply to the Specific Plan area and would establish the applicable zoning regulations and development standards. The Specific Plan would become the land use implementation tool for the site as a whole. As stated in Ontario Development Code Section 1.01.035, in the event of any conflict between the requirements of the Development Code and the standards contained within an adopted project, the requirements of the project would govern, and when the provisions of a project are silent on a specific matter, the regulations in the Development Code shall apply (Ontario 2020). As such, the EBPSP would not result in conflicts with the Ontario Development Code, and impacts would be less than significant.

SCAG’s Connect SoCal
SCAG’s Connect SoCal goals are meant to provide guidance for municipalities throughout the SCAG jurisdictional area within the context of regional goals and policies. On April 4, 2024, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2024-2050 Connect SoCal (SCAG 2024). Draft SEIR Table

3.11-4, EBPSP Consistency with Connect SoCal, provides an analysis of the Specific Plan’s consistency with applicable policies of the 2024-2050 Connect SoCal. As shown, no conflicts would occur.

Airport Considerations
Although the Specific Plan area is within the ONT Airport Influence Area, it is outside any identified safety, airspace protection, and noise impact zones. All properties within the ONT Airport Influence Area are subject to a real estate transaction disclosure notice (Ontario 2018).

The Specific Plan area is also within the CNO Influence Area. The San Bernardino County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Chino Airport was adopted in 1991 and does not reflect guidance in the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (SBC ALUC 1991). As such, in 4326
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 99 -
2022, the City of Ontario adopted the CNO Overlay District and Reference I: Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, which provides maps, criteria, and policy language to guide development within the Chino Influence Area, consistent with the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.

The majority of the Specific Plan area is within CNO Safety Zone 6 (low risk), with a very small part of the southeastern corner in Safety Zone 4 (moderate risk). Uses permitted by the EBPSP are allowed in both of these safety zones, subject to the criteria and policies of Reference I:

Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan in Draft SEIR Table 3.11-5, CNO Compatibility Criteria Matrix (Ontario 2022).

As discussed in SEIR Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the EBPSP uses have the potential to create up to 1,590 jobs. This would equate to an average of 8.41 people per acre, which would not exceed the non-residential intensity limits for Safety Zones 4 or 6. Even with the addition of visitors to the site, the intensity limits set forth above would not be exceeded. Future land uses implemented pursuant to the EBPSP would not conflict with the regulations for the applicable Safety Zone in which it is located.

Summary
Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The City recognizes that the project would result in certain significant and unavoidable impacts; however, the existence of significant impacts does not necessarily render the Policy Plan Amendment inconsistent with the applicable plans. General plan consistency is determined by evaluating the plan as a whole, balancing and harmonizing competing policies, goals, and objectives. The City finds that the project remains generally consistent with the overall direction and framework of TOP 2050 notwithstanding unavoidable impacts. The Policy Plan Amendment does not include any changes to policies or plans related to Chino Airport; therefore, the Policy Plan Amendment would remain consistent with the approved project. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Specific Plan
The City recognizes that the project would result in certain significant and unavoidable impacts; however, the existence of significant impacts does not necessarily render the EBPSP inconsistent with TOP 2050 or other applicable plans. General plan consistency is determined by evaluating the plan as a whole, balancing and harmonizing competing policies, goals, and objectives. The City finds that EBPSP remains generally consistent with the overall direction and framework of the TOP 2050 notwithstanding unavoidable impacts. Based on the preceding discussions, the EBPSP would not result in a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts are considered less than significant. The EBPSP would not 4327
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 100 -
result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

MINERAL RESOURCES
Impact MIN-1 (PPA+EBPSP): The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.12-7)
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project’s land use plan would not alter existing conditions within areas designated as MRZ-2 and would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources in Ontario. As such, impacts were found to be less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
As described in Section 3.12.2, Existing Conditions, there are two areas in Ontario that are designated MRZ-2, where mineral resources are known or are likely. However, only one of these areas contains mineral resources that are regionally significant (Day Creek Fan, Mira Loma Area Resource Sectors D-2, D-3, and D-5). The remainder of the City is designated MRZ-3, where the significance of mineral deposits is unknown. Development in an MRZ-3 area would not result in significant impacts because mineral resources of statewide or local importance are not identified on the California Geological Survey’s P-C maps. Aggregate resource sectors D-3 and D-5 have been completely developed, along with portions of sector D-2.

Prior to permitting a use that would threaten the potential to extract minerals in an MRZ-2 area, the City of Ontario is required under SMARA to prepare a statement specifying its reasons for permitting the proposed use and to consider the importance of these minerals to their market region as a whole and not just their importance to the City.

As shown in Draft SEIR Figure 2-5, Proposed Land Use Plan Map, in Chapter 2, Project Description, the proposed project would primarily modify the planned TOP land use pattern across nearly 1,000 acres in southern Ontario and would not alter the existing land use designations for areas classified as MRZ-2 or aggregate resource sectors. Additionally, the parts of the City that are designated MRZ-2 but are outside of aggregate resource sectors are developed with urban uses and would continue to be designated for urban uses by the proposed project. Areas designated MRZ-2 outside of aggregate resource sectors are not available for extraction of mineral resources, and the proposed project would not result in changes to the existing conditions of these areas. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource in Ontario. Additionally, the proposed project includes Environmental Resources (ER) Element Goal 5, which aims to protect high value habitat and ensure that mineral resource extraction activities that are compatible with adjacent land uses.
4328
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 101 -
Specific Plan
As shown in Draft SEIR Figure 3.12-1, the Specific Plan area is designated as MRZ-3. Areas designated by the State of California Geologist as MRZ-3 include land that the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available data. There are no known mineral resources in Specific Plan area. Additionally, the proposed project includes Environmental Resources (ER) Element Goal 5, which aims to protect high value habitat and ensure that mineral resource extraction activities that are compatible with adjacent land uses.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
The EBPSP would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. No impacts are anticipated. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the approved project.

Impact MIN-2 (PPA+EBPSP): The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource area. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.12-9) The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not result in the loss of availability of locally important mineral resource recovery sites in Ontario, and impacts were identified as less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
As shown in Draft SEIR Figure 2-5, the proposed project would primarily modify the planned TOP land use pattern across nearly 1,000 acres in southern Ontario and would not alter the existing land use designations for areas classified as MRZ-2 or aggregate resource sectors. As described previously in impact discussion a), the parts of the City that are designated MRZ-2 but are outside of aggregate resource sectors are developed with urban uses and would continue to be designated for urban uses by the proposed project. Areas designated MRZ-2 outside of aggregate resource sectors are not available for extraction of mineral resources, and the proposed project would not result in changes to the existing conditions of these areas.

Additionally, the proposed project includes Goal ER-5, shown below, which aims to protect high value habitat and ensure that mineral resource extraction activities that are compatible with adjacent land uses.
 Goal ER-5: Protected high value habitat and farming and mineral resource extraction activities that are compatible with adjacent development. 4329
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 102 -
Specific Plan
As discussed above, there are no known mineral resources in the Specific Plan area, nor are there any permitted mining operations within the City. The Specific Plan area is not a mineral resource recovery site, and is currently developed with mostly dairy farms and associated residences.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resources recovery site. The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
The EBPSP would not result in the loss of availability of locally important mineral resource recovery site. No impacts are anticipated. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the approved project.

NOISE
Impact NOI-1 (EBPSP): Construction activities associated with the EBPSP would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area in excess of established standards. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.13- 35)
Specific Plan
Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary
Each construction stage has a specific equipment mix, depending on the work to be completed during that stage. As a result of the equipment mix, each stage has its own noise characteristics; some stages have higher continuous noise levels than others, and some have higher impact noise levels than others. Draft SEIR Figure 3.13-4, EBPSP Construction Noise Source Locations, illustrates the boundaries of construction activities. Construction activities are expected to occur in the following stages:
 Demolition
 Site Preparation
 Grading
 Building Construction
4330
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 103 -
 Paving
 Architectural Coating
As previously mentioned, the construction noise analysis relies on reference construction equipment noise levels from the FHWA’s RCNM, which includes a national database of construction equipment reference noise emission levels. Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the EBPSP construction noise level impacts at the nearest sensitive receiver locations were completed. To account for the dynamic nature of construction activities, the CadnaA construction noise analysis evaluates the noise source activities as multiple moving point sources, or construction crews, within the limits of construction. Construction impacts are based on the loudest activity and the highest noise level calculated at each receiver location, as shown in Draft SEIR Table

3.13-15, Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary. As shown in this table, the construction noise levels are expected to range from 60.3 to 66.1 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations.

Construction Noise Compliance
To evaluate whether the Specific Plan would generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at nearest receiver locations, a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts pursuant to FTA guidance. Draft SEIR Table 3.13-16, EBPSP Construction Noise Compliance, shows that the noise levels at the nearest receiver locations would satisfy the daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during construction activities.

Temporary Construction Noise Increases
To describe the temporary construction noise contributions to the ambient noise environment, the Specific Plan construction noise levels were combined with the existing ambient noise level measurements at the nearest off-site receiver locations. The difference between the combined noise levels is used to describe the construction noise level contributions. Temporary noise level increases that would be experienced at sensitive receiver locations when construction-source noise is added to the ambient daytime conditions are presented in Draft SEIR Table 3.13-17, EBPSP Daytime Construction Noise Increases. As indicated in this table, the Specific Plan would contribute construction noise increases ranging from 0.5 to 14.1 dBA Leq during the daytime hours at the nearest receiver locations. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations would not exceed the 20 dBA Leq noise significance threshold during construction activities.

Nighttime Concrete Pour Analysis
Nighttime concrete pouring activities are often used to support reduced concrete mixer truck transit times and to take advantage of lower air temperatures. Since nighttime concrete pours would take place outside the hours permitted by Section 5-29.09[a] of the City’s Municipal Code, the Applicant would be required to obtain authorization from the City. Draft SEIR Table

3.13-18, EBPSP Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Compliance, provides the noise levels associated 4331
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 104 -
with these activities. As shown in this table, the noise levels associated with the nighttime concrete pour activities are estimated to range from 42.2 to 48.0 dBA Leq and would satisfy the FTA nighttime exterior noise level thresholds at all the receiver locations.

To describe the temporary concrete pour noise contributions, the concrete pour noise levels were combined with the existing nighttime ambient noise levels measurements at the nearest off-site receiver locations, as shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.13-19, EBPSP Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Increases. As indicated above, the nighttime concrete pour activities will generate noise increases ranging from 0.0 to 2.1 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours at the nearest receiver locations. As such, the nearest receiver locations would not exceed the nighttime 5 dBA noise increase threshold during nighttime concrete pour activities.

Off-Site Improvements
To support Specific Plan development, there would be milling, trenching, and paving for off-site improvements associated with roadway construction and utility installation. These off-site improvements would be constructed mostly within the existing public right-of-way (ROW). It is expected that the off-site construction activities would not take place at any one location for more than several days due to the nature of the linear construction activity. Construction noise from this off-site work would, therefore, be relatively short-term and the noise levels would be reduced as construction work moves linearly along with the selected alignment and farther from sensitive uses.

The loudest phase of construction associated with off-site improvements would likely be demolition/site preparation activities, which would generate similar noise levels compared to the construction noise source activities previously outlined. Using the loudest stage of demolition/site preparation construction activity, Draft SEIR Table 3.13-20, Off-site Improvements Noise Levels, presents the estimated off-site construction noise levels at distances ranging from 25 to 200 feet. As shown in this table, the off-site construction noise levels are estimated to range from 64.6 to 68.45 dBA Leq. Since the off-site construction activities would not exceed the 80 dBA Leq construction noise level standard, the noise impacts due to these off-site activities would be less than significant.

Finding
Specific Plan
Based on the preceding discussions, construction of EBPSP land uses and associated infrastructure would not exceed the thresholds set forth in previous Draft SEIR Table 3.13-15 through Draft SEIR Table 3.13-20. Additionally, increases in ambient noise levels would not exceed applicable thresholds. As such, construction-source noise would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area in excess of established standards. Construction noise impacts would be less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.
4332
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 105 -
Impact NOI-3 (EBPSP): Construction of the EBPSP would not exceed applicable thresholds or significantly increase ambient noise levels. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.13-66) Specific Plan
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. The FTA provides representative ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment. Based on the representative vibration levels, it is possible to estimate the potential vibration levels received at vicinity sensitive receiver locations. As shown in Draft SEIR Table

3.13-33, EBPSP Construction Vibration Levels, at distances ranging from 89 to 900 feet from construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range from 0 to

0.031 PPV in/sec. Based on maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.2 PPV (in/sec), the typical construction vibration levels would fall below the damage thresholds at all the receiver locations.

Finding
Specific Plan
EBPSP-related vibration impacts are considered less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Impact NOI-4 (EBPSP): EBPSP would not expose sensitive uses to excessive levels of groundborne vibration annoyance. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.13-70) Specific Plan
As identified above for the Policy Plan Amendment, individual projects accommodated under the proposed project would not exceed operational vibration significance thresholds. Under long-term conditions, the EBPSP would not include or require equipment or activities that would result in perceptible groundborne vibration beyond the Specific Plan area. Trucks would travel to and from the site along local roadways; however, vibration levels for heavy trucks operating at the posted speed limits on paved surfaces are not generally perceptible beyond the roadway.

Finding
Specific Plan
This impact is less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in new impacts or an increase in magnitude of impacts compared to that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. 4333
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 106 -
Impact NOI-5 (EBPSP): Implementation of the EBPSP would not expose noise sensitive uses to excessive airport noise levels. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.13-73) Specific Plan
Although the Specific Plan area is located within the ONT Influence Area (AIA), it is located outside any identified safety, airspace protection, and noise impact zones. All properties located within the ONT AIA are subject to a real estate transaction disclosure notice. (Ontario 2018) The Specific Plan area is also located within the CNO AIA. The San Bernardino County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Chino Airport was adopted in 1991 and does not reflect guidance set forth in the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. (SBC ALUC, 1991) As such, in 2022, the City of Ontario adopted the CNO Overlay District which provides maps, criteria, and policy language to guide development within the Chino AIA consistent with the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.

CNO overlay guidance illustrates that the Specific Plan area is located outside all identified noise contours of the Chino Airport. (Ontario 2022b) Similarly, the 2022 Certified EIR determined that the CNO noise contours would not result in significant impacts to the City of Ontario.

Finding
Specific Plan
The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of aircraft-related noise impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impact POP-1 (PPA+EBPSP): The Policy Plan Amendment and Specific Plan would directly result in population growth in the City of Ontario. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.14-9) The Certified EIR identified that implementation of the approved project would accommodate population growth through land-use designations, goals, and policies that would provide a vision and guide growth in the City. One of the purposes of TOP 2050 is to adequately plan and accommodate future growth. Implementation of TOP 2050 accommodates population growth through land use designations, goals, and policies that provide a vision and guide growth in the City.

Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project includes changes in land use, with the majority of changes concentrated in Ontario Ranch. These land use changes are intended to improve growth areas by growing 4334
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 107 -
business and industrial uses in the city, adjust housing types, and meet state housing laws (see Chapter 2, Project Description).

The proposed project would increase population, dwelling units, nonresidential buildings, and employment when compared to the approved project (see Draft SEIR Table 2-4, Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment). The increase in housing capacity would be aligned with State initiatives to increase housing production in California in response to the State housing crisis (see Section 3.14.1, Regulatory Framework). The proposed project would ensure continued compliance with the objectives of the Housing Element. Also, the increase in employment would be aligned with the City’s objectives to align with the jobs market.

Draft SEIR Table 3.14-7, Buildout Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 and Proposed Project to SCAG Forecasts, compares the City’s buildout projections for population, housing, and jobs to SCAG projections and includes buildout projections under both the approved project and the proposed project.

SCAG forecasts the City to be jobs-rich, with a jobs-housing ratio of 2.0 in 2050, which is 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).

SCAG’s Connect SoCal identifies several types of “priority growth areas” in Ontario, including high-quality transit areas, transit priority areas, neighborhood mobility areas, and livable corridors. TOP 2050 would promote growth consistent with these priority growth areas because proposed land use changes under the proposed project are intended to encourage walking and biking, put residents in proximity to resources, and align future growth in Ontario with planned infrastructure improvements and regional transportation goals.

Although the increase in housing, and employment under the proposed project would exceed SCAG’s regional forecasts for the City of Ontario, the proposed project would maintain the City’s jobs-housing balance. Furthermore, TOP 2050 is consistent with SCAG’s Connect SoCal strategies (see Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning). Therefore, while buildout under the proposed project would result in substantial population and employment growth, this growth is in line with the City’s goals and policies to update business centers, adjust housing types, and meet state housing laws.

Specific Plan
Direct Impacts
Construction activities would generate temporary employment opportunities, including shortterm design, engineering, and construction jobs. These types of employment are typical of the region and would not induce substantial population growth, if any. 4335
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 108 -
Operations of the EBPSP land uses has the potential to generate up to 1,590 employees. SCAG projects 187,700 employees within the City by 2050. Draft SEIR Table LU-03, Future Buildout, of the City’s TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment projects 301,035 employees during the same timeframe. There are currently approximately 89,500 employees in the City of Ontario (EDD 2025). SCAG forecasts 187,700 employees by 2050 (SCAG 2024b). The EBPSP’s estimated 1,590 employees represents 1.6 percent of SCAG’s projected employment growth6 and 0.8 percent of TOP’s projected employment growth. 7 Therefore, the EBPSP’s contribution to employment is well within current regional and local growth projections. Long-term employment demands would likely be filled by the available personnel pools within the City of Ontario, and/or neighboring communities. These types of employment positions are relatively common throughout Southern California and are unlikely to generate significant population migration.

Based on the preceding, the EBPSP’s potential to directly induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area is considered less than significant.

Indirect Impacts
As detailed in Section 2, Project Description, of this SEIR, the EBPSP would require construction of roadways and utility infrastructure to serve the development. The EBPSP would implement infrastructure improvements that are consistent with the City and purveyor master plans.

Environmental impacts of growth that would result from roadways and utilities pursuant to the Policy Plan have been previously evaluated and addressed in the 2022 Certified EIR. Growth that may result from or be facilitated by the EBPSP infrastructure improvements would not result in impacts not previously considered and addressed in the Policy Plan EIR.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project and that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
Neither the EBPSP nor any related component would directly or indirectly result in substantial unplanned population growth that would cause a significant impact to the environment.

Impacts would be less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. 6 1,590/(187,700-89,500) = 1.6% 7 1,590/(296,204-89,500) = 0.8% 4336
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 109 -
Impact POP-2 (PPA+EBPSP): Buildout of Policy Plan Amendment and Specific Plan would not displace people or housing and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.14-12)
Policy Plan Amendment
One of the purposes of Policy Plan Amendment is to adequately plan and accommodate future growth through the distribution, location, balance, and extent of land uses. Implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment would accommodate population growth through land use designations, goals, and policies that provide a vision and guide growth in the City. Land use changes under the proposed project would increase opportunities for housing in the City—for example, by increasing residential density in existing residential areas. The proposed project would provide land use designations for a variety of housing types and provide for additional residential opportunities throughout Ontario.

Specific Plan
Under existing conditions, the Specific Plan area contains 10 residential units. The loss of these units is not considered substantial, given the City’s overall housing stock. Implementation of the EBPSP would not displace a substantial number of people or housing and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, the EBPSP would not result in significant impacts in this regard.

It is noted that development of the EBPSP area with the uses proposed under the EBPSP would result in the loss of the potential housing units anticipated under the current Policy Plan land use designations. To offset this loss consistent with SB 330, the Policy Plan Amendment is being processed in conjunction with the EBPSP and would redesignate various properties throughout the City to a more intensive residential land use designation. In summary, Citywide residential capacity would increase from 129,551 units to 137,177 units. Please refer to the Policy Plan discussions presented previously.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project and that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
Impacts would be less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. 4337
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 110 -

PUBLIC SERVICES
Impact PUB-1 (PPA+EBPSP): The proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts due to the provision of new or expanded fire protection services. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.15-14)
Policy Plan Amendment
As shown in Draft SEIR Table 2-4, Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment, of this SEIR, buildout of the proposed project would result in a net increase of 16,473 residents and 1,831 employees in the City when compared to buildout under the approved project, which would result in increased demand on fire protection services. Based on correspondence with the OFD, while existing staffing and equipment levels are adequate to meet current demands for services, implementation of the proposed Policy Plan Amendment would incrementally impact the OFD’s service capacity and likely require the construction new stations. The OFD notes that the department anticipates construction of a permanent facility for Fire Station 11 and that 2 additional stations would be required to meet future demands within the horizon of TOP 2050 (Appendix J).

The City’s Master Facilities Plan, which outlines the City’s plan for allocating funds to projects from development impact fees, also discusses OFD’s need for these additional fire stations to meet future demand. With implementation of these additional facilities, the OFD reports that the projected population and employment increase under the proposed project would not result in a reduction in fire protection services (Appendix J).

While the details and timelines for constructing these stations is unknown at this time, development and implementation of new or expanded OFD facilities could have physical effects on the environment, such as lighting, biological resources, noise, traffic, and air quality. Impacts associated with buildout of the proposed Land Use Plan, which includes buildout of public service facilities, are analyzed throughout this SEIR. For example, construction-related air quality and noise impacts of the proposed project are described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, and Section 3.13, Noise. Evaluation of environmental impacts specific to these facilities would be conducted pursuant to CEQA, when individual development projects are proposed. Evaluation of site-specific impacts in this SEIR would be speculative in this program-level SEIR.

The City has existing procedures to ensure that fire protection facilities are funded. For example, new development is require to pay Development Impact Fees, which are used to fund new OFD facilities and expansions. Additionally, implementation of the City’s Master Facilities Plan ensures that OFD facility needs are identified for the allocation of Development Impact Fee funds. The City also allocates funds for new OFD facilities, equipment, and service personnel through the General Fund revenue and other revenue sources collected by the City (Ontario 2025a). Allocation of General Fund revenue for new facilities would ensure that new facilities 4338
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 111 -
are constructed to meet the service demands of OFD as a result of buildout of the proposed project.

Additionally, several Safety Element policies direct the City and the OFD maintain adequate service levels and ensure that development incorporates fire prevention measures. This includes Policy S-3.3, Fire and Emergency Medical Services, which directs the City to maintain sufficient fire stations, equipment and staffing to respond effectively to emergencies and meet the needs of the community and state requirements. Additionally, Policy S-3.7, Fire Prevention through Environmental Design, requires new development to incorporate fire prevention consideration in the design of streetscapes, sites, open spaces, and buildings.

Furthermore, future development projects would be reviewed by the City and OFD on an individual basis. Future development projects would be required to comply City and OFD requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued to ensure that OFD fire safety needs are met.

Specific Plan
As previously discussed, fire suppression and emergency response services for the Specific Plan area are currently provided by the OFD.

A need for new or expanded public services, such as fire protection services, is typically associated with population increases. The Specific Plan does not include the construction of new homes. While there would be increased employment on-site, it would not induce substantial population growth, as concluded in Section 3.14, Population and Housing. It is also noted that fire stations are a permitted use within the EBPSP, should the need arise at a later date.

Incremental fire protection service demands generated by the EBPSP are offset through payment of City of Ontario Development Impact Fees, a portion of which are allocated for fire protection services. Development impact fees would be paid at issuance of building permit(s).

Future projects within the EBPSP would be reviewed by OFD on an individual basis. Additionally, to the satisfaction of the OFD, uses implemented pursuant to the EBPSP would comply with City and Fire Department fire prevention and suppression requirements, including building/site design requirements, fire flow adequacy, and provisions for emergency access, thereby reducing potential increased demands for fire protection services.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Similar to development under the approved project, the City’s existing processes for funding OFD facilities, equipment, and personnel would ensure that the necessary service improvements would be provided, when needed, through buildout under the proposed project.

Impacts to fire protection services would therefore be less than significant. Additionally, the 4339
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 112 -
proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan
The potential for the EBPSP to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered fire protection facilities is considered less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Impact PUB-2 (PPA+EBPSP): The proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts due to the provision of new or expanded police facilities. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.15-17)
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would increase growth in the City when compared to the approved project and would result in an increased demand for police protection services. Therefore, the OPD may require additional staffing and facilities to accommodate population increases under the proposed project. To ensure the OPD is able to meet demands in its service area, it participates in mutual aid agreements with the San Bernardino County Sherriff and various jurisdictions surrounding Ontario. This allows resources to be allocated to participating jurisdictions when service demands are not able to be met by the jurisdiction’s service provider at a particular time.

To meet long-term demand for services, the OPD may require the construction and operation of new substations. While the details and timelines for constructing new facilities are unknown at this time, development and implementation of new or expanded OPD facilities could have adverse physical effects on the environment, such as lighting, biological resources, noise, traffic, and air quality. Impacts associated with buildout of the proposed Land Use Plan, which includes buildout of public service facilities, are analyzed throughout this SEIR. For example, construction-related air quality and noise impacts of the proposed project are described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, and Section 3.13, Noise. Evaluation of environmental impacts specific to these facilities would be conducted pursuant to CEQA, when individual development projects are proposed. Evaluation of site-specific impacts in this SEIR would be speculative in this program-level SEIR.

The police services required to cover the new development and population growth for Ontario would be assessed and acquired appropriately based on the needs of the City. The City’s Master Facilities Plan is continually updated to identify funding for police protection facilities and equipment through Development Impact Fees. Like development under the approved project, development under the proposed project would be subject to Development Impact Fees that fund the police services and facilities identified in the Master Facilities Plan. Additionally, funds for police service personnel are provided through the City’s General Fund revenue and other 4340
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 113 -
sources of revenue collected by the City (Ontario 2025a). Allocation of General Fund revenue for new facilities would ensure that new facilities are constructed to meet the service demands of OPD as a result of buildout of the proposed project.

Several Safety Element policies also direct the City and the OPD maintain adequate service levels and ensure that development incorporates crime prevention measures. These include Policy S-7.1, Police Unit Response, which directs OPD to respond to calls for service in a timely manner, and Policy S-7.4 which requires new development to incorporate Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles in the design of streetscapes, sites, open spaces, and buildings. Future projects under the proposed project would also be reviewed by the City and the OPD on an individual basis and would be required to comply with regulations in effect at the time building permits are issued. This includes applicable provisions in the City’s Municipal Code that aim to reduce impacts on police services by requiring installation of crime prevention measures (see Title 4, Chapter 11, Security Standards for Buildings).

Specific Plan
As previously discussed, police protection services for the Specific Plan area are currently provided by the OPD.

A need for new or expanded public services, such as police protection services, is typically associated with population increases. The Specific Plan does not include the construction of new homes. While there would be increased employment on-site, it would not induce substantial population growth, as concluded in Section 3.14, Population and Housing. It is also noted that police stations are a permitted use within the EBPSP, should the need arise at a later date.

Incremental police protection service demands generated by the EBPSP are offset through payment of City of Ontario Development Impact Fees. Development impact fees would be paid at issuance of building permit(s).

Additionally, site plan concepts and proposed building designs would be reviewed by the OPD to ensure incorporation of appropriate safety and security elements. Such design features would include secure building designs, defensible spaces, and area and facility security lighting. These design features would act to reduce demands for police protection services.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
While additional facilities may be required to support the OPD within the horizon of the proposed project, the locations and details regarding these potential future facilities are unknown and would be speculative to evaluate at this time. As with the approved project, the need for additional structures and personnel would be financed through available revenue sources collected by the City, and the impacts of the proposed project on police facilities, equipment, and services would be less than significant. Additionally, the proposed project 4341
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 114 -
would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan
The potential for the Specific Plan to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered police protection facilities is considered less than significant.

The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Impact PUB-3 (PPA+EBPSP): Payment of Senate Bill 50 fees would result in full and complete mitigation of impacts for the provision or expansion of school facilities. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.15-19)
Policy Plan Amendment
Implementation of the proposed project would result in 7,225 additional housing units when compared to implementation of the approved project. As shown in Draft SEIR Figure 2-6, Areas of Change, the proposed project would revise land uses in portions of the City within the school district boundaries of CJUHSD, CVUSD, MVSD, and OMSD. No residential land use changes would occur within the boundaries of OMSD; the parcels of change in this area are currently designated for non-residential uses under the approved project and would remain designated for non-residential uses under the proposed project.

Because the majority of the land use changes associated with the proposed project are in Ontario Ranch, student generations rates for the CVUSD identified in Draft SEIR Table 3.15-4 were utilized to provide a conservative estimate of the maximum increase in students associated with the proposed project, as shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.15-5.

As part of the development of this SEIR, the City reached out to the five school districts that serve residents of Ontario to obtain existing conditions information and information on potential impacts of the proposed project. As noted above, schools in the CVUSD, MVSD, and the CJUHSD would experience the greatest increase in enrollment as a result of development in Ontario Ranch.

Based on responses from MVSD and CVUSD (see Appendix J), MVSD and CVUSD schools have capacity to accommodate increased student population under the proposed project. MVSD noted that its schools have a total maximum capacity of 4,450 students which indicates that the MVSD’s school have a residual capacity of 1,132 students when accounting for existing 2024- 2025 enrollment (MVSD 2025). CVUSD noted that its schools have a residual capacity of 1,681 students when accounting for 2024-2025 school enrollments (CVUSD 2025). Enrollments for CJUHSD and OMSD in 2024-2025 were also below their 2021-2022 enrollments and have largely 4342
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 115 -
decreased each year over this four-year period (see Draft SEIR Table 3.15-3), indicating that these school districts also have additional capacity. For example, in CJUSD, 1,450 more students were enrolled in 2021-2022 than in 2024-2025. Therefore, based on this assumed capacity from enrollment in 2021-2022, CJUSD schools would have existing capacity for all school students added by the proposed project. Nonetheless, additional school facilities may be needed to serve the additional growth under the proposed project, especially within the Ontario Ranch.

Each school district that serves the City assesses its needs individually based on student generation rates from residential development, and charges development impact fees accordingly. Like under the approved project, residential development in Ontario under the proposed Policy Plan Amendment would require payments to corresponding school districts, which would go towards the construction of new facilities when and if they are needed. School districts determine their own development impact fees based on their student generation rates.

These payments accommodate the need for new facilities based on the increase in student population in each district.

Developers would be required to pay the impact fees levied by each school district, set within the limits of SB 50. This funding program has been found by the Legislature to constitute “full and complete mitigation of the impacts” on the provision of adequate school facilities (Government Code Section 65995[h]). SB 50 establishes three potential limits for school districts, depending on the availability of new school construction funding from the state and the particular needs of the individual school districts. The school districts serving Ontario qualify for Level 1 fees, in which each district justifies their development fees for each land use and cannot request payment of development fees for school facility construction exceeding the amount of the statutory fees expressed in Education Code Section 17620. If school districts conduct a school facility needs assessment and qualify for participation in the State Funding Program by the State Allocation Board, among meeting other requirements, they can be eligible for Level 2 and Level 3 fees.

Specific Plan
The Specific Plan area lies within the boundaries of CVUSD. The Specific Plan does not propose residential uses that would result in populations of resident school-aged children requiring public education, and would therefore not directly cause or contribute to a need to construct new or physically altered public school facilities. Additionally, employment generated by the Specific Plan is well within growth projections and is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in population (please also refer to Draft SEIR Section, 3.14, Population and Housing.) Each school district that serves the City of Ontario assesses its needs individually and charges development impact fees accordingly pursuant to SB 50. These payments accommodate the need for new facilities based on the increase in student population in each district. Payment of school impact fees would reduce any potential impacts to school services to levels that would be less than significant.
4343
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 116 -
Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
As discussed above, the school districts that would serve the increased growth under the proposed project would have capacity to accommodate this growth. Although the increased demand on school facilities would have the potential to impact one or more of the school districts that serve Ontario, payment of impact fees in compliance with SB 50 would reduce the impacts to an acceptable level. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR and impacts would be less than significant.

Specific Plan
Based on the preceding, the potential for the EBPSP to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered school facilities is considered less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Impact PUB-4 (PPA+EBPSP): The proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with the provision or expansion of parks and recreation facilities. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.15-23)
Policy Plan Amendment
As discussed in Section 3.16, the City of Ontario uses the established parkland standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents but strives for 5 acres per 1,000 residents for parks in Ontario Ranch.

The City has approximately 727 acres of parkland and a population of 184,404 people (DOF 2025). Thus, the City currently requires 553 acres of parkland.8 Buildout of the Policy Plan Amendment would modify the planned TOP land use pattern and generate additional residents in the City, most of whom would be concentrated in the southern portion of the City (refer to Draft SEIR Table 2-4). Changes to the land use plan associated with the Policy Plan Amendment would result in a reduction of 43 acres of parkland in the City (4 percent reduction), including land formerly designated as Open Space–Recreation southeast of Chino Avenue and Haven Avenue and land at the southwest corner of Grove Avenue and Riverside Drive (see Draft SEIR Figure 2-6, Policy Plan Amendment Areas of Change).

Additionally, future growth in the City in accordance with buildout of the Policy Plan Amendment would increase the demand for parks and increase existing park usage (see Section

3.16, Recreation, Draft SEIR Table 3.16-3, Proposed Project Parkland Demand). As a result, the proposed project would result in a demand of 1,283 acres of parkland. Compared to the 8 (184,404 people / 1,000) x 3.0 acres per person = 553 4344
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 117 -
approved project, the proposed project would result in an increased demand of 49 acres of parkland.

The proposed project would designate approximately 998 acres for recreational use under the Open Space Parkland (including EBPSP) land use designation (refer to Draft SEIR Table 2-3).

Based on the proposed project’s future buildout projections, the 998 acres designated as Open Space Parkland would not satisfy the City’s existing Park Dedications and In-Lieu Fee Regulations for parkland acquisition, resulting in a shortfall of 285 acres of parkland.9 While the proposed project would result in a slight reduction in parkland in the City compared to the approved project, the City strives to have new development in Ontario Ranch provide an additional 2 acres of private parkland to achieve a park ratio of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. The proposed project would generate an additional demand of approximately 31 acres of private parks in Ontario Ranch compared to the approved project (see Section 3.16, Recreation, Draft SEIR Table 3.16-3, Proposed Project Parkland Demand). As described above, subdivisions with residential land uses are required to dedicate property for park and recreational purposes onsite, or pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a shared combination of both, to help achieve the City’s park standards. Therefore, residential subdivisions within the Ontario Ranch may include additional parks that are not identified on the land use plan.

In addition to parkland that is managed by the City, there are at least 180 acres of regional recreational facilities, joint-use agreements with school districts, and private recreational opportunities providing services that cannot be accommodated by existing facilities. Prado Regional Park also provides approximately 2,000 acres that would offset recreational demands.

Furthermore, the Ontario Sports Empire is currently under construction and would develop approximately 199 acres to provide a variety of recreational amenities, including a semiprofessional minor league baseball stadium, retail uses, a recreation center and aquatic center, and baseball/softball, soccer, and multi-use fields. Therefore, regional parks would more than offset the slight reduction in parkland of the proposed project compared to the approved project.

The proposed project, similar to the approved project, provides land use opportunities for public parks to be developed in line with future development. The Parks and Recreation (PR) Element contains relevant policies and programs to acquire additional parkland; integrate new park and recreation facilities with existing and future trails, bikeways, and easements; and conduct regular reviews and updates of the City’s parks and trails plans to keep pace with demographic trends and recreational needs of Ontario’s residents. The policies include:
 PR-1.1: Access to Parks. In all new residential development areas, we strive to provide a park and/or recreational facility within walking distance (¼ mile) of every residence and 9 Policy Plan Amendment’s 1,283 acres of parkland demand – 998 acres of designated parkland = 285 acres of parkland
4345
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 118 -
prioritize the establishment of parks in environmental justice areas that do not have adequate access to parks.
 PR-1.2: Adjacency to Schools. We examine locating parks adjacent to school sites to promote joint-use opportunities.
 PR-1.3: Funding. We shall seek outside, one-time sources of funding for capital improvements and reserve ongoing City funds primarily for operations and maintenance.  PR-1.4: Joint-Use Opportunities. In areas where there is a need but no City recreational facility, we explore joint-use opportunities. (e.g., school sites).  PR-1.5: Acreage Standard. We strive to provide 5 acres of parkland (public and private) per 1,000 residents.
 PR-1.6: Private Parks. We expect development to provide a minimum of 2 acres of developed private park space per 1,000 residents.
 PR-1.12: Trails. We promote connections between parks and local trails including those managed by other public agencies.
 PR-1.13: Equestrian Trails. We require the design, construction, and maintenance of equestrian trails in Rural Residential designated areas.  PR-1.15: Trail Connectivity. We strengthen and improve equestrian, bike, and multipurpose trail connections within the City and work to improve trail connections into adjacent jurisdictions.
 PR-2.4: Access to Programs. We provide a range of recreational and physical exercise programs that are accessible to residents of all income levels throughout the community and prioritize establishing and maintaining equitable access for residents in environmental justice areas.

These policies and regulations are intended to support the City’s standard parkland acreage ratio and to address the need for recreation space and parkland, while also preserving natural assets and environmentally sensitive lands. Additionally, the Ontario Sports Empire would provide high-quality athletic facilities and recreational spaces, resulting in a net increase in the amount of publicly accessible recreational amenities within the City; however, the extent to which the City of Ontario can plan and implement parks, trails, and other recreational facilities is related to the availability of funding.

Impacts associated with the development of land uses under the proposed project, including new parks and recreation facilities identified on the Land Use Plan, are analyzed throughout this SEIR. For example, construction-related air quality and noise impacts of the proposed project, which parks identified in the Land Use Plan, are described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, and Section 3.13, Noise. Park sites within future projects in Ontario Ranch would also be reviewed 4346
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 119 -
by the City of Ontario on an individual basis, as development occurs, and would be required to comply with requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued (i.e., payment of development impact fees).

Specific Plan
The Specific Plan includes 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. Future open space and recreational facility development in the Specific Plan area would be required to adhere to the Development Standards and Design Guidelines of the EBPSP. The construction of these recreational facilities would occur within the boundaries of the Specific Plan and would be inherent to the EBPSP’s construction phase(s). Construction impacts are analyzed throughout this Draft SEIR and mitigation is incorporated where necessary.

As concluded in this Draft SEIR, the EBPSP’s construction activities would be less than significant.

It is also noted that the recreational facilities provided by the Specific Plan were assumed by the City’s Recreation & Parks Master Plan. The Master Plan concluded that the City is currently underserved by park facilities, and that the proposed recreational facilities were needed to serve the City’s growing population (Ontario 2021). In this regard, the EBPSP the contribute to the overall provision of parkland within the City.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Although a numerical parkland shortfall exists under long-term buildout assumptions, that analysis only accounts for publicly designated park acreage and does not fully capture Quimby Act dedications, private recreational facilities, joint-use agreements, regional recreational facilities, and planned recreational amenities such as the Ontario Sports Empire and Grand Park facilities. The City’s policies and regulations would ensure that development of park facilities would keep pace with the anticipated increase in population from buildout of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to the use of existing park and recreational facilities compared to the approved project and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan
Based on the preceding, impacts associated with the Specific Plan’s park facilities would be less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.
4347
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 120 -
Impact PUB-5 (PPA+EBPSP): The proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts due to the provision of new or expanded library services. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.15-26)
Policy Plan Amendment
The Ontario library system strives for a goal of 0.6 square feet of library facilities per capita (Ontario 2020). The library’s most recent Library Facility Master Plan notes that the library’s current service ratio is 0.43 square feet per capita based on its 2020 service population. The Facility Master Plan also outlines strategies for the library to expand services as population in Ontario continues to increase. In accordance with the Facility Master Plan, the library system would continue to evaluate library needs based on facilities, staffing, and resources provided as population continues to increase. The Ontario library system also offers interlibrary exchanges with the Inland Library System as well as with participating libraries throughout the country.

Buildout under the proposed project would increase growth population in the City when compared to the approved project, resulting in an increase in demand for library services. New facilities, books, and personnel would be necessary to maintain and reach adequate levels of service. Environmental impacts could result from the construction of future facilities; however, the location and size of potential future facilities is currently unknown. Future projects would be reviewed by the City of Ontario on an individual basis and would be required to comply with requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued (i.e., payment of development impact fees).

Specific Plan
Demands for other public services are typically created by residential uses, which are not proposed by the Specific Plan. Implemented land uses would increase employment opportunities on-site; however, these positions would likely be filled by the existing employment pool in the City and/or neighboring communities. Therefore, uses implemented pursuant to the EBPSP would not be likely to create a significant increase in the use of other public facilities such as libraries, community centers, post offices or animal shelters. Therefore, impacts to other public services would be less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Since adequate services would be provided and payment of development impact fees would offset the costs associated with library services, impacts on library services would be less than significant. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
4348
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 121 -
Specific Plan
Impacts to other public services would be less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

RECREATION
Impact REC-1 (PPA+EBPSP): The proposed project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of recreational facilities. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.16-16) The Certified EIR found that buildout of the approved project’s land use plan would result in population growth and an associated increase in demand for recreational facilities and parkland areas. Implementation of the approved project’s policies and land use opportunities for public parks, designed to be aligned with future development, would ensure that park facilities would keep pace with the anticipated increase in population growth. As a result, impacts were identified as less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
Currently, the City of Ontario uses the established parkland standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents but strives for 5 acres per 1,000 residents for parks in Ontario Ranch. The City has approximately 727 acres of parkland (see Draft SEIR Table 3.16-2) and a population of 184,404 people (DOF 2025). Thus, the City currently requires 553 acres of parkland.10 Buildout of the Policy Plan Amendment would modify the planned TOP land use pattern and generate additional residents in the City, most of whom would be concentrated in the southern portion of the City (refer to Draft SEIR Table 2-4). Changes to the land use plan associated with the Policy Plan Amendment would result in a reduction of 43 acres of parkland in the City (4 percent reduction), including land formerly designated as Open Space–Recreation southeast of Chino Avenue and Haven Avenue and land at the southwest corner of Grove Avenue and Riverside Drive (see Draft SEIR Figure 2-6, Policy Plan Amendment Areas of Change).

Additionally, future growth in the City in accordance with buildout of the Policy Plan Amendment would increase the demand for parks and increase existing park usage, as shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.16-3, Proposed Project Parkland Demand.

The Quimby Act is a funding mechanism for parkland acquisition. Under this Act and pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code, residential subdivisions must dedicate parkland or pay in lieu fees to enable the City to acquire a ratio of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. As shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.16-3, the approved project would result in a demand of 1,234 acres of parkland, and the proposed project would result in a demand of 1,283 acres of parkland. As a result, buildout allowed under the proposed project would result in an increased demand of 49 acres of parkland compared to the approved project.
10 (184,404 people / 1,000) x 3.0 acres per person = 553 4349
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 122 -
The proposed project would designate approximately 998 acres for recreational use under the Open Space Parkland (including EBPSP) land use designation (refer to Draft SEIR Table 2-3).

Based on the proposed project’s future buildout projections, the 998 acres designated as Open Space Parkland would not satisfy the City’s existing Park Dedications and In-Lieu Fee Regulations for parkland acquisition, resulting in a shortfall of 285 acres of parkland.11 While the proposed project would result in a slight reduction in parkland in the City compared to the approved project, the City strives to have new development in Ontario Ranch provide an additional 2 acres of private parkland to achieve a park ratio of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. As shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.16-3, the proposed project would generate an additional demand of approximately 31 acres of private parks in Ontario Ranch compared to the approved project. As described above, subdivisions with residential land uses are required to dedicate property for park and recreational purposes on-site, or pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a shared combination of both, to help achieve the City’s park standards. Therefore, residential subdivisions within the Ontario Ranch may include additional parks that are not identified on the land use plan.

In addition to parkland that is managed by the City, there are at least 180 acres of regional recreational facilities, joint-use agreements with school districts, and private recreational opportunities providing services that cannot be accommodated by existing facilities. Prado Regional Park also provides approximately 2,000 acres that would offset recreational demands.

Furthermore, the Ontario Sports Empire is currently under construction and would develop approximately 199 acres to provide a variety of recreational amenities, including a semiprofessional minor league baseball stadium, retail uses, a recreation center and aquatic center, and baseball/softball, soccer, and multi-use fields. Therefore, regional parks would more than offset the slight reduction in parkland of the proposed project compared to the approved project.

The proposed project, similar to the approved project, provides land use opportunities for public parks to be developed in line with future development. The Parks and Recreation (PR) Element contains relevant policies and programs to acquire additional parkland; integrate new park and recreation facilities with existing and future trails, bikeways, and easements; and conduct regular reviews and updates of the City’s parks and trails plans to keep pace with demographic trends and recreational needs of Ontario’s residents. The policies include:
 PR-1.1: Access to Parks. In all new residential development areas, we strive to provide a park and/or recreational facility within walking distance (¼ mile) of every residence and prioritize the establishment of parks in environmental justice areas that do not have adequate access to parks.
 PR-1.2: Adjacency to Schools. We examine locating parks adjacent to school sites to promote joint-use opportunities.
11 Policy Plan Amendment’s 1,283 acres of parkland demand – 998 acres of designated parkland = 285 acres of parkland
4350
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 123 -
 PR-1.3: Funding. We shall seek outside, one-time sources of funding for capital improvements and reserve ongoing City funds primarily for operations and maintenance.  PR-1.4: Joint-Use Opportunities. In areas where there is a need but no City recreational facility, we explore joint-use opportunities. (e.g., school sites).  PR-1.5: Acreage Standard. We strive to provide 5 acres of parkland (public and private) per 1,000 residents.
 PR-1.6: Private Parks. We expect development to provide a minimum of 2 acres of developed private park space per 1,000 residents.
 PR-1.12: Trails. We promote connections between parks and local trails including those managed by other public agencies.
 PR-1.13: Equestrian Trails. We require the design, construction, and maintenance of equestrian trails in Rural Residential designated areas.  PR-1.15: Trail Connectivity. We strengthen and improve equestrian, bike, and multipurpose trail connections within the City and work to improve trail connections into adjacent jurisdictions.
 PR-2.4: Access to Programs. We provide a range of recreational and physical exercise programs that are accessible to residents of all income levels throughout the community and prioritize establishing and maintaining equitable access for residents in environmental justice areas.

These policies and regulations are intended to support the City’s standard parkland acreage ratio and to address the need for recreation space and parkland, while also preserving natural assets and environmentally sensitive lands. Additionally, the Ontario Sports Empire would provide high-quality athletic facilities and recreational spaces, resulting in a net increase in the amount of publicly accessible recreational amenities within the City; however, the extent to which the City of Ontario can plan and implement parks, trails, and other recreational facilities is related to the availability of funding.

Specific Plan
The EBPSP would result in the conversion of a site designated for residential/agricultural uses into a business park and open space – parkland development.

The Specific Plan provides for the development of 35.88 acres of the City’s public “Grand Park.” Grand Park is a planned 3.7-mile greenbelt extending between Haven Avenue and Campus Avenue and encompasses approximately 340 acres citywide. The Specific Plan would implement the southern half of a 1.25-mile stretch of the park, consistent with the City’s Grand Park Landscape Master Plan. The remaining half of this segment of Grand Park would be installed by the Center Park Specific Plan, which is currently proposed to the north of the EBPSP area. 4351
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 124 -
Passive recreational opportunities for future employees, visitors, and residents of the City would be provided through features such as pedestrian paths, gathering areas, turf areas, and botanical gardens. The park would be heavily landscaped, including forested areas, meadow areas, and open space lawn areas, consistent with the City’s Grand Park Landscape Master Plan.

Development of the Specific Plan would not directly increase housing or population, which typically cause an increase in the demand for and use of existing neighborhood parks and other citywide recreational facilities. If employees of the business park uses were to occasionally use park facilities within the City, they would likely utilize those provided by the Specific Plan.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
As a result, development of park facilities would keep pace with the anticipated increase in population from buildout of the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to the use of existing park and recreational facilities compared to the approved project. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, impacts related to the physical deterioration of existing parks or recreation facilities would be less than significant.

Impact REC-2 (PPA+EBPSP): The proposed project would not result in adverse impacts associated with new or expanded recreational facilities within the City. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.16-20)
The Certified EIR found that buildout of the approved project’s land use plan would result in the development of additional parkland and recreational facilities, which could lead to the construction of new or expanded facilities that may have an adverse physical effect on the environment. However, implementation of existing federal, state, and local regulations, as well as the approved project’s policies, would help reduce potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the expansion of parks, recreational facilities, and multiuse trails. As a result, these impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
The Policy Plan Amendment guides growth and development within the City and is not a development project. The Policy Plan Amendment project primarily involves modifying the currently permitted and planned TOP land use pattern across nearly 1,000 acres in southern Ontario. As described in impact discussion a), buildout of the proposed project would result in 4352
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 125 -
an increased demand of 80 acres of total parkland compared to the approved project (refer to Draft SEIR Table 3.16-3).

As a result of these planned park facilities, the proposed project may result in the construction of new or expansion of existing recreational facilities in Ontario. The majority of these facilities would be in Ontario Ranch, including the Grand Park. Development and implementation of the Grand Park may have an adverse physical effect on the environment, such as lighting, biological resources, noise, traffic, and air quality. Environmental impacts associated with the construction of new and/or expansions of existing recreational facilities in accordance with the Proposed Land Use Plan are addressed separately. Construction-related air quality and noise impacts of the proposed project are described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, and Section 3.13, Noise.

Existing federal, state, and local regulations as well as goals and policies in the Policy Plan Amendment would help reduce potential adverse impacts to the environment that may result from buildout of the proposed project. Furthermore, subsequent environmental review would be required for development of park projects under the Proposed Land Use Plan.

Specific Plan
The Specific Plan includes 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. Future open space and recreational facility development in the Specific Plan area would be required to adhere to the Development Regulations and Design Guidelines of the EBPSP and the City’s Grand Park Landscape Master Plan. The construction of these recreational facilities would occur within the boundaries of the Specific Plan area and would be inherent to the EBPSP’s construction phase(s). The City shall be responsible for the design and construction of all park improvements within the EBPSP area. Construction impacts are analyzed throughout this SEIR in Section 3.3, Air Quality, and Section 3.12, Noise, and mitigation is incorporated where necessary.

It is also noted that the recreational facilities provided by the EBPSP were assumed by and included in the City’s Recreation & Parks Master Plan. The Master Plan concluded that the City is currently underserved by park facilities, and that the proposed Grand Park would be needed to serve the City’s growing population (Ontario 2021). In this regard, the EBPSP would contribute to the overall provision of parkland within the City.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to the use of existing park and recreational facilities compared to the approved project. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. 4353
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 126 -
Specific Plan
The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Based on the preceding, impacts associated with the EBPSP’s recreational facilities would be less than significant.

TRANSPORTATION
Impact TRA-1 (PPA+EBPSP): The proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.17-23) Policy Plan Amendment
The Policy Plan Amendment includes an update to the City network of truck routes to comply with AB 98. In addition, the Policy Plan Amendment includes minor updates to the City’s multipurpose trails and bikeways, as shown on Draft SEIR Figure 5.17-3, Multipurpose Trails & Bikeway Corridor Plan.

Transit
The proposed project does not include any changes to the Public Transit Plan as included in TOP 2050 (see Draft SEIR Figure 3.17-2, Public Transit). The Public Transit Plan would continue to focus on providing efficient connectivity and integration via coordinated bus transfer centers and multimodal terminals. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with or obstruct the implementation and usage of transit.

Nonmotorized Transportation
The proposed project would include minor updates to multipurpose trails and bikeways, as shown in Draft SEIR Figure 3.17-3. The minor updates would not change any existing policies on nonmotorized transportation as included in TOP 2050. The updates to the multipurpose trails and bikeways would be a result of the updates to the truck network and would better align the trails and bikeways in the City. Therefore, implementation of proposed project would not interfere with or obstruct the implementation and usage of nonmotorized transportation.

Connect SoCal
TOP 2050 is consistent with Connect SoCal, as shown in Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning.

The goals of the RTP/SCS focus on transit, transportation and mobility, and protection of the environment and health of residents.

The proposed project is broadly consistent with the spirit of this plan because it encourages denser growth and more housing opportunities within a planned urban area and near existing and proposed transit, which is essential to the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Key goals and policies of the plan related to transportation were reviewed to verify consistency:
4354
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 127 -
 Mobility goals and policies focus on system preservation and resilience, complete streets, transit and multimodal integration, transportation system management, transportation demand management, technology integration, safety, and funding the system/user fees. The land use changes associated with the Policy Plan Amendment do not propose any transportation policies or conditions that would conflict with any of these policies. There is no proposal to expand roadways or any element that would conflict with regional transportation investment strategies. Lastly, the proposed truck routes aim to remove truck routes nearest to sensitive receptors, which tend to be areas of higher pedestrian activity, therefore resulting in improved safety. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with SCAG’s mobility goals and policies.
 Communities goals and policies focus on Priority Development Areas, housing in the region, 15-minute communities, and equitable engagement and decision-making. The proposed project increases housing density and results in an increase in housing in Ontario, which is in sync with these goals and objectives. The proposed project also promotes “15-minute communities” as places with a mix of complementary land uses and accessible mobility options that align with and support the diversity of places (or communities) across the region. The proposed project supports the previous goals of TOP 2050 that promote accessibility and affordability to vulnerable communities. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with SCAG’s community goals and policies.  Environment goals and policies focus on sustainable development, air quality, clean transportation, natural and agricultural lands preservation, and climate resilience. The proposed truck routes (see Draft SEIR Figure 2-9 in Chapter 2, Project Description) minimizes the number of people exposed to emissions along the City’s truck routes, thereby promoting local and regional efforts to improve air quality for vulnerable populations and sensitive receptors (as defined by AB 98 and SB 415). The land use changes associated with the Policy Plan Amendment do not propose any change to the transportation system or planning that would conflict with environmental policies. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with SCAG’s environmental goals and policies.  Economy goals and policies focus on goods movement, broadband, universal basic mobility, workforce development, and tourism. The proposed truck routes (see Draft SEIR Figure 2-9) prioritize environmental justice concerns by limiting exposure of sensitive receptors. The focused higher density of the Policy Plan Amendment, specifically in Ontario Ranch, broadens safe and efficient access to a range of mobility services that improve connections to jobs, education, and basic services. The proposed land use changes associated with the Policy Plan Amendment do not propose any change to the transportation system or planning that would conflict with economic policies. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with SCAG’s economy goals and policies.
4355
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 128 -
Specific Plan
Circulation system and mobility plans and policies applicable to the EBPSP include SCAG’s Connect SoCal, San Bernardino County CMP, and the City of Ontario Policy Plan Mobility Element. An analysis of the EBPSP’s potential to conflict with these plans is presented below.

SCAG 2024-2050 RTP/SCS
SCAG’s Connect SoCal seeks to improve mobility, promote sustainability, facilitate economic development, and preserve the quality of life for the residents in the region. Draft SEIR Table

3.11-1, Policy Plan Amendment Consistency with SCAG Connect SoCal, presented in Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning, of this SEIR, addresses the Specific Plan’s consistency with SCAG’s Connect SoCal. As shown, the EBPSP would not conflict with any applicable 2024-2050 Connect SoCal policies. The Specific Plan would contribute to a safe, multimodal network and would include roadway improvements to accommodate site access. Consistency with Connect SoCal illustrates consistency with goals set forth for the region. As demonstrated, implementation of the EBPSP would not conflict with the goals and policies of SCAG’s regional planning program.

San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan
The intent of the CMP is to provide the analytical basis for transportation decisions. Although implementation of the CMP was made voluntary by the passage of AB 2419, the CMP requirement has been retained in all 5 urban counties within the SCAG region. The goals of the San Bernardino County CMP are to:

Goal 1: Maintain or enhance the performance of the multimodal transportation system and minimize travel delay.

Goal : Assist in focusing available transportation funding on cost-effective responses to subregional and regional transportation needs.

Goal 3: Provide for technical consistency in multimodal transportation system analysis.

Goal 4: Help to coordinate development and implementation of subregional transportation strategies across jurisdictional boundaries.

Goal 5: Anticipate the impacts of proposed new development on the multimodal transportation system, provide consistent procedures to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures and provide for adequate funding of mitigations.

Goal 6: Promote air quality and improve mobility through implementation of land use and transportation alternatives or incentives that reduce both vehicle trips and miles traveled and vehicle emissions.

EBPSP would not impede the ability to maintain or enhance the performance of the multimodal transportation system. The EBPSP would include roadway improvements to serve internal circulation needs and minimize impacts to travel delay. None of the proposed roadway 4356
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 129 -
improvements would interfere with existing or potential future improvements to the County’s multimodal transportation system. The EBPSP would participate in the City’s Development Impact Fee program, which is coordinated with regional planning efforts to meet regional transportation needs and to provide for adequate funding of mitigation for impacts of new development, consistent with the CMP. The CMP System LOS Element and Performance Measures Element also contain LOS standards for CMP designated highways and roadways, which are reflected in the Traffic Analysis prepared for the EBPSP (SEIR Appendix K3).

Accordingly, the Specific Plan would not conflict with the San Bernardino County CMP.

City of Ontario Policy Plan Mobility Element
Draft SEIR Table 3.11-3, EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis, presented in Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning, of this SEIR, addresses the Specific Plan’s consistency with the City of Ontario Policy Plan Mobility Element. Consistency with the City’s Mobility Element illustrates consistency with transportation goals set forth for the City. As demonstrated, implementation of the EBPSP would not conflict with the goals and policies of City of Ontario Policy Plan Mobility Element. The EBPSP would also be consistent with the City-wide Active Transportation Master Plan, aiding in the development of planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
As described above, the proposed project supports Connect SoCal 2024’s VMT-reduction goals.

The proposed project would not result in a new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts related to consistency with transit, bicycle, and pedestrian plans compared to the approved project. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
As demonstrated above, the Specific Plan would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Impact TRA-3 (PPA+EBPSP): The proposed project adequately addresses potentially hazardous conditions (sharp curves, etc.) and potential conflicting uses. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.17-40)
Policy Plan Amendment
The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). 4357
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 130 -
The City of Ontario has adopted engineering standards to ensure consistency in the geometric design of their mobility facilities. Additionally, all plans undergo an extensive review process at the City to ensure consistency with these adopted standards.

Specific Plan
Efficient and safe access within, and access to, the EBPSP land uses would be provided by the design concept, site access improvements, and site adjacent roadway improvements included as components of the Specific Plan. Driveways, on-site traffic signing and striping would be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the site. Sight distance at each access point would be reviewed to ensure conformance with City sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans.

Trucks accessing the Specific Plan area would be required to travel along City-designated truck routes. Mandatory use of truck routes would minimize potential conflicts between truck traffic and other motorized and non-motorized transportation modes.

The City of Ontario has adopted engineering standards to ensure consistency in the geometric design of their mobility facilities. All plans undergo an extensive review process at the City to ensure consistency with these adopted standards. Given that all future projects will be subject to these reviews, the EBPSP would be consistent with the City design standards.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Given that all future projects will be subject to these reviews, this impact is less than significant.

The proposed project would not result in a new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts related to safety hazards compared to the approved project Specific Plan
The potential for the EBPSP to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses is considered less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Impact TRA-4 (PPA+EBPSP): The proposed project adequately addresses potentially inadequate emergency access. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.17-42)
Policy Plan Amendment
The majority of the population growth associated with the proposed project would occur in Ontario Ranch. As identified in the City’s Roadway Classification map (see Draft SEIR Figure 3.17- 1), there are substantial improvements in transportation infrastructure planned to accommodate the increase in population in the City in the event of an emergency. The City has 4358
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 131 -
roadway classification standards in Policy M-1.1 that include roadway design standards as part of TOP 2050, precluding the construction of any unsafe features.  M-1.1. Roadway Design and Maintenance. We require our roadways to: 1) Comply with federal, state, and local design and safety standards; 2) Meet the needs of multiple transportation modes and users; 3) Handle the capacity envisioned in the City of Ontario Master Plan of Streets and Highways; 4) Be maintained in accordance with best practices; 5) Be compatible with the streetscape and surrounding land uses; and 6) Promote the efficient flow of all modes of traffic through the implementation of intelligent transportation systems and travel demand implementation strategies.

Specific Plan
The EBPSP does not propose elements or aspects that would obstruct or restrict emergency access to or through the area. Additionally, representatives of the Ontario Fire Department and Ontario Police Department would review all development plans to ensure that emergency access is provided consistent with applicable requirements.

Construction
All construction materials and equipment would be stored/staged within the Specific Plan area and would not interfere with emergency vehicles traveling adjacent to the site. Any construction activities that would occur within the public right-of-way and require a partial or full closure of a sidewalk or vehicle travel lane would require a traffic control plan that complies with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and that must be approved by City to ensure that emergency response is not adversely affected.

Operation
The types of traffic generated during EBPSP operations (i.e., passenger cars and trucks) would be compatible with the type of traffic observed along surrounding roadways under existing conditions and would not interfere with the circulation of emergency vehicles along public streets adjacent to the site. As discussed above, development plans would be reviewed and approved by the fire and police departments to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided throughout the site.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. A review of emergency access is included as part of the City’s Design Review process. According to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2018), interstate highways would serve as major emergency response and evacuation routes. Additionally, the fire department reviews all development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance.

Since all future projects will undergo such reviews and requirements, this impact is less than significant.
4359
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 132 -
Specific Plan
Based on the preceding, the potential for the EBPSP to result in inadequate emergency access is considered less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Impact USS-1 (PPA+EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities which would cause a significant impact. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.19-38)
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would result in an overall increase in the number of residential dwelling units and nonresidential square footage compared to the approved project. The breakdown for the increase in water demand is provided in Draft SEIR Table 3.19-5, Projected Water Demand Rates. Full implementation of the proposed project has the potential to increase water demand by. 1,317 AFY of potable water and 68 AFY of recycled water.

Water Infrastructure
To accommodate needed infrastructure expansion and improvements, the City has prepared a WMP and CIP. It also requires development impact fees and has construction requirements based on an evaluation of existing and projected water demands. The potable water demand factors in the WMP are conservative and are used for sizing water pipes to convey average and peak daily flow rates. Therefore, they do not reflect the State’s requirements to reduce residential indoor water demand to 47 gallons per person per day by 2025 and 42 gallons per person per day after 2030 (DWR 2021).

Because the planned development in the City for the current proposed project would result in an increase in demand for potable and recycled water, the City and the IEUA have made plans for infrastructure expansion and improvement. As part of the land development approval process, the City determines a project’s fair-share costs and connection fees. Through the use of connection fees and agreements, the City maintains and expands its water distribution system as necessary and is able to ensure that new developments pay their fair-share costs. The City has the discretion to require water capacity studies associated with new development and redevelopment and currently requires site-specific studies to determine a project’s impact throughout the water system. Therefore, impacts related to infrastructure expansion and improvement caused by the implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts.
4360
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 133 -
Water Demand
Total water demand (potable plus recycled water) associated with the proposed project would be 76,112 AFY, which is an increase of approximately 3 percent compared to the 2020 UWMP calculated water demand of 73,688 AFY for the years 2040 and 2045 (Ontario 2021). The proposed project would result in an approximately 2 percent increase compared to the approved project of 74,728 AFY (potable plus recycled water).

The water demand factors used in the 2020 UWMP are conservative because they are based on the City’s water demand factors from the WMP, which do not consider reductions in per capita water use in future years, the City’s continuing conservation efforts, and the increased use of recycled water. Recent State laws, changes in the building code, and water service costs are anticipated to substantially lower water demand rates in the future:
 SB 606 and AB 1668 establish indoor water use standards (55 gallons per capita per day [GPCD] until 2025, 47 GPCD from 2025 to 2030, and 42 GPCD after 2030), outdoor water standards, and water loss standards that water suppliers must meet by 2028.  New construction is subject to the latest CALGreen building code, which typically results in a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use.
 SB 407 requires all buildings in California to meet current plumbing fixture standards within this decade, which will require retrofitting of existing homes and businesses.  Increases in water service costs, which will provide an incentive for additional water-saving practices and the use of recycled water, which is less costly, for nonpotable uses.

Therefore, applying these more conservative water demand factors by implementing a future water demand factor of 47 to 42 GPCD for all residential uses and a 20 percent reduction in nonresidential uses (compliance with CALGreen and new building code requirements) would reduce future water demand under the proposed project.

In addition, TOP 2050 includes policies that would further alleviate water demands from the proposed project such as:
 Policy LU-1.3 Adequate Capacity. We require adequate infrastructure and services for all development.
 Policy LU-4.3 Infrastructure Timing. We require that the necessary infrastructure and services be in place prior to or concurrently with development.  Policy ER-1.1 Local Water Supply. We increase local water supplies to reduce our dependence on imported water. New and redevelopment projects are aligned with our available water supply and/or to enhance our available water supply. 4361
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 134 -
 Policy ER-1.2 Matching Supply to Use. We match water supply and quality to the appropriate use.
 Policy ER-1.3 Conservation and Sustainable Water Supply. We work with regional water providers and users to conserve water and ensure sustainable local water supplies as more frequent droughts reduce long term local and regional water availability  Policy ER-1.4 Supply-Demand Balance. We require that available water supply and demands be balanced.
 Policy ER-1.5 Water Resource Management. Environmental justice areas are prioritized as we coordinate with local agencies to protect water quality, prevent pollution, address existing contamination, and remediate contaminated surface water and groundwater.  Policy S-3.7 Water Supply and System Redundancy. We monitor our water system to manage and ensure adequate firefighting water supplies.

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

Specific Plan
Water Demand
As part of the Policy Plan Amendment being processed in conjunction with the EBPSP, a Policy Plan designation would be processed for the Specific Plan area. The Policy Plan land use designation would be changed from Medium Density Residential (with an Affordable Housing Overlay) (MDR-AH), Mixed Use (with an Affordable Housing Overlay) (MU-BC-AH), and Open Space–Parkland (OS-R) to Business Park (BP) and Open Space–Parkland (OS-R). The water demand for the EBPSP is provided in the WSA (Appendix L2) and summarized in Draft SEIR Table

3.19-6, EBPSP Water Demand.

The total water demand for the EBPSP is estimated to be 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). The net reduction in water demand is 193 AFY, largely due to the removal of the residential land uses from the Specific Plan area and evaluated as part of the 2022 Certified EIR.
4362
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 135 -
Water Infrastructure
As illustrated in Draft SEIR Figure 3.19-2, EBPSP Potable Water Infrastructure Plan, new potable water lines would be installed in Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue to serve the Specific Plan area. Additional potable water lines would be installed in Bon View Avenue and Public Street A between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue. These lines would connect to existing potable water facilities located adjacent to the Specific Plan area. In accordance with Ontario Municipal Code Chapter 8C, Recycled Water Use, recycled water infrastructure would be installed to serve the Specific Plan area.

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

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

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

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, impacts to water infrastructure and water demand are less than significant. 4363
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 136 -
Specific Plan
Although the EBPSP would result in new water connections, these connections would be part of the construction phase evaluated throughout this SEIR. The construction of the water lines necessary to serve the Specific Plan would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed throughout this SEIR. Impacts would be less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Impact USS-2 (PPA+EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities which would cause a significant impact. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.19-47) Policy Plan Amendment
The 2022 Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would generate additional wastewater that would be treated in accordance with the Santa Ana RWQCB and California Department of Public Health requirements.

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

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

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

Additionally, TOP 2050 includes policies that ensure sewer infrastructure improvements are implemented in coordination with new development or redevelopment. These requirements, which would continue with the proposed project, ensure that adequate capacity and proper timing of infrastructure are maintained to support growth. Relevant policies include:
 Policy LU-1.3 Adequate Capacity. We require adequate infrastructure and services for all development.
4364
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 137 -
 Policy LU-4.3 Infrastructure Timing. We require that the necessary infrastructure and services be in place prior to or concurrently with development.  Policy ER-1.8 Wastewater Management. We require the management of wastewater discharge and collection consistent with waste discharge requirements adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

The City also has the discretion to require additional sewer capacity studies for new development and redevelopment and is currently performing site-specific studies of certain areas of the sewer system. The City can require development fees to fund infrastructure improvements that are required for the proposed new developments.

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

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

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

22.5 MGD with a projected completion date of 2026. Future expansions of the facilities will result in a total treatment capacity of 70 MGD. The current and future capacities of these treatment facilities are provided in Draft SEIR Table 3.19-8, IEUA WWTP Flow Rates and Capacities.

Upon completion of the expansion, the total capacity of the treatment facilities will be

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

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

1.2 MGD as compared to the 2022 Certified EIR (See Draft SEIR Table 3.19-7), which is about 6.9 percent of the residual capacity. Therefore, the wastewater treatment facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate both existing and future wastewater flows associated with the proposed project. Anticipated future regional growth will be accommodated by additional facility expansions and ongoing infrastructure investments, with funding provided through usage and connection fees. Additionally, water conservation efforts and compliance with modern building codes have led to a reduction in per-household wastewater generation. 4365
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 138 -
Specific Plan
As part of the Policy Plan Amendment being processed in conjunction with the EBPSP, a Policy Plan designation would be processed for the Specific Plan area. The Policy Plan land use designation would be changed from Medium Density Residential (with an Affordable Housing Overlay) (MDR-AH), Mixed Use (with an Affordable Housing Overlay) (MU-BC-AH), and Open Space–Parkland (OS-R) to Business Park (BP) and Open Space–Parkland (OS-R). Using the wastewater demand factors provided in the City’s 2024 Water Demand and Sewer Flow Factors Technical Memorandum, the previous wastewater demand for the project and the new wastewater demand for the project were calculated, as shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.19-9, Projected Wastewater Flow Rates for Specific Plan Area.

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

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

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

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
In summary, the City’s wastewater collection system and regional wastewater treatment facilities are adequate to convey the additional 1.2 MGD that would occur with implementation 4366
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 139 -
of the proposed project. With funding from sewer connection/usage fees and the CIP budget, the City would continue to expand and improve the sewer infrastructure to accommodate new development and future growth. Therefore, the impact on wastewater infrastructure is less than significant.

Specific Plan
Although the EBPSP would result in new sewer connections, these connections would be part of the construction phase evaluated throughout this SEIR. The construction of the sewer lines necessary to serve the Specific Plan would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed throughout this SEIR. Impacts would be less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Impact USS-3 (PPA+EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm drainage facilities which would cause a significant impact. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.19-53) Policy Plan Amendment
Potential future development as part of the proposed project and the change in land uses could result in an increase in impervious surfaces, which in turn could result in an increase in stormwater runoff, higher peak discharges to drainage channels, and the potential to cause nuisance flooding in areas without adequate drainage facilities.

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

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

In addition, TOP 2050 includes policies that would reduce stormwater impacts from the proposed project. Specific policies include:
 Policy LU-4.3 Infrastructure Timing. We require that the necessary infrastructure and services be in place prior to or concurrently with development.  Policy ER-1.6 Urban Run-off Quantity. We encourage the use of low impact development strategies, including green infrastructure, to intercept run-off, slow the discharge rate, increase infiltration, and ultimately reduce discharge volumes to traditional storm drain systems.
 Policy ER-1.7 Urban Run-off Quality. We require the control and management of urban runoff, consistent with Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations. 4367
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 140 -
 Policy S-2.1: Entitlement and Permitting Process. We require hydrological studies prepared by a state-certified engineer when new development is located in a 100-year or 500-year floodplain to assess the impact that the new development will have on the flooding potential of existing development down-gradient.
 Policy S-2.2 Floodplain Mapping. We require any new development partially or entirely in 100-year flood zones to provide detailed floodplain mapping for 100- and 200-year storm events as part of the development approval process.
 Policy S-2.5 Stormwater Management. We maintain the storm drain system to convey a 100-year storm, when feasible, and encourage environmental site design practices to minimize flooding and increase groundwater recharge, including natural drainage, green infrastructure, and permeable ground surfaces
 Policy S-2.6 Use of Flood Control Facilities. We encourage joint use of flood control facilities as open space or other types of recreational facilities.

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

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

Compliance with the City’s policies and programs that ensure adequate infrastructure and the regulatory provisions in the MS4 permit that limit runoff from new development would ensure that implementation of proposed would not result in significant increases in runoff that would contribute to the construction or expansion of new storm drains beyond what is already planned. In addition, the City would continue to repair, rehabilitate, and upgrade the storm drain system through implementation of the CIP program, and potential future development would be required to pay storm drainage fees per the City’s municipal code.

Specific Plan
New stormwater infrastructure would be installed within the Specific Plan area to accommodate area stormwater flows. Specifically, stormwater lines would be installed in Campus Avenue, Bon View Avenue, Grove Avenue, and Walker Avenue. A storm drain line of varying diameter would 4368
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 141 -
be installed in Public Street A between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue. The final sizing of utility mains shall be dependent on hydraulic studies done at the time of development. These lines would connect to existing stormwater facilities located adjacent to the Specific Plan area.

Please refer to Draft SEIR Figure 3.19-5, EBPSP Storm Drainage Infrastructure Plan.

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

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Impacts with respect to stormwater infrastructure would be less than significant. The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
Although the EBPSP would result in new stormwater connections, these connections would be part of the construction phase evaluated throughout this SEIR. The construction of the stormwater facilities necessary to serve the Specific Plan would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed throughout this SEIR. Impacts would be less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Impact USS-4 (PPA+EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power or natural gas facilities which would cause a significant impact. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.19-59) Policy Plan Amendment
Electricity
The proposed project is in Southern California Edison’s (SCE) service area, which spans much of southern California from Orange and Riverside counties on the south to Santa Barbara County on the west to Mono County on the north. Total electricity consumption in SCE’s service area was approximately 91,912 gigawatt-hours (GWh) in 2024 (CEC 2025a).

Electrical service to the City is provided by SCE through connections to existing off-site electrical lines and new on-site infrastructure. As shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.19-10, Year 2050 Forecast Electricity Consumption, electricity use in the City due to the proposed project would increase 4369
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 142 -
by 92 GWh per year. The increase due to the proposed project is approximately 0.1 percent of the total electricity consumption for SCE in 2024 of 91,912 GWh.

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

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

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

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

In addition to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, the approved project includes the goals and policies to increase energy efficiency and reduce wasteful, inefficient use of energy resources (see Section 3.6, Energy). The Environmental Resources Element policies focus on coordinating with agencies to pursue energy-efficient goals and strategies, promoting energy-efficient development patterns and site designs, and expanding renewable energy strategies (Environmental Resources Element policies ER-3.2, ER-3.3, ER-3.4, and ER-3.6). Policy ER-3.3 would require energy-efficient building and site design strategies for future development projects. Policy ER-3.4 would require all new and substantially renovated City buildings of 10,000 square feet and greater to achieve LEED Silver Certification standard. Encouraging sustainable and energy-efficient building practices and using more renewable energy strategies will further reduce energy consumption in the City. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
Energy infrastructure to serve the Specific Plan area would be installed underground or in accordance with applicable public utility standards and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer (see Draft SEIR Figure 3.19-6, EBPSP Dry Utilities Infrastructure Plan). 4370
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 143 -
Connections to the existing energy networks are available in the vicinity, and any off-site improvements would occur within improved rights-of-way. The locations of other lateral connections, transformers, switches, pull boxes, and dry utility manholes would be determined at the time buildings are positioned and uses are established in each planning area in conjunction with implementing development. Because the Specific Plan area currently consists of agricultural and residential uses that require energy services, implementation of the EBPSP is not anticipated to limit the ability of service providers to provide service to area.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Future developments implemented under the proposed project would be required to comply with the current and future updates to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, which would contribute to reducing the energy demands shown in Draft SEIR Tables 3.19-10 and

3.19-11. New and replacement buildings in compliance with these standards would generally have greater energy efficiency than existing buildings. It is anticipated that each update to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen would result in greater building energy efficiency.

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

Impacts would be less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Impact USS-5 (PPA+EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities which would cause a significant impact. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.19-62) Policy Plan Amendment
Infrastructure supporting telecommunications services associated with the proposed project would be provided and installed in compliance with all State and local regulations. Furthermore, a number of franchised telecommunications providers are available in the region, including OntarioNet, and no significant expansion or construction of the telecommunications network is anticipated as a result of implementation of the proposed project. Additionally, TOP 2050 Policy LU-4.3 would ensure the necessary telecommunications infrastructure would be in place prior to future development because of the proposed project.
4371
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 144 -
Specific Plan
Connections to other utilities, such as telecommunications and fiber optic networks, are available in the vicinity as shown in Draft SEIR Figure 3.19-7, EBPSP Fiber Optics Plan.

Infrastructure supporting telecommunications services associated with the EBPSP would be provided and installed in compliance with all State and local regulations. Telecommunication services for EBPSP would be similar as for the City, and would include OntarioNet, AT&T, Spectrum, Xfinity, Frontier, T-Mobile, and others. Dry utilities internal to the Specific Plan area would be installed underground in conjunction with the development in accordance with applicable public utility standards and specifications and to the satisfaction of the Ontario City Engineer.

Construction of any other utility network connections would occur within dedicated public easements/ right-of-way or within the boundaries of the Specific Plan. All connections would be designed and constructed consistent with City/purveyor requirements. The locations of other lateral connections, transformers, switches, pull boxes, and dry utility manholes would be determined at the time buildings are positioned and uses are established in each planning area in conjunction with implementing development.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would not require new or expanded telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
Although the EBPSP would result in new utility connections, these connections would be part of the construction phase evaluated throughout this SEIR. The construction of utility connections necessary to serve the Specific Plan would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed throughout this SEIR. Impacts would be less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Impact USS-6 (PPA+EBPSP): The City has sufficient water supplies to serve the proposed project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.19-67)
Policy Plan Amendment
As discussed under Impact (a), the proposed project would increase potable and recycled water demand compared to the approved project by approximately 1,317 AFY and 68 AFY, respectively. Total water demand at buildout would be approximately 76,112 AFY, representing 4372
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 145 -
an approximately 3 percent increase over the 73,688 AFY projected for 2040 and 2045 in the City’s 2020 UWMP and a 2 percent increase over the approved project (74,728 AFY).

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

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

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

Specific Plan
As shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.19-6, the proposed EBPSP would have a water demand of approximately 571.9 AFY, consisting of 286 AFY of potable water and 286.6 AFY of recycled water. This is less than the 765.3 AFY that was determined for the previous land uses provided in the 2022 Certified EIR, largely due to the removal of the residential land use components (Appendix L2).

As described in the City’s 2020 UWMP, the City has adequate supplies to serve 100 percent of its customers during normal, dry year, and multiple dry year demand through 2045 with projected population increases and future development projects. The City has the flexibility to increase groundwater production from the Chino Basin during drought conditions and increase the amount of imported water in wet and normal years.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Consistent with the conclusions in Impact a), sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the proposed project and other foreseeable development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. 4373
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 146 -
Specific Plan
Implementation of the proposed EBPSP will not require new water treatment facilities and there will be sufficient supplies to serve this project and future development within the City.

Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Impact USS-7 (PPA+EBPSP): The wastewater treatment provider has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.19-69)
Policy Plan Amendment
As discussed in Impact (a), IEUA has two wastewater facilities that serve the City of Ontario:

RP-1 and RP-5. As provided in Draft SEIR Table 3.19-8, the current combined capacity of these 2 facilities is 48.3 MGD and would increase to 54.5 MGD by 2026 once the expansion project for RP-5 is completed. In the future, the combined capacity of both wastewater treatment facilities will be 70 MGD.

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

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

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

IEUA continually invests in upgrades and expansion of their wastewater treatment facilities, as documented in the Ten-Year Sewer Capital Forecast report (IEUA 2025c). Over the next 10 years, the IEUA is expected to spend 1.65 billion dollars on facility expansions and upgrades to the system. Wastewater flow forecasts are conducted annually based on future growth projections, with funding provided through usage and connection fees. Additionally, water conservation efforts and compliance with modern building codes have led to a reduction in per-household wastewater generation. IEUA has seen a decrease in the total volume of wastewater flows by 10 percent since 2010 due to an increase in indoor water use efficiency, even with an increase in the population served (IEUA 2025c).
4374
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 147 -
Specific Plan
As discussed in Impact (a), implementation of the EBPSP would result in a decrease in the projected wastewater demand as compared to the approved project. This is primarily due to the removal of residential land use from the proposed Specific Plan and the replacement with business park and open space land uses. The estimated wastewater generation rate of 165,339 GPD for the EBPSP has been included in the calculations for the proposed project (Draft SEIR Table 3.19-9). As reported in the proposed project discussion above, there is sufficient capacity at the wastewater treatment facilities to treat the future wastewater flows for the buildout of both the EBPSP and Policy Plan Amendment.

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

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
In summary, IEUA’s regional wastewater treatment facilities are adequate to convey the additional 1.2 MGD that would occur with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of the wastewater treatment providers, and this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
The projected wastewater flows for the EBPSP area are conservative and will be lower than is estimated with the implementation of additional water conservation efforts and compliance with modern building codes that result in a reduction in wastewater generation. There is sufficient capacity for the wastewater providers to serve the EBPSP without exceeding existing and future wastewater demands. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Impact USS-8 (PPA+EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, and would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.19-71)
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would result in an increase in population of 16,473 residents and 1,831 employees compared to the approved project. This increase in population and employment would result in more solid waste generation and could impact the capacity of the receiving landfills. Draft SEIR Table 3.19-12, Additional Solid Waste Generated by Policy Plan Amendment, 4375
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 148 -
provides an estimate of the amount of solid waste that would be generated with the proposed project.

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

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

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

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

TOP 2050 also includes policies that describe solid waste diversion requirements, which include:
 Policy ER-2.1 Waste Diversion. We shall meet or exceed AB 939 requirements.  Policy ER-2.2 Hazardous and Electronic Waste. We prohibit the disposal of hazardous and electronic waste into the municipal waste stream pursuant to state law.  Policy ER-2.3 Purchase Products Made from Recycled Materials. We purchase recycledcontent products where it is cost effective.

Specific Plan
Solid waste generated during the operation of the Specific Plan land uses is anticipated to be collected by the City of Ontario and is anticipated to be hauled to either the El Sobrante Landfill or the Badlands Sanitary Landfill. Construction and operation of the EBPSP land uses would be required to comply with State and local solid waste reduction, diversion, and recycling policies and regulations. Land uses implemented pursuant to the Specific Plan would not generate 4376
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 149 -
volumes or types of waste not already considered and addressed under existing policies, regulations, and infrastructure systems.

The Specific Plan would result in a building square footage of 2,939,000 square feet. Therefore, using US EPA’s construction waste generation factor of 4.34 pounds per square feet for nonresidential uses would result in approximately 12,755,26012 pounds or 6,377.6313 tons would be generated during the building construction phase. Additional waste would be expected from infrastructure installation and other related construction activities (EPA 2009).

During operations, based on CalRecycle’s estimated waste generation rate of 1.42 pounds per 100 square feet per day for manufacturing/warehousing uses, the Specific plan land uses would generate approximately 41,733.8014 pounds of solid waste per day or 20.8 tons per day (CalRecycle 2019).

The EBPSP’s estimated solid waste generation represents 0.13 percent of the El Sobrante Landfill’s daily capacity and 0.42 percent of the Badlands Sanitary Landfill daily capacity; as such, the Specific Plan would not contribute significantly to the daily throughput. Additionally, consistent with CALGreen, at least 65 percent of non-hazardous construction waste would be diverted from landfills through recycling, salvaging, or reuse. The EBPSP has also committed to providing sufficient space for storage and collection of green waste, organic waste, and recyclables, acting to help reduce solid waste generation.

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

Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
The potential for the EBPSP to generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure is considered less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.
12 2,939,000 SF x 4.34 lbs/SF =12,755,260 lbs 13 12,755,260 lbs x 1 ton/2000 lbs = 6,377.63 tons 14 2,939,000 SF x 1.42 lbs/100sf per day = 41,733.80 lbs per day 4377
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 150 -
Impact USS-9 (PPA+EBPSP): The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.19-74)
Policy Plan Amendment
As discussed above, the City complies with all State requirements to reduce the volume of solid waste through recycling and organic waste diversion. In addition, all potential future development pursuant to the proposed project would comply with Division 4.4, Material Conservation and Resource Efficiency, of the CALGreen Code, which requires that at least 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. Potential future development would also comply with AB 341, which mandates recycling for commercial and multifamily residential land uses as well as schools and school districts. All jurisdictions in California are required to provide organic waste collection services to all residents and businesses, in accordance with SB 1383.

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

Moreover, the EBPSP would implement conventional land uses and would not establish uses or activities that would conflict with or obstruct local, State and federal solid waste management regulations. All solid waste generated by the EBPSP would be collected and disposed of as part of the City’s municipal waste stream. In this latter regard, solid waste management services are provided throughout the City including collection and transfer of refuse, green waste, and bulky items. Recycling services are also provided..

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

Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Specific Plan
The potential for the EBPSP conflict with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste is considered less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.
4378
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 151 -

WILDFIRE
Impact WIL-1 (PPA+EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project would not impair or otherwise interfere with the City’s adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.20-15)
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project involves adjustments to land use designations and corresponding updates to the Policy Plan elements while maintaining the overall circulation framework established under the approved project. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this Draft SEIR, the proposed project would increase population and employees in Ontario, which would add additional vehicles to roadways in the event of an evacuation. As shown in Draft SEIR Figure

3.17-1, Roadway Classifications, substantial improvements to the City’s transportation infrastructure are planned to accommodate population growth and maintain safe, efficient travel during emergencies. The proposed project would not introduce new roadways or modify existing ones in a manner that would impede emergency vehicle access or evacuation operations. Furthermore, continued implementation of Policy M-1.1 and City design review procedures would ensure that all roadway and site designs maintain compliance with emergency access standards and the City’s adopted emergency response plans.

Accordingly, the proposed project would result in no new or more severe impacts related to impairment of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan compared to the approved project. The circulation network, policy framework, and interagency review mechanisms that were found to be adequate in the 2022 Certified EIR remain in place, and the proposed project would not impede implementation of an emergency response plan or evacuation plan.

Specific Plan
The proposed Specific Plan involves adjustments to land use designations and roadway improvements consistent with federal, State, and local design and safety standards, acting to improve emergency circulation in the area. The proposed project would not, however, introduce new roadways or modify existing ones in a manner that would impede emergency vehicle access or evacuation operations. Additionally, the City and Fire Department would review development applications to ensure adequate emergency access is provided in compliance with emergency access standards and the City’s adopted emergency response plans. Compliance with existing regulations, City policies, and Fire Department recommendations would ensure impacts to emergency response plans and evacuation plans would be less than significant. 4379
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 152 -
Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts for wildfire compared to the approved project and that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant.

Specific Plan
Accordingly, the proposed Specific Plan would result in no new or more severe impacts related to impairment of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan compared to the approved project. The circulation network, policy framework, and interagency review mechanisms found to be adequate in the 2022 Certified EIR remain in place, and the proposed Specific Plan would not impede implementation of an emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The proposed Specific Plan would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts for emergency response and evacuation compared to the approved project and that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

Impact WIL-2 (PPA+EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risk, require infrastructure that could increase fire hazards, or expose people or structures to secondary post-fire hazards such as flooding, landslides, or drainage changes. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.20-17) Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project modifies the land-use pattern and updates related Policy Plan elements while maintaining the overall planning and regulatory framework established by the approved project. The 2025 adopted CAL FIRE Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone map do not identify areas in Ontario within a FHSZ. Although vegetation and fuel loading are light and fire hazards are primarily urban, the City acknowledges some residual risk from wildfire events.

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

In addition, implementation of the following policies would directly reduce wildfire and emergency-related risks:
 S-3.8: Fire Prevention through Environmental Design. We require new development to incorporate fire prevention considerations in the design of streetscapes, sites, open spaces, and buildings.
4380
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 153 -
 S-3.9: Resource Allocation. We analyze fire data to evaluate the effectiveness of our fire prevention and reduction strategies and allocate resources accordingly.  S-8.5: Interdepartmental Coordination. We utilize all City departments to help support emergency/disaster mitigation, preparedness, response, mitigation, and recovery.  CD-2.8: Safe Design. We incorporate defensible space design into new and existing developments to ensure the maximum safe travel and visibility on pathways, corridors, and open space and at building entrances and parking areas by avoiding physically and visually isolated spaces, maintaining visibility and accessibility, and using lighting.

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

Because the proposed Policy Plan Amendment does not alter topography, slope conditions, or emergency infrastructure design standards and would continue to implement existing fire-safety programs and policies, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Additionally, development under the proposed Policy Plan would be subject to the most recent version of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, which have more stringent requirements for new development than previous versions of the code.

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

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

Because the proposed EBPSP does not alter topography, slope conditions, or emergency infrastructure design standards and would continue to implement existing fire-safety programs and policies, the proposed Specific Plan would not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. 4381
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 154 -
Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to the approved project impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR, and wildfire-related impacts would remain less than significant.

Specific Plan
The proposed EBPSP would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to the approved project impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Impact WIL-3 (PPA+EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environments. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.20-19)
Policy Plan Amendment
The 2025 adopted CAL FIRE Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone map does not identify areas in Ontario within a FHSZ. While the proposed Policy Plan Amendment would facilitate future development that includes installation of new infrastructure (e.g., roads, utilities, and related improvements), such improvements would occur in an area without very high wildfire risk and would not, in and of themselves, introduce or exacerbate wildfire risk.

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

Accordingly, although new infrastructure would be constructed under the proposed Policy Plan, it would not increase wildfire hazards. Additionally, such infrastructure and maintenance activities would also be required to comply with the adopted State regulations, Ontario Municipal Code standards, and TOP policies to mitigate the impact of infrastructure on the environment.

Specific Plan
The EBPSP would facilitate future development that would require the installation of new roads, utilities, and related improvements; however, infrastructure improvements proposed by the Specific Plan would be implemented in areas not within a FHSZ. Water, sewer, storm drain, and 4382
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 155 -
dry utility improvements under the proposed EBPSP would be installed underground.

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

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to the approved project and that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR, and wildfire-related impacts would remain less than significant.

Specific Plan
Although new infrastructure would be constructed under the proposed EBPSP, it would not increase wildfire hazards. The proposed EBPSP would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to the approved project and that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR and impacts would remain less than significant.

Impact WIL-4 (PPA+EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.20-21)
Policy Plan Amendment
The 2025 adopted CAL FIRE Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone map does not identify areas in Ontario within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Additionally, the City does not contain steep slopes that would be susceptible to postfire slope failure or landslides. The Policy Plan Amendment would not introduce development into steeper terrain or areas with elevated postfire runoff risk, nor would it modify land use patterns in a manner that could increase exposure to downslope or downstream flooding hazards following a wildfire.

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

Development under the amended Policy Plan would also remain subject to the most recent California Building Code and California Fire Code standards. These requirements ensure proper site drainage, erosion control, and flood protection, and therefore reduce the potential for downslope or downstream flooding, landslides, or other hazards associated with runoff or postfire slope instability.
4383
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 156 -
Specific Plan
The Specific Plan area is in the southern portion of the City, where largely flat agricultural fields dominate the topography. The flat topography of the site does not present any potential risks related to landslides or other slope instability. Additionally, as detailed in SEIR Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed EBPSP would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern or result in substantial runoff when compared to existing conditions. The EBPSP’s stormwater management system, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) would act to avoid or minimize flooding, slope instability, or adverse drainage changes.

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

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

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to the approved project and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR, and wildfire-related impacts would remain less than significant.

Specific Plan
The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. 4384
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 157 -

3.3 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS REQUIRING MITIGATION

3.3.1 FINDINGS ON SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

THAT CAN BE REDUCED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LEVEL
The following summary describes impacts of the proposed project that, without mitigation, would result in significant adverse impacts. The City Council hereby finds that Mitigation Measures have been identified in the EIR and these Findings that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level.

Upon implementation of the mitigation measures provided in the EIR, these impacts would be considered less than significant.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-1 (PPA+EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project could impact specialstatus species, as well as nesting birds, burrowing owls, and roosting bat species. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.4-52)
The 2022 Certified EIR found that development in accordance with the approved project could result in the loss of sensitive species. However, the approved project did not have substantial adverse impacts on sensitive animal species after compliance with the requirements of the CESA and FESA, including USFWS requirements regarding critical habitat; mitigation fees paid by projects in Ontario Ranch; and acquisition and management of habitat using those fees.

Policy Plan Amendment
The following sensitive species have been observed in Ontario, and suitable habitat for each of these species is present in the city: great egret (Ardea alba), great blue heron (Ardea Herodias), snowy egret (Egretta thula), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), and long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus). Several additional species have been observed for which the city has suitable foraging habitat but limited or no suitable nesting habitat: ferruginous hawk, mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), merlin (Falco columbarius), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), peregrine falcon, and white-faced ibis. Several sensitive bat species are considered to have possible roosting opportunities in the city and are listed in Draft SEIR Table 3.4-2.
4385
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 158 -
No sensitive plant species have been observed in Ontario, and the only such species that are considered potentially present in the city have a low potential due to lack of suitable habitat.

Therefore, implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment would not have substantial adverse impacts on sensitive plant species.

Nearly the entire city is developed with urban and agricultural uses, and there is very little native habitat remaining. Vacant land in the city may have low habitat value—much of it is barren ground and does not support vegetation, and many areas of vacant land are small, surrounded by developed urban uses, and isolated from other vacant land. There is nonetheless a chance that some sensitive species occur in remnant or disturbed habitats, and focused surveys may be warranted for individual sites that are the subject of development proposals.

The assessment of the need for focused surveys would be carried out on a project-by-project basis in accordance with existing federal, state, and local regulations. This would apply equally to the OMC and Ontario Ranch.

Most potential biological resources in the city are in Ontario Ranch because the rest of the city is almost entirely built out. Some parts of Ontario Ranch that were previously used as dairies have undergone surveys for DSFLF, and the USFWS has determined that the likelihood of occupancy by DSFLF in these areas is low enough that further surveys would not be required; however, project applicants would need to consult with the USFWS on a case-by-case basis to determine survey requirements.

The settlement agreement for the City of Ontario SOI GPA governs mitigation for biological resources impacts in Ontario Ranch associated with potential impacts to the burrowing owl, DSFLF, raptor foraging and wildlife habitat, loss of open space, actual and potential habitat and agricultural land, and sensitive species (listed and unlisted). The terms of the settlement agreement are discussed in Section 3.4.1, Regulatory Framework, under “City of Ontario Sphere of Influence General Plan Amendment, Final EIR, and Settlement Agreement.” While the habitat mitigation fee established as part of the settlement agreement would cover potential impacts to the burrowing owl, DSFLF, raptor foraging and wildlife habitat, loss of open space, and agricultural land, impacts related to federal- and state- covered species and habitat would be subject to a separate process under FESA and CESA.

Parts of the closed Milliken Waste Disposal Site in the OMC are also considered suitable for preservation or enhancement as burrowing owl habitat (Riverside Land Conservancy 2008).

The Policy Plan Amendment primarily involves modifying the TOP land use pattern and making associated updates to the various elements of the TOP Policy Plan. Implementation of the proposed project would not directly result in removal of vegetation or wildlife in the city because TOP does not confer entitlements for development. Development in accordance with the proposed project could result in habitat modification and removal. Such development could also result in the introduction of nonnative species of weeds, insects, and domestic animals that could adversely impact sensitive species.
4386
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 159 -
TOP includes policies that support the protection of biological resources through the restoration and conservation of habitat areas and compliance with state and federal regulations regarding protected species (e.g., Policies ER-5.1 and ER-5.2). Projects in Ontario Ranch would pay a mitigation fee that would be deposited into a trust fund to be used for the acquisition, restoration, rehabilitation, and maintenance of lands deemed to have long-term conservation value. While adherence to the TOP policies protecting biological resources and payment of the mitigation fee for projects in Ontario Ranch would assist in reducing impacts, future development projects under the proposed project could impact sensitive species.

Under the FESA and CESA, future development projects would require more detailed evaluations of biological resources and formulation of mitigation measures, if needed, by a qualified biologist. If potential habitat were found on-site, focused surveys for sensitive species potentially present would be required. If sensitive species were found, the project proponent would be required to consult with the CDFW regarding impacts to sensitive species and ensuing mitigation. Mitigation for impacts to sensitive species is often in the form of acquisition or restoration of habitat, on-site or off-site, at a ratio to the area of impacted land that would be determined by the CDFW or USFWS. For projects that are sited within critical habitat for a listed species and are proposed by federal agencies or involve federal permits or funding, the project proponent would be required under the FESA to consult with the USFWS regarding impacts and mitigation. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant.

Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant.

Specific Plan
No special-status or federal or State-listed plant species were observed in the Specific Plan area during the field surveys. The site supports disturbed and developed land that have been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances for several decades. Historic and ongoing land uses have eliminated the natural plant communities that once grew on the site, and this has significantly reduced the quality of habitat and its potential to support special-status plant species known to occur in the general vicinity. Based on habitat requirements for specific special-status plant species and the availability and quality of habitat needed by each species, it was determined that the Specific Plan area does not have the potential to support any of the special-status plant species known to occur in the area, and all are presumed to be absent.

Implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in any significant impacts to any specialstatus plant species.

No special-status wildlife species were observed within the Specific Plan area during the habitat assessment. However, the site has a high potential to support northern harrier (Circus hudsonius); a moderate potential to support Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), great egret (Ardea alba), great blue heron (Ardea Herodias), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Costa’s hummingbird (Calypte costae), snowy egret (Egretta thula), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), California gull (Larus californicus), and whitefaced ibis (Plegadis chihi); and a low potential to support white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), 4387
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 160 -
merlin (Falco columbarius), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus).

As discussed in Section 3.4.2, Existing Conditions, due to lack of on-site habitat, Crotch’s bumble bee and DSFLF are considered absent and would not be affected by development of the Specific Plan area.

No burrowing owls or sign (i.e., pellets, feathers, castings, or whitewash) were observed during the field investigation. Undeveloped portions of the Specific Plan area are unvegetated and/or vegetated with a variety of low-growing plant species that allow for line-of-sight observation favored by burrowing owl. In addition, suitable burrows were observed within berms surrounding the remnant pasture fields and water retention basins, and additional roosting opportunities were observed within rubble piles in the northeast portion of the site.

Additionally, there is potential for bats to roost in large ornamental trees within the Specific Plan area. This would be a potentially significant impact if the population of bats impacted is 25 or more individuals of non-special-status species, or a single individual of special-status species.

Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure BIO-1-PPA: Biological Resources Assessment. Applicants for future development projects on non-infill sites with suitable natural habitat shall conduct a biological resources assessment of the proposed project footprint (including proposed access roads, proposed staging and laydown areas, and a suitable buffer surrounding the project footprint). The biological resources assessment shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and summarized in a biological resources letter report or biological resources technical report that will be submitted to the Ontario Planning Department for review and approval prior to being issued a grading permit. Biological resources assessments for infill redevelopment projects may be required, subject to the discretion of the Executive Director Community Development.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2-PPA: Biological Reconnaissance-Level Survey. The biological reconnaissance-level survey shall include, but not be limited to:
 An analysis of available literature and biological databases including but not limited to: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB); California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, National Wetland Inventory Database (NWI); USGS National Hydrographic Dataset (NHD); EcoAtlas; and database searches of the US Fish and Wildlife Service Critical Habitat, Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS), and Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC). The literature review shall be performed prior to the field survey to identify sensitive biological resources 4388
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 161 -
that were reported previously from the proposed development project vicinity and to help determine the type of sensitive biological resources that may be in the survey area.
 A review of current land use and land ownership within the proposed development project vicinity.
 A field assessment survey that includes mapping vegetation communities in the proposed development project (including but not limited to project footprint, proposed access roads, staging and laydown areas, and a suitable buffer) utilizing the Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd edition (MCV) and the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) or the currently accepted standard for vegetation mapping and classification. An evaluation of each mapped vegetation community’s State and Global rarity ranks shall be determined using CDFW’s Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP).
 An evaluation of the proposed development project’s potential to support special status plant and wildlife species.
 An evaluation of nesting habitat for migratory and special status bird species.  An evaluation of potential impacts to bats and roosts from ground-disturbing activities.
 A general assessment of potential jurisdictional areas, including wetlands and riparian habitats.
 An evaluation of potential local and regional wildlife movement corridors.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3-PPA: Focused Species Surveys. If one or more special status plant or animal species has the potential to occur within the proposed development project area (including but not limited to project footprint, proposed access roads, staging and laydown areas, and a suitable buffer), a qualified biologist shall conduct additional focused surveys for said species using the most recently updated protocols recommended by natural resource agencies or, if not available, standards accepted in the professional biological community to survey that taxonomic group, community, or species. If an established protocol is not available for a special status species, the qualified biologist will consult with the City and CDFW or USFWS to determine the appropriate survey protocol. The focused species survey(s) will be at a level to determine the presence/absence of these species and to adequately evaluate potential direct and/or indirect impacts to these species. Adjoining properties shall also be surveyed (as access permits) where direct or indirect project effects, such as those from fuel modification or herbicide application, could potentially extend off-site. To the extent possible, the focused species surveys shall be conducted during nondrought years at the time of year when species are both evident and identifiable. The focused survey shall record the location and boundary of special status species by use of global 4389
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 162 -
positioning system (GPS). The number of individuals shall be counted (if population is small) or estimated (if population is large). If applicable, information about the percentage of individuals in each life stage shall be provided (seedlings, reproductive individuals, adults, nestlings, juveniles, transients or migrant individuals, etc.). Images of the target species and/or representative habitats shall be included to support information and descriptions. Results of focused species surveys shall be summarized in the proposed development project’s Biological Technical Report.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4-PPA: Biological Resources Report. The results of the biological survey for proposed development projects with no significant impacts may be presented in a biological survey letter report. For proposed development projects with significant impacts that require mitigation to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance, and/or agency consultation and permitting, the results of the biological survey shall be presented in a biological technical report. The impact analysis shall consider impacts from areas subject to fuel modification and grading to accommodate the development.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5-PPA: Special-Status Species, Sensitive Habitats, Wetlands, Other Non-wetland Waters, Native Wildlife Nursery Sites, and Wildlife Corridors. If a sensitive biological resource is identified during field surveys (see Mitigation Measures BIO-2-PPA and BIO-3-PPA), the City shall require implementation of mitigation measures at the project level that fully account for the adversely affected resource. Mitigation measures shall adhere to the following order of priority to reduce adverse impacts of a proposed project to the resource: avoid impacts, minimize impacts, and compensate for impacts. Mitigation measures shall be used on a project-level basis and be tailored to on-site conditions and sensitive biological resources present.
 Priority 1, Avoidance of Impacts. Proposed development shall avoid impacts to the maximum extent feasible, as determined by a qualified biologist, by not taking certain actions or parts of an action. Projects shall be sited to avoid direct or indirect impacts on the resource and include measures such as implementing no-disturbance buffers (e.g., nesting bird buffer areas during construction, siting staging areas outside buffer area) or implementing project-specific design features (e.g., wildlife-friendly fencing and lighting in a wildlife corridor), such that indirect adverse effects of project development are avoided. This shall include flagging all plants and/or perimeter of populations; stop-work buffers around plants and/or populations (e.g., flagged perimeter plus 50 feet); restrictions on ground-disturbing activities within protected areas; relocation of staging and other material piling areas away from protected areas; restrictions on herbicide use and/or type of herbicide and/or application method within 100 feet of sensitive plants; and worker education and training.
4390
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 163 -
 Priority 2, Minimize Impacts. Proposed development shall be conditioned to minimize adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation to less than significant. Other mitigation measures may include reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.

Measures to mitigate the spread of invasive plant species and invasive wildlife species (e.g., New Zealand mudsnail) shall include but will not be limited to: cleaning of equipment, footwear, and clothing before entering a construction site and the identification and treatment of significant infestations of invasive plant species within a project site.  Priority 3, Offset Impacts. Offsetting impacts can be done by replacing or providing substitute resources or by rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment.

Offset mitigation ratios for protected sensitive resources will be established based on the rarity of the resource, quality of affected habitat associated with the resource, temporary and permanent losses to habitat function, the type of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, preservation, establishment), and other requirements associated with state or federal permits. Mitigation ratios will be determined at the project level in consultation with the City, the qualified biologist, and, where applicable, federal or state agencies with jurisdiction over the resource (e.g., CDFW, USACE, USFWS).

If impacts on a protected sensitive biological resource are unavoidable, then the project proponent shall mitigate for the type of resource as follows:
 Endangered, Rare, Threatened, or Candidate Species. The applicant shall obtain incidental take authorization from USFWS (16 US Code Section 1531 et seq.) or CDFW (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2050–2115.5) prior to commencing development of the project site; apply minimization measures or other conditions required under the incidental take authorization; and provide equivalent compensation for the unavoidable losses of these resources. Compensation may include purchasing credits from a USFWS- or CDFW-approved mitigation bank or restoring or enhancing habitat within the project site or outside of the project site.
 Special Status Species (not listed). The applicant shall provide equivalent compensation for impacts on special status species by restoring or significantly enhancing existing habitat where the species occurs or by acquiring or protecting land that provides habitat function for affected species and is at least equivalent to the habitat function removed or degraded as a result of project implementation.
4391
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 164 -
If impacts on sensitive habitats, wetlands, other nonwetland waters, riparian habitats, native wildlife nursery sites, and wildlife corridors cannot be avoided, the project applicant shall:
 Federal- or State-Protected Sensitive Habitats. Obtain the required regulatory authorization (e.g., Section 404 permits for impacts on waters of the United States, 401 water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, a Streambed Alteration Agreement for impacts on aquatic or riparian habitats within CDFW jurisdiction under Fish and Game Code Section 1600), and provide equivalent compensation for the unavoidable losses of the above-mentioned resources such that there is no net loss.

Mitigation Measure BIO-6-PPA: Demarcate Work Area Boundary. The proposed development proponent shall prevent impacts to unprotected common and sensitive vegetation communities in areas adjacent to the project area. Prior to the initial vegetation clearing activities or ground disturbance in new areas, the approved project grading limits shall be marked with stakes or other highly visible materials that will be clearly visible to equipment operators and biological monitors during all vegetation clearing or ground disturbing activities. All equipment operators and project personnel shall be instructed about the restrictions the boundary markers represent and that vegetation removal or other disturbance outside of the boundary markers shall be avoided.

Mitigation Measure BIO-7-PPA: Preconstruction Special Status Species Surveys. If sensitive biological resources are identified as having potential to occur within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development project area, a preconstruction special status species survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to ground disturbing activities to ensure unsubstantiated impacts are avoided or minimized. In addition, for species with potential to occur within or adjacent to the proposed development project area and having species-specific preconstruction or take avoidance survey guidelines (e.g. burrowing owl), surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the most recent survey guidelines by a qualified biologist for that species.

Mitigation Measure BIO-8-PPA: Pre-disturbance Nesting Bird Surveys. The City of Ontario shall require applicants for future development projects with suitable natural habitat to contract with a qualified biologist with experience in conducting breeding bird surveys to conduct a preconstruction general nesting bird survey within all suitable nesting habitats that may be directly (active nest destruction, direct mortality) or indirectly (nest abandonment, exposure) impacted by active construction during the general avian breeding season (February 1 through August 31). The pre-disturbance surveys shall be conducted no more than 5 days prior to initiation of construction inclusive of staking and fencing of project limits, demolition activities, staging of equipment, and all vegetation trimming and removal activities (regardless of stage of construction). Results of pre4392 Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 165 -
disturbance nesting bird surveys are typically valid for a period of 3 to 5 days.

Additional pre-disturbance nesting bird surveys and/or nest monitoring may be required at the discretion of the qualified biologist based on observations of breeding behavior, phased removal of breeding bird habitat during the breeding season, establishment of nest buffers, delays in construction activities that could allow for breeding birds to establish a nest, or if the project is cleared/demolished/constructed over the course of multiple breeding seasons.

Results will be summarized in a pre-disturbance survey report that describes the dates of the surveys, methods, results of the surveys, and any nest protection measures that will need to be employed. The pre-disturbance nesting bird survey report will be submitted to the City within 30 days of completion of the initial pre-disturbance nesting bird survey.

Mitigation Measure BIO-9-PPA: Active Nest Avoidance and No-Work Buffers. If active nests of avian species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code are detected within the proposed development project area or within a 300-foot buffer (500-foot buffer for raptors and listed species) of the proposed development project area, 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 the preclearance nesting survey shall be included in the predisturbance survey report (see Mitigation Measure BIO-8-PPA)
Mitigation Measure BIO-10-PPA: Nest Monitoring. Periodic nest monitoring will be conducted at the discretion of the qualified biologist to ensure compliance with established no-work buffers and document progression of the nest. The qualified biologist will monitor the nest from a distance and determine active/inactive status based on direct observations or evidence of breeding behavior (nest exchanges, food carries, fecal sac removal, nestling vocalizations, etc.). The qualified biologist will keep the nest monitoring as brief as possible to avoid causing undue stress to the adult(s) and young. For nests where contents are difficult to determine (e.g., gourd nests, cavity nests) or nests that seem inactive prior to the estimated fledge date, the nest will be considered inactive once nesting activity is no longer observed at the nest site during two consecutive monitoring visits by the qualified biologist. Two consecutive monitoring visits may not be necessary if 4393
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 166 -
strong evidence (e.g., nest is on the ground or evidence of predation on young) indicates the nest is no longer active or if the nest is unlikely to be affected by immediate project activities. Once a nest is deemed inactive by the qualified biologist and there is no evidence of a second nest attempt or other active nests in the same area, the biologist will deactivate the nest buffer and construction activities may resume in that area. CDFW will not need to concur with the nest “deactivation” determination prior to work resuming in the area. Project-related activities that result in loss of a nest (“take”) will be immediately reported to the City and appropriate agencies (CDFW, USFWS). A summary of all nest monitoring activities (if any) will be submitted to the City in a brief memo at the completion of each breeding season.

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

Mitigation Measure BIO-2-SP: Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Surveys. To ensure burrowing owl are still absent from the Specific Plan area, a pre-construction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted in accordance with CDFW’s 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Two surveys shall be conducted, the first 14 to 30 days prior to ground-disturbing activities, and the second within 24 hours before ground-disturbing activities. If no burrowing owls are observed within the Specific Plan area, no further review will be required. 4394
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 167 -
If burrowing owls are found within the Specific Plan area during the preconstruction clearance surveys, coordination with the CDFW will be required to determine if avoidance and minimization measures can be implemented to avoid any direct or indirect impacts to burrowing owl, or if an Incidental Take Permit under Section 2081 of the CESA will need to be prepared and approved by CDFW.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3-SP: Pre-disturbance Roosting Site Survey and Bat Management Plan. If on-site clearing or grading will take place between late spring and late summer and/or in the fall (generally mid-March through late October), a qualified biologist shall be retained to determine whether potential roosting sites for bats may be affected. For large ornamental trees and palms suitable for bat roosting/nursery, exit counts and acoustic surveys shall be performed prior to initial ground disturbance or vegetation or structure removal to determine whether the Specific Plan area (and a 300-foot buffer) supports a nursery or roost. Any bat species present shall also be identified.

If the results of the bat survey find a single roosting individual of a special-status bat species or 25 or more individuals of a non-special status bat species with potential to be present in the Specific Plan area (i.e., hoary bat, western yellow bat), a Bat Management Plan shall be developed to ensure mortality to bats does not occur. For each location confirmed to be occupied by bats, the plan shall provide details both in text and graphically where exclusion devises and/or staged tree removal will need to occur, the timing for exclusion work, and the timeline and methodology needed to exclude the bats. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by CDFW prior to disturbance of the roosts.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measures BIO-1-PPA through BIO-4-PPA would require that future development projects conduct a biological resources assessment in compliance with the CESA and FESA to determine if sensitive biological resources could be present within and/or adjacent to the proposed development project. Mitigation Measures BIO-5-PPA through BIO-7-PPA would require preconstruction surveys prior to the start of ground disturbing activities. Mitigation Measures BIO-8-PPA through BIO-10-PPA require pre-disturbance nesting bird surveys, avoidance of active nests, and nest monitoring, to protect birds in compliance with MBTA.

Sensitive biological resources include special status species, sensitive natural communities, wetlands and jurisdictional waters, wildlife movement corridors and nursery sites, and other items identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Each project proponent would be responsible for determining the potential for occurrence of and impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, special status species, wildlife movement corridors, and nursery sites.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1-PPA through BIO-10-PPA would ensure that impacts to special status species are avoided and/or minimized. Impacts would be less than significant.
4395
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 168 -
The 2022 Certified EIR concluded that with project-specific surveys and subsequent consultation with CDFW (as required by the Policy Plan Amendment mitigation measures listed above), impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species would be less than significant.

Specific Plan
Mitigation Measures BIO-1-SP through BIO-3-SP would require pre-construction surveys for nesting birds, burrowing owl, and roosting bat species, thus precluding significant impacts to these species. With the incorporation of these measures, impacts would be less than significant.

Summary
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft SEIR.

These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Ontario hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted.

Impact BIO-4 (PPA+EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project could affect wildlife movement. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.4-69)
The 2022 Certified EIR found that no regional wildlife movement corridors have been identified in the city. Therefore, the approved project did not result in substantial adverse effects to wildlife movement.

Policy Plan Amendment
No regional wildlife movement corridors have been identified in the city, most of which is ill suited for wildlife movement. The flood control channels and the SCE corridors could serve as local corridors for movement within the city and between the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the Prado Basin to the south. The segments of flood control channels in the city would retain the Open Space–Non-Recreation designation under the proposed project and would not be developed with other land uses. The SCE corridors would retain the Open Space– Non-Recreation designation. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to substantially impair the use of flood control channels or SCE corridors in the city as wildlife movement corridors.

There are trees and shrubs scattered throughout the city that may be used for nesting or roosting by migrating birds.

The Policy Plan Amendment primarily involves modifying the TOP 2050 land use pattern and making associated updates to the various elements of the TOP 2050 Policy Plan. The proposed project would not grant specific entitlements for development; therefore, implementation of 4396
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 169 -
the Policy Plan Amendment would not directly impact vegetation that could be used by migrating birds.

TOP 2050 Policy ER-5.1 would encourage efforts to conserve flood control channels and transmission line corridors as wildlife movement corridors; however, future development projects under the proposed project could impact migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant.

Specific Plan
As previously discussed in Section 3.4.2, Existing Conditions, the Specific Plan area has not been identified as being within a wildlife corridor or linkage. The nearest major open space area documented in the vicinity of the site is approximately 4 miles to the south in the Prado Basin.

The Specific Plan area is separated from this open space area by existing development.

Development of the Specific Plan would be confined to areas that have previously been heavily disturbed or developed and are isolated from regional wildlife corridors and linkages. In addition, there are no riparian corridors, creeks, or useful patches of steppingstone habitat (natural areas) within or connecting the site to a recognized wildlife corridor or linkage.

Therefore, the Specific Plan area is not expected to contribute to local wildlife movement opportunities, and no significant impacts to wildlife corridors or linkages would occur from Specific Plan implementation.

During the field reconnaissance undertaken (during breeding season) as part of the Biological Resources Assessment, a single red-tailed hawk was observed preparing a nest. Implementation of the Specific Plan has the potential to impact active bird nests if vegetation is removed during the nesting season. Raptors, migratory birds, and other avian species are protected by the federal MBTA.

Additionally, there is potential for bats to roost in large ornamental trees within the Specific Plan area. This would be a potentially significant impact if the population of bats impacted is 25 or more individuals of non-special-status species, or a single individual of special-status species.

Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure BIO-11-PPA: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-8-PPA (Pre-disturbance Nesting Bird Surveys).

Mitigation Measure BIO-12-PPA: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-9-PPA (Active Nest Avoidance and No-Work Buffers).

Mitigation Measure BIO-13-PPA: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-10-PPA (Nest Monitoring). 4397
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 170 -
Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure BIO-4-SP: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1-SP (Pre-disturbance Nesting Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Monitoring).

Mitigation Measure BIO-5-SP: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-3-SP (Pre-disturbance Roosting Site Survey and Bat Management Plan).

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measures BIO-8-PPA through BIO-10-PPA would require preconstruction nesting bird surveys and avoidance of impacts (direct and indirect) to active nests, avoidance, and active nest monitoring of bird species protected by federal and state laws. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-8-PPA through BIO-10-PPA would ensure impacts to migratory birds would be less than significant.

Specific Plan
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1-SP and BIO-3-SP would preclude significant impacts to nesting birds and roosting bats. As such, the Specific Plan’s potential to impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites would be less than significant.

Summary
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft SEIR.

These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Ontario hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CUL-2 (PPA+EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project could impact archeological resources in the City. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.5-42) The 2022 Certified EIR found that buildout of the approved project could impact archeological resources; however, the 2022 Certified EIR identified that existing federal, state, and local regulations and Mitigation Measure CUL-3-PPA [Former MM 5-2] would reduce impacts to archeological resources to less than significant.
4398
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 171 -
Policy Plan Amendment
A records review at the SCCIC conducted for the approved project identified 20 archeological resources in the City. Based on the results of the research, there is potential archaeological sensitivity throughout the City (see Appendix E1).

The proposed project primarily involves modifying the TOP land use pattern and making associated updates to the various elements of the TOP Policy Plan. Adoption of the proposed project would not directly affect archaeological resources. TOP is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growth and development but does not result in development in and of itself. However, long-term implementation of TOP land use plan under the proposed project could allow development (e.g., new development, infill development, redevelopment, and revitalization/restoration), including grading, of known and unknown sensitive areas.

Grading and construction activities of undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires more intensive soil excavation than in the past could potentially cause the disturbance of archeological resources. Therefore, future development that would be accommodated by the proposed project could potentially unearth previously unrecorded resources.

Existing federal, state, and local regulations address the provisions of studies to identify archaeological resources, review applications for projects that would potentially involve land disturbance, provide a project-level standard condition of approval that addresses unanticipated archeological discoveries and enforces requirements to develop specific mitigation measures if resources are encountered during any development activity. The Historic Preservation section of TOP’s Community Design Element addresses the management of artifacts through Policy CD4.1, Cultural Resources Management, and the collaboration and promotion of public involvement in preservation through Policies CD-4.2, Collaboration with Property Owners and Developers; CD-4.6, Promotion of Public Involvement in Preservation; and CD-4.7, Public Outreach.

Archaeological sites are also protected by a wide variety of state policies and regulations under the PRC. Cultural resources are recognized as nonrenewable and therefore receive protection under the PRC and CEQA. Review and protection of archaeological resources are afforded by CEQA for individual development projects accommodating the Policy Plan Amendment, subject to discretionary actions that are implemented in accordance with the land use plan of TOP under the Policy Plan Amendment. According to CEQA, the lead agency is required to determine whether a development project may have a significant effect on archaeological resources (PRC Section 21083.2). If the lead agency determines that the project may have a significant effect on unique archaeological resources, the project-level CEQA document being prepared for the development project is required to address and mitigate the impacts of those resources.

The proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to archeological resources compared to the approved project; however, like the approved project, impacts to archeological resources are potentially significant. 4399
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 172 -
Specific Plan
No previously recorded archeological resources have been mapped as overlapping the Specific Plan area or the proposed off-site improvements. Regardless, there is potential for buried deposits that may be related to the occupation of the Specific Plan area since the early twentieth century. Therefore, if previously undiscovered cultural materials were encountered during ground-disturbing activities, impacts would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure CUL-3-PPA [Former MM 5-2]: In areas of documented or inferred t archaeological resource presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the presence/absence of such resources. On properties where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements:
 Archaeologists shall be retained for the project and will be on call during grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities.  Should any archaeological be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director or designee is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources.  Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by a San Bernardino County Certified Professional Archaeologist. If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates, and other special studies; submit materials to a museum for permanent curation; and provide a comprehensive final report including a catalog with museum numbers.

Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure CUL-1-SP: An archaeological monitor shall be present full-time during all soil-disturbing and grading/excavation/trenching activities. In the event that cultural resources are discovered by the archaeological (or Native American monitor), all work shall be suspended 50 feet around the resource(s) and a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (principal investigator (PI)) shall assess the discovery. Work on the overall project may continue during this period if the following activities are initiated:
 If the discovery is a prehistoric resource, initiate consultation between the qualified archaeologist, the appropriate Native American tribal entity, and the City/Applicant;
4400
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 173 -
 Include the appropriate Native American entity (as determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards) in the cultural resources investigations as soon as possible; and  If the qualified archaeologist determines the resource(s) to be a “unique archaeological resource” consistent with PRC Section 21083.2 or a “tribal cultural resource” consistent with PRC Section 21074, a Cultural Resources Management Plan shall be prepared by the project archaeologist and submitted to the City Planning Division for approval and subsequent implementation.

During Construction
A. Monitor(s) Shall be Present During Grading/Excavation/Trenching  The archaeological monitor shall be present full-time during all soil-disturbing and grading/excavation/trenching activities of native soil that could result in impacts to archaeological resources.
 The PI may submit a detailed letter to the lead agency during construction requesting a modification to the monitoring program when a field condition such as modern disturbance post-dating the previous grading/trenching activities, presence of fossil formations, or when native soils are encountered that may reduce or increase the potential for resources to be present.

B. Discovery Notification Process
 In the event of an archaeological discovery, either historic or prehistoric, the archaeological monitor shall direct the contractor to temporarily divert all soil-disturbing activities, including but not limited to, digging, trenching, excavating, or grading activities in the area of discovery and in the area reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent resources and immediately notify the Native American monitor and client, as appropriate.  The monitor shall immediately notify the PI (unless the monitor is the PI) of the discovery.

C. Determination of Significance
 The PI shall evaluate the significance of the resource. If human remains are involved, the protocol provided in Section D, below, shall be followed. o The PI shall immediately notify the City of Ontario to discuss the significance determination and shall also submit a letter indicating whether additional mitigation is required.
o If the resource is significant, the PI shall submit an Archaeological Data Recovery Program (ADRP) and obtain written approval from the City of Ontario to implement that program. In the event that prehistoric deposits are discovered, the ADRP should also be reviewed by the Native American consultant/monitor. Impacts to significant resources must be mitigated 4401
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 174 -
before ground-disturbing activities in the area of discovery will be allowed to resume.
o If the resource is not significant, the PI shall submit a letter to the City of Ontario indicating that artifacts will be collected, curated, and documented in the final monitoring report. The letter shall also indicate that that no further work is required.

D. Discovery of Human Remains
 If human remains are discovered, work shall halt in that area until a determination can be made regarding the provenance of the human remains; and the following procedures as set forth in CEQA Section 15064.5(e), the California PRC (Section 5097.98), and the State Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) shall be undertaken:
 Notification
o The archaeological monitor shall notify the PI if the monitor is not qualified as a PI.
o The PI shall notify the Coroner’s Division of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department after consultation with the City of Ontario, either in person or via telephone.
 Isolate discovery site
o Work shall be directed away from the location of the discovery and any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent human remains until a determination can be made by the sheriff-coroner in consultation with the PI concerning the provenance of the remains.
o The sheriff-coroner, in consultation with the PI, will determine the need for a field examination to determine the provenance.
o If a field examination is not warranted, the sheriff-coroner will determine, with input from the PI, if the remains are or are most likely to be of Native American origin.
 If Human Remains are determined to be Native American o The medical examiner will notify the NAHC within 24 hours. By law, only the medical examiner can make this call.
o The NAHC will immediately identify the person or persons determined to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD) and provide contact information. o The MLD will contact the PI within 24 hours or sooner after the sheriff/coroner has completed coordination to begin the consultation process in accordance with CEQA Section 15064.5(e), the California PRC, and the State Health and Safety Code.
4402
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 175 -
o The MLD will have 48 hours to make recommendations to the property owner or representative for the treatment or disposition with proper dignity of the human remains and associated grave goods. o Disposition of Native American human remains will be determined between the MLD and the PI, and, if:
• The NAHC is unable to identify the MLD; or
• The MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the NAHC; or
• The landowner or authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the MLD and mediation in accordance with PRC 5097.94(k) by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner; then
• Upon the discovery of multiple Native American human remains during a ground-disturbing land development activity, the landowner may agree that additional conferral with descendants is necessary to consider culturally appropriate treatment of multiple Native American human remains. Culturally appropriate treatment of such a discovery may be ascertained from review of the site utilizing cultural and archaeological standards. Where the parties are unable to agree upon the appropriate treatment measures, the human remains and grave goods buried with the Native American human remains shall be reinterred with appropriate dignity.
 If Human Remains are not Native American
o The PI shall contact the sheriff-coroner and notify them of the historic era context of the burial.
o The sheriff-coroner will determine the appropriate course of action with the PI and City staff (PRC 5097.98).
o If the remains are of historic origin, they shall be appropriately removed and conveyed to the City of Ontario. The decision for internment of the human remains shall be made in consultation with City, the applicant/landowner, and any known descendant group.

Post-Construction
A. Preparation and Submittal of Draft Monitoring Report  The PI shall submit to the City of Ontario a draft monitoring report (even if negative) prepared in accordance with the agency guidelines, which describes the results, analysis, and conclusions of all phases of the archaeological monitoring program (with appropriate graphics). 4403
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 176 -
o For significant archaeological resources encountered during monitoring, the ADRP shall be included in the draft monitoring report. o Recording sites with the State of California DPR shall be the responsibility of the PI, including the recording (on the appropriate forms-DPR 523 A/B) any significant or potentially significant resources encountered during the archaeological monitoring program.
 The PI shall submit a revised draft monitoring report to the City of Ontario for approval, including any changes or clarifications requested by the City.

B. Handling of Artifacts
 The PI shall be responsible for ensuring that all cultural remains collected are cleaned and cataloged.
 The PI shall be responsible for ensuring that all artifacts are analyzed to identify function and chronology as they relate to the history of the area; that faunal material is identified as to species; and that specialty studies are completed, as appropriate.
 The cost for curation is the responsibility of the property owner.

C. Curation of Artifacts
 Cultural materials shall be offered to a local museum for permanent curation. If the local museum chooses not to curate the item, it shall be offered to another curation facility that meets the California State Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources, as chosen by the City. The PI shall provide a comprehensive final report including a catalog with museum numbers.

D. Final Monitoring Report(s)
 The PI shall submit the approved final monitoring report to the City of Ontario and any interested parties.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure CUL-3-PPA would require preservation and curation of archeological resources if uncovered during development. Mitigation Measure CUL-3-PPA would reduce potential impacts to archeological resources to a level that is less than significant.

Specific Plan
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1-SP, impacts to archeological resources would be less than significant. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. 4404
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 177 -
Summary
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft SEIR.

These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Ontario hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact GEO-6 (PPA+EBPSP): Implementation of TOP 2050 could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.7-36) The 2022 Certified EIR found that buildout of the approved project would not result in impacts to paleontological resources with mitigation.

Policy Plan Amendment
Geologic Features
As identified in Section 3.7.2, the geologic units exposed at the surface in Ontario consist of sediments less than 11,000 years old (Holocene) deposited either by water or wind. Such geology is common throughout the City and region and is not considered unique.

Paleontological Resources
Ontario is underlain by deposits of Quaternary and upper-Pleistocene sediments deposited during Pliocene and early Pleistocene time. Quaternary Older Alluvial sediments may contain significant, nonrenewable, paleontological resources and are therefore considered to have high sensitivity. Older Pleistocene alluvial sediments can yield fossil remains, often found at depths of 10 feet or more below existing ground surface. As previously discussed, the San Bernardino County Museum, Division of Geological Sciences, conducted the paleontological records search and found one previously known paleontological resource locality recorded by the Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory, a computer database with positional and contextual data for more than 3,000 fossil localities throughout California and the southwestern United States. This review found one paleontological locality for the City area (SBCM 5.1.8). This locality yielded the remains of a mammoth from approximately 20 feet below the ground surface. As a result, the possibility of finding additional paleontological resources within City boundaries is moderate to high at depths of 10 feet or more below ground surface.

Existing federal, state, and local regulations address the provisions of studies to identify paleontological resources, review applications for projects that would potentially involve land disturbance, provide a project-level standard condition of approval that addresses unanticipated paleontological discoveries, and enforces requirements to develop specific mitigation measures if resources are encountered during any development activity. 4405
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 178 -
Paleontological resources are recognized as nonrenewable; and therefore, receive protection under the California Public Resources Code (Section 21083.2) and CEQA. Long-term implementation of Policy Plan Amendment would allow development (e.g., new development, infill development, redevelopment, and revitalization/restoration), including grading, of known and unknown sensitive areas. Grading and construction activities of undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires more intensive soil excavation than in the past could potentially cause the disturbance of paleontological resources. Future development that would be accommodated by proposed project could potentially unearth previously unrecorded resources.

Therefore, the potential to uncover undiscovered archeological and paleontological resources is high. Like the approved project, paleontological resources impacts of proposed project would be potentially significant.

Specific Plan
The Specific Plan area is located on the distal margins of the broad alluvial floodplain of the ancestral Santa Ana River. The Specific Plan area is mapped as middle Holocene-aged young sandy alluvial fan deposits. These young deposits overlie middle to late Pleistocene-aged very old sandy alluvial fan deposits, which are mapped at the surface south of the Specific Plan area.

A field survey of the Specific Plan area and the entire limits of disturbance was conducted to determine if any paleontological resources were visible. No bedrock outcrops were exposed that might indicate the presence of fossils. No paleontological resources or evidence of paleontological resources were observed during the survey (Appendix F3).

Potentially fossiliferous late Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits likely occur at a shallow depth below the Specific Plan area. These deposits underlie the Holocene young alluvial fan deposits mapped at the surface. The occurrence of terrestrial vertebrate fossils at shallow depths from Pleistocene alluvial fan sediments in Ontario is well documented as these soils may contain high paleontological sensitivity.

In the event that the construction activities encroach into older alluvial fan deposits, construction could result in impacts to important paleontological resources if such resources are unearthed and not properly treated. Therefore, similar to the 2022 Certified EIR, the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource buried beneath the ground surface is potentially significant. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure GEO-1-PPA [Former MM 5-2]: In areas of documented or inferred from evident paleontological resource presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the presence/absence of such resources. On properties where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified 4406
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 179 -
cultural preservation expert. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements:
 Paleontologist shall be retained for the project and will be on call during grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities.  Should any cultural resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director or designee is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources.  Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by a San Bernardino County Certified Professional Paleontologist. If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates, and other special studies; submit materials to a museum for permanent curation; and provide a comprehensive final report including a catalog with museum numbers.

Specific Plan
Based on the findings of the Paleontological Assessment and in accordance with previous Mitigation Measure GEO-1-PPA, a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) shall be prepared and implemented as required by Mitigation Measure GEO-1-SP.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1-SP: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) shall be approved by the City of Ontario Planning department, as follows

1. All mitigation programs shall be performed by a qualified professional paleontologist, defined as an individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who has proven experience and who is knowledgeable in professional paleontological procedures and techniques. Fieldwork may be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor shall always work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist.

2. Monitoring of mass grading and excavation activities shall be performed by a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor. Starting at a depth of four feet below existing grade, monitoring will be conducted full-time in areas of grading or excavation in undisturbed sediments. Monitoring of artificial fill is not required.

3. If a fossil(s) is found at a shallower depth, earth disturbance activities should be halted within a radius of 50 feet from the location of the fossil, and the paleontologist shall be consulted to determine the significance of the fossilized remains. If the fossil is deemed significant by the paleontologist, fulltime monitoring should be initiated at the site.
4407
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 180 -

4. Paleontological monitors will be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment from the affected area to allow removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface or, if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources.

The monitor shall notify the paleontologist, who will then notify the concerned parties of the discovery.

5. Paleontological salvage during trenching and boring activities is typically from the generated spoils and does not delay the trenching or drilling activities.

Fossils will be collected and placed in cardboard flats or plastic buckets and identified by field number, collector, and date collected. Notes will be taken on the map location and stratigraphy of the site, which will be photographed before it is vacated, and the fossils are removed to a safe place. On mass grading projects, discovered fossil sites will be protected by flagging to prevent them from being overrun by earthmovers (scrapers) before salvage begins. Fossils will be collected in a similar manner, with notes and photographs being taken before removing the fossils. The precise location of the site is determined with the use of electronic handheld devices. If the site involves remains from a large terrestrial vertebrate, such as large bone(s) or a mammoth tusk, that is/are too large to be easily removed by a single monitor, a fossil recovery crew shall excavate around the find, encase the find within a plaster and burlap jacket, and remove it after the plaster is set. For large fossils, use of the contractor’s construction equipment may be solicited to help move the jacket to a safe location.

6. Isolated fossils will be collected by hand, wrapped in protective materials, and placed in temporary collecting flats or five-gallon buckets. Notes will be taken on the map location and stratigraphy of the site, which will be photographed before it is vacated, and the fossils are moved to a safe place.

7. Particularly small invertebrate fossils typically represent multiple specimens of a limited number of organisms, and a scientifically suitable sample can be obtained from one to several 5-gallon buckets of fossiliferous sediment. If it is possible to dry screen the sediment in the field, a concentrated sample may consist of one or two buckets of material.

8. In accordance with the “Microfossil Salvage” section of the SVP guidelines (2010:7), bulk sampling and screening of fine-grained sedimentary deposits (including carbonate-rich paleosols) must be performed if the deposits are identified to possess indications of producing fossil “microvertebrates” to test the feasibility of the deposit to yield fossil bones and teeth. If indicators of potential microvertebrate fossils are found, screening of a test sample (approximately 600 pounds) is recommended, according to the SVP 4408
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 181 -
guidelines. If feasible, wet screening shall be conducted on the site. If screening yields significant fossils, then removing and processing a “standard sample” of 6,000 pounds shall be performed. If the test sample screening does not yield significant fossils, the standard sample screening is not performed.

9. In the laboratory, individual fossils will be cleaned of extraneous matrix, any breaks will be repaired, and the specimen, if needed, will be stabilized by soaking in an archivally approved acrylic hardener (e.g., a solution of acetone and Paraloid B-72).

10. Recovered specimens will be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation (not display), including screen-washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Preparation of individual vertebrate fossils is often more time-consuming than for accumulations of invertebrate fossils.

11. Recovered specimens will be identified and curated into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storage (e.g., the San Bernardino County Museum). The paleontological program should include a written repository agreement prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. Prior to curation, the lead agency (the City of Ontario) will be consulted on the repository/museum to receive the fossil material.

12. A final report of findings and significance will be prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location(s). The report, when submitted to and accepted by the City of Ontario, will signify satisfactory completion of the program to mitigate impacts to any potential nonrenewable paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) that might have been lost or otherwise adversely affected without such a program in place.

Findings
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure GEO-1-PPA [Prior MM 5-2] requires that in the event of an unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources during grading and excavation of the site, a qualified paleontologist would assess the find and develop a course of action to preserve the find.

Therefore, Mitigation Measure GEO-1-PPA would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a level that is less than significant.

Specific Plan
The paleontological monitoring plan required by Mitigation Measure GEO-1-SP would mitigate any adverse impacts (loss or destruction) to potential nonrenewable paleontological resources (fossils), if present.
4409
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 182 -
Summary
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft SEIR.

These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Ontario hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact HAZ-2 (EBPSP): Development of the EBPSP, as well as existing site conditions, may reveal unknown soil or soil vapor contamination or unknown subsurface structures. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.9-47)
Specific Plan
On-Site Conditions
As discussed above, Phase II subsurface investigations were conducted throughout the Specific Plan area. For areas of concern associated with the Hindelang and B&G properties, a total of 8 soil borings were advanced to a depth of 5 feet bgs. For areas of potential pesticide concerns, a total of 220 individual soil samples were collected at a depth of approximately 0.5 feet bgs. Soil vapor sampling was also conducted at depths of 5 feet bgs.

In addition to the above, 3 samples were taken from several stockpiles of unknown origin, as well as 4 samples from the most frequently used dirt driveways/pathways at the Hindelang and B&G properties. Samples were tested for TPH, OCPs, VOCs, and CAM 17 Metals.

Laboratory testing concluded that none of the samples contained contaminants above the thresholds established by the USEPA or DTSC for commercial/industrial land uses. As such, the on-site soils are not significantly impacted by the historical or current land uses within the Specific Plan area (Appendix G2 and Appendix G3).

Nonetheless, construction activities have the potential to encounter unknown soil/soil vapor contamination or unknown subsurface structures within the Specific Plan area. As a result, the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials during construction associated with the Specific Plan area would represent a greater impact than the previously approved project. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

Construction
Construction activities may require limited transport of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., paints, solvents, fertilizer, etc.) to and from the site. This type of storage, transfer, use and disposal of potentially hazardous materials is extensively regulated at the local, State and federal levels.
4410
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 183 -
As previously discussed in Impact Discussion a), above, there is a potential for ACMs, ACPs, and LBP to be present within the Specific Plan area. Demolition activities within the Specific Plan area would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local hazardous materials regulations.

Compliance with regulatory requirements would ensure that removal of these materials would not result in a foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Any potential release or exposure of hazardous materials into the environment due to the construction of the EBPSP would be less than significant with continued compliance with applicable regulations. The EBPSP would not result in new or substantially greater impacts compared to the approved project.

Operations
Operations could involve the temporary storage and handling of potentially hazardous materials such as pesticides, fertilizers, or paint products that are pre-packaged for distribution and use, which is regulated at the local, State and federal levels.

As previously mentioned, any business that occupies the buildings within the Specific Plan area and that handles hazardous materials would require a permit from the SBCFPD Hazardous Materials Division in order to register the business as a hazardous materials handler. Such businesses would also be required to prepare a HMBEP.

Operations of the EBPSP would not result in conditions that are not currently addressed by existing regulations, precluding foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, like the approved project, this impact is less than significant. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Mitigation Measures
Specific Plan
Development of the EBPSP has the potential to encounter unknown soil/soil vapor contamination or unknown subsurface structures within the Specific Plan area.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1-SP: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to address potentially unknown soil/soil vapor contamination or unknown subsurface structures (e.g., clarifiers, underground storage tanks [USTs], asbestos containing pipelines [ACPs], etc.) that may be encountered during redevelopment activities. The SMP shall include explicit instructions for the appropriate handling, storage, and disposal of any known or potentially impacted soil during soil moving activities. The general contractor shall follow the requirements of the SMP and stop work to make notification to the environmental team if any potential impacts are observed at any time the environmental team is not already on-site. The SMP shall also 4411
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 184 -
require air monitoring activities to monitor the air downwind of the Specific Plan area and appropriate Health and Safety Plans that will be employed by site workers. The SMP shall identify specific requirements intended to protect human health when soil in certain areas of known or suspected impacts are disturbed for any reason, including, without limitation, as a result of demolition, utility installation/repair, soil excavation, drilling, grading/filling activities, stockpile generation, soil management, loading, and transportation.

Findings
Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1-SP would ensure that no significant impacts due to unknown soil/soil vapor contamination or unknown subsurface structures would occur. Adherence to the SMP would ensure compliance with existing laws and regulations. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft SEIR.

These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Ontario hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact TCR-1 (PPA+EBPSP): Tribal cultural resources could be adversely impacted by grading activities associated with the proposed project. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.18-15) The 2022 Certified EIR found that the TOP 2050 would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to TCRs. Grading and construction activities in undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires deeper soil excavation than in the past could potentially disturb TCRs, but mitigation measures TCR-1-PP through TCR-4-PP provided in the 2022 Certified EIR would reduce potential impacts associated with TCRs to a level that is less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
The SLF search conducted by the NAHC did not indicate the presence of known tribal cultural resources within or immediately adjacent to the City boundaries. Four tribes responded to the City’s invitation for tribal resources consultation, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation, FT. Yuma Quechan Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (San Manuel Band of Mission Indians). As described above, all the tribes that responded deferred to other tribes or did not wish to consult. 4412
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 185 -
The Policy Plan Amendment is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growth and development in the City and does not result in development in and of itself; however, future development as a result of the implementation of proposed project could include grading in portions of the City with sensitivity to TCRs. Though the proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to TCRs compared to the approved project, there is potential to uncover tribal cultural resources during construction, which would also include disturbing previously undisturbed soils. Since the proposed project could result in the discovery of subsurface TCRs, the disturbance of which could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the resource(s), impacts would be potentially significant. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant. However, the proposed project would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan
As discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, a records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) indicated that no cultural resources have previously been recorded within the Specific Plan area boundaries (see Appendix E3). Additionally, results of the NAHC SLF results were negative for the presence of Native American sacred sites or locations of ceremonial importance within the vicinity of the Specific Plan area. The field survey conducted as part of the Cultural Resources Survey did not identify any tribal resources.

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

To this end, outreach letters were sent to the following local Native American tribal groups on August 29, 2025.
 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
 Cahuilla Band of Indians
 Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation
 Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians  Gabrieliño Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council  Gabrieliño/Tongva Nation
 Gabrieliño-Tongva Tribe
 Morongo Band of Mission Indians
4413
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 186 -
 Quechan Indian Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
 San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
 Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
 Serrano Nation of Mission Indians
 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
The outreach letters provided formal notification of the EBPSP, elicited information on Native American cultural resources that may be in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area, and offered formal consultation pursuant to AB 52/SB18.

Outreach responses received by the City are summarized below.  San Manuel Band of Mission Indians indicated that the Specific Plan area was outside of their ancestral territory and did not request consultation.  Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians indicated that the Specific Plan area was outside of their ancestral territory and did not request consultation.  Quechan Indian Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation declined consultation.  Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation requested notification of ground disturbing activities.

The consultation period ended on November 17, 2025, with no tribes requesting formal consultation. Regardless, the Cultural Resources Study concluded that there is a potential for previously undiscovered archeological resources to exist within the Specific Plan area; this is a potentially significant impact. However, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Mitigation Measures
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 TCR-2-PPA shall be followed.

Mitigation Measure TCR-2-PPA [Former MM 5-4]: The applicant shall coordinate with tribal representative(s) address the designation, responsibilities, and participation of 4414
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 187 -
tribal monitors during grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities; scheduling; terms of compensation; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The City of Ontario shall be the final arbiter of the conditions for projects within the City’s jurisdiction.

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

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

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

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, 4415
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 188 -
the following procedures will be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:

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

2. Treatment and Final Disposition: The landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and nonhuman remains as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City of Ontario with evidence of same:
a. Accommodate the process for on-site reburial of the discovered items with the consulting Native American tribes or bands. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloging, basic analysis, other analyses as recommended by the project archaeologist and approved by consulting tribes, and basic recordation have been completed; all documentation should be at a level of standard professional practice to allow the writing of a report of professional quality;
b. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository in San Bernardino County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79, and therefore the resource would be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, 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 4416
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 189 -
known resources on the property; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources; provide evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pregrade meeting; and, in a confidential appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the archaeologist. All reports produced will be submitted to the City, County Museum, and consulting tribes.

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

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

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

Summary
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft SEIR.

These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Ontario hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted.

3.3.2 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO BELOW THE LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
The following summary describes the unavoidable adverse impact of the proposed project where either mitigation measures were found to be infeasible, or the mitigation measures are under the control of another lead agency. The following impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
4417
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 190 -

AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-1 (PPA + EBPSP): The additional population growth forecast for the Policy Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and the associated emissions would exceed the assumptions of the South Coast AQMD’s AQMP. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.3-48) The 2022 Certified EIR identified that the approved project would be consistent with the South Coast AQMD AQMP under the first criteria. Air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the approved project would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SoCAB. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2-PPA (former MM 3-2) and Mitigation Measure AIR-3-PPA (former MM AQ-1), as well as TOP 2050 goals and policies, would help reduce criteria air pollutant emissions. Due to the magnitude of population growth and associated emissions, the approved project was identified to conflict with the South Coast AQMD AQMP under the second criteria and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

The following describes potential air quality impacts of consistency with the AQMP from implementation of the proposed project compared to the approved project.

Policy Plan Amendment
The South Coast AQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources in the SoCAB to achieve the National and California AAQS and has responded to this requirement by preparing an AQMP. The South Coast AQMD Governing Board adopted the 2022 AQMP, which is a regional and multiagency effort (South Coast AQMD, CARB, SCAG, and EPA).

A consistency determination with the AQMP plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the AQMP. It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under consideration early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to the clean air goals in the AQMP.

The 2 principal criteria for conformance with an AQMP are:

1. Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP.

2. Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timeline attainment of air quality standards.

SCAG is South Coast AQMD’s partner in the preparation of the AQMP, providing the latest economic and demographic forecasts and developing transportation measures. Regional population, housing, and employment projections developed by SCAG are based, in part, on 4418
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 191 -
general plan land use designations. These projections form the foundation for the emissions inventory of the AQMP.

Criteria 1: Consistency with Regional Growth Assumptions Draft SEIR Table 3.3-10, Comparison of Population and Employment Forecast, compares the population and employment growth forecast under the approved project and the proposed project. The table shows that the proposed project would result in more VMT due to an increase in population; however, both the approved project and the proposed project would result in similar VMT per service population. This indicates that the proposed project would accommodate additional growth without substantially increasing travel demand per service population, reflecting an efficient land use plan. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP under the first criterion.

Criterion 2: Consistency with Regional Emissions Forecasts The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 under the California and National AAQS,15 nonattainment for PM10 under the California AAQS, and nonattainment for lead (Los Angeles County only) under the National AAQS (CARB 2025a). As identified in Air Quality Threshold b), the proposed project would result in a substantial increase in ROG and NOX compared to the approved project. Consequently, emissions generated by development projects under the proposed project, in addition to existing sources in the City, are considered to cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Buildout of the proposed project could contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air quality violations and delay attainment of the AAQS or interim emission reductions in the AQMP, and emissions generated from buildout of the proposed project would result in a significant air quality impact. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not be consistent with the AQMP under the second criterion and would result in a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project.

Summary
Buildout of the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP under the first criteria; however, air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SoCAB. Consistency with the AQMP was identified as significant and unavoidable in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. This impact is potentially significant. 15 The SoCAB is pending a redesignation request from nonattainment to attainment for the 24-hour federal PM2.5 standards. The 2021 PM2.5 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan demonstrates that the South Coast meets the requirements of the CAA to allow the EPA to redesignate the SoCAB to attainment for the 65 µg/m3 and 35 µg/m3 24-hour PM2.5 standards. CARB will submit the 2021 PM2.5 Redesignation Request to the EPA as a revision to the California SIP (CARB 2021).
4419
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 192 -
Specific Plan
Impacts for the Specific Plan are embodied in the emissions tables (Draft SEIR Tables 3.3-12 to

3.3-18) under Air Quality Threshold b). In summary, operational-source emissions would exceed applicable regional thresholds for emissions of ROG (summer only) and NOx during Phase 1; ROG, NOx, and CO (summer only) during Phase 2; and ROG, NOx, CO, and PM10 at buildout.

Accordingly, operation of the Specific Plan could increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations and would cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.

Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the SoCAB are provided to SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts that are used to develop air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in City of Ontario Policy Plan is considered consistent with the AQMP. The EBPSP is not consistent with the approved project.

Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation measures applied to a development project’s operational phase would help reduce impacts associated with buildout of the proposed project; however, no mitigation measures are available that would reduce impacts associated with consistency with South Coast AQMD’s AQMP.

Specific Plan
Mitigation measures applied to a development project’s operational phase would help reduce impacts associated with buildout of the proposed project; however, no mitigation measures are available that would reduce impacts associated with consistency with South Coast AQMD’s AQMP. Mitigation measures applied to the operational phases (Mitigation Measures AIR-5-SP through AIR-12-SP) for the Specific Plan would reduce regional air quality exceedances.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
As shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.2-12, City of Ontario Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast, the proposed project would result in a substantial increase in ROG and NOX compared to the approved project. At the program level, ROG and NOX emissions cannot be mitigated because the primary sources are outside local control. ROG emissions largely come from consumer products that are regulated at the manufacturer level, and the City cannot control which products residents purchase or use. Similarly, NOX emissions from the transportation sector depend on the types of vehicles individuals choose to own and operate, which are governed by state and federal standards rather than local plans.

Accordingly, because of the magnitude and intensity of development accommodated by the proposed project, as well as regional air quality influences beyond the control of the City, impacts associated with consistency with the AQMP would remain significant and unavoidable. 4420
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 193 -
No additional feasible mitigation measures or mitigating policies at the program level would ensure consistency of the proposed project with the South Coast AQMD’s AQMP. The identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent individual projects that meet applicable project-level thresholds of significance.

Specific Plan
The EBPSP is considered inconsistent with the 2022 AQMP because the EBPSP has the potential to result in or cause violations of the National or California AAQS and would not be consistent with the approved project. Consistency with the AQMP was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, the EBPSP would not result in a new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

There is no feasible mitigation that would reduce impacts associated with consistency of the project with the AQMP to less than significant; Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Summary
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft SEIR.

These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Ontario hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted.

The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the SEIR, as discussed in Section IV of these Findings (Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

Impact AQ-2 (PPA): Construction activities associated with future development that would be accommodated under the Policy Plan Amendment could generate shortterm emissions in exceedance of the South Coast AQMD’s threshold criteria. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.3-53)
4421
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 194 -
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that, due to the scale of development activity associated under the approved project, the short-term emissions would likely exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds.

Policy Plan Amendment
Construction emissions were not quantified due to the programmatic nature of the proposed project. Though mitigation measures were incorporated, the 2022 Certified EIR identified significant and unavoidable construction phase impacts associated with the approved project.

Construction activities under the proposed project would also temporarily increase PM10, PM2.5, ROG, NOX, SOX, and CO regional emissions in the SoCAB. The primary source of NOX, CO, and SOX emissions is the operation of construction equipment. The primary sources of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions are activities that disturb the soil, such as grading and excavation, road construction, and building demolition and construction. The primary sources of ROG emissions are the application of architectural coating and off-gas emissions associated with asphalt paving.

Construction activities associated with the proposed project would occur over the buildout horizon of the plan, causing short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants; however, information regarding specific development projects, soil types, and the locations of receptors would be needed to quantify the level of impact associated with construction activity. Due to the scale of development activity associated with buildout of the proposed project, emissions would likely exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds. In accordance with the South Coast AQMD methodology, emissions that exceed the regional significance thresholds would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB.

Air quality emissions related to construction must be addressed on a project-by-project basis.

For the Policy Plan Amendment, which is a broad-based policy plan, it is not possible to determine whether the scale and phasing of individual projects would exceed the South Coast AQMD’s short-term regional or localized construction emissions thresholds. In addition to regulatory measures—e.g., South Coast AQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control, Rule 1113 for architectural coatings, and CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measures—mitigation imposed at the project level may include extension of construction schedules and/or use of special equipment.

Furthermore, TOP 2050 includes a range of policies designed to reduce construction-related emissions, as listed below. Environmental Resources (ER) Element Policy 4.6 would support reduction in particulate matter generated during construction activities. Safety (S) Element Policy S-5.1 requires the implementation of best management practices for dust control at all excavation and grading projects, and Policy S-5.2 prohibits excavation and grading during strong wind conditions.
 ER-4.6: Particulate Matter. We support efforts to reduce particulate matter to meet State and Federal Clean Air Standards.
4422
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 195 -
 S-5.1: Dust Control Measures. We require the implementation of Best Management Practices for dust control at all excavation and grading projects.  S-5.2: Grading in High Winds. We prohibit excavation and grading during strong wind conditions, as defined by the Building Code.

While individual projects accommodated under the proposed project may not exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds, the likely scale and extent of the combined construction activities associated with the future development under the proposed project would likely continue to exceed the relevant South Coast AQMD thresholds. Compared to the approved project, the proposed project would have similar impacts because the proposed project would result in an increase in land use intensity rather than development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the city which would require substantial landform modification.

Construction impacts of the approved project were identified as significant and unavoidable in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Like the approved project, construction-related regional air quality impacts of developments that would be accommodated by the proposed project would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
The following mitigation measures were taken directly from the 2022 Certified EIR. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the 2022 Certified EIR are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and underlined for new, inserted text. The numbering of the mitigation measures has been updated for clarity, with the original mitigation number in the 2022 Certified EIR identified in brackets [Former MM].

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 constructionrelated 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:
4423
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 196 -
 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 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 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 Management District’s website at: 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.  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.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Buildout in accordance with the proposed project would generate short-term construction emissions that would exceed South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Mitigation Measure AIR-1-PPA and applicable goals and policies of the proposed project would reduce constructionrelated air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. Construction emissions associated with the proposed project would be similar to the approved project, because the proposed project would result in an increase in land use intensity rather than development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the City that would require substantial landform modification; however, individual projects accommodated under proposed project may exceed the South Coast AQMD 4424
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 197 -
regional significance thresholds. Therefore, like the approved project, construction-related regional air quality impacts of developments that would be accommodated by the proposed project would remain significant and unavoidable.

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft SEIR.

These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Ontario hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted.

The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the SEIR, as discussed in Section IV of these Findings (Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

Impact AQ-3 (PPA + EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project would generate additional, long-term emissions in exceedance of South Coast AQMD’s threshold criteria and cumulatively contribute to the South Coast Air Basin’s nonattainment designations. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.3-59)
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that the approved project would generate long-term emissions that would exceed South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SoCAB. Mitigation Measure AIR-2-PPA (former MM 3-2) and Mitigation Measure AIR-3-PPA (former MM AQ-1), in addition to the goals and policies of the approved project, would reduce air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. Due to the increase in ROGs from residential development associated with the approved project, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Policy Plan Amendment
The Policy Plan Amendment guides growth and development in the City by designating allowed land uses by parcel and through implementation of its goals and policies. New development would increase air pollutant emissions in the City and contribute to the overall emissions in the SoCAB. The Policy Plan Amendment sets up the framework for growth and development, but does not directly result in development. Before development can occur, it must be analyzed for conformance with the general plan, zoning requirements, and other applicable local and State 4425
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 198 -
requirements; comply with the requirements of CEQA; and obtain all necessary clearances and permits.

Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast
While individual projects accommodated by the proposed project would be required to undergo their own environmental review, as applicable, some development projects may not be subject to CEQA or may result in significant air quality impacts that could contribute to existing or forecast violations of AAQS. Therefore, citywide emissions are evaluated to account for the cumulative, program-level contribution of development across the City that may not be fully captured through project-by-project review.

The emissions inventory for the City under the proposed project and the approved project is shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.3-14, City of Ontario Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast. As shown in the table, buildout of the proposed project would generate an increase in long-term emissions that exceeds the daily South Coast AQMD thresholds for ROG and NOX.

The increase in ROG emissions compared to the approved project is a result of the increase in residential uses, which results in a greater increase in consumer product use. Emissions of ROG that exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds would contribute to the ozone (O3) nonattainment designation of the SoCAB. The increase in NOX emissions is a result of higher emissions from mobile sources and energy production within the City. NOX is a precursor to the formation of O3 as well as particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Consequently, the criteria air pollutant emissions that exceed South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds would cumulatively contribute to the O3 and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) nonattainment designations of the SoCAB.

TOP 2050 includes a range of policies that would help reduce operational emissions associated with development projects, as listed below. Land Use (LU) Element policies LU-2.1 through LU-2.4 would promote compatible development patterns and regulate potential impacts from new development on adjacent land uses. Environmental Resources (ER) Element policies ER-3.2 through ER-3.6 would ensure that new development is designed to be energy efficient and to use fuel efficient vehicles. Policies ER-4.1, ER-4.5, ER-4.8, and ER-4.9 would help reduce longterm air pollution from new development by encouraging mixed-use projects to promote nonmotorized mobility, expand tree canopy, and require health risk assessment for land uses that generate high truck traffic. Community Design (CD) Element policy CD-2.7 would ensure that sustainability is considered in the design of new projects to reduce energy demand through solar orientation and other design standards. Mobility (M) Element policies M-1.4, M-1.6, M-2.1, and M-3.1 would reduce VMT by developing trails and corridors that support active transportation, implementing travel demand management strategies, and providing a comprehensive public transit system.
 LU-2.1: Land Use Decisions. We minimize adverse impacts on adjacent properties when considering land use and zoning requests.
4426
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 199 -
 LU-2.2: Buffers. We require new uses to provide mitigation or buffers between existing uses where potential adverse impacts could occur. Additional mitigation is required when new uses could negatively impact environmental justice areas.  LU2.3: Hazardous Uses. We regulate the development of industrial and similar uses that use, store, produce, or transport toxic substances, air emissions, other pollutants, or hazardous materials.
 LU-2.4: Regulation of Nuisances. We regulate the location, concentration, and operation of potential nuisances.
 ER-3.2: Green Development – Communities. We encourage the use of the LEED Neighborhood Development rating system, or similar mechanism, to guide the planning and development of all new communities.
 ER-3.3: Building and Site Design. We require new construction to incorporate energy efficient building and site design strategies, which could include appropriate solar orientation, maximum use of natural daylight, passive solar, and natural ventilation.  ER-3.4: Green Development – Public Buildings. We require all new and substantially renovated City buildings in excess of 10,000 square feet achieve a LEED Silver Certification standard, as determined by the U.S. Green Building Council.  ER-3.5: Fuel-Efficient and Alternative Energy Vehicles and Equipment. We require purchase and use vehicles and equipment that are fuel efficient and meet or surpass state emissions requirements and/or use renewable sources of energy.
 ER-3.6: Generation – Renewable Sources. We promote the use of renewable energy sources (e.g., solar, wind, biomass) in public and private sector development.  CD-2.7: Sustainability. We collaborate with the development community to design and build neighborhoods, streetscapes, sites, outdoor spaces, landscaping, and buildings to reduce energy demand through solar orientation, maximum use of natural daylight, passive solar and natural ventilation, building form, mechanical and structural systems, building materials, and construction techniques.
 ER-4.1: Land Use. We reduce GHG and other local pollutant emissions through compact, mixed use, and transit-oriented development and development that improves the regional jobs-housing balance.
 ER-4.5: Transportation. We promote mass transit and non-motorized mobility options (walking, biking) to reduce air pollutant emissions.
 ER-4.8: Tree Planting. We protect healthy trees within the City and plant new trees to increase carbon sequestration and help the regional/local air quality. We expand the tree canopy in environmental justice areas to enhance air quality and reduce the “heat island” effect.
 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 4427
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 200 -
units (TRU's) within 1,000 feet from 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 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.
 M-1.4: Complete Streets. We work to provide a complete, balanced, context-aware, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public transportation. We prioritize implementation of complete streets improvements in environmental justice areas to facilitate opportunities for residents to use active transportation systems.  M-1.6: Reduce 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.
 M-2.1: Active Transportation. We maintain our Active Transportation Master Plan to create a comprehensive system of on- and off-street bikeways and pedestrian facilities that are safe, comfortable, and accessible and connect residential areas, businesses, schools, parks, and other key destination points.
 M-3.3: Transit-Oriented Development. We may provide additional development-related incentives to those inherent in the Land Use Plan for projects that promote transit use and reduce vehicle miles traveled.

Despite the applicable TOP 2050 policies, because ROG and NOX emissions would be substantially greater, the proposed project is considered to result in an increase in magnitude of impacts for ROG and NOX compared to the approved project. The increase in ROG emissions would contribute to the ozone nonattainment designation of the SoCAB, and the increase in NOX emissions would contribute to the ozone and particulate matter nonattainment designations of the SoCAB.

Health Impacts
Contributing to the nonattainment status would also contribute to elevating health effects associated to these criteria air pollutants. Known health effects related to ozone include worsening of bronchitis, asthma, and emphysema and a decrease in lung function. Health effects associated with particulate matter include premature death of people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, decreased lung function, and increased 4428
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 201 -
respiratory symptoms. Reducing emissions would further contribute to reducing possible health effects related to criteria air pollutants.

It is speculative for this broad-based policy plan to determine how exceeding the regional thresholds would affect the number of days the region is in nonattainment since mass emissions are not correlated with concentrations of emissions, or how many additional individuals in the air basin would be affected by the health effects cited above. This SEIR quantifies the increase in criteria air pollutants emissions in the City; however, at a programmatic level analysis, it is not feasible to quantify the increase in TACs from stationary sources associated with the proposed project or meaningfully correlate how regional criteria air pollutant emissions above the South Coast AQMD significance thresholds correlate with basin wide health impacts.

To determine cancer and noncancer health risk, the location, velocity of emissions, meteorology and topography of the area, and locations of receptors are equally important as model parameters as the quantity of TAC emissions. The white paper in Appendix C1 “We Can Model Regional Emissions, But Are the Results Meaningful for CEQA” describes several of the challenges of quantifying local effects—particularly health risks—for large-scale, regional projects, and these are applicable to both criteria air pollutants and TACs. Similarly, the 2 amicus briefs filed by the air districts on the Friant Ranch case (see Appendix C1) describe 2 positions regarding CEQA requirements, modeling feasibility, variables, and reliability of results for determining specific health risks associated with criteria air pollutants. The discussions also include the distinction between criteria air pollutant emissions and TACs with respect to health risks. Additionally, the South Coast AQMD’s Significance Thresholds and Monitoring demonstrate the infeasibility based on the current guidance/methodologies. The following summarizes major points about the infeasibility of assessing health risks of criteria air pollutant emissions and TACs associated with implementation of a general plan.

To achieve and maintain air quality standards, the South Coast AQMD has established numerical emission indicators of significance for regional and localized air quality impacts for both construction and operational phases of a local plan or project. The South Coast AQMD has established the thresholds based on “scientific and factual data that is contained in the federal and state Clean Air Acts” and recommends “that these thresholds be used by lead agencies in making a determination of significance.” The numerical emission indicators are based on the recognition that the air basin is a distinct geographic area with a critical air pollution problem for which ambient air quality standards have been promulgated to protect public health. The thresholds represent the maximum emissions from a plan or project that are expected not to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable national or state ambient air quality standard. By analyzing the plan’s emissions against the thresholds, an EIR assesses whether these emissions directly contribute to any regional or local exceedances of the applicable ambient air quality standards and exposure levels.

South Coast AQMD currently does not have methodologies that would provide the City with a consistent, reliable, and meaningful analysis to correlate specific health impacts that may result 4429
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 202 -
from a proposed project’s mass emissions.16 For criteria air pollutants, exceedance of the regional significance thresholds cannot be used to correlate a project to quantifiable health impacts unless emissions are sufficiently high to use a regional model. South Coast AQMD has not provided methodology to assess the specific correlation between mass emissions generated and their effect on health (see Appendix C1: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s amicus brief, and South Coast AQMD’s amicus brief).

Ozone concentrations depend on a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Secondary formation of particulate matter and ozone can occur far from sources as a result of regional transport due to wind and topography (e.g., low-level jet stream). Photochemical modeling depends on all emission sources in the entire domain (i.e., modeling grid). Low resolution and spatial averaging produce “noise” and modeling errors that usually exceed individual source contributions. Because of the complexities of predicting ground-level ozone concentrations in relation to the National and California AAQS, it is not possible to link health risks to the magnitude of emissions exceeding the significance thresholds.

Current models used in CEQA air quality analyses are designed to estimate potential project construction and operation emissions for defined projects. The estimated emissions are compared to significance thresholds, which are keyed to reducing emissions to levels that will not interfere with the region’s ability to attain the health-based standards. This serves to protect public health in the overall region, but there is currently no CEQA methodology to determine the impact of emissions (e.g., pounds per day) on future concentration levels (e.g., parts per million or micrograms per cubic meter) in specific geographic areas. CEQA thresholds, therefore, are not specifically tied to potential health outcomes in the region.

The SEIR must provide an analysis that is understandable for decision making and public disclosure. Regional-scale modeling may provide a technical method for this type of analysis, but it does not necessarily provide a meaningful way to connect the magnitude of a project’s criteria pollutant emissions to health effects without speculation. Additionally, this type of analysis is not feasible at a general plan level because the location of emissions sources and quantity of emissions are not known. Because cumulative development within the City would 16 In April 2019, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) published an Interim Recommendation on implementing Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 (“Friant Ranch”) in the review and analysis of proposed projects under CEQA in Sacramento County. Consistent with the expert opinions submitted to the court in Friant Ranch by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and South Coast AQMD, the SMAQMD guidance confirms the absence of an acceptable or reliable quantitative methodology that would correlate the expected criteria air pollutant emissions of projects to likely health consequences for people from project-generated criteria air pollutant emissions. The SMAQMD guidance explains that while it is in the process of developing a methodology to assess these impacts, lead agencies should follow the Friant Court’s advice to explain in meaningful detail why this analysis is not yet feasible. Since this interim memorandum SMAQMD has provided methodology to address health impacts. However, a similar analysis is not available for projects within the South Coast AQMD region. 4430
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 203 -
exceed the regional significance thresholds, the proposed project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the basin until the attainment standards are met in the SoCAB.

Summary
The proposed project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact, as the 2022 Certified EIR already identified long-term operational impacts associated with the approved project as significant and unavoidable. Although the proposed project may result in higher ROG and NOX emissions compared to the approved project, this would not constitute a new or substantially more severe significant impact. Like the approved project, the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB and operation-related regional air quality impacts of developments that would be accommodated by the proposed project would be potentially significant.

Specific Plan
Operational activities associated with the Specific Plan would result in emissions of ROGs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Operational emissions are expected from the following primary sources:
 Mobile Source Emissions;
 Area Source Emissions;
 Energy Source Emissions;
 Stationary Source Emissions; and
 Cargo Handling Source Emissions.

Estimated peak operational emissions for all phases are summarized in Draft SEIR Table 3.3-15, EBPSP Peak Operational Emissions Summary: Phase 1; Draft SEIR Table 3.3-16, EBPSP Peak Operational Emissions Summary: Phases 1 and 2; and Draft SEIR 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 Draft SEIR Table 3.3-18, EBPSP Overlapping Construction and Operational Emissions Summary:
4431
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 204 -
 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 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.

Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
The following mitigation measures were taken directly from the 2022 Certified EIR. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the 2022 Certified EIR are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and underline for new, inserted text. The numbering of the mitigation measures has been updated for clarity, with the original mitigation number in the 2022 Certified EIR identified in brackets [Former MM].

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

Mitigation Measure AIR-3-PPA [Former MM AQ-1]: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-phase4432 Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 205 -
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 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 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).
4433
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 206 -
 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.
 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
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, implementation of the following Mitigation Measures would be required for 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 electricpowered trucks would park and connect to charging facilities to charge the batteries that 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 4434
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 207 -
programs for diesel-fueled vehicle engine retrofit and/or replacement; 3) access to alternative fueling stations proximate to the site that supply compressed natural gas; and 4) the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program.

Mitigation Measure AIR-3-SP: Idling Regulations. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be installed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas that identify applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) anti-idling regulations. At a minimum, each sign shall include the following instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use.
a) Instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than 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-4-SP: All future operations shall adhere to the following:
a) Sites shall clearly mark entry and exit points for trucks and service vehicles. b) Facility operators shall maintain records of their fleet equipment owned by the facility and ensure that all diesel-fueled Medium-Heavy Duty Trucks (MHDT) and Heavy-Heavy Duty Trucks (HHDT) use year CARB 2010 or newer engines. The records should be maintained on-site and be made available for inspection by the lead agency.
c) Facility operators shall train their managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks.
d) Signs should be posted in the appropriate locations and/or handouts should be provided that show the locations of nearest food options, fueling, truck maintenance services, and other similar convenience services. e) Each Facility shall designate a Compliance Officer responsible for implementing the measures described herein and/or in the project conditions of approval and mitigation measures. Contact information shall be provided to the City and updated annually, and signs shall be posted in visible locations providing the contact information for the Compliance Officer to the surrounding community. The Compliance Officer also shall coordinate with CARB and South Coast AQMD to obtain the latest information about regional air quality concentrations, health risks, and trucking regulations. 4435
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 208 -
f) Signs shall be posted in the appropriate locations heavy truck drivers to park and perform any self-maintenance of trucks in designated on-site areas and not within the surrounding community or on public streets. g) Development plans and specifications shall include signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the truck route.

Mitigation Measure AIR-5-SP: Electric Vehicle Charging and Future Truck Charging Capability.

Prior to issuance of building permits, the following features shall be demonstrated on the EBPSP’s building plans to the extent feasible over minimum California Code of Regulations Title 24 requirements. Installation shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. a) For use by employees and visitors conducting business at the building, install automobile electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at the minimum number required by the California Code of Regulations Title 24. All charging stations shall be equipped with Level 2 or faster chargers. Signs shall be posted indicating that the charging stations are for exclusive use by the building’s employees and by visitors conducting business at the building. b) Install appropriate electrical infrastructure sufficiently sized to accommodate the potential installation of additional auto and truck EV charging stations in the future.
c) Install raceways for conduit to tractor trailer parking areas in logical, gated locations determined by the Applicant during construction document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV truck charging stations at such time this technology becomes commercially available. The charging station location(s) are to be located inside the gated and secured truck courts.

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

Mitigation Measure AIR-7-SP: City Review of Construction Documents. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following features shall be demonstrated on building and landscape plans to the extent feasible. Installation shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
a) Install Energy Star-rated heating, cooling, lighting, and appliances b) Structures shall be equipped with outdoor electric outlets in the front and rear to facilitate use of electrical lawn and garden equipment. 4436
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 209 -
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 cleaner-than-required engines and equipment.
c) Requirements to use the cleanest technologies available and to provide the necessary infrastructure to support zero-emission vehicles, equipment, and appliances that would be operating on site at such time this technology becomes commercially available. This requirement shall apply to equipment such as forklifts, handheld landscaping equipment, yard trucks, office appliances, etc.
d) Requirements to exclusively use zero-emission light and medium-duty delivery trucks and vans, when economically feasible.
e) Requirements to operate in compliance with, and to monitor compliance with, all current and applicable air quality regulations for on-road trucks including the California Air Resources Board’s Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) 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 4437
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 210 -
docks, and truck parking areas that identify applicable CARB anti-idling regulations.
h) The tenant agreement shall include notification that the tenant shall comply with CARB Truck and Bus regulation, including requirements that only haul trucks meeting model year 2010 engine emission standards shall be used for the on-road transport of materials to and from the site. i) Requirements for the building owner to provide a Green Cleaning Products and Paint Education Program available to the building tenant, to keep at the building’s office, break room, leasing space, or on an accessible website.