Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, June 16, 2026 (part 20 of 28)

Mitigation Measure AIR-9-SP: Prior to the commencement of construction activities that may overlap with operation of nearby approved or existing uses and result in concurrent emissions-generating activities (“overlap periods”), the project applicant shall prepare and submit a construction emissions management plan to the City for review and approval. The plan shall identify and implement feasible measures to minimize construction-related emissions during overlap periods and shall include, at a minimum, the following measures, where applicable and feasible:
a) Apply water or approved soil stabilizers to disturbed soils, unpaved haul roads, staging areas, and stockpiles as necessary to prevent visible dust emissions.
b) Cover, water, or otherwise stabilize all soil stockpiles and inactive disturbed areas.
c) Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces to 15 miles per hour or less. d) Install and maintain track-out control devices, including rumble plates, wheel washers, or equivalent measures, at construction access points. e) Suspend grading and other soil-disturbance activities during high wind events when visible dust cannot be adequately controlled.
f) Utilize off-road diesel-powered construction equipment meeting U.S. EPA Tier 4 Final emissions standards for engines rated at 50 horsepower or greater, unless such equipment is demonstrated to be unavailable or infeasible. g) All diesel-powered off-road construction equipment and on-road haul trucks operating during overlap periods shall utilize renewable diesel meeting California Air Resources Board specifications to the extent commercially available and feasible.
4438
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 211 -
h) Require off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts, including plate compactors and pressure washers, to be electrically powered or battery operated where commercially available and feasible.
i) Prohibit the idling of construction equipment and on-road haul trucks for more than five consecutive minutes, except where necessary for safety, operational requirements, or manufacturer specifications. j) Utilize electrically powered or battery-powered hand construction tools and equipment where commercial available and feasible.
k) Require heavy-duty haul trucks entering the construction site during grading and building construction phases to be model year 2014 or newer to the extent feasible and commercially available.
l) Encourage construction workers to carpool, rideshare, or utilize shared transportation to access the construction site and provide information regarding available ridesharing and transit opportunities to construction personnel.
m) Use architectural coatings, including paints, primers, sealants, adhesives, and caulks, that comply with applicable South Coast AQMD VOC content limits in effect at the time of construction. To the extent feasible, coatings with VOC levels below applicable regulatory thresholds shall be utilized. n) Use high-pressure/low-volume paint applicators with minimum transfer efficiency of 50 percent or other application techniques with equivalent or greater transfer efficiency where feasible.
o) Keep paint container lids closed when not in use and utilize compliant lowVOC cleaning solvents for paint equipment cleaning activities. p) Use pre-painted construction materials to the extent feasible. q) Recycle or properly dispose of all unused paint and paint-related materials at an authorized facility or household hazardous waste collection facility, as applicable. Water-based and oil-based paints shall be stored and disposed of separately.
r) Sequence grading, excavation, paving, and other intensive construction activities to avoid simultaneous operation of multiple high-emission equipment fleets in close proximity, limit concurrent operation of heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment where feasible, and coordinate construction scheduling to reduce peak daily emissions during overlap periods. 4439
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 212 -
s) Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid or minimize exposure to sensitive receptors to the extent feasible.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
At the programmatic planning level, the City lacks sufficient site-specific information regarding the precise location, configuration, operational characteristics, and receptor relationships of future individual development projects necessary to perform reliable quantitative health risk modeling. Accordingly, health risk analysis for future projects will occur during subsequent project-level CEQA review where sufficient detail exists.

Buildout in accordance with the proposed project would generate long-term emissions that would exceed South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Mitigation Measure AIR-2-PPA and AIR-3-PPA, in addition to the goals and policies of the Policy Plan Amendment, would reduce air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. Impact AQ-3 would remain significant and unavoidable due to the increase in ROGs and NOX emissions from development associated with the proposed project compared to that of the approved project.

Specific Plan
Overlap-period emissions do not constitute a separate impact category requiring independent mitigation beyond the construction and operational mitigation measures already imposed because overlap emissions are temporary, are encompassed within the project’s overall regional emissions profile, and do not materially alter the significance conclusion reached for operational or construction emissions. Although Mitigation Measures AIR-1-SP through AIR-8-SP are designed to reduce operational-source criteria pollutant emissions of the EBPSP, there is no way to meaningfully quantify these reductions in CalEEMod, and therefore no numeric emissions credit has been taken in the analysis. Therefore, even with application of these measures, EBPSP operational-source emissions impacts are considered 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.

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 4440
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 213 -
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-4 (PPA): Construction activities associated with the Policy Plan Amendment could expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.3-75)
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that, due to the scale of development activity associated under the approved project, the short-term emissions could exceed the South Coast AQMD localized significance thresholds.

Policy Plan Amendment
Construction-Phase Localized Significance Thresholds
Buildout of the proposed project would occur over the buildout horizon of the plan via several smaller projects, each with its own construction time frame and equipment. Because a localized emissions analysis can only be conducted at the individual project-level, quantification of localized impacts is not applicable for a program-level environmental analysis. As potential development and redevelopment could occur close to existing sensitive receptors, future development projects that would be accommodated by the proposed project have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Consequently, like the approved project, construction equipment exhaust (including DPM) combined with fugitive particulate matter emissions has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria air pollutant emissions and result in potentially significant impacts.

Construction-Phase Toxic Air Contaminants
The allowed development under the proposed project could elevate concentrations of TACs (i.e., DPM)in the vicinity of sensitive land uses during temporary construction activities that would use off-road equipment on-site, operating at different levels depending on the type of activity (e.g., during grading activities). Because potential development and redevelopment could occur close to existing sensitive receptors, future development projects that would be accommodated by the proposed project have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations. Consequently, like the approved project, construction equipment exhaust (including DPM) combined with fugitive particulate matter emissions has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of TAC emissions and result in potentially significant impacts.
4441
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 214 -
Summary
Construction-related criteria air pollutants and TACs from individual development projects within the City have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutants. This is a potentially significant impact. 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.

Construction activities associated with the proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria air pollutants and TACs. Mitigation Measure AIR-1-PPA would require that future development projects incorporate measures to reduce construction emissions that would minimize exposure of sensitive receptors to elevated concentrations of criteria air pollutant emissions and TACs. Additionally, review of development projects by South Coast AQMD for permitted sources of air toxics (e.g., industrial facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities) would ensure that health risks are minimized. Individual development projects would be required to achieve the incremental risk thresholds established by South Coast AQMD, and TACs would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure AIR-1-PPA, identified above, is applicable to the proposed project and would help reduce localized construction impacts.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Because existing sensitive receptors may be close to project-related construction activities and due to the programmatic nature of the proposed project, construction emissions generated by individual development projects have the potential to exceed SCAQMD’s LSTs and contribute to higher levels of cancer risk in the SoCAB. Consequently, Impact AQ-4 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.

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 4442
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 215 -
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-5 (PPA): Operation of industrial and warehousing land uses accommodated under the Policy Plan Amendment would cumulatively contribute to elevated levels of toxic air contaminants in the South Coast AQMD region. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.3-48)
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not generate a CO hotspot and TAC emissions from permitted stationary sources would be less than significant. However, operation of warehouse and industrial land uses associated with buildout of the approved project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC emissions and result in cumulative health risk impacts. Cumulative health risk was identified as a significant unavoidable impact in the 2022 Certified EIR.

Policy Plan Amendment
CO Hotspots
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. In 2007, the SoCAB was designated in attainment for CO under both the California AAQS and National AAQS. The CO hotspot analysis conducted for the attainment by South Coast AQMD did not predict a violation of CO standards at the busiest intersections in Los Angeles during the peak morning and afternoon periods.17 As identified in South Coast AQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SoCAB in previous years, prior to redesignation, were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not of congestion at a particular intersection (South Coast AQMD 1992; South Coast AQMD 2003a).

A project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact (Bay Area Air District 2023). Implementation of the proposed project under horizon year conditions would not result in hourly traffic increases of this magnitude. This net increase would be below the screening criteria. Thus, 17 The four intersections were: Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway; Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue; Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue; and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard. The busiest intersection evaluated (Wilshire and Veteran) had a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day with LOS E in the morning peak hour and LOS F in the evening peak hour. 4443
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 216 -
implementation of the proposed project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot, and CO hotspots impacts would be less than significant.

Permitted Stationary Sources
Various industrial and commercial processes (e.g., manufacturing, dry cleaning) allowed under the proposed land use plan would be expected to release TACs. Industrial land uses, such as chemical processing facilities, chrome-plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline-dispensing facilities, have the potential to be substantial stationary sources that would require a permit from South Coast AQMD. Emissions of TACs would be controlled by South Coast AQMD through permitting and would be subject to further study and health risk assessment prior to the issuance of any necessary air quality permits under South Coast AQMD Rule 1401, which would ensure less than significant impacts. Although implementation of the proposed project may result in projects that emit TACs throughout the City, the incremental impact of the proposed project would be the same as that of the approved project.

Non-permitted Sources (Warehousing and Industrial Land Uses) Warehousing or industrial operations generate substantial DPM emissions from off-road equipment use, truck idling, and/or use of transport refrigeration units for cold storage, which are area or mobile sources that are not directly regulated by South Coast AQMD. The proposed land use plan could result in a net increase of 6,370,304 square feet of industrial land use.

Though stationary sources associated with the proposed project would be required to comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 1401, truck idling does not fall under the purview of the air district.

New warehousing or industrial land uses in the City under the proposed project that use trucks, including trucks with TRUs, could generate an increase in DPM that would contribute to cancer and noncancer health risk in the SoCAB. These types of facilities could also generate particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) that could cause an exceedance or contribute to the continuing exceedance of the federal and state AAQS. These new land uses could be near existing sensitive receptors. In addition, trucks would travel on regional transportation routes through the SoCAB, contributing to near-roadway diesel particulate matter concentrations.

Implementation of the following TOP 2050 policy would reduce project-level localized impacts from industrial development:
 ER-4.9: New Localized Air Pollution Sources Near Existing Sensitive Receptors. We require new developments to conduct a Health Risk Assessment for land uses that generate more than 100 trucks per day or 40 trucks per day by trucks operating transportation refrigeration units (TRU's) within 1,000 feet from sensitive land use (California Health and Safety Code Section 42505.5(a)(5)). If the health risk assessment determines the new development poses health hazards that increase the incremental cancer risk above the threshold established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD), we will only approve permits upon the condition that adequate mitigation measures are proposed and 4444
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 217 -
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.

Though individual projects would be required to have less than significant impacts, cumulative development in the City would result in an increase in DPM concentrations and could increase the environmental burden on sensitive populations, including environmental justice communities, in the SoCAB. Regional emissions are divided into 2 major source categories:
stationary/area and mobile sources.

Stationary and Area Sources of TACs
Similar to the approved project, the proposed project provides a land use plan that designates land uses for employment-generating uses, including Business Park and Industrial. The Business Park and Industrial land use categories cover a wide variety of potential uses. As a long-range planning document, the Policy Plan Amendment lacks sufficient detail on specific development projects that would potentially be developed in the future; therefore, it is not possible to determine what types of TACs would be generated on an individual site. Because the exact nature of the future industrial uses is not known, the quantity of TACs generated by the Policy Plan Amendment is also unknown. Furthermore, for warehouse development projects, cancer risk is predominately associated with diesel-powered cargo handling equipment rather than onsite truck idling. There is insufficient information available at this level of analysis to conduct a reasonable or scientifically valid analysis of DPM associated with on-site diesel-powered cargo handling equipment and trucks or other sources of TACs. Thus, for programmatic, general-planlevel assessments, it is not feasible to conduct regional dispersion modeling to determine the incremental contribution of risks associated with land use changes. Specific development projects in the City that have the potential to generate potentially significant risks associated with the release of TACs are required to undergo an analysis of their potential health risks associated with TACs based upon the specific details of each individual project (see Policy ER-4.9). Overall, because there are no specific development projects identified or approved under the Policy Plan Amendment and the location and exact nature of future development projects are unknown, determining health risk at this time is considered speculative pursuant to Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines. Health risk impacts from development of industrial and commercial land uses are considered a potentially significant cumulative impact.

Mobile Sources of TACs
The proposed project would also result in changes to the truck routes map to address the requirements of AB 98 (see Draft SEIR Figure 2-8, Current Truck Routes, and Draft SEIR Figure 2- 9, Proposed Truck Routes, in Chapter 2, Project Description). The intent of AB 98 is to improve community health and the environment by strategizing how and where heavy-duty trucks travel to and from logistics and warehousing facilities. The primary direction of state law is to prioritize routes that maximize the use of freeways or state highways followed by larger local roads 4445
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 218 -
(arterial and collector roadways). Changes to the City’s truck routes are to avoid, when possible, routing trucks through residential areas and near concentrations of other sensitive uses (such as schools, hospitals, and parks).

As part of this SEIR, an operational HRA was conducted to evaluate impacts of changes to the City’s truck routes in Ontario Ranch in accordance with AB 98 compared to the current TOP. The results of the operational HRA are in Appendix C2 of this SEIR. As previously discussed, a twotier modeling approach was utilized in the HRA.  Coarse Modeling Results (600-meter spacing). The first tier of modeling results identify where the greatest DPM pollutant concentration changes occur as a result of changes to the City’s truck routes. Based on the coarse modeling results with receptors at 600 meter spacing, as shown in Draft SEIR Figure 3.3-7, Truck Route Net Increase in DPM Concentrations: Coarse Results, the areas that would experience the greatest increase in DPM concentration would be along the I-10 corridor, truck route interchanges in the northeast section of the City, and truck route interchanges in the southwest section of the City. Draft SEIR Figure 3.3-8, Truck Route Net Increase in Cancer Risk Per Million: Coarse Results, illustrates the net increase in cancer risk per million people citywide, conservatively assuming all receptors in the model are residential.
 Refined Modeling Results (100-meter spacing). Then, refined modeling was conducted to focus on the areas with the greatest increase in DPM pollutant concentrations, with receptor spacing at 100 meters to disclose potential impacts to sensitive receptors. The refined modeling focused on areas in the City that would fall within the one-per-million cancer risk contours in Draft SEIR Figure 3.3-8. As shown in Draft SEIR Figure 3.3-9, Truck Route Net Increase in DPM Concentrations: Refined Results, and Draft SEIR Figure 3.3-10, Truck Route Net Increase in Cancer Risk per Million: Refined Results, the greatest DPM concentration increase between the approved project and proposed project conditions would be near the intersection of Eucalyptus Avenue and Walker Avenue (also referred to as the Maximally Exposed Receptor or MER). Similar to the coarse modeling, the refined model receptors were conservatively assumed to be residential in nature to identify maximum potential individual health risk impacts.

Individual Health Risk Impacts
The calculated health risk values are based on the modeled receptor concentration over an average 70-year lifetime. Unmitigated results of the health risk assessment shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.3-22, Ontario Ranch Truck Route Changes Operational Health Risk Summary, indicate that the maximum incremental cancer risk resulting from the proposed project would be less than the South Coast AQMD threshold of 10 in one million. The incremental risk shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.3-22 reflects the net change between 2050 conditions for the approved project and 2050 conditions for the proposed project, focusing specifically on the change of route designations and redistribution of truck volumes on the designated truck route network for each 2050 scenario. As shown, the MER would experience a cancer risk of approximately 9.5 per million people. The MER would also not exceed the South Coast AQMD’s chronic hazard 4446
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 219 -
threshold of 1.0. Because the incremental cancer risk and hazard index do not exceed the South Coast AQMD thresholds, changes to the City’s truck routes (see Draft SEIR Figure 2-9) in addition to the growth in truck traffic associated with the Policy Plan Amendment would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Citywide Cancer Burden
South Coast AQMD has an additional health risk threshold, referred to as cancer burden, which identifies the excess cancer risk burden borne by a community from a given project. The cancer burden is the estimated increase in the occurrence of cancer cases in a population resulting from exposure to TAC emissions (e.g., DPM) over a 70-year exposure duration. The cancer burden for a population is the product of the number of people in that population and the estimated individual risk from TACs.

As noted by South Coast AQMD in their Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1, and 212 (South Coast AQMD 2024), to calculate the cancer burden for the proposed project, the population density of the City of Ontario must first be identified. Then, the individual cancer risk contours from Draft SEIR Figure 3.3-8 and Draft SEIR Figure 3.3-10 are used to quantify the total number of people that would be considered in the citywide cancer burden. The product identifies the net increase in cancer burden for the City resulting from the proposed project.

As discussed in Section 2.1, Project Location, of this SEIR, the City consists of approximately 50 square miles. As shown in Draft SEIR Table 2-3, TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Proposed Land Use Summary, the proposed project would result in an estimated 427,741 residents in the City under future conditions with the proposed project. Therefore, the City experiences an average population density of 8,555 people per square mile.

As shown in Draft SEIR Figure 3.3-10, the proposed project would result in very few locations that would experience a cancer risk of 5 per million or above. These risk results are limited to the areas around the East Philadelphia Street connection between South Haven Avenue and Mission Boulevard and along Eucalyptus Avenue between Bon View Avenue and Carpenter Avenue. These areas constitute a total estimated 0.4 square miles, and this analysis conservatively assumes this entire area experiences the MER risk of 9.5 per million.

Also shown in Draft SEIR Figure 3.3-10 in the Draft SEIR, the proposed project would result in few locations that would experience a cancer risk of 2 to 5 per million. These risk results are limited to the areas around the East Philadelphia Street connection between South Haven Avenue and Mission Boulevard and along Eucalyptus Avenue between Bon View Avenue and Carpenter Avenue as pollutant concentrations attenuate away from areas of higher concentration. This cancer risk of 2 to 5 per million is also experienced along the I-10 corridor and in the southwest portion of the City north of Edison Avenue. These areas constitute a total estimated 1.2 square miles, and this analysis conservatively assumes this entire area experiences a cancer risk of 5 per million.
4447
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 220 -
Draft SEIR Figure 3.3-10 in the Draft SEIR shows that the proposed project would result in numerous locations that would experience a cancer risk of 1 to 2 per million. These risk results are seen throughout the City, predominantly in the southwest portion of the City north of Edison Avenue and in the north and northeast portions of the City surrounding major truck route corridors and intersections. These areas constitute a total estimated 12.3 square miles, and this analysis conservatively assumes this entire area experiences a cancer risk of 2 per million.

The proposed project would result in a cancer risk of less than 1 per million for the remainder of the City. Moreover, as shown in Draft SEIR Figure 3.3-8 in the Draft SEIR, the coarse modeling results that included receptors covering the entire City confirm that the remainder of the City would experience a cancer risk of less than 1 per million. As identified in Appendix C2, citywide receptors outside of the 1 cancer risk per million contour have an average risk of 0.26 per million. Therefore, this analysis conservatively assumes receptors that are outside of the risk contour representing a cancer risk of 1 per million would experience an average cancer risk as high as 0.5 per million.

As shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.3-23, Unmitigated Cancer Burden Summary, in the Draft SEIR the proposed project would result in a total cancer burden of 0.43, which would be below the South Coast AQMD’s significance threshold of 0.5. As a result, changes to the City’s truck routes (see Draft SEIR Figure 2-9) in addition to the growth in truck traffic associated with the Policy Plan Amendment would not substantially increase cancer burden in the City.

Community Risk Improvements
While the operational HRA focuses on the net increase in DPM concentration and subsequent incremental increase in cancer and chronic health risk and citywide cancer burden, it should be noted that the proposed project would result in net decreases in DPM concentration and associated health risk in certain areas of the City. As shown in Draft SEIR Figure 3.3-11, Truck Route Changes Net Decrease in Cancer Risk per Million: Coarse Results, the proposed project would result in the greatest reduction of cancer risk from diesel-fired trucks north of Edison Avenue between South Euclid Avenue and Walker Avenue and along the South Archibald Avenue corridor between CA-60 and Remington Avenue. These pollutant reductions would occur principally as the result of the removal of truck routes along Edison Avenue and South Archibald Avenue, thereby redistributing truck trips to other routes away from these areas. This would result in a net benefit in health impacts resulting from the proposed project for these areas. These net decreases in cancer risk results are illustrated for informational purposes only and the corresponding decrease in health risk is not quantified.

Summary
As described above, long-term operation of the proposed project would not have the potential to generate CO Hotspots; however, long-term operation of the proposed project would result in a substantial increase in development that would generate an increase in criteria air pollutants and TACs in the City. Permitted sources of emissions would be regulated by South Coast AQMD and do not have the potential to result in elevated concentrations of air pollutants near 4448
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 221 -
sensitive receptors. Changes to the City’s Truck Routes would have a beneficial impact on existing sensitive receptors along Archibald Avenue and overall would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations along proposed truck routes in the City.

Overall long-term operation of area and mobile sources have the potential to expose sensitive receptor to substantial concentrations of air pollutants. This cumulative impact is potentially significant. With the increase in industrial land uses under the proposed project, the proposed project could potentially result in a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to that of the approved project and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
TOP 2050 Policy ER-4.9, New Localized Air Pollution Sources Near Existing Sensitive Receptors, would require an operational health risk assessment for projects that have the potential to generate a substantial number of diesel truck trips. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures were identified.

Mitigation Measures AIR-2-PPA and AIR-3-PPA are applicable to the proposed project. TOP 2050 Policy ER-4.9, New Localized Air Pollution Sources Near Existing Sensitive Receptors, would require an operational health risk assessment for projects that have the potential to generate a substantial number of diesel truck trips. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures were identified.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
At the programmatic planning level, the City lacks sufficient site specific information regarding the precise location, configuration, operational characteristics, and receptor relationships of future individual development projects necessary to perform reliable quantitative health risk modeling. Accordingly, health risk analysis for future projects will occur during subsequent project-level environmental review where sufficient detail exists.

Buildout of the proposed project and the approved project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of TACs. Buildout could result in new sources of criteria air pollutant emissions and/or TACs near existing or planned sensitive receptors. Review of development projects by South Coast AQMD for permitted sources of air toxics (e.g., industrial facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities) would ensure that health risks are minimized.

Additionally, Policy ER-4.9 would ensure mobile sources of TACs not covered under South Coast AQMD permits are considered during subsequent project-level environmental review by the City of Ontario. Individual development projects would be required to achieve the incremental risk thresholds established by South Coast AQMD, and TACs would be less than significant; however, implementation of the proposed project would generate TACs that could contribute to elevated levels in the air basin. This effect is more substantial with the proposed project compared to the approved project because of the increase in industrial land use allowed under 4449
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 222 -
the proposed project. While individual projects may achieve the project-level risk threshold of 10 per million, they would nonetheless contribute to the higher levels of cancer risk in the SoCAB and, therefore, would result in a cumulatively considerable impact. Therefore, the proposed project’s cumulative contribution to health risk is 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.

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.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CUL-1 (PPA): Implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment could impact historical resources. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.5-34)
Policy Plan Amendment
Historic resources in the City include historic districts (designated, proposed, and potential); historic landmarks or points of historical interest; and other buildings, structures, objects, and sites that appear eligible for listing on the National, California, or local historic registers. Ontario has 8 historic districts, and 4 proposed and 5 potential historic districts are deemed eligible for listing (see Draft SEIR Figure 3.5-1). The City’s Register of Historic Resources shows 1,957 historic resources, 100 of which are designated Historic Landmark properties and approximately another 500 are designated as a Contributor to local Historic Districts (Ontario 2025a). The majority of the historic structures are in residential areas of the City’s historic districts. Specially in the Ontario Ranch, there are 27 properties that are significant and eligible for designation and listing on the NRHP, CRHR, or City’s Register in Ontario Ranch, 5 of which have been added to the City’s List of Historic Resources and Received Tier II Determinations (Appendix E2).

The proposed project primarily involves modifying the TOP land use pattern and making associated updates to the various elements of the TOP Policy Plan. TOP is a regulatory 4450
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 223 -
document that sets the framework for future growth and development of the City and does not directly result in development. All development or redevelopment projects must be analyzed for conformance with TOP, zoning requirements, and other applicable local and state requirements; comply with the requirements of CEQA; and obtain all necessary clearances and permits. Thus, adoption of the proposed project in itself would not lead to demolition or material alteration of any of these historic resources. Identified historic structures and sites that are potentially eligible for future historic resources listing may be vulnerable to development accommodating the proposed project. In addition, other buildings or structures that could meet the National Register criteria upon reaching 50 years of age might be impacted by development or redevelopment activity under the proposed project.

Known or future historic sites or resources listed in the national, California, or local registers would be protected through local ordinances, TOP policies, and state and federal regulations restricting alteration, relocation, and demolition of historical resources. Sensitive historical resources of local interest are protected under Chapter 4 and Chapter 7 of the Ontario Development Code. Policy CD4-1, Cultural Resource Management, and Policy CD4-2, Collaboration with Property Owners and Developers, of TOP’s Community Design Element requires the City to update and maintain an inventory of historic sites, buildings, and other resources and work with property owners and developers to implement strategies and best practices that preserve the character of the City’s historic buildings, streetscape, and neighborhoods. Policy H1-4, Historic Preservation, of TOP’s Housing Element supports the preservation of enhancement of residential structures, properties, street designs, lot configurations, and other reminders of Ontario’s past that are considered local historical or cultural resources. Compliance with TOP policies and state and federal regulations would ensure that development would not result in adverse impacts to identified historic and cultural resources, except in the Ontario Ranch and for Tier III historic resources.

At the time a development project is proposed adjacent to or near a known or potential historic structure or resource, project-level CEQA review would need to identify any impacts, direct or indirect, that the project could have on the identified historic structure or resource. The CEQA Guidelines require a project that will have potentially adverse impacts on historical resources to conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

Chapter 4 of the City’s Development Code contains significance criteria and procedures for the designation of historic resources such as Historic Landmarks, Historic Districts, Architectural Conservation Areas, and Automatic Designations; however, not all properties on the City’s list of historic resources have been evaluated for significance. To provide a greater level of certainty regarding the City’s preservation goals, the City’s Development Code includes a tier system with standard criteria and procedures for evaluating the significance of historic or potentially historic resources threatened by major modifications or demolition.

For properties that have been surveyed for historic resources, the Development Code establishes criteria for Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III properties, with Tiers I and II having the highest value. The tier system identifies resources that have the highest preservation value in terms of 4451
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 224 -
their architectural and/or historical contribution to the City and method to evaluate the significance of their loss in the case of major modification or demolition. The tier system also includes minimum mitigation measures and a mitigation fee structure for Tier III properties. Tier I and Tier II properties outside of the Ontario Ranch area would require separate environmental analysis if demolition or inappropriate alterations are proposed in accordance with the requirements of the City’s Development Code.
 Tier I consists of properties that should not be demolished or significantly altered under any circumstances, regardless of their designation status.
 Tier II consists of properties where demolition of these properties should be avoided.

However, there is a possibility that Tier II resources in Ontario Ranch could be impacted over the course of the proposed project.
 Tier III consists of all properties that are Designated Historic Landmarks, are contributing structures in Designated Historic Districts, or are Eligible Historical Resources, as defined by the Development Code. Demolition of these properties should be avoided where possible, but may be appropriate under certain circumstances. If demolition occurs, the City requires historic resources to be documented and historic features to be salvaged, and requires a demolition mitigation fee.

The City’s Development Code requires that any historic resource determined to be within Tier I or Tier II that is proposed for demolition prepare and certify an EIR pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and the implementing guidelines, and City's Local Guidelines For Implementing CEQA, in conjunction with the approval of Certificate of Appropriateness and Demolition applications. Therefore, while the Development Code requires an EIR for impacts to Tier I and Tier II historic resources, the Development Code does not provide a high level of protection for Tier III historic resources. Additionally, the Ontario Ranch Historic Context Statement and Resource Survey identified the presence of Tier II historic resources in Ontario Ranch but did not identify the presence of Tier I historic resources in Ontario Ranch. Therefore, the Policy Plan Amendment could also impact Tier II historic resources in Ontario Ranch.

Additionally, there are properties that have yet to be formally designated within Ontario Ranch under the City’s tier system; and as a result, the Policy Plan Amendment could impact potentially historic (i.e., properties that have not been surveyed that may have potential historic resources). As identified in Draft SEIR Table 5.3-2, the following Tier II historic resources in Ontario Ranch are vulnerable to development associated with buildout of the Policy Plan Amendment:
 8314 Edison Avenue (De Groot Dairy)
 8484 Schaefer Avenue (Basque American Dairy)
 8185 Edison Avenue (Not Identified)
 14251 Euclid Avenue (Peter De Witt Dairy, Basque American Dairy)  13948 S. Walker Avenue (Gorzeman Dairy #2)
4452
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 225 -
Tier II historic resources and potentially historic resources in Ontario Ranch (i.e., properties that have been surveyed, but no formal City action has been taken to include on the Ontario Register), in addition to Tier III resources citywide could potentially be impacted with implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment.

Compared to the approved project, the proposed project would have similar impacts associated with historic resources. While the proposed project would result in an increase in land use intensity compared to the approved project, it would not result in development of new, previously undeveloped areas in the City that were not planned for under the approved project.

Like the approved project, historical resources could potentially be impacted with implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure CUL-1-PPA [Former MM 5-1]: Historic or potentially historic resources in the City, except for those properties in the Ontario Ranch, shall be evaluated for historic significance through the City’s tier system prior to the issuance of plan or development approvals. Pursuant to the City’s Development Code (Chapter 4, Permits, Actions, and Decisions, and Chapter 7, Historic Preservation), mitigation measures for Tier III Historic Resources citywide, Tier II historic resources in Ontario Ranch, or potentially significant historic resources in Ontario Ranch shall include the following:
a) Each historic resource shall be fully documented and cataloged pursuant to Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) standards, to provide a record of the resource, including, but not limited to: [i] the preparation of site plans, floor plans, exterior and interior elevations, and detail drawings of character defining features (such as moldings, stairs, etc.); and [ii] photographs of the resource, including the exterior, interior, and interior and exterior character defining features (such as moldings, light fixtures, trim patterns, etc.).
b) A mitigation fee shall be paid to the City and deposited into the Historic Preservation Trust Fund prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for Tier III historic resources, Tier II Historic Resources located in Ontario Ranch, or a potentially significant historic resource in Ontario Ranch. Fees for Tier III Historic Resources citywide shall be 10 percent and fees for Tier II historic resources in Ontario Ranch and potentially significant historic properties in Ontario Ranch shall be 30 percent of the price per square foot construction cost, as established in the most current ICC Building Valuation Data. Fees for Tier I 4453
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 226 -
citywide and II historic resources outside of Ontario Ranch shall be determined during the Environmental Impact Report process. c) Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness shall be required for the demolition of a Tier III historic resource citywide or a Tier II historic resource in Ontario Ranch, either in whole or in part, However, it shall not be issued until such time that a demolition permit application and a replacement structure has been approved by the City, and appropriate permits have been issued for its construction, unless: [i] a waiver is granted pursuant to Subsection H (Replacement Structure Waiver for Historic Resources Located within Industrial Zoning Districts) of Section 4.02.050; [ii] a deferral of the replacement structure requirement is granted pursuant to Subsection G (Replacement Structure Deferral) of Section 4.02.050; or [iii] demolition is required pursuant to Section 7.01.050 (Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions).
d) In an effort to preserve features and artifacts from historic resources, a determination whether items within or on the resource should be salvaged must be made by the Planning Department and may include the local historical society prior to the issuance of the demolition permit. The applicant shall be responsible for the removal, relocation, storage, and donation of such items selected for salvaging. The applicant shall provide an inventory of salvaged items to the Planning Department, and shall include a list of each item name, description, and dimension (as necessary), and the location of each item on a floor plan.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2-PPA: Project applicants for development projects that contain Tier II Historic Resources in Ontario Ranch pursuant to the City’s historic resource evaluation system (i.e., 8314 Edison Avenue, 8484 Schaefer Avenue, 8185 Edison Avenue, 14251 Euclid Avenue, and 13948 S. Walker Avenue) and all other potentially historic properties in Ontario Ranch shall be subject to the following additional mitigation requirements prior to the issuance of any grading, demolition, or development approvals:
e) Documentation. A complete chain of title with copies of recorded deeds / documents for each parcel within the eligible property boundaries shall be provided to the Planning Department by the project applicant to ensure that all ethnic groups associated with each significant parcel / property are identified. The information shall be integrated into the HABS-Like Local Documentation Package prepared for each property. For properties with Basque or Portugues Associations, the following additional measures are required:
4454
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 227 -
 Basque Associations. For properties with Basque associations, the project applicant shall contact the Chino Basque Club to inquire if the organization possesses any historic materials relating to the property or the owners identified in the complete chain of title. New materials resulting in this effort shall be integrated with HABS-like documentation; and
 Portuguese Associations. For properties with Portuguese associations, the project applicant shall contact the Chino Valley Divino Espirito Santo (DEA) Club to inquire if the organization possesses any historic materials relating to the property or the owners identified in the complete chain of title. New materials resulting in this effort shall be integrated with HABS-like documentation.
f) Avoidance. All efforts to avoid demolition of historic resources shall be made by the project applicant. Alternatives to demolition that shall include:
 Adaptive Reuse Study. Prior to approval of demolition, an adaptive reuse study shall be prepared by a qualified professional meeting the minimum qualifications standards of the Secretary of the interior Professional Qualifications (Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61). The adaptive reuse study shall make recommendations on the possible reuse of the historic resource into the proposed project. If feasible and determined appropriate, the historic resource shall be integrated into the project, thereby avoiding demolition.
 Structural Analysis for Relocation and/or Reconstruction. Prior to approval of demolition, a structural analysis shall be prepared by a California licensed engineer meeting the minimum qualifications standards of the Secretary of the interior Professional Qualifications (Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61). The analysis shall identify the building components and materials and determine the feasibility of relocation and reconstruction. o If determined that relocation is feasible and a receiver site is available, the project applicant shall facilitate the relocation, affixing the building or structure to a permanent foundation, with approved relocation plans and required permit issuance.
o If a receiver site is not available, the historic resource shall be advertised and shall be offered at no cost for those who can relocate the structures off-site. Advertisements notifying the public of the opportunity to relocate the structures shall be placed for a minimum of 30 days: on-site with temporary signage, in at least 3 local publications (newspapers, magazines, local organization newsletters), and on local bulletin boards (realtor’s offices, local business). A social media campaign, posted on the applicant’s website or on a local non-profit heritage site, including a dedicated web page with the structure’s information (description, square 4455
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 228 -
footage, photographs) and contact information should be incorporated into the relocation advertisement.
g) Interpretive Plan. An interpretative plan highlighting the history, architectural styles, businesses, or individuals that have historic significance and have contributed to the development of the dairy industry shall be prepared by a qualified historian to further educate and increase community awareness of the local dairy history. The interpretive plan may be developed and constructed at a site-specific location, as determined by the City, or development in an on-line format.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure CUL-1-PPA would require historic or potentially historic resources to be evaluated for historic significance through the City’s Development Code tier system, except those located in Ontario Ranch. Mitigation Measures CUL-1-PPA and CUL-2-PPA establishes requirements for historic resources classified as Tier III and II (in Ontario Ranch), and potentially historic resources (identified through survey evaluation) in Ontario Ranch to minimize significant impacts. Major modification or demolition of historic resources may be appropriate under certain circumstances. If demolition occurs, the City requires historic resources to be documented and historic features to be salvaged and requires a demolition mitigation fee.

Therefore, the Development Code does not provide a high level of protection for Tier III historic resources or Tier II historic resources in Ontario Ranch and potentially significant historic resources identified through a survey in Ontario Ranch. Impact CUL-1 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.

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.
4456
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 229 -

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact GHG-1 (PPA+EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in GHG emissions compared to the approved project and would not achieve the carbon neutrality threshold of AB 1279. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.8-24) The 2022 Certified EIR identified that with implementation of the CCAP, the approved project would achieve the EO S-03-05 GHG emissions reduction targets, resulting in an 80 percent decrease in the GHG emissions in the City by 2050 from existing conditions, and would make substantial progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goals under EO B-55-18. Impacts related to GHG emissions were identified as less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
Horizon Year 2050 Emissions Forecast
Buildout of the proposed project is not linked to a specific development time frame but is assumed over a 25-year horizon. The proposed project is an update to the current TOP 2050 to guide the City’s development and conservation through 2050. The community GHG emissions inventory for the proposed project compared to the approved project is shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.8-5, City of Ontario GHG Emissions Forecast. As shown in this table, the increase in development and population associated with the proposed project compared to the approved project would result in a slight increase in total GHG emissions across all sectors; however, the GHG emissions efficiency of the proposed project, expressed in GHG emissions per service population, would remain the same as the approved project because of regulations adopted to reduce GHG emissions and the natural turnover of California’s on-road vehicle fleets, where newer, more efficient vehicles gradually replace older, less efficient ones. Overall, GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be slightly higher compared to those of the approved project in the absence of local measures identified in the CCAP and would not meet AB 1279 carbon neutrality target.

While growth in the City would cumulatively contribute to GHG emissions impacts, implementation of the TOP 2050 policies could help minimize energy and mobile-source emissions, as listed below. For example, Environmental Resources Element policies ER-3.1 through ER-3.6 would contribute to reducing emissions from energy consumption by increasing energy efficiency and transitioning from natural gas to renewable energy systems. Policies ER-4.1, ER-4.5, M-1.4, M-1.6, M-2.1 through M-2.4, M-3.3, and M-3.10 would contribute to reducing emissions from mobile sources by supporting transit-oriented development and nonmotorized mobility options.  ER-3.1: Conservation Strategy. We require conservation as the first strategy to be employed to meet applicable energy-saving standards.
4457
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 230 -
 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.  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.
 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-2.2: Bicycle System. We provide off-street multipurpose trails and Class II bikeways as our preferred paths of travel and use the Class III for connectivity in constrained circumstances.

When truck routes and bicycle facilities share a right-of-way, we prefer Class I or Class IV 4458
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 231 -
bicycle facilities. We require new development to include bicycle facilities, such as bicycle parking and secure storage areas.
 M-2.3: Pedestrian Walkways. We require streets to include sidewalks and visible crosswalks at major intersections where necessary to promote safe and comfortable mobility between residential areas, businesses, schools, parks, recreation areas, and other key destination points.
 M-2.4: Network Opportunities. We use public rights-of-way and easements such as, utility easements, levees, drainage corridors, road rights-of-way, medians, and other potential options to maintain and expand our bicycle and pedestrian network. In urban, mixed- use, and transit-oriented Place Types, we encourage the use of underutilized public and private spaces to expand our public realm and improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity.  M-3.3: Transit-Oriented Development. We may provide additional development-related incentives to those inherent in the Land Use Plan for projects that promote transit use and reduce vehicle miles traveled.
 M-3.10: Multimodal Transportation Center. We intend to ensure the development of a multimodal transportation center near ONT airport to serve as a transit hub with amenities for transit riders, pedestrians, and bicyclists transitioning to local buses, BRT, the Gold Line, high-speed rail, the proposed Ontario Airport Metro Center Circulator, and other future transit modes. We support locations for the multimodal transportation center that are north of ONT airport, between Vineyard Avenue and Interstate 15.

Implementation of the TOP 2050 policies would contribute to minimizing GHG emissions in the City to the extent feasible. However, GHG emissions are projected to increase 3 percent more than the approved project and would not achieve the State’s carbon neutrality targets of AB 1279.

Therefore, the proposed project’s GHG emissions compared to the approved project are considered potentially significant in regard to meeting the State’s long-term reduction goals and achieving substantial progress toward carbon neutrality. As identified above, the 2022 Certified EIR identified less than significant impacts with regard to GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a new impact compared to that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan
Construction
Construction-related emissions are expected from the following activities.  Demolition
 Site Preparation
4459
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 232 -
 Grading
 Building Construction
 Paving
 Architectural Coating
For construction phase emissions, GHGs are quantified and amortized over the life of a project.

To amortize the emissions over the life of the EBPSP, the South Coast AQMD recommends calculating the total GHG emissions for construction activities, dividing it by a 30-year project life then adding that number to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. As such, construction emissions were amortized over a 30-year period and added to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. The total and amortized construction emissions for each phase of construction are presented in Draft SEIR Tables 3.8-6, Amortized Annual EBPSP Construction Emissions – Phase 1, 3.8-7, Amortized Annual EBPSP Construction Emissions – Phase 2, and 3.8-8, Amortized Annual EBPSP Construction Emissions – Phase 3. As shown in Draft SEIR Tables 3.8-6 through 3.8-8, the total amortized GHG emissions at buildout of Phases 1, 2, and 3 would total 262 MT CO2e/yr.

Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure GHG-1-PPA is applicable to the Policy Plan Amendment.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1-PPA: The City of Ontario shall prepare an update to the Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) to align GHG emissions targets in the City with the GHG reduction targets of Assembly Bill (AB) 1279. The CCAP update shall be completed within 48 months of certification of the Ontario Policy Amendment SEIR. Following the initial update within 48 months, the CCAP shall be updated at a frequency of no less than every 5 years to ensure the City is monitoring the plan’s progress toward achieving the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target. The initial and subsequent updates shall consider a trajectory consistent with the GHG emissions reduction goal established under AB 1279 for year 2045, and the latest applicable statewide legislative GHG emissions reduction that may be in effect at the time of the update. If it is determined that the CCAP is not achieving the GHG emissions reduction targets established therein, the plan shall be amended as appropriate to ensure the established GHG emissions reduction target is achieved by 2045 or other benchmark year(s) identified by the latest statewide GHG emissions reduction legislation. The CCAP shall include the following:
 GHG inventories of existing- and forecast-year GHG levels.  Tools and strategies for reducing GHG emissions to ensure a trajectory with the long-term GHG reduction target and carbon neutrality goal for year 2045 in Assembly Bill 1279 or subsequent GHG emissions reduction legislation in 4460
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 233 -
effect at the time of the CCAP update. These measures may include but are not limited to:
o Encouraging electric vehicle adoption through incentives or education programs.
o Adopting local ordinances or policies that require greater energy efficiency, waste reduction, and water conservation in new construction, additions, and/or alterations.
o Encouraging the construction of solar arrays above parking lots and the integration of solar and other renewable energy generation technologies in new construction, additions, and/or alterations.
o Encouraging the incorporation of energy storage and other gridharmonizing infrastructure in new construction, additions, and/or alterations.
o Collaborating with Southern California Edison to encourage existing developments to upgrade natural gas equipment (e.g., furnaces) with electric equipment (e.g., heat pumps), to the extent feasible.  Plan implementation guidance that includes, at minimum, the following components:
o Administration and Staffing
o Finance and Budgeting
o Timelines for Measure Implementation
o Community Outreach and Education
o Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management
o Tracking Tools
Specific Plan
As previously mentioned, if the GHG emissions of a given project exceed 3,000 MTCO2e/yr, impacts would be considered significant. Additionally, the EBPSP would be required to achieve a minimum of 100 points pursuant to measures identified in the CCAP Screening Draft SEIR Tables. To this end, Mitigation Measure GHG-1-SP is incorporated. Mitigation Measures AIR-1-SP through AIR-8-SP (presented in Section 3.3, Air Quality) would also aid in the reduction of GHG emissions.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1-SP: Project development proposals pursuant to the EBPSP shall implement CCAP Screening Table Measures that achieve at least 100 points per the Screening Tables. The City shall verify that Screening Table Measures achieving the 100-point performance standard are incorporated in development plans prior to the issuance of building permit(s) and/or site plans (as applicable).

The City shall verify implementation of the selected Screening Table Measures 4461
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 234 -
prior to the issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy. At the discretion of the City, measures that provide GHG reductions equivalent to GHG emissions reductions achieved via the Screening Table Measures may be implemented. Multiple development proposals may, at the discretion of the City, be allowed to collectively demonstrate achievement of at least 100 points per the Screening Tables. Measures that shall be considered include:
 Reduction Measure 1: Building Electrification
 Reduction Measure 2: Solar Energy Systems for New Warehouse Development only
 Reduction Measure 7: Vehicle Electrification
 Reduction Measure 8: Active Transportation
 Reduction Measure 11: Waste diversion
 Reduction Measure 12: Water conservation
 Reduction Measure AR-1: Charging stations for large trucks.  Reduction Measure AR-3: Installation of EV charging stations for employee vehicle parking spaces.
 Reduction Measure AR-4 Recycled Water.
 Reduction Measure AR-5 Reflective Paving.
 Reduction Measure AR-6 Zero Emission Cargo Equipment.

Mitigation Measure GHG-2-SP: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1-SP through AIR-8-SP.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1-PPA would ensure that the City aligns the CCAP update with the GHG reduction targets of AB 1279 and the statewide legislative GHG emission reduction targets that are in effect at the time of the CCAP update. Implementation of CCAP measures that increase the efficiency of energy and water use and offset electricity use through solar panels would reduce GHG emissions from land uses accommodated under the proposed project to the extent feasible.

Given the growth in population and employment in the City, the emissions reductions needed from existing development, the overall magnitude of emissions reductions needed to achieve the GHG reduction target from existing and new development, and federal legal constraints on the implementation and effectiveness of State actions for emissions reduction, it is uncertain whether implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1-PPA would achieve the substantial reductions needed to align with the GHG reduction targets of AB 1279. In addition, the City cannot ensure that Mitigation Measure GHG-1-PPA would be implemented prior to the generation of new GHG emissions from development facilitated under the proposed project, 4462
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 235 -
which could further limit the effectiveness of this mitigation measure in achieving the required emissions reductions.

It would be infeasible to require rooftop solar sufficient for 100 percent of warehouse energy demands. At the programmatic planning stage evaluated in the Draft SEIR, the identities of future tenants, specific building configurations, operational characteristics, and ultimate energy demands associated with future development within the PPA are not currently known. It would be infeasible at this time to require 100 percent of future operational electricity demand to be supplied exclusively through on-site rooftop solar generation. Future demands may vary substantially depending on tenant-specific operational needs, including refrigeration systems, warehouse automation, industrial processes, HVAC requirements, electric vehicle fleet charging, equipment chagrining, data processing systems, and other energy-intensive commercial or industrial activities that cannot presently be quantified with precision.

In addition, the amount of rooftop area suitable for photovoltaic installation may vary considerably among future buildings due to structural engineering requirements, rooftop mechanical equipment, ventilation systems, skylights, fire access pathways, screening features, shading conditions, roof orientation, and applicable building and fire code setback requirements. These constraints may substantially reduce the area available for solar installations and, in some cases, may prevent rooftop systems from generating sufficient electricity to offset project demand. Further, photovoltaic generation is inherently intermittent and may not coincide with periods of peak operational electricity demand associated with future industrial or logistics uses.

It would also be infeasible to require warehouse development to maximize electric truck infrastructure. The City’s land use authority extends to regulation of development proposals and land uses within its jurisdiction, but not to independently owned third-party trucking companies, interstate commerce carriers, regional freight operators, or off-site fleet operations utilizing public roadways. Truck fleets serving future development facilitated by the proposed project may include independent owner-operators, regional distribution fleets, interstate carriers, and logistics providers across multiple jurisdictions. The City lack direct regulatory authority to mandate vehicle technology standards for such off-site fleets operating on public highways, which are primarily regulated through State and federal mobile source programs administered by the California Air Resources Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accordingly, a mitigation measure requiring that only ZE trucks serve future development would attempt to regulate third-party activities beyond the City’s practical enforcement authority.

In addition, future project applicants may not possess direct control over the technologies utilized by freight carriers serving their facilities. Warehousing, logistics, manufacturing, and distribution tenants frequently rely upon common carriers operating mixed fleets throughout the regional and interstate supply chains. At present, heavy-duty ZE truck technologies continue to face operational limitations related to vehicle range, charging duration, payload impacts, charging availability, and fleet deployment capacity, particularly for long-haul freight operations 4463
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 236 -
and high-intensity logistics uses. Consequently, requiring immediate universal conversion to ZE technologies for all future truck trips associated with speculative future industrial and logistics development may not presently be technologically or commercially feasible across all potential operational scenarios.

Widespread deployment of heavy-duty ZE truck fleets would require substantial supporting infrastructure, including utility distribution upgrades, transformer capacity expansion, substation improvements, transmission interconnections, high-capacity charging equipment, and coordination with local regional utility providers. Such infrastructure improvements are dependent upon future utility planning, regional electrical grid capacity, technological advancement, and third-party implementation schedules that are presently unknown and outside the City’s control. The amount and timing of electrical infrastructure necessary to support future heavy-duty truck electrification cannot presently be determined because future tenant operations, vehicle fleet compositions, charging schedules, and energy demands remain speculative.

Nevertheless, the Draft SEIR identifies multiple mechanisms intended to facilitate future transition toward lower-emission freight operations and reduce operational emissions associated with future development. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure AIR-1PPA and AIR-3-PPA, future projects subject to CEQA review would be required to prepare project-specific technical analyses evaluating operational air quality impacts and to implement feasible mitigation measures where warranted. Depending on characteristics of future projects, such measures as individual electric truck charging infrastructure, loading dock electrical hookups, renewable energy systems, transportation demand management measures, renewable energy procurement, and other operational emission reduction strategies.

Therefore, GHG emissions impacts of the proposed project compared to the approved project are considered significant and unavoidable.

Specific Plan
Preliminary CCAP measures to be implemented by the EBPSP are presented in Draft SEIR Table

3.8-12, EBPSP CCAP Screening Table. These measures are subject to change throughout the development process, so long as the requisite 100 points are achieved, as required through Mitigation Measure GHG-1-SP. As shown in this table, measures to be implemented by the EBPSP would achieve a total of 101 points.

As part of the EBPSP’s CCAP compliance measures, the EBPSP has committed to a rooftop solar system with sufficient capacity to offset 45 percent of the electrical demands. Draft SEIR Tables

3.8-13, EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phase 1 (Mitigated), 3.8-14, EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phases 1 and 2 (Mitigated), and 3.8-15, EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phases 1, 2, and 3 (Mitigated), present the estimated operational EBPSP-related GHG emissions for all phases with the incorporation of the rooftop solar system.
4464
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 237 -
As shown above, even with the incorporation of rooftop solar, the EBPSP would result in GHG emissions of approximately 45,539 MTCO2e/yr at buildout and would still exceed the numeric threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. Other features to be implemented through compliance with Mitigation Measure GHG-1-SP and Mitigation Measures AIR-1-SP through AIR-8-SP, as listed in Draft SEIR Table 3.8-14, would also act to reduce GHG emissions, however these are not quantifiable.

It would be infeasible to require rooftop solar sufficient for 100 percent of warehouse energy demands. At the programmatic planning stage evaluated in the Draft SEIR, the identities of future tenants, specific building configurations, operational characteristics, and ultimate energy demands associated with future development within the EBPSP are not currently known. It would be infeasible at this time to require 100 percent of future operational electricity demand to be supplied exclusively through on-site rooftop solar generation. Future demands may vary substantially depending on tenant-specific operational needs, including refrigeration systems, warehouse automation, industrial processes, HVAC requirements, electric vehicle fleet charging, equipment chagrining, data processing systems, and other energy-intensive commercial or industrial activities that cannot presently be quantified with precision.

In addition, future project applicants may not possess direct control over the technologies utilized by freight carriers serving their facilities. Warehousing, logistics, manufacturing, and 4465
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 238 -
distribution tenants frequently rely upon common carriers operating mixed fleets throughout the regional and interstate supply chains. At present, heavy-duty ZE truck technologies continue to face operational limitations related to vehicle range, charging duration, payload impacts, charging availability, and fleet deployment capacity, particularly for long-haul freight operations and high-intensity logistics uses. Consequently, requiring immediate universal conversion to ZE technologies for all future truck trips associated with speculative future industrial and logistics development may not presently be technologically or commercially feasible across all potential operational scenarios.

Accordingly, no additional feasible mitigation measures are available at this time that would substantially lessen the identified impacts associated with full buildout of the EBPSP area.

Therefore, the EBPSP would result in significant and unavoidable GHG emissions.

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, 4466
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 239 -
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 GHG-2 (PPA+EBPSP): The proposed project would be inconsistent with the Community Climate Action Plan’s objective of reducing citywide GHG emissions and the State’s carbon neutrality goals. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.8-40) Policy Plan Amendment
CCAP
Consistency with CCAP 2050 Per Capita Goal
The City’s Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) stands as a comprehensive strategy to reduce communitywide GHG emissions (Ontario 2022). The City established per-capita emissions targets are 6.0 MTCO2e per capita by 2030 per SB 32 and 2.0 MTCO2e per capita below 1990 levels by 2050 per EO S-03-05. As identified in Draft SEIR Table 3.8-5, the proposed project and approved project would not achieve the CCAP 2050 per capita goal of 2.0 MTCO2e per person without additional State and local GHG reduction measures. Therefore, the proposed project would not be consistent with the City’s CCAP.

Consistency with CCAP Strategies
To ensure new development projects are consistent with the City’s CCAP, the CCAP includes implementation of a development review process to reduce GHG emissions associated with new development. The development review process sets procedures for evaluating GHG impacts and determining significance for CEQA purposes by using the “Greenhouse Reduction Measures Screening Thresholds Tables” to mitigate project GHG emissions that exceed the threshold level. The Screening Tables provide a menu of options that both ensure implementation of the reduction strategies and flexibility for projects to reduce GHG emissions to levels that align with the City’s reduction goals. As identified in Draft SEIR Table 3.8-16, Policy Plan Amendment CCAP Consistency Analysis, in the Draft SEIR, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable CCAP strategies.

PCAP
The regional PCAP serves as a high-level roadmap for reducing GHG emissions throughout the MSA. Specifically, the PCAP includes a broad range of measures geared towards addressing climate change and its impacts by reducing GHG emissions associated with sectors of energy, 4467
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 240 -
transportation, water, waste, offroad transportation, and agriculture. The CCAP, adopted in August 2022, provides an expanded set of GHG reduction strategies that align with the strategies in the PCAP. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not obstruct implementation of the regional PCAP to reduce subregional GHG emissions.

CARB Scoping Plan
CARB’s Scoping Plan is applicable to state agencies but is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects (i.e., the Scoping Plan does not require local jurisdictions to adopt its policies, programs, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions); however, new regulations adopted by the State agencies from the Scoping Plan result in GHG emissions reductions at the local level. So local jurisdictions benefit from reductions in transportation emissions rates, increases in water efficiency in the building and landscape sectors, and other statewide actions that affect a local jurisdiction’s emissions inventory from the top down.

Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the low carbon fuel standard, changes in the corporate average fuel economy standards, Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), and triennial updates to the California building codes.

The GHG emissions shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.8-5 include reductions associated with statewide strategies that have been adopted since AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279. The GHG emissions from energy use also accounted for SB 100, which accelerates the State’s RPS program and requires power utility providers to supply 100 percent of in-state electricity sales sourced from eligible renewable and carbon-free generation sources. Because compliance with the RPS is evaluated on a 3-year average, power utility providers such as SCE will be required to provide 100 percent renewable and carbon-free electricity by 2050. Development projects accommodated under the proposed project would be required to adhere to the programs and regulations identified by the Scoping Plan that are implemented and enforced by State, regional, and local agencies to achieve the statewide GHG reduction goals of AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279.

Furthermore, as listed under Impact a), the Policy Plan Amendment includes various policies that would help reduce long-term GHG emissions in the city.

However, as identified in Impact GHG-1, the proposed project would not achieve the carbon neutrality targets of AB 1279. Therefore, the proposed project would potentially conflict with the GHG reduction targets of the 2022 Scoping Plan.

SCAG’s Connect SoCal
SCAG adopted the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS, Connect SoCal, in April 2024. Connect SoCal is a longterm plan for Southern California region that details the development, integrated management and operation of transportation systems and facilities that will function as an intermodal transportation network for the SCAG metropolitan planning area (SCAG 2024). This plan outlines a forecast development pattern that demonstrates how the region can sustainably accommodate needed housing and job centers with multimodal mobility options. The overarching vision is to expand alternatives to driving, advance the transition to cleantransportation technologies, promote integrated and safe transit networks, and foster transit4468 Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 241 -
oriented development in compact and mixed-use developments (SCAG 2024). In addition, Connect SoCal is supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that outline how the region can achieve California’s GHG-emission-reduction goals and federal Clean Air Act requirements.

As demonstrated in Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning, the proposed project would be generally supportive and consistent with the Connect SoCal goals (refer to Draft SEIR Table 3.11- 1). Additionally, the Policy Plan Amendment’s policies M-1.4, M-3.3, M-3.10, and M-2.1 through M-2.4 would reduce VMT per service population consistent with the regional goals. As discussed in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, implementation of the proposed project would promote growth consistent with Connect SoCal’s Priority Growth Areas and would maintain the City’s jobs-housing balance. As a result, the proposed project would continue to provide for residents to both live and work in the City instead of commuting to other areas, which would contribute to minimizing VMT and VMT per service population. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies in Connect SoCal.

Summary
The proposed project would potentially conflict with the GHG reduction targets in the City’s CCAP and the carbon neutrality targets identified in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Therefore, GHG impacts are considered potentially significant. As identified above, the 2022 Certified EIR identified less than significant impacts with regard to GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a new impact compared to that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan
CCAP
The EBPSP is not consistent with the current Policy Plan land use designation or zoning, and thus would require the General Plan and Zone Change Amendment proposed as part of the proposed project. Therefore, the EBPSP is not consistent with the land use buildout assumptions contained in the City’s CCAP GHG emissions forecast. Therefore, this is a potentially significant impact.
2022 CARB Scoping Plan Consistency
Because the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan’s strategies largely apply to State agencies and entities, the EBPSP would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the 2022 Scoping Plan. The EBPSP would be required to comply with applicable current and future regulatory requirements promulgated through the 2022 Scoping Plan. Some of the current transportation sector policies the EBPSP will comply with (through vehicle manufacturer compliance) include Advanced Clean Fleets, Zero Emission Forklifts, the Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, In-use Off-Road DieselFueled Fleets Regulation, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. As such, the EBPSP would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan.
4469
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 242 -
Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
Implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1-PPA would reduce emissions.

Specific Plan
Implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1-SP would reduce emissions.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Implementation of CCAP measures that increase energy efficiency, reduce water use, and offset electricity use through solar panels would reduce GHG emissions from land uses accommodated under the proposed project to the extent feasible. However, given the growth in population and employment within the City, the magnitude of emissions reductions needed to achieve the CCAP’s 2050 per capita target, and federal legal constraints on the implementation and effectiveness of State actions for emission reduction, it is uncertain whether implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1-PPA would achieve the substantial reductions needed to achieve CCAP’s 2050 per capita target and the State’s carbon neutrality goals.

Therefore, GHG emissions impacts of the proposed project compared to the approved project are considered significant and unavoidable.

Specific Plan
The CCAP provides guidance on how to analyze GHG emissions and determine impact significance during the CEQA review of proposed development projects within the City. Because the CCAP addresses GHG emissions reductions and is consistent with the requirements of AB 32, SB 32, and international efforts to reduce GHG emissions, compliance with the CCAP fulfills the requirement for mitigation pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines. As shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.8-12, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-SP-1, the EBPSP would attain the minimum requisite 100 Screening Table points. However, because the EBPSP is not consistent with the land use pattern and subsequent communitywide GHG emissions projections of the CCAP, the EBPSP is determined to be inconsistent with the CCAP and would result in a significant and unavoidable GHG impact which was not anticipated as part of the 2022 Certified EIR.

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.
4470
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 243 -
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.

NOISE
Impact NOI-1 (PPA): Construction activities associated with buildout of the Policy Plan Amendment would result in intermittent, temporary increases in noise levels at sensitive receptors due to construction activities. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.13-32) The 2022 Certified EIR identified that TOP buildout could result in individual construction developments near noise sensitive receptors and expose receptors to prolong periods of construction activity. Mitigation Measure NOI-1-PPA (former MM 12-4) was identified to reduce construction noise to the extent feasible; however, construction noise impacts of the approved project were identified as significant and unavoidable.

Policy Plan Amendment
Under the proposed project, the primary source of temporary noise within the City would be construction activities associated with new development projects. The proposed project would result in an increase in land use intensity rather than development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the City that would require substantial landform modification.

Construction activities would involve both off-road demolition/construction equipment (e.g., excavators, dozers, cranes, etc.), general demolition/construction equipment (e.g., compressors, jack hammers, saws), and transport of workers and equipment to and from construction sites.

The dominant equipment noise source is typically the engine, although work-piece noise (such as dropping of materials) can also be noticeable. Draft SEIR Table 3.13-13, Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels, lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet from the equipment. It is noted that future development under the proposed project could potentially require installation of pile foundations that utilize impact pile drivers or similar equipment that generates high noise levels.

Draft SEIR Table 3.13-14, Typical Construction Noise Levels at Receptors, shows construction noise levels for individual construction activities for proposed project phases at varying 4471
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 244 -
distances. Program level data for individual developments for TOP 2050 (such as construction equipment, duration, and phasing) is based on equipment list shown in this table and could generate noise levels in excess of 84 dBA Leq at 50 feet. Because multiple phases are proposed, project construction activities could generate noise disturbances for prolonged periods of time at noise-sensitive receptors throughout all phases of the proposed project.

Safety Element Policy S4-1, Noise Mitigation, would help minimize the construction noise impacts through enforcement of the City’s Noise Ordinance. This includes Municipal Code Chapter 29, Section 5-29.09, which limits construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, or any other related building activity to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM on weekends. The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project. Nevertheless, construction-related noise impacts from the proposed project would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure NOI-1-PPA [Former MM 12-4]: Construction activities associated with new development that occurs near sensitive receptors shall be evaluated for potential noise impacts. Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction activities conducted in the City of Ontario. Construction plans submitted to the City shall identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City. The City of Ontario Planning and Building Departments shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits.
 Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM Saturdays and Sundays, as prescribed in Municipal Code Section 5-29.09.
 During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best-available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re-design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible.
 Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools.
 Stationary equipment, such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses. 4472
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 245 -
 Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
 Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes established by the City Planning and Building Departments.  At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.
 Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
 During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws.  Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line-of-sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq. Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that has a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier and may be lined on the construction side with an acoustical blanket, curtain, or equivalent absorptive material.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure NOI-1-PPA would reduce potential impacts associated with construction from individual development projects to the extent feasible; however, due to the potential for proximity of construction activities to sensitive uses, the number of construction projects occurring simultaneously, and the potential duration of construction activities, Impact NOI-1 could still result in a temporary substantial increase in noise levels above ambient conditions and exceedance of the 80 dBA Leq threshold. Therefore, project and cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that the identification of this program4473 Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 246 -
level impact does not preclude the finding of less than significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.

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.

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 NOI-2 (PPA+EBPSP): Implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP would expose sensitive receptors to substantial permanent traffic noise increases. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.13-44)
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that TOP buildout would not result in operational noise impacts at noise sensitive receptors due to stationary and traffic noise sources. Future stationary noise sources would be designed to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance, building codes, and subdivision and development code regulations to reduce noise from future development projects. Buildout of the TOP traffic noise would not result in a substantial noise increase in the vicinity of noise-sensitive receptors that would exceed the City’s noise standards.

Policy Plan Amendment
Stationary Noise
The proposed project would introduce a variety of new mechanical equipment throughout the project site. This could include rooftop heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, chillers, cooling towers, pumps, boilers, air handling units, emergency power equipment, loading and unloading activities, leaf blowers, street sweepers, and parking areas.

Stationary noise sources as part of future projects under the TOP would be required to comply with the exterior and interior noise level standards in the City’s Municipal Code Section 5.29, shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.13-5.
4474
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 247 -
Design features commonly employed to achieve compliance, such as rooftop or groundmounted equipment enclosures, parapet walls, acoustical screening, and silencers for exhaust and intake openings, would be incorporated as necessary based on final equipment specifications and acoustical evaluation. Due to the size of the project site, much of the mechanical equipment would be at large distances from off-site sensitive receptors and/or would be shielded by intervening structures. Furthermore, the Policy Plan Amendment Safety Element Policy S-4.1 requires implementation of noise mitigation measures based on ordinance and code threshold compliance.
 Policy S4-1: Noise Mitigation. We utilize the City’s Noise Ordinance, building codes, and subdivision and development codes to mitigate noise impacts.

Individual projects accommodated under the proposed project would not exceed operational noise significance thresholds. Compared to the approved project, the proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts. Therefore, like the approved project, stationary noise impacts of developments that would be accommodated by the proposed project would be less than significant.

Traffic Noise
Individual projects and activities under the proposed project are expected to affect the community noise environment by generating additional traffic. The proposed project would revise existing truck routes to better accommodate future planned uses, align with adjacent jurisdictions truck routes, and alleviate truck traffic noise levels at existing and future noise sensitive uses. Project truck route traffic noise was analyzed for 203 roadway segments in the City to account for project related daily truck volume increases and decreases along existing and proposed truck route roadway segments. Of the 203 roadway segments analyzed, 34 segments resulted in daily traffic noise level increases, and for some of these roadway segments, a decrease in daily traffic noise levels.

Traffic-source noise levels were calculated using the FHWA-RD-77-108 with traffic data provided by Fehr and Peers. The model calculates the average noise level along specific roadway segments based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, vehicle type, and site environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (energy rates) used in the FHWA model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by Caltrans. Draft SEIR Figure 3.13-5, Project-Related Traffic Noise Contours, provides a graphical representation. Draft SEIR Table 3.13-21, Project-Related Increase in Traffic Noise, shows the noproject and with-project predicted noise levels at 100 feet from the nearest travel centerline as well as the predicted traffic noise increase with implementation of the proposed project. This table shows 34 roadway segments analyzed; the other 169 roadway segments analyzed resulted in a less than 1 dBA change in traffic noise with implementation of the proposed project.

Appendix I1 contains the traffic noise modeling inputs and outputs for all truck route roadway segments analyzed.
4475
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 248 -
For roadways with existing ambient noise environments of 65 dBA CNEL and higher, an increase of 1.5 dBA CNEL or greater would be considered a significant impact. For roadways with existing ambient noise environments of 60 dBA to 64 dBA CNEL, an increase of 3 dBA CNEL or greater would be considered a significant impact. As shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.13-21, Project-Related Increase in Traffic Noise, with implementation of the proposed project, receptors along Mountain Avenue, Euclid Avenue, Archibald Avenue, Etiwanda Avenue, Jurupa Avenue, Mission Avenue, and Edison Avenue would experience a decrease of -1 dBA to -4 dBA CNEL in daily traffic noise levels. This decrease, or benefit, is attributable to proposed truck route changes.

This table also shows that 15 roadway segments of Walker Avenue, Ontario Avenue, Milliken Avenue, Philadelphia Avenue, and Eucalyptus Avenue would experience a significant impact of 2 dBA to 6 dBA CNEL traffic noise increases with buildout of the proposed project. There are no noise-sensitive land uses along Walker Avenue, Ontario Avenue, or Milliken Avenue roadway segments; however, existing noise sensitive land uses are along the impacted roadway segments of Philadelphia Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue.

Policy Plan Amendment Safety Element Policies S4-2, S4-4, and S4-5 encourage collaboration with other agencies, manage truck traffic, and minimize noise impacts through street design.  Policy S4-2: Coordination with Transportation Authorities. We collaborate with airport owners, FAA, Caltrans, SBCTA, SCAG, neighboring jurisdictions, and other transportation providers in the preparation and maintenance of, and updates to transportation-related plans to minimize noise impacts and provide appropriate mitigation measures.  Policy S4-4: Truck Traffic. We manage truck traffic to minimize noise impacts on sensitive land uses.
 Policy S4-5: Roadway Design. We design streets and highways to minimize noise impacts.

The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project. Nevertheless, traffic-related noise impacts from the proposed project would be significant.

Summary
Stationary noise impacts of the proposed project would not exceed the City’s operational noise thresholds; however, traffic noise generated by the proposed project would result in noticeable increase in traffic noise levels above the City’s noise standards. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant.

Specific Plan
Operation
EBPSP-related operational noise sources are expected to include loading dock activity, tractor trailer storage activity, truck movements, trash enclosure activity, roof-top air conditioning units, drive-through speakerphones, parking lot vehicle movements, and park activities. Draft 4476
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 249 -
SEIR Figure 3.13-6, EBPSP Operational Noise Source Locations, illustrates the operational noise source locations.

To present the potential worst-case noise conditions, the following analysis assumes the EBPSP land uses would be operational 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Draft SEIR Table 3.13-22, EBPSP Daytime Operational Noise Levels, and Draft SEIR Table 3.13-23, EBPSP Nighttime Operational Noise Levels, present the daytime (7:00 AM-10:00 PM) and nighttime (10:00 PM7:00 AM) operational noise levels, respectively, that can be expected at each of the receiver locations. As shown in these tables, the daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 43.3 to 52.8 dBA Leq and the nighttime hourly noise levels are expected to range from 42.7 to 52.7 dBA Leq.

To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the operational noise levels were evaluated against the City of Ontario exterior noise level standards, as shown in Draft SEIR Table

3.13-24, EBPSP Operational Noise Level Compliance. As shown in this table, the operational noise levels associated with the EBPSP would not exceed applicable exterior noise level standards (adjusted to reflect the ambient noise levels per Section 5-29.04[a][1] of City of Ontario Municipal Code).

To describe the EBPSP operational noise level increases, the operational noise levels were combined with the ambient noise levels measurements for the nearby receiver locations. Draft SEIR Table 3.13-25, EBPSP Daytime Operational Noise Increases, and Draft SEIR Table 3.13-26, EBPSP Nighttime Operational Noise Increases, present the daytime and nighttime operational noise level increases that can be expected at each of the receiver locations. As indicated in these tables, the EBPSP would generate daytime operational noise increases ranging from 0.0 to

0.9 dBA Leq and nighttime operational noise increases ranging from 0.2 to 1.7 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. As such, noise increases associated with operations of the EBPSP would not exceed the applicable increase criteria.

Off-Site Traffic Noise
To assess the off-site transportation CNEL noise level impacts associated with development of the Specific Plan, noise contours were developed for each of the scenarios outlined in the EBPSP Traffic Analysis (Existing, Opening Year 2031, Horizon Year 2050). The noise contours were used to assess the incremental 24-hour dBA CNEL traffic-related noise impacts at land uses adjacent to roadways conveying EBPSP traffic. The noise contours represent the distance to noise levels of constant value and are measured from the center of the roadway for the 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL noise levels. The noise contours do not consider the effect of any existing noise barriers or topography that may attenuate ambient noise levels. In addition, because the noise contours reflect modeling of vehicular noise on area roadways, they appropriately do not reflect noise contributions from the surrounding stationary noise sources within the study area. 4477
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 250 -
Existing with EBPSP Scenario
Based on the developed noise contours, Draft SEIR Table 3.13-27, Existing with EBPSP (Phase 1) Traffic Noise Increases, Draft SEIR Table 3.13-28, Existing with EBPSP (Phase 2) Traffic Noise Increases, and Draft SEIR Table 3.13-29, Existing with EBPSP (Buildout) Traffic Noise Increases, present the off-site traffic noise increases that would be attributable to the EBPSP for the existing with EBPSP scenario. It is noted that the Existing With EBPSP (Phase 1 through Buildout) condition is provided solely for informational purposes and would not occur, since the Specific Plan would not be fully developed and occupied under Existing conditions.

EBPSP Phase 1 off-site traffic noise increases would range from -0.4 to 2.2 dBA CNEL (see Draft SEIR Table 3.13-27).18 Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise, the noise increase threshold would be exceeded along the following two roadway segments under this scenario:
 Walker Avenue south of Ontario Ranch Road (Segment #9)  Eucalyptus Avenue east of Euclid Avenue (Segment #17) Draft SEIR Table 3.13-28 shows that EBPSP Phase 2 off-site traffic noise increases would range from -0.4 to 3.2 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise, the same two study area roadway segments (Segments 9 and 17) would continue to experience noise increases in excess of the threshold under this scenario.

Draft SEIR Table 3.13-29 shows that EBPSP Buildout off-site traffic noise increases would range from -0.4 to 3.7 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise, the same 2 study area roadway segments (Segments 9 and 17) would continue to experience noise increases in excess of the threshold under this scenario.

Opening Year with EBPSP Scenario
Based on the developed noise contours, Draft SEIR Table 3.13-30, Opening Year (2031) with EBPSP Traffic Noise Increases, present the off-site traffic noise increases that would be attributable to the EBPSP for the opening year scenario. As shown in this table, the Opening Year (2031) off-site traffic noise increases would range from 0.0 to 2.3 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise, the noise increase threshold would be exceeded along the following roadway segment under this scenario:
 Walker Avenue south of Ontario Ranch Road (Segment #9) Horizon Year with EBPSP Scenario
Based on the developed noise contours, Draft SEIR Table 3.13-31, Horizon Year (2050) with EBPSP Traffic Noise Increases, present the off-site traffic noise increases that would be 18 It is noted that the City truck route modifications proposed as part of the Policy Plan Amendment may result in certain reductions in with EBPSP traffic volumes, and subsequently, the with EBPSP off-site traffic noise levels. 4478
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 251 -
attributable to the EBPSP for the opening year scenario. As shown, Horizon Year (2050) off-site traffic noise increases would range from 0.0 to 0.7 dBA CNEL. Noise increases along all roadway segments would not exceed the significance criteria.

Summary
Operational Noise Summary
As shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.13-22 through 3.13-26, noise associated with EBPSP operations would not exceed applicable thresholds for daytime or nighttime conditions. Additionally, noise level increases associated with operation of the Specific Plan would not exceed the increase criteria thresholds. Based on the preceding discussions, operational noise impacts of the EBPSP would be less than significant. Accordingly, EBPSP operations would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Off-Site Traffic Noise Summary
Based on the information presented in Draft SEIR Tables 3.13-27 through 3.13-31, certain roadway segments would experience noise level increases in excess of the significance threshold under Existing with EBPSP (Phase 1 though Buildout) and Opening Year (2031) conditions. The EBPSP would not result in new or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts compared to that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Nevertheless, this would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
TOP 2050 Policies (see Policies M-1.1 and M-4.1) would reduce roadway noise, to the extent feasible; however, no mitigation measures are available that would reduce the proposed project’s substantial increase in traffic noise levels.

Specific Plan
To address potentially significant off-site traffic noise increases along study areas roadway segments, both quiet pavement and off-site noise barriers were considered as potential noise mitigation measures, as discussed below.

Quiet Pavement
The application of quieter pavements reduces traffic noise levels at the tire/pavement interface, which has been shown to be the primary source of traffic noise when vehicles travel faster than about 30 mph. Additionally, quiet pavement does not have the same physical site limitations as barriers and typically has a lower upfront cost. The noise performance of quieter pavement can degrade over time, typically 10 years, resulting in increased maintenance and rehabilitation needs for purposes of noise reduction.
4479
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 252 -
Changing the pavement type of a roadway has been shown to reduce the amount of tire/pavement noise produced at the source under both near-term and long-term conditions.

Traffic noise is generated primarily by the interaction of the tires and pavement, the engine, and exhaust systems. For automobile noise, as much as 75 to 90 percent of traffic noise is generated by the interaction of the tires and pavement, especially when traveling at higher speeds.

According to research conducted by Caltrans, these types of pavements typically provide noise attenuation of 6 dBA for automobile traffic noise levels.

The effectiveness of reducing traffic noise levels is higher on roadways with low percentages of heavy trucks, since the heavy truck engine and exhaust noise is not reduced by quiet pavement.

This is due to the height of the truck engine exhaust stack above the pavement. Per Caltrans guidance a truck stack height is modeled using a height of 11.5 feet above the road. Based on Calveno REMELs, one heavy truck traveling at 55 mph generates as much noise as approximately 13 autos at the same speed. This is due to a combination of factors including the difference between the noise source height for heavy trucks of 11.5 feet versus autos with a noise source height of less than 2 feet. With the primary off-site traffic noise levels for the EBPSP consisting of heavy trucks with a stack height of 11.5 feet off the ground, the tire/pavement noise reduction benefits associated with quiet pavement would be primarily limited to autos.

Although the use of quiet pavement could theoretically reduce off-site traffic noise levels, such reductions would not provide reliable or meaningful benefits for noise generated by heavy truck traffic. Quiet pavement is primarily effective at reducing tire-on pavement noise at higher speeds and does not substantially reduce noise from truck engines and exhaust stacks.

Consequently, quiet pavement would not reduce off-site truck-related traffic noise to less than significant levels.

Off-Site Noise Barriers
While noise barriers are commonly used to reduce the potential traffic noise levels from nearby transportation noise source activities, they are typically developed in coordination with new noise sensitive residential development or as part of a roadway widening project. Even though off-site noise barriers are typically not developed by individual off-site projects that contribute to the cumulative off-site traffic noise levels, off-site noise barriers were considered in the analysis as a potential traffic noise mitigation measure to reduce the EBPSP-related impacts.

However, noise barriers are not considered feasible as barriers would require openings for driveway access to individual residential lots fronting the road, thus greatly reducing their effectiveness. As such, off-site noise barriers would not be expected to lower the off-site traffic noise levels below a level of significance.
4480
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 253 -
Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Measures applied to individual development projects, such as constructing noise walls, evaluating and installing upgraded windows and doors, or applying rubberized asphalt on impacted roadway segments could reduce potential traffic noise impacts; however, impacted homes are on private property outside of the control of future project developers, so there may be limited admittance onto these properties to construct such walls. The cost versus benefit ratio in relation to the number of households benefited may not be feasible and reasonable in all cases. There are no funding mechanisms and procedures that would guarantee that the implementation of sound insulation features at each affected home would reduce traffic noise in interior areas. Therefore, project impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that the identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less than significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.

Specific Plan
Due to the infeasibility of both quiet pavement and off-site noise barriers, EBPSP-related off-site traffic noise increases at adjacent noise-sensitive land uses are considered a significant and unavoidable impact.

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 NOI-3 (PPA): Construction activities associated with buildout of the Policy Plan Amendment may expose sensitive uses to excessive levels of groundborne vibration. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.13-65)
4481
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 254 -
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that TOP buildout could result in individual construction developments near noise sensitive receptors and expose receptors to prolong periods of construction activity. Mitigation Measure NOI-2-PPA (former MM 12-2) was identified to reduce construction vibration to the extent feasible; however, construction vibration impacts of the approved project were identified as significant and unavoidable.

Policy Plan Amendment
Under the proposed project, the primary source of temporary vibration within the City would be construction activities associated with new development projects. The proposed project would result in an increase in land use intensity rather than development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the City that would require substantial landform modification.

Construction activity in the proposed project area would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and equipment. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the construction site varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor-building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels.

Vibration from construction activities rarely reaches the levels that can damage structures but can achieve the audible and perceptible ranges in buildings close to the construction site. It is noted that future development under the proposed project could potentially require installation of pile foundations that utilize impact pile drivers or similar equipment that generates high noise levels. Groundborne vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors, so it is usually evaluated in terms of indoor receivers (FTA 2018). Draft SEIR Table 3.13-32, Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment, lists reference vibration levels for construction equipment.

As shown in the table, vibration generated by construction equipment has the potential to be substantial since it has the potential to exceed the FTA criteria for architectural damage thresholds shown in the table (e.g., 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings). Construction details and equipment for future project-level developments under the proposed project are not known at this time but may cause vibration impacts. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure NOI-2-PPA [Former MM 12-2]: Prior to issuance of a building permit for individual projects that involve vibration-intensive construction activities, such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers occurring near sensitive receptors shall be evaluated for potential vibration impacts. Construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, 100 feet of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered 4482
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 255 -
concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure NOI-2-PPA would reduce potential impacts associated with construction vibration from individual development projects to the extent feasible. However, due to the potential for proximity of construction activities to sensitive uses, the number of construction projects occurring simultaneously, and the potential duration of construction activities, construction vibration impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, construction vibration impacts associated with the proposed project would remain significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that the identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less than significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.

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.

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 4483
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 256 -
or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

Impact NOI-4 (PPA): Heavy truck traffic annoyance along City haul routes associated with buildout of the Policy Plan Amendment may expose sensitive uses to excessive levels of groundborne vibration annoyance. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.13-69) Policy Plan Amendment
Commercial and Industrial Vibration
Commercial and industrial operations in the City would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the operational procedures and equipment. Such equipment-generated vibrations would spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the vibration source varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor-building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. Individual projects accommodated under the proposed project would not exceed operational vibration significance thresholds. Compared to the approved project, the proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts. Therefore, like the approved project, operational vibration impacts of developments that would be accommodated by the proposed project would be less than significant.

Truck Route Vibration
Caltrans has studied the effects of propagation of vehicle vibration on sensitive land uses and notes that heavy trucks and buses generate the highest earth-borne vibrations of normal traffic.

Caltrans further notes that the highest traffic-generated vibrations are along freeways and state routes. Its study finds that,
... vibrations measured on freeway shoulders (five meters from the centerline of the nearest lane) have never exceeded 0.08 inches per second, with the worst combinations of heavy trucks and poor roadway conditions (while such trucks were moving at freeway speeds). This level coincides with the maximum recommended safe level for ruins and ancient monuments (and historic buildings). (Caltrans 2013)
Truck route operations would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the truck weight, speed, travel lane distance from sensitive receptors, and roadway condition. As noted from public comments, residential receptors along existing truck routes have experienced heavy truck travel vibration annoyance. Reducing speed limits of heavy trucks and increasing the travel lane distance to sensitive receptors would reduce truck route vibration impacts at existing and future sensitive receptors along the City’s truck routes. The proposed project would 4484
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 257 -
result in a new, or substantial heavy truck-related vibration annoyance impact compared to the approved project. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant.

Summary
Individual projects accommodated under the proposed project would not exceed operational vibration significance thresholds; however, the proposed project would result in a new, or substantial heavy truck-related vibration annoyance impact compared to the approved project.

Therefore, this impact is potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
TOP 2050 Policy M-1.1 would reduce vibration levels due to heavy truck routes, to the extent feasible, through roadway maintenance. Additionally, the Policy Plan Amendment includes revisions to Policy M-4.1 that would provide safe and efficient transport of goods and minimizing negative impacts to vibration sensitive receptors.

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
Revisions to Policy M-4.1 of TOP 2050 would reduce vibration annoyance impacts associated with heavy truck travel along City haul routes from individual development projects to the extent feasible. Reducing heavy truck travel speeds provide safe and efficient transport of goods on impacted roadway segments could reduce potential heavy truck vibration annoyance impacts. However, impacted receptors may still perceive an annoyance. Therefore, heavy truck vibration impacts associated with the proposed project would remain significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that the identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less than significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.

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.

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 4485
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 258 -
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 NOI-5 (PPA): Implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment could expose noise sensitive uses to excessive noise levels from the Ontario International Airport (ONT). (Draft SEIR pg. 3.13-70)
Policy Plan Amendment
The City of Ontario’s noise and land use compatibility standards considers a noise environment up to 60 dBA CNEL to be “clearly acceptable” for residential uses. Residential uses in exterior noise environments of up to 65 dBA CNEL are “normally acceptable.” Normally acceptable conditions would require an acoustical report for major new residential construction. CBC Part 2, Volume 1, Chapter 12, Section 1206.4, Allowable Interior Noise Levels, requires that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources not exceed 45 dBA in any habitable room.

The 2022 Certified EIR found that residents and other sensitive receptors within the 65 dBA noise contour of ONT would be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations, and consequently indoor and exterior noise environments would be exposed to elevated noise levels from aircraft overflights. No impacts would occur from aircraft overflights at CNO because the 65 dBA noise contour for CNO does not extend into the City.

The Policy Plan Amendment would redesignate the area along Holt Boulevard from Business Park to Mixed Use land use and a portion along Grove Avenue from Airport to Industrial land use. Although the Policy Plan Amendment would redesignate land uses near ONT, future development facilitated by these changes would remain subject the noise compatibility requirements of the adopted ALUCP. The Land Use Element of the existing TOP 2050 requires that new development surrounding ONT be consistent with the adopted ALUCP and comply with the standards and recommendations of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 77, as adopted through Ordinance 2758 of the Ontario Municipal Code.

A consistency determination analysis for ONT was prepared by the City of Ontario, which found that TOP 2050 is consistent with the ALUCP for ONT (ONT–IAC 2018) (Appendix G6). As stated in the consistency analysis, the proposed mixed-use land use designation allows for a combination of multi-family residential greater than 8 dwelling units per acre, office and commercial uses.

The proposed mixed-use land use is consistent with the ONT ALUCP Noise Policy N2a, which allows new multi-family residential within the 65 to 70 dB CNEL noise contour provided that the development can achieve a density that is 8 dwelling units per acre or greater and incorporate interior common space and recreational facilities.

Furthermore, Safety Element Policy S4-6, Airport Noise Compatibility, would minimize impacts.

Policy S4-6 states that information from the ALUCPs shall be utilized to prevent the construction of new noise-sensitive land uses within airport noise impact zones. Future sensitive uses within 4486
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 259 -
the ONT Airport 65 dBA CNEL noise contour would be required to conduct a noise assessment and mitigate, as feasible, to achieve an interior noise level 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room.

Policy Plan Amendment Safety Element Policies S4-2, S4-3, and S4-6 help minimize airport noise impacts.
 Policy S4-2 Coordination with Transportation Authorities. We collaborate with airport owners, FAA, Caltrans, SBCTA, SCAG, neighboring jurisdictions, and other transportation providers in the preparation and maintenance of and updates to transportation-related plans to minimize noise impacts and provide appropriate mitigation measures.  Policy S4-3 Airport Noise Mitigation. We aggressively pursue funding and utilize programs to reduce the effects of aircraft noise in impacted areas of our community.  Policy S4-6 Airport Noise Compatibility. We utilize information from Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans to prevent the construction of new noise -sensitive land uses within airport noise impact zones.

While the consistency determination for ONT identified that Policy Plan Amendment changes are consistent with the ONT ALUCP (Appendix G6), individual projects accommodated under the TOP 2050 could locate sensitive receptors within the 65 dBA noise contour of ONT and expose people residing or working in the City to excessive aircraft noise levels. Compared to the approved project, the Policy Plan Amendment would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts. Therefore, like the approved project, aircraft noise impacts of developments that would be accommodated by the Policy Plan Amendment would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure NOI-3-PPA [Former MM 12-1]: Prior to the issuance of building permits for any project that involves a noise-sensitive use within the 65 dBA CNEL contour of the Ontario International Airport, the project property owner/developers shall retain an acoustical engineer to conduct an acoustic analysis and identify, where appropriate, site design features and/or required building acoustical improvements (e.g., sound transmission class rated windows, doors, and attic baffling), to ensure compliance with the City’s Noise Compatibility Criteria and the California State Building Code and California Noise Insulation Standards (Titles 24 and 21 of the California Code of Regulations).

Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3-PPA and TOP 2050 policies, impacts to future sensitive receptors from excessive airport-related noise from operations at ONT would be 4487
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 260 -
reduced to comply with interior noise level thresholds of 45 dBA CNEL or less. While interior noise levels are required to achieve the interior noise limits of the California Building Standards, Title 24 and Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, exterior noise levels may continue to exceed the noise compatibility criteria for the City. It should be noted that the identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less than significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level. Consequently, airport noise compatibility impacts of the proposed project would remain significant and unavoidable.

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.

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.

TRANSPORTATION
Impact TRA-2 (PPA+EBPSP): The proposed project would generate a substantial increase in VMT per service population and total VMT compared to the approved project resulting in significant project-level and cumulative VMT impacts. (Draft SEIR pg. 3.17-29)
Policy Plan Amendment
Draft SEIR Table 3.17-4, VMT Comparison of Policy Plan Amendment to the TOP 2050, shows the results of the VMT impact assessment for both the project-level and cumulative VMT analysis. A significant impact would occur if the project VMT/SP (for the land use plan) exceeds the citywide average for service population under general plan buildout conditions. The project increases Origin-Destination VMT/SP (OD VMT/SP) and therefore would result in a significant transportation impact. For the cumulative scenario, a significant impact would occur if the project caused total daily VMT in the City to be higher than the no-project alternative under cumulative conditions. Since there would be a net increase in total citywide VMT associated 4488
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 261 -
with the proposed project (i.e., cumulative: City boundary VMT), the proposed project is also anticipated to result in a significant cumulative VMT impact.

The following are relevant policies of TOP 2050 that may contribute to reducing potential transportation impacts as a result of implementation of the proposed project. They include VMT-reducing policies, such as land use planning policies that shorten trips between where people live, work, shop and recreate, and bicycle, pedestrian, and transit policies that increase mobility options and reduce dependency on automobiles.
 LU-1.1 Strategic Growth. We concentrate growth in strategic locations that help create place and identify, maximize available and planned infrastructure, and foster the development of transit.
 LU-1.2 Sustainable Community Strategy. We integrate state, regional and local Sustainable Community/Smart Growth principles into the development and entitlement process.  LU-1.4 Mobility. We require development and urban design, where appropriate, that reduces reliance on the automobile and capitalizes on multi-modal transportation opportunities. (Refer to Mobility Element Policy M3-3)
 CD-2.5 Streetscapes. We design new and, when necessary, retrofit existing streets to improve walkability, bicycling, and transit integration, to strengthen connectivity, and enhance community identity through improvements to the public right of way such as sidewalks, street trees, parkways, curbs, street lighting, and street furniture.  CD-2.6 Connectivity. We promote development of street patterns and pedestrian networks that create and unify neighborhoods, rather than divide them, and create cohesive and continuous corridors, rather than independent “islands” through the following means (Link to Mobility): 1) Local street patterns that provide access between subdivisions, within a neighborhood and discourage through traffic; 2) A local street system that is logical and understandable for the user. A grid system is preferred to avoid circuitous and confusing travel paths between internal neighborhood areas and adjacent arterials; and 3) Neighborhoods, centers, public schools, and parks that are linked by pedestrian greenways/open space networks. These may also be used to establish clear boundaries between distinct neighborhoods and/or centers.
 CD-3.1 Design. We require that pedestrian, vehicular, bicycle, and equestrian circulation on both public and private property be coordinated and designed to maximize safety, comfort, and aesthetics.
 CD-3.2 Connectivity Between Streets, Sidewalks, Walkways, and Plazas. We require landscaping and paving to be used to optimize visual connectivity between streets, sidewalks, walkways, and plazas for pedestrians.
4489
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 262 -
 CD-3.4 Ground Floor Usage of Commercial Buildings. We create lively pedestrian streetscapes by requiring the location of uses, such as shopping, galleries, restaurants, etc., on ground floors adjacent to sidewalks.
 CD-3.7 Transit Stops. We require transit stops be well lit, safe, appealing to, and accessible by pedestrians.
 CE-1.12 Circulation. We continuously plan and improve public transit and non-vehicular circulation for the mobility of all, including those with limited or no access to private automobiles. (Refer to Mobility Public Transit)
 M-1.4 Complete Streets. We work to provide a balanced context sensitive, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods and users of public transportation. We prioritize implementation of complete streets improvements in environmental justice areas to facilitate opportunities for residents to use active transportation systems.  M-1.6 Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. We will strive to reduce VMT through a combination of land use, transportation projects, and travel demand management strategies in coordination with development projects and public capital improvement projects.  M-2.1 Active Transportation. We maintain our Active Transportation Master Plan to create a comprehensive system of on-and off-street bikeways and pedestrian facilities that is safe, comfortable, accessible, and connect residential areas, businesses, schools, parks, and other key destination points.
 M-2.2 Bicycle System. We provide off-street multipurpose trails and Class II bikeways as our primary paths of travel and use the Class III for connectivity in constrained circumstances.

When truck routes and bicycle facilities share a right of way we prefer Class I or Class IV bicycle facilities. We require new development to include bicycle facilities, such as bicycle parking and secure storage areas.
 M-2.3 Pedestrian Walkways. We require streets to include sidewalks and visible crosswalks to promote safe and comfortable mobility between residential areas, businesses, schools, parks, recreation areas, and other key destination points. (Link to Community Design CD3-1)  M-2.4 Network Opportunities. We use public rights of way and easements such as, utility easements, levees, drainage corridors, road rights-of-way, medians, and other potential options to maintain and expand our bicycle and pedestrian network.  M-3.1 Transit Partners. We maintain a proactive working partnership with transit providers to ensure that adequate public transit service is available, cost-efficient, and convenient, particularly for residents in environmental justice areas. 4490
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 263 -
 M-3.2 Alternative Transit Facilities at New Development. We require new development adjacent to an existing or planned transit stop to contribute to the creation of transit facilities, such as bus shelters, transit bays and turnouts, and bicycle facilities, such as secure storage areas.
 M-3.3 Transit-Oriented Development. We may provide additional development-related incentives to those inherent in the Land Use Plan for projects that promote transit use and reduce vehicle miles traveled.
 M-3.4 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Corridors. We work with regional transit agencies to implement BRT service and reduce vehicle miles traveled by targeting destinations and corridors with the highest number of potential riders.
 M-3.5 Light Rail. We support the extension of the Metro Rail Gold Line to Ontario and will work to secure station locations adjacent to the Meredith site and at the proposed multimodal transit center.
 M-3.6 Metrolink Expansion. We advocate expansion of Metrolink service to include the Downtown and the multimodal transit center.
 M-3.7 High-Speed Rail. We encourage the development of high-speed rail systems that would enhance regional mobility in southern California and serve the City of Ontario.  M-3.8 Feeder Systems. We work with regional transit agencies to secure convenient feeder service from the Metrolink station and the proposed multimodal transit center to employment centers in Ontario.
 M-3.9 Ontario Airport Metro Center Circulator. We will explore the development of a convenient mobility system, including but not limited to shuttle service, people mover, and shared car system for the Ontario Airport Metro Center.  M-3.10 Multimodal Transit Center. We intend to ensure the development of a multimodal transit center near ONT airport to serve as a transit hub with amenities for transit riders, pedestrians, and bicyclists transitioning to local buses, BRT, the Gold Line, high-speed rail, the proposed Ontario Airport Metro Center circulator, and other future transit modes. We support locations for the multimodal transportation center that are within the Ontario Airport Metro Center Growth Area.
 M-3.11 Transit and Community Facilities. We require the future development of community-wide serving facilities to be sited in transit-ready areas that can be served and made accessible by public transit. Conversely, we plan (and coordinate with other transit agencies to plan) future transit routes to serve existing community facilities.

While these policies and measures could help reduce VMT in the City, the applicability of these mitigations would be dependent on the significance and context of the impact. As a result, these measures are not anticipated to reduce the impact of increased VMT/SP (project level) or 4491
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 264 -
increased total VMT (cumulative) below the City’s VMT thresholds. Therefore, the VMT impact is considered potentially significant. The Certified EIR identified less than significant impacts under the OD method (project-level) and significant impacts under the Boundary method (cumulative). The proposed project would result in a new project-level impact compared to the approved project. However, the proposed project would not result in a new or a substantial increase in magnitude of cumulative VMT compared to that identified in the Certified EIR.

Specific Plan
The Origin-Destination (O-D) and Boundary VMT forecasts for the EBPSP project scenarios are shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.17-5, VMT Comparison of the EBPSP to TOP 2050. Baseline (year 2025) VMT was estimated by interpolating between VMT forecasted between the SBTAM+ base year model (year 2019) and future year model (year 2050). This table compares the EBPSP O-D VMT/SP to the applicable threshold. A significant impact would occur if the EBPSP VMT/SP exceeds the Citywide average for Service Population under TOP 2050 Buildout Conditions. This table also compares the EBPSP’s cumulative VMT to the applicable threshold. A significant impact would occur if the EBPSP caused total daily VMT within the City to be higher than the No EBPSP alternative under cumulative conditions.

As shown in the table, the EBPSP would exceed the Citywide average for Service Population under TOP 2050 buildout conditions. Additionally, the total daily Citywide boundary VMT increases with the EBPSP. The Specific Plan is dominated by land uses that would potentially draw employees, visitors, and deliveries from a wide regional area rather than from nearby neighborhoods. As a result, many trips to and from the site could begin and end far from the Specific Plan area, which increases the miles traveled per trip. In addition, the area’s current development pattern and limited non-auto travel options mean most travel occurs by vehicle, and truck routing considerations can further extend travel distances by directing trucks to indirect routes. Further, because the EBPSP is employment-focused, the amount of vehicle travel associated with the site is spread over a smaller “service population,” which can make the VMT efficiency metric appear especially high.

It is also noted that many of the EBPSP design features act to implement the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA)-recommended measures to reduce VMT, including:
 CAPCOA Measure T-33 – Locate Project near Bike Path/Bike Lane. The Specific Plan area is located within a planned grid of multipurpose trails and bikeways, including proposed Class II bike lanes along Eucalyptus Avenue and parallel east–west streets, and proposed Class I multipurpose trail corridors on multiple north–south streets adjacent to the site. This integration with the City’s bikeway system is consistent with the intent of CAPCOA Measure T-33 and is expected to reduce EBPSP-generated VMT when compared to a similar employment project without such bikeway access. The dense spacing of planned Class I and Class II facilities around the site shortens bicycle travel distances to nearby residential neighborhoods and services, supports mode shift away from single-occupant vehicles, and 4492
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 265 -
therefore contributes to a net reduction in VMT per employee. While CAPCOA does not provide a specific, empirically derived VMT reduction factor for T-33, the EBPSP’s location and design clearly implement this measure and are reasonably expected to result in incremental VMT reductions.
 CAPCOA Measure T-18 – Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements. The EBPSP includes a non-vehicular circulation system with continuous sidewalks, marked crossings, and pedestrian connections linking each Planning Area to Eucalyptus Avenue, New Public Street “A” and connections to parks and open space areas. These facilities are designed to provide direct, comfortable, and safe walking routes between building entries, parking areas, park areas, and nearby streets, which improves the practicality of walk trips for employees and visitors. By making it easier to walk within the site and to connect to adjacent uses, the EBPSP supports the shift away from drive alone vehicle trips for short commute, lunch, and other discretionary trips. As a result, the proposed pedestrian network is expected to reduce EBPSP-generated VMT compared to a comparable industrial project without these pedestrian improvements. CAPCOA Measure T-18 includes an empirical formula for estimating VMT reductions from enhanced pedestrian infrastructure; however, to maintain a conservative analysis and avoid introducing additional uncertainty related to input assumptions, the analysis does not quantify a numerical T-18 reduction. Instead, the VMT benefits of the EBPSP pedestrian improvements are acknowledged qualitatively.  CAPCOA Measure T-19 – Construct or Improve Bike Facility. Consistent with the intent of T33, the EBPSP’s non-vehicular circulation (sidewalks, multi-purpose trails, and Class II bikeways) is designed to directly connect employees and visitors to the City’s planned bikeway network identified in the General Plan. By tying each Planning Area to Eucalyptus Avenue and New Public Street “A,” which in turn connect to the broader system of Class I and Class II facilities in the Ontario Ranch area, the EBPSP provides a continuous, safe, and attractive bicycle and pedestrian network between surrounding neighborhoods and employment uses. This integrated network shortens trip distances for nearby residents, makes bicycle and walking trips a viable substitute for drive alone trips (particularly for commute, lunch, and other short discretionary trips), and is therefore expected to reduce VMT relative to a comparable industrial project without such facilities. CAPCOA Measure T19-A does include an empirical formula for estimating VMT reductions; however, to maintain a conservative analysis and avoid introducing additional uncertainty regarding input assumptions, the analysis does not quantify a numerical T-19-A reduction. Instead, the VMT benefits of the EBPSP’s network and its connections to the City bikeway system are acknowledged qualitatively.
 CAPCOA Measure T-25 – Extend Transit Network Coverage. This measure will expand the local transit network by either adding or modifying existing transit service or extending the operation hours to enhance the service near a project area. Starting services earlier in the morning and/or extending services to late-night hours can accommodate the commuting times of alternative-shift workers. The EBPSP would construct a new bus stop along Grove Avenue at Eucalyptus Avenue to accommodate a future Omnitrans route serving the site 4493
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 266 -
and surrounding area. By providing a ready to use transit stop with appropriate frontage improvements, the EBPSP reduces the barriers for Omnitrans to implement or adjust service and shortens walk distances between employment uses and future transit. If a bus line is ultimately operated at this location, the stop would support a shift from drive alone commute and mid-day trips to transit, which would reduce VMT relative to a similar project without transit supportive infrastructure. However, because the decision to serve this stop and the level of future service are solely under the control of the transit agency and cannot be guaranteed, the analysis does not claim a quantitative VMT reduction under T-25. The VMT benefit of the constructed bus stop is therefore acknowledged qualitatively.

As discussed above, CAPCOA Measures T-33, T-18, T-19-A, and T-25 are design features proposed as part of the EBPSP. Although no quantitative VMT reductions have been taken in the analysis, these features would implement CAPCOA measures aimed at reducing VMT. Despite these project design features of the EBPSP, the EBPSP would result in potentially significant project-level and cumulative VMT impacts. The Certified EIR identified less than significant impacts under the OD method (project-level) and significant impacts under the Boundary method (cumulative). The EBPSP would result in a new project-level impact compared to the approved project. However, the EBPSP would not result in a new or a substantial increase in magnitude of cumulative VMT compared to that identified in the Certified EIR.

Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure TRA-1-PPA [Former MM T-1]: Prior to approval of discretionary projects subject to VMT reduction analysis, applicants shall demonstrate compliance with the City’s VMT Guidelines for CEQA assessment of VMT impacts. For projects with VMT per Service Population exceeding the County’s significance threshold, a mitigation plan shall be developed and implemented. Mitigation should consist of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures analyzed under a VMTreduction methodology consistent with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Final Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (2021) and approved by the City of Ontario (if applicable). Examples of measures include but are not limited to:
 Pedestrian Network Improvements: constructing new sidewalks and/or improving damaged or substandard sidewalks that connect to a larger pedestrian network.
 Construct or Improve Bike Facilities: constructing new or enhancing a single existing Class I, II or IV bike facility that connects to a larger bike network.  Construct or Improve Bike Boulevards: implementing a Class III bike boulevard on a local or collector street that is one travel lane in each 4494
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 267 -
direction, has a design speed of 25 mph or less and a design volume of 5,000 ADT or less.
 Expand Bikeway Networks: constructing a network of interconnected new Class I, II, or IV bike facilities.
 Provide End of Trip Bicycle Facilities: constructing facilities that support cyclists such as bike parking, lockers, and showers.
 Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments: funding infrastructure improvements such as traffic signal modifications and roadway signing and striping that are dedicated to improving transit travel times and reliability.  Transit Passes: proving discounted or free transit fare to a specific geographic area, population group, or to the general public.
 Vanpool Program: providing groups of 5 to 15 people with direct shuttle service between their workplace and residence.
 Carshare Program (conventional or EV): providing access to a shared fleet of on-demand vehicles for short-term use/rental. Best practice is to discount carshare membership and provide priority parking for carshare vehicles to encourage use of the service.
 Bikeshare Program (conventional or EV): providing access to a shared fleet of on-demand bicycles for short-term use/rental. Best practice is to discount bikeshare membership and dedicate bikeshare parking to encourage use of the service.
 Rideshare Program: providing access to and encouraging the use of a ridesharing platform or service. This could be an app, website, or other service that provides ride-matching coordination services.  Community-Based Travel Planning (CBTP): CBTP is a residential based approach to outreach, performed by trained advisors, that provides households within a targeted geographic area with customized information, incentives, and support to encourage the use of transportation alternatives in place of single occupancy vehicles.
 Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program: CTR programs can be mandatory or voluntary, and involve providing information, coordination, services, infrastructure, and/or incentives for alternative modes such as ridesharing, vanpool, transit passes, and cycling
Specific Plan
Consistent with Certified EIR measure MM TRA-1-PPA, a VMT Mitigation Strategy Assessment has been prepared for the EBPSP, and is provided as Appendix K2 of this SEIR. As presented therein, many potential measures are already incorporated into the design of the Specific Plan.

Specifically, the integration of the City’s bikeway system, the installation of pedestrian infrastructure, and the provision of a new transit stop all act to reduce VMT. Additionally, the 4495
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 268 -
EBPSP would be required to pay City Transportation Development Impact Fees which help fund Citywide circulation improvements. Additional reductions in VMT would be realized by the following measure:

Mitigation Measure TRA-1-SP: Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each tenant, the operator or tenant shall: 1) prepare and submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to the City for review, detailing strategies for reducing the use of single occupant vehicles by employees; and 2) provide written documentation to the satisfaction of the City that the TDM Program requirement is incorporated into any lease agreement for the site to ensure enforceability. The TDM Program shall include the following transportation measures recommended by California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and analyzed in the VMT Mitigation Strategy Assessment (see SEIR Appendix K2) as calculated pursuant to the CAPCOA Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity or other substantial evidence:
 T-5 Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program. Employers within the EBPSP shall develop CTR programs to discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT.
 T-7 Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Marketing. Materials shall educate employees about their travel choices to the employment location beyond driving such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT, including:
o Onsite or online commuter information services.
o Employee transportation coordinators.
o Onsite or online transit pass sales.
o Guaranteed ride home service.
 T-8 Ridesharing Program.
o Designating a certain percentage of desirable parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles.
o Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles.
o Providing an app or website for coordinating rides.
 T-10 End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities. EBPSP land uses shall install and maintain end-of-trip facilities for employee use. End-of-trip facilities may include bike parking, bike lockers, showers, and personal lockers.
4496
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 269 -
Finding
Policy Plan Amendment
VMT/SP and total VMT would increase under the proposed project compared to the approved project. Mitigation Measure TRA-1-PPA would reduce potential impacts for future development projects to the extent feasible. Future development projects consistent with proposed project would need to consider transportation demand management (TDM) measures consistent with those identified in the Mobility Element. TDM techniques include incentives to use transit; incentives to form carpools rather than drive alone; and making home, work, and shopping closer together to shorten travel distances. Project-level and cumulative VMT impacts under the proposed project would remain. Therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Specific Plan
VMT/SP and total VMT would increase under the EPBSP. Mitigation Measure TRA-1-SP, above, would reduce commute-related VMT by 7.2 percent. However, the City’s significance standard considers all trip types and does not isolate commute-related trips. Therefore, the 7.2 percent reduction applies only to a portion of the EBPSP’s total VMT and is not sufficient to fully mitigate the overall impact. Project-level and cumulative VMT impacts under the EBPSP would remain. Therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

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.

3.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Regarding the project’s potential to result in cumulative impacts, the City hereby finds as follows:
4497
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 270 -

AESTHETICS
The CEQA Guidelines define a “cumulative impact” as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). Cumulative impacts related to aesthetics would be contiguous with the City boundaries. Cumulative projects in Ontario would have the potential to result in a cumulative impact to aesthetic resources if, in combination, they would result in the removal or substantial adverse change of one or more features that contribute to the valued visual character or image of a neighborhood, community, State scenic highway, or localized area, such as a designated landmark, historic resource, trees, or rock outcropping. The land use changes of the Policy Plan Amendment are comprehensive and encompasses the land use changes associated with the EBPSP and the concurrent Zoning changes. Therefore, cumulative impacts for the proposed project are described below.

Scenic Vistas and Scenic Resources
The City of Ontario does not designate scenic vistas. Growth within the City of Ontario could affect scenic vistas and specific scenic resources. Policy CD-1.5 of TOP 2050 ensure that views of the San Gabriel Mountains are preserved. Development under the proposed project would be subject to goals, policies, and regulations intended to minimize impacts associated with the proposed project to less than significant levels, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to scenic vistas and scenic resources would be less than significant.

Visual Character and Quality
Growth anticipated in Ontario would fundamentally alter the visual character and quality of certain areas. However, because development under the proposed project would be subject to goals, policies, and regulations intended to minimize visual impacts to less than significant levels, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to visual character and quality would be less than significant.

Light and Glare
The construction and operation of cumulative projects in Ontario could introduce new sources of light and glare from development and redevelopment requiring nighttime lighting—such as security lighting in commercial areas—or from buildings constructed with reflective materials like large expanses of glass. Glare impacts are typically localized and not cumulative in nature; therefore, a significant cumulative impact related to glare would not occur. Furthermore, development under the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Development Code, which includes standards to minimize lighting impacts. As a result, light and glare impacts associated with the proposed project would be reduced to less than significant levels, and the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
4498
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 271 -

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
The land use changes of the Policy Plan Amendment are comprehensive and encompasses the land use changes associated with the EBPSP and the concurrent Zoning changes. Therefore, cumulative impacts for the proposed project are described below.

Mapped Important Farmland, Williamson Act Contracts, and Agricultural Zoning The 2022 Certified EIR determined that cumulative impacts related to agricultural resources would be less than significant since impacts would not exceed those already discussed in the previous document. Since the City of Ontario no longer includes agricultural zoning, implementation of the proposed project would not result in agricultural resource impacts that would combine with impacts in San Bernardino County to result in significant, cumulative impacts. Similarly, although the EBPSP would result in the conversion of 6.6 acres of Prime Farmland and the cancellation of a Williamson Act contract, impacts would not be new or more severe than those previously disclosed. As such, as determined by the 2022 Certified EIR, these impacts are not considered cumulatively considerable.

Forest Resources
The City of Ontario does not have any forest resources or timberland; therefore, no significant cumulative impact to forest resources would occur, and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

AIR QUALITY
The cumulative setting for air quality is the SoCAB. In accordance with the South Coast AQMD methodology, any project that produces a significant project-level regional air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment contributes to the cumulative impact. Cumulative projects include new development and general growth within the SoCAB. The SoCAB is nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. Due to the extent of the area potentially impacted from cumulative project emissions, South Coast AQMD considers a project cumulatively significant when projectrelated emissions exceed the regional emissions thresholds. Specifically, the South Coast AQMD published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution: “White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution.” In this report the South Coast AQMD clearly states:
…the AQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR. The only case where the significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts differ is the Hazard Index (HI) significance threshold for toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions. The project specific (project increment) significance threshold is HI > 1.0 while the cumulative (facility-wide) is HI > 3.0. It should be noted that the HI is only one of three TAC emission significance thresholds considered (when applicable) in a CEQA analysis. The 4499
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 272 -
other two are the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and the cancer burden, both of which use the same significance thresholds (MICR of 10 in 1 million and cancer burden of 0.5) for project specific and cumulative impacts.

Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the South Coast AQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant. (South Coast AQMD 2003c, p. D-3) As identified in Impact AQ-2 (regional construction impacts), Impact AQ-3 (regional operation impacts), Impact AQ-4 (localized construction impacts), and Impact AQ-5 (operational health risk), implementation of the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the air basins and expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and cumulative impacts are significant.

Construction
The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM2.5, and PM10 under California and/or National AAQS. Construction of cumulative projects would further degrade the regional and local air quality. Air quality would be temporarily impacted during construction activities.

Implementation of mitigation measures for related projects would reduce cumulative impacts; however, project-related construction emissions could still potentially exceed the South Coast AQMD significance thresholds on a project and cumulative basis. Consequently, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be cumulatively considerable and would therefore be significant.

Operation
For operational air quality emissions, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily regional threshold values are not considered by South Coast AQMD to be a substantial source of air pollution and does not add significantly to a cumulative impact.

Operation of the proposed project would result in emissions in excess of the South Coast AQMD regional emissions thresholds for long-term operation. Additionally, future individual development under the proposed project would generate TACs that could contribute to elevated levels of risk even though the operational HRA specific to the truck route changes demonstrated that impacts resulting from the distribution of trucks throughout the City would not exceed South Coast AQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project’s air pollutant emissions would be cumulatively considerable and would therefore be significant.

Overall, the proposed project’s construction and operational phase emissions would cumulatively contribute to air quality impacts in the SoCAB, and impacts are significant. 4500
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 273 -

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The area considered for cumulative impacts to biological resources is the CDFW inland deserts region. The land use changes of the Policy Plan Amendment are comprehensive and encompasses the land use changes associated with the EBPSP and the concurrent Zoning changes. Therefore, cumulative impacts for the proposed project are described below.

The proposed project would result in potential impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species, including raptors, migratory birds, nesting birds, and roosting bats protected under State law. The proposed project, including the EBPSP, would comply with the City’s Habitat Mitigation Fee per Ontario Ranch Settlement Agreement, which would reduce impacts with respect to the cumulative loss of habitat for sensitive species. Additionally, mitigation measures would reduce impacts to sensitive species that may be present on future development sites, as well as the EBPSP and off-site improvements, to less than significant. Projects in the CDFW inland deserts region, including future development in accordance with the Policy Plan Amendment, would be required to comply with existing state regulations protecting biological resources, which could include the preparation of biological reports and surveys. Impacts of the proposed project would be less than cumulatively considerable with implementation of mitigation. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
The area considered for cumulative impacts is the City of Ontario.

Historical Resources
Projects in the City could destroy or otherwise diminish the historical significance of historical resources. As described above, historical resources could potentially be impacted with implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment and would be potentially significant, and therefore, cumulatively considerable.

Archaeological Resources and Human Remains
Projects in the City would disturb soil and thus could damage archaeological resources and/or uncover human remains. Projects in the City of Ontario would comply with federal and state regulations governing the treatment of archeological resources and discovery of human remains. Additionally, Mitigation Measure CUL-3-PPA for the Policy Plan Amendment and Mitigation Measure CUL-2-SP for the Specific Plan would ensure that impacts to archeological resources are less than significant and would be less than cumulatively considerable.

ENERGY
As this analysis assesses whether energy consumption from the proposed project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of resources, the geographic area relevant to cumulative energy impacts is the plan area. The area considered for cumulative impacts to 4501
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 274 -
electricity and natural gas supplies and facilities is SCE and SoCalGas service areas. Analysis of whether the proposed project’s energy demand would be within SCE’s and SoCalGas’s service capacity and require new or expanded facilities is in Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, of this SEIR.

Other future development in the SCE and SoCalGas service areas would be subject to existing state regulations, such as the California Energy Code and CALGreen Code. New buildings would use new energy-efficient appliances and equipment, pursuant to the Appliance Efficiency Regulations. These measures would reduce the overall consumption of electricity and natural gas. Moreover, the proposed project includes various goals, policies, and standards to reduce energy consumption and promote renewable energy sources consistent with applicable local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Consequently, the proposed project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts on energy would be less than significant.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The land use changes of the Policy Plan Amendment are comprehensive and encompasses the land use changes associated with the EBPSP and the concurrent Zoning changes. Therefore, cumulative impacts for the proposed project are described below.

Geological Hazards
Geology and soils impacts related to the proposed project would be specific to the sites of each development or redevelopment project under proposed project. Compliance with applicable state and local building regulations would be required of all development projects. Site-specific geologic hazards would be addressed by the geotechnical report required for each development project. The geologic investigation would identify the specific geologic and seismic characteristics on a site and provide guidelines for engineering design and construction to maintain the structural integrity of proposed structures and infrastructure. Therefore, compliance with applicable state and local building regulations and standard engineering practices related to seismic and geologic hazard reduction would prevent significant cumulative adverse impacts associated with geologic and seismic hazards. Impacts of the proposed project on geology and soils would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Paleontological Resources
The area considered for cumulative impacts for paleontological resources is the City of Ontario.

Projects in the City of Ontario and would comply with federal and state regulations governing the treatment of paleontological resources. Mitigation measures for the Policy Plan Amendment (MM GEO-1-PPA) and the Specific Plan (MM GEO-1-SP) would ensure that impacts to paleontological resources are less than significant and would be less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. 4502
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 275 -

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Project-related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide. Therefore, impacts under Impacts GHG-1 and GHG-2 are not project-specific impacts to global warming, but are the proposed project’s contribution to this cumulative impact.

Implementation of the proposed project would not meet the State’s carbon neutrality targets.

Additionally, the proposed project would be inconsistent with the City’s CCAP objective of reducing citywide GHG emissions and the carbon neutrality targets identified in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Moreover, implementation of the EBPSP would exceed the significance emission threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr and would be inconsistent with the City’s’ CCAP. Therefore, project-related GHG emissions associated with the proposed project and their contribution to global climate change would be cumulatively considerable, and GHG emissions impacts would remain significant.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The land use changes of the Policy Plan Amendment are comprehensive and encompasses the land use changes associated with the EBPSP and the concurrent Zoning changes. Therefore, cumulative impacts for the proposed project are described below.

Hazardous Materials
The cumulative setting for hazardous materials is the City of Ontario. Impacts arising from hazardous materials and hazardous materials releases are site specific and generally do not combine to cause cumulative impacts; however, the cumulative impact analysis considers the Specific Plan and nearby related projects.

As discussed previously, the EBPSP does not propose uses or activities that would require substantial handling or use of hazardous materials, hazardous substances, or hazardous waste that could result in potential adverse effects. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1-SP has been incorporated to ensure proper handling of unknown hazardous materials that may be encountered during grading activities. To the extent that such materials or substances may be present during construction or operations they will be transported, stored, used and disposed of consistent with multiple and broad regulatory requirements. As with the Specific Plan, other related projects within the cumulative impact area would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, and such uses would be subject to additional review and permits from their local oversight agency. Therefore, the potential for release of hazardous materials into the environment, whether through accident or due to routine transport, use, or disposal of such materials would comply with regulatory requirements for each development and would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact. 4503
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 276 -
Schools
Any future development located near schools would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations governing the safe handling of hazardous materials near existing or proposed schools. Furthermore, the areas of change are concentrated in the southern portion of the City, where there are no schools, and the Specific Plan area is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or planned school. Implementation of the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively-considerable impact associated with emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or planned school.

Therefore, hazards and hazardous materials impacts are less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable.

Airport Hazards
The areas considered for cumulative airport-related hazards impacts are the airport influence areas of ONT and CNO. Development proposed within the airport influence areas of ONT and CNO would be required to undergo evaluation under the ALUCP for ONT and the CNO Land Use Compatibility Plan to ensure that the projects comply with the land use regulations for the respective safety zones established by the responsible agencies. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant after compliance with such regulations and impacts of the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable.

Fire Hazards
The areas considered for cumulative impacts related to wildfires are fire hazard severity zones in the City. Projects within wildfire hazards zones are required to comply with applicable regulations, including the California Building Code Chapter 7A, California Fire Code Chapter 49, and California Public Resources Code Sections 4291, et seq. In addition, policies under the Policy Plan Amendment’s Safety Element would help reduce wildfire- and emergency-related risks. As a result, the risk of wildfire associated with the development under the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable.

Emergency Response and Evacuation
The areas considered for cumulative impacts related to emergency response and evacuation are primarily the regional transportation networks (e.g., interstates) that support evacuation and emergency response in the City. Planned improvements to the City’s transportation infrastructure would accommodate increased population and facilitate emergency response and evacuation, with interstate highways serving as primary evacuation routes. The proposed project would not introduce or modify roadways in a manner that impedes emergency vehicle access, and City design review procedures ensure compliance with emergency access standards and adopted emergency response plans. Additionally, the OFD reviews development applications to ensure adequate emergency accessibility. Compliance with the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and the LHMP would further help maintain safe and accessible emergency 4504
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 277 -
routes for the community. Therefore, impacts to emergency response and evacuation are less than significant; and therefore, less than cumulatively considerable.

Cumulative impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials are less than significant.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Cumulative impacts to hydrology, drainage, flooding, and water quality are considered for the Chino Creek subwatershed and the Middle Santa Ana River subwatershed, which are part of the larger Santa Ana River Watershed. The land use changes of the Policy Plan Amendment are comprehensive and encompasses the land use changes associated with the EBPSP and the concurrent Zoning changes. Therefore, cumulative impacts for the proposed project are described below.

Development in the City of Ontario and other projects in these watersheds would increase impervious areas, thus increasing runoff and flows into storm drainage systems. Within San Bernardino County, other projects would be required to prepare hydrology and hydraulic studies in accordance with the County Hydrology Manual and analyze stormwater flows that result from the 100-year storm event to ensure that the capacities of the storm drain systems are not exceeded. Additionally, other projects would be required to comply with MS4 permits applicable in those watersheds. The Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 permit applies to portions of three counties in the Santa Ana Basin. Other projects’ compliance with the requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 permit, the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program, and San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual guidance would reduce cumulative impacts to hydrology and drainage to less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable.

If projects in the watersheds are within 100-year flood zones, they would be mandated to comply with National Flood Insurance Program requirements. Cumulative impacts to hydrology, drainage, and flooding would be less than significant, and impacts of the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable.

Cumulative projects could generate pollutants that would contaminate stormwater. Compliance with the MS4 permit includes implementation of site design and source control BMPs that reduce the potential for pollutants to enter runoff and treatment control BMPs that remove pollutants from stormwater. Cumulative water quality impacts would be less than significant after compliance with such permits, and project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

The proposed project would not result in new or more severe cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality compared to those identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.
4505
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 278 -

LAND USE AND PLANNING
Cumulative projects in the City would have the potential to result in a cumulative impact if they would, in combination, conflict with existing land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. Projects in the City would utilize TOP 2050 and regional planning documents such as SCAG’s Connect SoCal during planning, to the extent that they are applicable. Cumulative projects would be required to comply with the proposed project or they would not be approved without a general plan amendment. As discussed above, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with existing land use plans, policies, or regulations. In addition, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, proposed project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact, and this impact is less than significant.

MINERAL RESOURCES
The area considered for cumulative impacts to mineral resources is the P-C regions overlapping the City of Ontario and extending into other counties within the Greater Los Angeles Sand and Gravel Resources Area: the Claremont-Upland P-C region extends into Los Angeles County; the Orange County-Temescal Region extends into Orange County and Western Riverside County, and the San Bernardino P-C region encompasses San Bernardino and most western Riverside County. Other projects in the referenced areas could be proposed within areas designated by the California Geological Survey as Resource Sectors containing construction aggregate of “regional significance.” Development of these projects within these areas of regional or statewide significance could cause loss of availability of known mineral resources valuable to the region; however, such projects would be subject to independent CEQA review, including an evaluation of potential impacts to MRZ areas and mining sites. Implementation of all feasible mitigation measures would be required to reduce any significant impacts identified.

As identified above, the proposed project would not impact mineral resources of statewide, regional, or local value. Specifically, the Specific Plan area is designated as MRZ-3 and does not contain known mineral resource deposits or any locally important mineral resource recovery sites on or within proximity to the Specific Plan area. Additionally, the proposed project includes Goal ER-5, which aims to protect high value habitat and ensure that mineral resource extraction activities that are compatible with adjacent land uses, which would help minimize cumulative impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would not cumulatively contribute to a significant cumulative impact. Impacts are less than significant.

NOISE
The area considered for cumulative impacts for construction noise and vibration is the City of Ontario. Since details of individual development projects as a result of the proposed project are currently unknown, it cannot be determined whether proposed mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels for cumulative projectrelated noise impacts. 4506
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 279 -
Construction
Construction activities may occur simultaneously and close to noise-sensitive receptors, which could result in significant impacts. For the EBPSP, there are no known projects that would overlap with the EBPSP’s proposed construction schedule, with the exception of the Center Park Specific Plan to the north. Given the acreage associated with both the EBPSP and the Center Park Specific Plan and distance to the nearest noise-sensitive receptors, construction noise levels from the individual projects are not loud enough to result in a doubling of noise energy.

Thus, the EBPSP would not substantially contribute to construction noise levels at noise sensitive receptors. EBPSP construction-source noise would not exceed applicable thresholds and would not substantially contribute to ambient noise conditions or to other related noise sources. There are no known or probable related projects that would interact with the less than significant effects of the EBPSP and thereby result in cumulatively significant impacts; however, for the larger Policy Plan Amendment, the phasing of construction activities is speculative. As details of individual development projects in the project area are currently unknown, it cannot be determined whether Mitigation Measure NOI-1-PPA would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant. The proposed project’s contribution to construction-related noise and vibration would therefore be cumulatively considerable, and the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Operation
Stationary Sources
Stationary noise sources as part of future projects under the proposed project would be required to comply with the exterior and interior noise level standards in the City’s Municipal Code Section 5.29, shown in Draft SEIR Table 3.13-5, and Policy Plan Amendment Policy S4-1, Noise Mitigation. Design features commonly employed to achieve compliance, such as rooftop or ground-mounted equipment enclosures, parapet walls, acoustical screening, and silencers for exhaust and intake openings, would be incorporated as necessary based on final equipment specifications and acoustical evaluation. Due to compliance with stationary noise standards at the project level, much of the mechanical equipment would be located at large distances from off-site sensitive receptors and/or would be shielded by intervening structures. The proposed project would therefore not contribute to cumulatively considerable stationary source-related noise, and the cumulative impact would be less than significant.

Traffic Sources
To specifically estimate the proposed project’s contribution to traffic noise, no-project noise levels were compared to those projected with completion of the proposed project. As demonstrated above, the proposed project’s contribution to increases in ambient noise levels results in a significant impact. The proposed project would, therefore, contribute to cumulatively considerable traffic-related noise, and the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.
4507
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 280 -
Vibration
Construction
For the EBPSP, there are no known projects that would overlap with the EBPSP’s proposed construction schedule, with the exception of the Center Park Specific Plan to the north. Given the acreage associated with both the EBPSP and the Center Park Specific Plan and distance to the nearest noise-sensitive receptors, construction noise levels from the individual projects are not loud enough to result in a doubling of noise energy. Thus, the EBPSP would not substantially contribute to construction noise levels at noise sensitive receptors. Accordingly, there is no potential for the EBPSP to contribute to the exposure of persons to substantial cumulative temporary groundborne vibration or noise. For the Policy Plan Amendment construction activities may occur simultaneously and close to vibration-sensitive receptors, that could result in significant impacts. As details of individual development projects in the project area are currently unknown, it cannot be determined whether Mitigation Measure NOI-2-PPA would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

Operation
Groundborne vibration levels from heavy truck travel along City-designated truck routes of the proposed project could expose existing and future sensitive receptors to annoying vibration levels, as discussed above. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to truck route-related vibration annoyance would therefore be cumulatively considerable, and the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Summary
The above analysis of proposed project addresses cumulative impacts with regard to operational and construction noise as well as groundborne noise and vibration in the City. The project proposes the long-term buildout and operation of many different uses. Although multiple simultaneous nearby noise sources may, in combination, result in higher overall noise levels, this effect is captured and accounted for by the community noise level metrics that form the basis of the standards of significance for noise analysis. As described above, cumulative impacts for short-term construction noise and long-term operation (traffic noise and vibration from heavy trucks) are cumulatively considerable; and therefore, significant.

POPULATION AND HOUSING
The area considered for cumulative impacts is the SCAG region. As described above, the approved project exceeds SCAG’s regional forecasts for the City of Ontario and therefore the increase in population, housing, and employment as part of the proposed project would also exceed SCAG’s regional forecast for the City. The proposed project would comply with SB 330 and SB 166 (see Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning), and there would be no net loss of residential units in the City with implementation of the proposed project. The proposed project would align jobs with the current employment market. Employment generated by the proposed project is expected to be filled by the local and regional labor force. Regionally, The City of 4508
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 281 -
Ontario represents approximately 8 percent of the population, 8 percent of the housing, and 9 percent of the employment within San Bernardino County. Therefore, the proposed increase in population, housing units, and jobs would comprise a small portion of the countywide total.

SCAG identifies several Priority Growth Areas in Ontario, including high-quality transit areas, transit priority areas, neighborhood mobility areas, and livable corridors. The proposed project would promote growth consistent with these Priority Growth Areas, as proposed land use changes under the Policy Plan Amendment would promote mixed-use areas which would encourage walking and biking, put residents in proximity to resources, and align future growth in Ontario with planned infrastructure improvements and regional transportation goals.

Impacts of the proposed project would be less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

PUBLIC SERVICES
The geographic scope of cumulative impacts under the proposed project is the service areas of the respective service providers.

Fire
Growth associated with the proposed project are cumulative impacts since the service boundary of OFD is the City. As described above, OFD would be required to meet the increased demand for population and employment growth over the buildout of the proposed project. All development within the City, is subject to payment of development impact fees to ensure the adequate provision of services and maintenance of facilities. Increased property and sales tax from future new developments would provide funding for any capital improvements necessary to maintain adequate fire and police protection facilities, equipment, and/or personnel. By maintaining a consistent level of service through expansion or facility improvements, the OFD would be able to ensure that their performance objectives are consistently met. Furthermore, development pursuant to the proposed project would be subject to review by the OFD ensuring appropriate safety requirements are met. Accordingly, the proposed project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact on fire protection services.

Police
Growth associated with the proposed project are cumulative impacts since the service boundary of OPD is the City. As described above, OPD would be required to meet the increased demand for population and employment growth over the buildout of the approved project. All development within the City is subject to payment of development impact fees to ensure the adequate provision of services and maintenance of facilities. Increased property and sales tax from future new developments would provide funding for any capital improvements necessary to maintain adequate fire and police protection facilities, equipment, and/or personnel. By maintaining a consistent level of service through expansion or facility improvements, the OPD would be able to ensure that their performance objectives are consistently met. Furthermore, 4509
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 282 -
development pursuant to the proposed project would be subject to review by the OPD ensuring appropriate safety requirements are met. Accordingly, the proposed project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact on police protection services.

Schools
The EBPSP does not include any residential land uses and, therefore, is not expected to result in a significant increase in demand for schools. Projects pursuant to the Policy Plan Amendment and other cumulative development that involve residential development would increase the public-school population in the region and require the construction or expansion of school facilities so that adequate service ratios are maintained. This increase in student population would require the construction or expansion of school facilities, which could result in adverse environmental impacts. As discussed above, under state law, development projects are required to pay established school impact fees in accordance with SB 50 at the time of building permit issuance. The funding program established by SB 50 has been found by the Legislature to constitute “full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act…on the provision of adequate school facilities” (Government Code Section 65995[h]). The fees authorized for collection under SB 50 are conclusively deemed full and adequate mitigation of impacts on school district facilities. Furthermore, cumulative school projects require discretionary actions and would be required to demonstrate compliance with CEQA prior to project approval. The proposed project would not combine with areawide growth to result in cumulatively considerable impacts to school services.

Parks
The proposed project provides land use opportunities for public parks to be developed in line with future development. The City would continue to regularly review the City’s parks and trails inventory to ensure that it keeps pace with demographic trends and the recreational needs of Ontario’s residents and construct new parks and recreation facilities accordingly. Since the details of future parks and recreation projects that would the proposed project and cumulative development are unknown at this time, such projects would be reviewed when proposed and comply with applicable requirements from the City to address potential environmental impacts.

The EBPSP does not include any residential land uses, and therefore is not expected to result in a significant increase in demand for parks. As with the development allowed under the Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP, cumulative development projects would be required to comply with all applicable existing regulations, procedures, and policies that are intended to address impacts to park and recreation facilities. Therefore, impacts are less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable.

Library
Growth associated with the proposed project are cumulative impacts since the service boundary for the Ontario library system is the City. The EBPSP does not include any residential land uses and, therefore, is not expected to result in a significant increase in demand for other public facilities, including libraries. Projects pursuant to the Policy Plan Amendment and other 4510
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 283 -
cumulative development that involve residential development would increase the population in the region and require the construction or expansion of library facilities so that adequate service ratios are maintained. Development within the City is subject to payment of development impact fees to ensure the adequate provision of services and maintenance of public facilities. New or expanded libraries would also be subject to environmental review to determine potential environmental impacts when development is proposed. Impacts would be less than significant, and therefore, less than cumulatively considerable.

RECREATION
The area considered for cumulative impacts for recreation is the City of Ontario. As described above, the proposed project provides land use opportunities for public parks to be developed in line with future development. As described under impact discussion a), the Parks and Recreation Element contains relevant goals, policies, and programs that support a regular review of the City’s parks and trails plans to keep pace with demographic trends and recreational needs of Ontario’s residents (see Policies PR-1.1 through PR-1.16). In addition, Policy PR-1.5 strives to provide five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents in the Ontario Ranch, and Policy PR-1.6 provides a minimum of 2 acres of developed private park space per 1,000 residents in the City.

The Specific Plan does not propose residential uses that would result in an increase in population, thereby, increasing the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Employees and visitors of the Specific Plan land uses who do not already reside in the area are not anticipated to utilize local recreational facilities to the extent that physical deterioration would occur or be accelerated, even when considered in the context of cumulative developments in the area. Given the proximity to planned business park uses, if future employees were to occasionally use park facilities within the City, they would likely utilize the public facilities provided by the Specific Plan.

Additionally, as previous discussed, the recreational facilities provided within the Specific Plan were assumed by and included in the City’s Recreation & Parks Master Plan. The Master Plan concluded that the City is currently underserved by park facilities. Recreational facilities implemented by the EBPSP and future developed allowed under the proposed land use plan would help to address the open space and park needs of the growing community.

As with the development allowed under the Policy Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, cumulative development projects would be required to comply with all applicable existing regulations, procedures, and policies that are intended to address impacts to park and recreation facilities. As a result, development of park facilities would keep pace with the anticipated increase in population from buildout of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts are less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable. 4511
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 284 -

TRANSPORTATION
The cumulative effect for transportation impacts is the SBCTA region. Cumulative traffic impacts consider the impacts of future growth and development in the SBCTA region. As identified above, the proposed project would result in a significant cumulative impact for VMT as a result of a substantial increase in population within the City. Therefore, VMT impacts of proposed project are cumulatively considerable.

The proposed project is consistent with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and the performance and safety of such facilities and would not combine with other area projects to result in significant impacts to such facilities.

The City of Ontario has adopted standards related to emergency accessibility. Additionally, the fire department reviews all development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance. Review of emergency access is also included as part of the City’s Design Review process.

Overall, because the proposed project would result in significant project-level and cumulative VMT impacts, cumulative impacts are considered significant and unavoidable.

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

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

Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Water
The area considered for cumulative impacts for water supply and treatment is the City of Ontario, IEUA, and CVWD service areas. The OMUC service area includes most of the City of Ontario and will serve the Ontario Ranch. The CVWD serves two small areas in the northeastern portion of the City and the IEUA provides recycled water that is distributed by OMUC.

The 2020 UWMPs for the City, IEUA, and CVWD all state that there are sufficient water supplies through 2045 to meet projected demands in normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry years. Although the proposed project at buildout is estimated to generate an approximately 3 percent increase in water demand compared to the 2020 UWMP using conservative water demand factors, new State requirements for indoor water usage and City policies and code 4512
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 285 -
requirements would result in enhanced water efficiency and conservation efforts which would likely reduce the total water demand below the projections in the 2020 UWMP for year 2045.

Overall, cumulative water demands would neither exceed planned levels of supply nor require building new water treatment facilities or expanding existing facilities beyond what is currently planned. In addition, future development would be required to pay connection fees, which would offset the costs of system maintenance and capital upgrades to support the new development in the service areas. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant and impacts of the project would not be cumulatively considerable.

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

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

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

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

Storm Drainage
The area considered for cumulative impacts is the Chino Creek and the Middle Santa Ana River subwatershed. Other projects in this area would increase impervious areas, thus increasing runoff and flows into the storm drain systems. Within San Bernardino County, other projects would also be required to prepare hydrology and hydraulic studies in accordance with the 4513
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 286 -
County Hydrology Manual and analyze stormwater flows that result from the 100-year storm event to ensure that the capacities of the storm drain systems are not exceeded. Additionally, future projects would be required to comply with the MS4 permits applicable to those watersheds. The Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 permit applies to portions of three counties in the Santa Ana Basin. Most projects would meet criteria in the MS4 permits that require LID measures and on-site stormwater bioretention facilities that would reduce the amount of runoff entering public storm drain systems. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable.

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, cumulative impacts are less than significant. 4514
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 287 -

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

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

4. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The lead agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are feasible, and therefore, merit in-depth consideration, and which ones are infeasible.

Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which could feasibly achieve most of its basic objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects identified in the EIR analysis. An EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a proposed project. Rather, an EIR must consider a reasonable range of alternatives that are potentially feasible; an EIR is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible. In addition, an EIR should evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Therefore, this section sets forth the potential alternatives to the Project analyzed in the EIR and evaluates them in light of the objectives of the Project, as required by CEQA.

Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines relating to the alternatives’ analysis (Section 15126.6 et seq.) are summarized below:
 [T]he discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the Project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the Project objectives or would be more costly.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[b]). 4515
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 288 -
 “The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e][1])
 “The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e][2])
 “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f])  “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries…, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][1]).
 “Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][2][A])
 “An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][3])

4.1 RATIONALE FOR SELECTING POTENTIALLY

FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives must include a no-project alternative and a range of reasonable alternatives to the project if those reasonable alternatives would attain most of the project objectives while substantially lessening the potentially significant project impacts. The range of alternatives discussed in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason,” which the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(3) defines as:
“. . . set[ting] forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.

The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need 4516
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 289 -
examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making.”
Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives (as described in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)([1]) are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the project proponent could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, and whose implementation is remote or speculative.

For purposes of this analysis, the project alternatives are evaluated to determine the extent to which they attain the basic project objectives, while significantly lessening any significant effects of the project.

4.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

DURING THE SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING

PROCESS
The following is a discussion of the alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in the SEIR.

4.2.1 Alternative Development Areas Outside of the City CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. The key question and first step in the analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[5][B][1]).

FINDING
The City does not have land use authority outside of the City’s boundaries. Therefore, an alternative development area would be infeasible and was not analyzed. As described in these Findings of Fact, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts, or impacts that can be mitigated to less than significant. For significant and unavoidable impacts, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental 4517
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 290 -
benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.

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

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

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

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

FINDING
Therefore, because an alternate location is not available that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the EBPSP, and because the Applicant does not have ownership control over and cannot reasonably obtain ownership control over any other parcels of land in the jurisdiction of the City that could accommodate the EBPSP, an alternate site is not feasible. As a result, this alternative was rejected from further consideration. As described in these Findings of Fact, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts, or impacts that can be mitigated to less than significant. For significant and unavoidable impacts, the City has determined that these impacts are 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, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 4518
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 291 -

4.2.3 Alternative Housing Element Sites Alternative
The City received several NOP comment letters on land use and planning impacts as a result of areas in the Ontario Ranch where high density residential (HDR) land uses are proposed. The locations are identified as Housing Element that fulfill the City’s lower income RHNA obligations.

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

FINDING
Since the City is obligated to maintain the RHNA, shifting the location of the HDR unit to alternative areas within Ontario Ranch would not reduce or eliminate the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, an alternative housing element sites within Ontario Ranch were not analyzed. As described in these Findings of Fact, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts, or impacts that can be mitigated to less than significant.

For significant and unavoidable impacts, the City has determined that these impacts are 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, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.

4.2.4 Truck Route Scenario 1 Alternative
In summer 2025, the City conducted outreach and initiated an evaluation of its existing truck routes, which evaluated changes to truck routes in northern Ontario, including in the Original Model Colony. Truck Route Scenario 1 retained all existing truck routes and added an additional route along Eucalyptus Avenue.

FINDING
This scenario was rejected because it would increase truck volumes on designated routes, substantially worsen conditions at Grand Park, and require additional mitigation measures and funding. This alternative was considered but rejected. As described in these Findings of Fact, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts, or impacts that can be mitigated to less than significant. For significant and unavoidable impacts, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, 4519
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 292 -
or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.

4.2.5 Truck Route Scenario 2 Alternative
In summer 2025, the City conducted outreach and initiated an evaluation of its existing truck routes, which evaluated changes to truck routes in northern Ontario, including in the Original Model Colony. Truck Route Scenario 2 retained all existing truck routes and added additional routes along Eucalyptus Avenue and Walker Avenue.

FINDINGS
This scenario was rejected because it would make mitigation measures for noise, vibration, and air quality more challenging; result in significantly higher truck volumes than Truck Route Scenarios 1 and 3; and introduced new truck traffic through low-density neighborhoods.

Therefore, this alternative was considered but rejected. As described in these Findings of Fact, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts, or impacts that can be mitigated to less than significant. For significant and unavoidable impacts, the City has determined that these impacts are 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, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.

4.3 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER

ANALYSIS
The following alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives that have the potential to feasibly attain most of the objectives of the proposed project and that may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed project.
 No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050
 Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) Alternative
 Truck Route Scenario 3 Alternative
 Reduced Intensity Alternative
No Project Alternative
In the No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050, the Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP project would not be implemented by the City. The current TOP 2050 would remain in effect and would apply to land uses within the City and land uses on the EBPSP project site. Buildout statistics for 4520
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 293 -
Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP compared to the No Project Alternative are shown in Draft SEIR Table 4-1, No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 vs. Growth Projections at Buildout.

As shown in this table, the No Project Alternative would result in a reduction in population, housing units, and non-residential square footage but an increase in employment. In addition, the proposed project includes updated policies to comply with State laws, including AB 98. This alternative would not include revisions to the City’s truck routes, which are proposed to minimize impacts to sensitive receptors.

The TOP 2050 designates the Specific Plan area for Medium Density Residential (MDR), MixedUse (Eucalyptus/Chino Airport) (MU-BC); and Open Space Parkland (OS-C). Buildout under these designations would allow for up to 2,195 residential units and 1,632,143 square feet of nonresidential land uses within the Specific Plan area. As shown in the table, the No Project Alternative would result in an increase in population, units, and employment but a decrease in non-residential square feet.

FINDING
Policy Plan Amendment
Impacts of the No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would be similar for aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, population and housing, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. This alternative would reduce the proposed project’s air quality, energy, GHG, land use and planning, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems impacts. This alternative would not meet some of the objectives of the proposed project.

Specific Plan
The No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would result in greater impacts to energy, construction noise, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems. This alternative would exacerbate significant and unavoidable impacts related to operational air quality, GHG, off-site traffic-related noise, and transportation. Impacts related to aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, construction air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, onsite noise, population and housing, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire would be similar compared to the EBPSP. Additionally, impacts to land use and planning would decrease under this alternative.

As compared with the EBPSP, this alternative would not meet the following objectives to the same extent due to the change in the proposed land uses from business park to residential and mixed-use:
4521
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 294 -
 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.

Truck Route Scenario 3 Alternative
In summer 2025, the City conducted outreach and initiated an evaluation of its existing truck routes, which evaluated changes to truck routes in northern Ontario, including in the Original Model Colony. Changes in southern Ontario were evaluated as part of the Policy Plan Amendment concurrent with land use changes. The City received comments regarding heavy truck traffic passing by residential areas, especially along Ontario Ranch Road and Archibald Avenue. Specific issues identified by the public from truck travel include noise, vibration, and air quality impacts on homes and schools; safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists; road damage from heavy vehicles; and the need for better enforcement of truck routes. Based on feedback from the public, the City identified four truck routes concepts for Ontario Ranch. Draft SEIR Figure 2-9, Proposed Truck Routes, identifies the proposed truck routes selected by the City to move forward for the Policy Plan Amendment and to address the requirements of AB 98.

The Truck Route Scenario 3 is one of the four concepts evaluated by the City. Truck Route Scenario 3 Alternative would not remove Archibald Avenue as a designated truck route, as proposed under the project, and would add additional truck routes along Eucalyptus Avenue, Walker Avenue, and Hellman Avenue. The Truck Route Scenario 3 Alternative was chosen as an alternative to the proposed project because these additional routes would disperse truck traffic throughout the Ontario Ranch area to a greater extent. While the total number of trucks in the City and the Ontario Ranch area would remain the same, impacts would be spread across a broader area rather than concentrated along two specific routes. This alternative would increase impacts along Archibald Avenue and Edison Avenue while decreasing impacts along Ontario Ranch Road. See Draft SEIR Figure 4-1, Truck Route Scenario 3 Alternative.

This alternative would not affect the land uses proposed for the EBPSP. Therefore, a separate analysis of this alternative for the Specific Plan component is not included below as it would be the same as that of the Policy Plan Amendment.

FINDING
This alternative would be similar for aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, GHG, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and system services, and wildfire. This alternative would reduce the proposed project’s air quality and noise impacts. 4522
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 295 -
This alternative would meet all the objectives of the Policy Plan Amendment with the exception of objectives on truck routes and circulation changes. As compared with the proposed project, this alternative would not meet the following objectives:
 Update the City’s truck routes based on proposed land use changes to ensure the City continues to comply with state law and ensures a safe and efficient goods movement network while minimizing the exposure of existing and future sensitive receptors to noise, vibration, and air pollution generated by heavy trucks.  Update the Policy Plan component of TOP 2050 for internal consistency with proposed land use and circulation changes.

Reduced Intensity Alternative
The proposed land use plan would result in a net increase of 6,370,304 square feet of industrial and business park land use compared to the approved TOP 2050. The EBPSP represents 2,939,000 square feet of the growth in industrial and business park land uses under the proposed project (46 percent). Therefore, this alternative considers a reduced intensity alternative for the EBPSP area. The Reduced Intensity Alternative was selected to reduce overall impacts associated with air quality, noise, and transportation.

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in a 30 percent reduction in building area on the EBPSP project site. The buildout intensity of the remaining portions of the proposed project would remain the same; however, overall, the buildout of the proposed project would be reduced. Under this alternative, a total of 2,057,300 square feet of non-residential square feet would be developed, a reduction of 881,700 square feet. The total development impact area would remain the same as the EBPSP. Park areas are assumed to remain as proposed. Access to the site would be similar to the EBPSP, with a proportional reduction in the number of parking spaces. Draft SEIR Table 4-5, Reduced Intensity Alternative, provides the buildout statistics of this alternative for the proposed project and EBPSP.

FINDING
Policy Plan Amendment
This alternative would be similar for aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, mineral resources, population and housing, recreation, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. This alternative would reduce the proposed project’s air quality, energy, GHG, noise, public services, transportation, and utilities and system services impacts. This alternative would meet all the objectives of the Policy Plan Amendment.

Specific Plan
This alternative would be similar for aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and 4523
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 296 -
water quality, land use, mineral resources, population and housing, recreation, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. This alternative would reduce the proposed project’s air quality, energy, GHG, noise, public services, transportation, and utilities and system services impacts.

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would meet most of the EBPSP objectives; however, this alternative would not meet the following objectives to the same extent as the EBPSP due to the reduced square footage and proportional reduction in employees.  To provide a land use plan that implements The Ontario Plan’s vision and appropriately positions business park and public parkland uses north of Eucalyptus Avenue, between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue.
 To facilitate the development of a variety of employment-generating uses in a business park setting.
 To provide opportunities for positive economic benefit to the City, including new net revenues to the General Fund that can be used for vital City services.

Use of the Specific Plan area would not be maximized under the Reduced Intensity Alternative.

Additionally, the 30 percent reduction would reduce the amount of potential employment opportunities for community residents; therefore, the alternative would not be fully maximizing the economic benefit to the City.

4.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the proposed project and the alternatives, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an “environmentally superior” alternative be selected and the reasons for such a selection be disclosed. In general, the environmentally superior alternative is the alternative to the proposed project that has the potential to reduce the proposed project’s significant impacts on the environment to the greatest extent feasible.

Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure, and the alternative to the proposed project selected may not be the alternative to the proposed project that best meets the goals or needs of the City of Ontario. Because CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) requires an evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project, the proposed project under consideration cannot be identified as the environmentally superior alternative. Additionally, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives.

The following alternative has been identified as “environmentally superior” to the proposed project:
 Reduced Intensity Alternative
4524
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 297 -
The Reduced Intensity Alternative has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative because it would either lessen or result in similar impacts as the proposed project; however, it would not avoid any significant and unavoidable impacts. As shown in Draft SEIR Table 4-7, Comparison of Project Alternative Impacts, and Draft SEIR Table 4-8, Ability to Meet Proposed Project Objectives, the Reduced Intensity Alternative lessens impacts to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, noise, public services, transportation, and utilities and system services while partially achieving the benefits of the project objectives.

CEQA does not require the lead agency (the City of Ontario) to choose the environmentally superior alternative. Instead, CEQA requires the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives, weigh those considerations against the environmental impacts of the proposed project, and make findings that the benefits of those considerations outweigh the harm. “Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[c]).

The City Council rejects the Reduced Industrial Alternative on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) this alternative does not avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts on the environment; and (2) this alternative meets the project objectives to a lesser extent than the proposed project. Therefore, the Reduced Industrial Alternative is eliminated from further consideration.

5. ADDITIONAL CEQA CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES DUE TO

THE PROJECT
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss whether “Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely.” The discussion shall consider primary and secondary impacts that generally commit future generations to similar uses, irreversible damage from environmental accidents, and irretrievable commitments of resources.
 Implementation of the proposed project would include construction activities that would entail the commitment of nonrenewable and/or slowly renewable energy resources; human resources; and natural resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, other metals, water, and fossil fuels. Future developments in accordance with the proposed project would require the 4525
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 298 -
use of natural gas and electricity, fossil fuels, and water. The commitment of resources required for the construction and operation of the proposed project would limit the availability of such resources for future generations or for other uses during the life of the project.
 An increased commitment of social services and public maintenance services (e.g., police, fire, schools, libraries, and sewer and water services) would also be required. The energy and social service commitments would be long-term obligations in view of the low likelihood of returning the land to its original condition once it has been developed.  Population growth related to the proposed project compared to the approved project would increase vehicle miles traveled and volatile organic compound emissions associated with consumer product use. The proposed project would cumulatively contribute to the South Coast Air Basin’s nonattainment designation for ozone (O3)

5.2 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE

PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 15126.2(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Typical factors may include the removal of obstacles to population growth, such as through a major expansion of a wastewater plant.

This section evaluates the proposed project’s potential to create such growth inducements. As CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e) states, “It must not be assumed that growth in an area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.” In other words, negative impacts associated with growth inducement occur only where the projected growth would cause significant adverse environmental impacts.

Approval and implementation of proposed project would not remove obstacles to growth.

Development in the City is guided by TOP 2050. Changes to the approved project are identified in Section 2.4.1, Project Characteristics, and would not result in changes to existing regulations that would remove barriers to growth in the City. Portions of the City are already served by infrastructure. Like the approved project, implementation of proposed project would allow for development of currently undeveloped land and redevelopment of existing land uses. This would induce construction of infrastructure extensions and improvements, such as roadways, storms drains, water pipes, solid waste collection systems, and energy/communication extensions toward undeveloped areas of the City. In addition, the proposed project would increase demand for electricity and natural gas that could require expansion of energy infrastructure, as provided by Southern California Edison and the Southern California Gas Company. Impacts to existing utilities and service systems and potential needs for future improvements are discussed further in Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems. 4526
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 299 -
TOP 2050 and the proposed project accommodate the additional population growth required to accommodate the South California Association of Governments’ Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Buildout of the proposed project may require additional firefighting and police personnel and construction of new and/or expanded facilities to improve response times, if necessary. Buildout may also require future construction of new and/or expanded schools in the school districts that serve Ontario (e.g., Chaffey Joint Union High School District, Chino Valley Unified School District, Cucamonga School District, Ontario-Montclair School District, and Mountain View School District). Impacts from the proposed project on public services facilities are discussed in detail in Section 3.15, Public Services.

6. FINDINGS ON RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

ON THE DRAFT SEIR AND REVISIONS TO THE

FINAL SEIR
The Final SEIR contains response to comments, clarifications, revisions, and corrections to the Draft SEIR. The focus of the response to comments is on the disposition of significant environmental issues as raised in the comments, as specified by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b). The City provided written responses to each comment made by a public agency, as set forth in Section 2 of the Final SEIR, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b), and revisions and corrections to the Draft SEIR are found in Section 3 of the Final SEIR.

City staff has reviewed this material and determined that none of this material constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the Draft SEIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the Draft SEIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

7. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the 4527
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Findings of Fact - 300 -
benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered “acceptable” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the FEIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 [b]). The agency’s statement is referred to as a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 15093, the City Council hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit B.

8. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) attached as Exhibit C Implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the MMRP is hereby made a condition of approval of the proposed project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set for herein and the MMRP, the MMRP shall control. The City finds that all mitigation measures adopted herein are fully enforceable through permit conditions, development agreements, improvement plans, monitoring requirements, or other legally binding instruments.

9. CERTIFICATION
The City Council finds that it has been presented with the 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 CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines and that the SEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council.

The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 has been received by the City Council after circulation of the Draft SEIR which would require recirculation.

Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the SEIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.
4528
City of Ontario

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
June 2026 | Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4529
4530
June 2026 | Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
City of Ontario
City of Ontario
Contact: Thomas Grahn, Principal Planner
303 East B Street
Ontario, California 91764
909.395.2036
Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
Contact: Nicole Vermilion, Principal
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
www.placeworks.com
4531
4532
JUNE 2026 1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the Policy Plan Amendment (PPA) and Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (EBPSP) pursuant to the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15097, Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting. The purpose of this MMRP is to ensure the implementation of mitigation measures identified as part of the environmental review for the proposed project.

The public agency may choose whether its program will monitor mitigation, report on mitigation, or both. The MMRP for the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment and Specific Plan are show in Table 1, Policy Plan Amendment MMRP, and Table 2, Eucalyptus Business Plan Specific Plan MMRP, respectively. The MMRP includes the following information:
 The full text of the mitigation measures;
 The party responsible for implementing the mitigation measures;  The timing for implementation of the mitigation measures; and  The agency responsible for monitoring the implementation. 4533

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
2 Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring

AIR QUALITY
AIR-1-PPA [Former MM 3-1]: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Building Department shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include:
 Require fugitive dust control measures that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403, such as:
o Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion.
o Applying water every four 4 hours to active soil
disturbing activities.
o Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of
freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other
loose materials.
 Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 interim or higher exhaust emission limits.

City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
Project Applicant and
the Project
Construction
Contractor
Prior to individual
project approvals and
during construction
activities
City of Ontario
Planning/Building
Department
4534

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 3
Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
 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 SuperCompliant 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/supercompliant-coatings.  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.

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).

City of Ontario City
Engineer in
coordination with the
Project Applicant
Prior to individual
project approvals
City of Ontario
Planning Department
AIR-3-PPA [Former MM AQ-1]: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
the Project Applicant
Prior to individual
project approvals
City of Ontario
Planning Department
4535

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
4 Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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).
4536

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 5
Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
 Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 of CALGreen (Residential Voluntary Measures).
 Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuelefficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
 Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 and Section A4.106.8 of CALGreen
(Nonresidential Voluntary Measures; Residential Voluntary Measures).
 Use cool roof materials to improve reflectance and thermal emittance performance of roof structures per Section
A5.106.11.2 and Section A4.106.5.1 of CALGreen
(Nonresidential Voluntary Measures; Residential Voluntary Measures).
 Limit the daily number of trucks accessing the project site to levels analyzed in the technical assessment.
 Design the project such that truck entrances and exits are not facing sensitive receptors, and trucks will not travel past sensitive land uses to enter or leave the project site.  Design the project such that truck traffic interior to the project site is located as far away from nearby sensitive receptors as feasible.
 Design the project such that trucks accessing the project site have available on-site overnight parking to prevent trucks from parking in sensitive land use areas.
 Design the project such that any truck check-in location is in the interior of the project site to prevent truck queueing and idling outside the project site and in closer proximity to nearby sensitive receptors.
4537

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6 Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
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.

City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
the Project Applicant
Prior to grading permit
issuance
City of Ontario
Planning Department
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,
City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
the Project Applicant
Prior to grading permit
issuance
City of Ontario
Planning Department
4538

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 7
Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC). The literature review shall be performed prior to the field survey to identify sensitive biological resources that were reported previously from the proposed development project vicinity and to help determine the type of sensitive biological resources that may be in the survey area.
 A review of current land use and land ownership within the proposed development project vicinity.
 A field assessment survey that includes mapping vegetation communities in the proposed development project (including but not limited to project footprint, proposed access roads, staging and laydown areas, and a suitable buffer) utilizing the Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd edition (MCV) and the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) or the currently accepted standard for vegetation mapping and
classification. An evaluation of each mapped vegetation community’s State and Global rarity ranks shall be
determined using CDFW’s Vegetation Classification and
Mapping Program (VegCAMP).
 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.
4539

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
8 Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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 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 City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
the Project Applicant’s
Qualified Biologist
Prior to grading permit
issuance
City of Ontario
Planning Department
4540

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 9
Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
focused species surveys shall be summarized in the proposed development project’s Biological Technical Report.

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.

City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
the Project Applicant
Prior to grading permit
issuance
City of Ontario
Planning Department
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 City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
the Project Applicant
Prior to grading permit
issuance
City of Ontario
Planning Department
4541

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
10 Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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.
 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.
4542

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 11
Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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 4543

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
12 Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
species and is at least equivalent to the habitat function removed or degraded as a result of project implementation.

If impacts on sensitive habitats, wetlands, other nonwetland waters, riparian habitats, native wildlife nursery sites, and wildlife corridors cannot be avoided, the project applicant shall:

Federal- or State-Protected Sensitive Habitats. Obtain the required regulatory authorization (e.g., Section 404 permits for impacts on waters of the United States, 401 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.

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.

City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
the Project Applicant
Prior to ground
disturbance
City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
the Project Applicant
Qualified Biologist
4544

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 13
Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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.

City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
the Project Applicant
No more than 14 days
prior to ground
disturbance
City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
the Project Applicant
Qualified Biologist
BIO-8-PPA: Pre-disturbance Nesting Bird Surveys. The City of Ontario shall require applicants for future development projects with suitable natural habitat, to contract with a qualified biologist with experience in conducting breeding bird surveys to conduct a preconstruction general nesting bird survey within all suitable nesting habitats that may be directly (active nest destruction, direct mortality) or indirectly (nest abandonment, exposure) impacted by active construction during the general avian breeding season (February 1 through August 31). The predisturbance surveys shall be conducted no more than 5 days prior to initiation of construction inclusive of staking and fencing of project limits, demolition activities, staging of equipment, and all vegetation trimming and removal activities (regardless of stage of construction). Results of pre-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 City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
the Project Applicant
No more than 5 days
prior to construction
activity
City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
the Project Applicant
Qualified Biologist
4545

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
14 Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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 predisturbance 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.

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 City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
the Project Applicant
During Construction City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
the Project Applicant
Qualified Biologist
4546

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 15
Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
nesting survey shall be included in the predisturbance survey report (see Mitigation Measure BIO-8-PPA)
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 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.

City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
the Project Applicant
During Construction City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
the Project Applicant
Qualified Biologist
4547

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
16 Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
BIO-11-PPA: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-8-PPA (Pre-disturbance Nesting Bird Surveys).

See BIO-8-PPA See BIO-8-PPA See BIO-8-PPA
BIO-12-PPA: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-9-PPA (Active Nest Avoidance and No-Work Buffers).

See BIO-9-PPA See BIO-9-PPA See BIO-98-PPA
BIO-13-PPA: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-10-PPA (Nest Monitoring).

See BIO-10-PPA See BIO-10-PPA See BIO-10-PPA

CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1-PPA [Former MM 5-1]: Historic or potentially historic resources in the City, except for those properties in the Ontario Ranch, shall be evaluated for historic significance through the City’s tier system prior to the issuance of plan or development approvals.

Pursuant to the City’s Development Code (Chapter 4, Permits, Actions, and Decisions, and Chapter 7, Historic Preservation), mitigation measures for Tier III Historic Resources citywide, Tier II historic resources in Ontario Ranch, or potentially significant historic resources in Ontario Ranch shall include the following:
a) Each historic resource shall be fully documented and cataloged pursuant to Historic American Building
Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) standards, to provide a record of the resource, including, but not limited to: [i] the preparation of site plans, floor plans, exterior and interior elevations, and detail drawings of character defining features (such as moldings, stairs, etc.); and [ii] photographs of the resource, including the exterior, interior, and interior and exterior character defining features (such as moldings, light fixtures, trim patterns, etc.). b) A mitigation fee shall be paid to the City and deposited into the Historic Preservation Trust Fund prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for Tier III historic resources, Tier II Historic Resources located in Ontario Ranch, or a potentially City of Ontario
Planning Department
Prior to individual
project approvals
City of Ontario
Planning Department
4548

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 17
Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
significant historic resource in Ontario Ranch. Fees for Tier III Historic Resources citywide shall be 10 percent and fees for Tier II historic resources in Ontario Ranch and potentially significant historic properties in Ontario Ranch shall be 30 percent of the price per square foot construction cost, as established in the most current ICC Building Valuation Data.

Fees for Tier I citywide and II historic resources outside of Ontario Ranch shall be determined during the Environmental Impact Report process.
c) Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness shall be required for the demolition of a Tier III historic resource citywide or a Tier II historic resource in Ontario Ranch, either in whole or in part, However, it shall not be issued until such time that a demolition permit application and a replacement structure has been approved by the City, and appropriate permits have been issued for its construction, unless: [i] a waiver is granted pursuant to Subsection H (Replacement Structure Waiver for Historic Resources Located within Industrial Zoning Districts) of Section 4.02.050; [ii] a deferral of the replacement structure requirement is granted pursuant to Subsection G (Replacement Structure Deferral) of Section

4.02.050; or [iii] demolition is required pursuant to Section

7.01.050 (Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions).
d) In an effort to preserve features and artifacts from historic resources, a determination whether items within or on the resource should be salvaged must be made by the Planning Department and may include the local historical society prior to the issuance of the demolition permit. The applicant shall be responsible for the removal, relocation, storage, and donation of such items selected for salvaging. The applicant shall provide an inventory of salvaged items to the Planning 4549

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
18 Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Department, and shall include a list of each item name, description, and dimension (as necessary), and the location of each item on a floor plan.

CUL-2-PPA: Project applicants for development projects that contain Tier II Historic Resources in Ontario Ranch pursuant to the City’s historic resource evaluation system (i.e., 8314 Edison Avenue, 8484 Schaefer Avenue, 8185 Edison Avenue, 14251 Euclid
Avenue, and 13948 S. Walker Avenue) and all other potentially historic properties in Ontario Ranch shall be subject to the following additional mitigation requirements prior to the issuance of any grading, demolition, or development approvals:
a) Documentation. A complete chain of title with copies of recorded deeds / documents for each parcel within the
eligible property boundaries shall be provided to the
Planning Department by the project applicant to ensure that all ethnic groups associated with each significant parcel / property are identified. The information shall be integrated into the HABS-Like Local Documentation Package prepared for each property. For properties with Basque or Portugues Associations, the following additional measures are required:
 Basque Associations. For properties with Basque
associations, the project applicant shall contact the
Chino Basque Club to inquire if the organization
possesses any historic materials relating to the property or the owners identified in the complete chain of title.

New materials resulting in this effort shall be integrated with HABS-like documentation; and
 Portuguese Associations. For properties with Portuguese associations, the project applicant shall contact the
Chino Valley Divino Espirito Santo (DEA) Club to inquire if the organization possesses any historic materials relating City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
Project Applicant
Prior to individual
project approvals and
during ground
disturbing activities
City of Ontario
Planning Department
4550

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 19
Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
to the property or the owners identified in the complete chain of title. New materials resulting in this effort shall be integrated with HABS-like documentation.
b) Avoidance. All efforts to avoid demolition of historic resources shall be made by the project applicant.

Alternatives to demolition that shall include:
 Adaptive Reuse Study. Prior to approval of demolition, an adaptive reuse study shall be prepared by a qualified professional meeting the minimum qualifications
standards of the Secretary of the interior Professional Qualifications (Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61). The adaptive reuse study shall make
recommendations on the possible reuse of the historic
resource into the proposed project. If feasible and
determined appropriate, the historic resource shall be
integrated into the project, thereby avoiding demolition.  Structural Analysis for Relocation and/or
Reconstruction. Prior to approval of demolition, a
structural analysis shall be prepared by a California
licensed engineer meeting the minimum qualifications
standards of the Secretary of the interior Professional Qualifications (Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61). The analysis shall identify the building components and materials and determine the feasibility of relocation and reconstruction.
o If determined that relocation is feasible and a
receiver site is available, the project applicant shall facilitate the relocation, affixing the building or
structure to a permanent foundation, with approved
relocation plans and required permit issuance.
4551

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
20 Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
o If a receiver site is not available, the historic resource shall be advertised and shall be offered at no cost for those who can relocate the structures off-site.

Advertisements notifying the public of the
opportunity to relocate the structures shall be placed
for a minimum of 30 days: on-site with temporary
signage, in at least 3 local publications (newspapers,
magazines, local organization newsletters), and on
local bulletin boards (realtor’s offices, local
business). A social media campaign, posted on the
applicant’s website or on a local non-profit heritage
site, including a dedicated web page with the
structure’s information (description, square footage,
photographs) and contact information should be
incorporated into the relocation advertisement.
c) Interpretive Plan. An interpretative plan highlighting the history, architectural styles, businesses, or individuals that have historic significance and have contributed to the
development of the dairy industry shall be prepared by a qualified historian to further educate and increase
community awareness of the local dairy history. The
interpretive plan may be developed and constructed at a site-specific location, as determined by the City, or
development in an on-line format.

CUL-3-PPA [Former MM 5-2]: In areas of documented or inferred 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 City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
Project Applicant’s
Archeologist
Prior development
permits and during
ground disturbing
activities
City of Ontario
Planning Department
4552

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 21
Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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 resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director or designee is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources.
 Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by a San Bernardino County Certified Professional
Archaeologist/Paleontologist. If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates, and other special studies; submit materials to a museum for permanent curation; and provide a comprehensive final report including a catalog with museum numbers.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
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 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.

City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
Project Applicant’s
Paleontologist
Prior development
permits and during
ground disturbing
activities
City of Ontario
Planning Department
4553

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
22 Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
 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
Archaeologist/Paleontologist. If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates, and other special studies; submit materials to a museum for permanent curation; and provide a comprehensive final report including a catalog with museum numbers.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GHG-1-PPA: The City of Ontario shall prepare an update to the Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) to align GHG emissions targets in the City with the GHG reduction targets of Assembly Bill (AB) 1279. The CCAP update shall be completed within 48 months of certification of the Ontario Policy Amendment SEIR.

Following the initial update within 48 months, the CCAP shall be updated at a frequency of no less than every 5 years to ensure the City is monitoring the plan’s progress toward achieving the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target. The initial and subsequent updates shall consider a trajectory consistent with the GHG emissions reduction goal established under AB 1279 for year 2045, and the latest applicable statewide legislative GHG emissions reduction that may be in effect at the time of the update. If it is determined that the CCAP is not achieving the GHG emissions reduction targets established therein, the plan shall be amended as appropriate to ensure the established GHG emissions reduction target is achieved by 2045 or other benchmark year(s) identified by the latest statewide GHG City of Ontario
Planning Department
48 months of
Certification of the
Ontario Policy
Amendment SEIR
City of Ontario
Planning Department
4554

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 23
Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
emissions reduction legislation. The CCAP shall include the following:
 GHG inventories of existing- and forecast-year GHG levels.  Tools and strategies for reducing GHG emissions to ensure a trajectory with the long-term GHG reduction target and
carbon neutrality goal for year 2045 in Assembly Bill 1279 or subsequent GHG emissions reduction legislation in effect at the time of the CCAP update. These measures may include but are not limited to:
o Encouraging electric vehicle adoption through incentives or education programs.
o Adopting local ordinances or policies that require greater energy efficiency, waste reduction, and water
conservation in new construction, additions, and/or
alterations.
o Encouraging the construction of solar arrays above
parking lots and the integration of solar and other
renewable energy generation technologies in new
construction, additions, and/or alterations.
o Encouraging the incorporation of energy storage and
other grid-harmonizing infrastructure in new
construction, additions, and/or alterations.
o Collaborating with Southern California Edison to
encourage existing developments to upgrade natural gas
equipment (e.g., furnaces) with electric equipment (e.g., heat pumps), to the extent feasible.
 Plan implementation guidance that includes, at minimum, the following components:
4555

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
24 Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
o Administration and Staffing
o Finance and Budgeting
o Timelines for Measure Implementation
o Community Outreach and Education
o Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management
o Tracking Tools
NOISE
NOI-1-PPA [Former MM 12-4]: Construction activities associated with new development that occurs near sensitive receptors shall be evaluated for potential noise impacts. Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction activities conducted in the City of Ontario. Construction plans submitted to the City shall identify these measures on
demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City. The City of Ontario Planning and Building Departments shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted include these notations prior to issuance of
demolition, grading, and/or building permits.
 Construction activity is limited to the hours: between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM to
6:00 PM Saturdays and Sundays, as prescribed in Municipal Code Section 5-29.09.
 During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the bestavailable noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re-design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible.
 Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible.

City of Ontario
Planning/Building
Department in
coordination with
Project Applicant’s
construction
contractor
During construction City of Ontario
Building Department
4556

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 25
Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools.
 Stationary equipment, such as generators and air
compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses.
 Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
 Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes established by the City Planning and Building Departments.
 At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take
appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.
 Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
 During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart 4557

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
26 Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws.
 Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line-of-sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq. Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that has a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the
ground to the top of the barrier and may be lined on the construction side with an acoustical blanket, curtain, or equivalent absorptive material.

NOI-2-PPA [Former MM 12-2]: Prior to issuance of a building permit for individual projects that involve vibration-intensive construction activities, such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers occurring near sensitive receptors shall be evaluated for potential vibration impacts. Construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, 100 feet of nonengineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical
consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for City of Ontario
Planning/Building
Department in
coordination with
Project Applicant’s
construction
contractor
Prior to and during
construction
City of Ontario
Building Department
4558

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 27
Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded.

NOI-3-PPA [Former MM 12-1]: Prior to the issuance of building permits for any project that involves a noise-sensitive use within the 65 dBA CNEL contour of the Ontario International Airport, the project property owner/developers shall retain an acoustical engineer to conduct an acoustic analysis and identify, where appropriate, site design features and/or required building acoustical improvements (e.g., sound transmission class rated windows, doors, and attic baffling), to ensure compliance with the City’s Noise Compatibility Criteria and the California State Building Code and California Noise Insulation Standards (Titles 24 and 21 of the California Code of Regulations).

City of Ontario
Planning/Building
Department in
coordination with
Project Applicant
Prior to individual
project approvals
City of Ontario
Planning/Building
Department

TRANSPORTATION
TRA-1-PPA [Former MM T-1]: Prior to approval of discretionary projects subject to VMT reduction analysis, applicants shall demonstrate compliance with the City’s VMT Guidelines for CEQA assessment of VMT impacts. For projects with VMT per Service Population exceeding the County’s significance threshold, a mitigation plan shall be developed and implemented. Mitigation should consist of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures
analyzed under a VMT-reduction methodology consistent with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Final Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (2021) and approved by the City of City of Ontario
Planning/Engineering
Departments in
coordination with
Project Applicant
Prior to individual
project approvals
City of Ontario
Planning Department
4559

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
28 Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Ontario (if applicable). Examples of measures include but are not limited to:
 Pedestrian Network Improvements: constructing new
sidewalks and/or improving damaged or substandard
sidewalks that connect to a larger pedestrian network.
 Construct or Improve Bike Facilities: constructing new or enhancing a single existing Class I, II or IV bike facility that connects to a larger bike network.
 Construct or Improve Bike Boulevards: implementing a Class III bike boulevard on a local or collector street that is one travel lane in each direction, has a design speed of 25 mph or less and a design volume of 5,000 ADT or less.
 Expand Bikeway Networks: constructing a network of
interconnected new Class I, II, or IV bike facilities.
 Provide End of Trip Bicycle Facilities: constructing facilities that support cyclists such as bike parking, lockers, and showers.
 Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments: funding infrastructure improvements such as traffic signal
modifications and roadway signing and striping that are dedicated to improving transit travel times and reliability.  Transit Passes: proving discounted or free transit fare to a specific geographic area, population group, or to the general public.
 Vanpool Program: providing groups of 5 to 15 people with direct shuttle service between their workplace and
residence.
 Carshare Program (conventional or EV): providing access to a shared fleet of on-demand vehicles for short-term
use/rental. Best practice is to discount carshare membership 4560

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 29
Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
and provide priority parking for carshare vehicles to
encourage use of the service.
 Bikeshare Program (conventional or EV): providing access to a shared fleet of on-demand bicycles for short-term
use/rental. Best practice is to discount bikeshare
membership and dedicate bikeshare parking to encourage
use of the service.
 Rideshare Program: providing access to and encouraging the use of a ridesharing platform or service. This could be an app, website, or other service that provides ride-matching coordination services.
 Community-Based Travel Planning (CBTP): CBTP is a
residential based approach to outreach, performed by
trained advisors, that provides households within a targeted geographic area with customized information, incentives, and support to encourage the use of transportation
alternatives in place of single occupancy vehicles.
 Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program: CTR programs can be mandatory or voluntary, and involve providing
information, coordination, services, infrastructure, and/or incentives for alternative modes such as ridesharing,
vanpool, transit passes, and cycling

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
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 City of Ontario
Planning Department
Prior to individual
project approvals
City of Ontario
Planning Department
4561

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
30 Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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 TCR2-PPA shall be followed.

TCR-2-PPA [Former MM 5-4]: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for a proposed project for which the CEQA document defines
cultural resource mitigation for potential tribal resources, the project applicant shall contact the designated tribe(s) to notify them of the grading, excavation, and monitoring program. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Ontario and the tribal representative(s) to develop mitigation measures that address the designation, responsibilities, and participation of tribal monitors during grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities; scheduling; terms of compensation; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The City of Ontario shall be the final arbiter of the conditions for projects within the City’s jurisdiction.

City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
Project Applicant
Prior to issuance of
grading permit(s)
City of Ontario
Planning Department
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;
City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
Project Applicant’s
archeologist and
interested tribes
Prior to and during
construction
City of Ontario
Planning Department
4562

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 31
Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring

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 ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources.

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

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 groundCity of Ontario Planning Department
in coordination with
During construction City of Ontario
Planning Department
4563

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
32 Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
disturbing activities, including but not limited to brush clearance, grading, trenching, etc., for the proposed project, the following procedures will be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:

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

2. Treatment and Final Disposition: The landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and nonhuman remains as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City of Ontario with evidence of same:
a. Accommodate the process for on-site reburial of the
discovered items with the consulting Native American
tribes or bands. This shall include measures and
provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all
cataloging, basic analysis, other analyses as
recommended by the project archaeologist and
approved by consulting tribes, and basic recordation
have been completed; all documentation should be at a
level of standard professional practice to allow the
writing of a report of professional quality;
b. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified
repository in San Bernardino County that meets federal
standards per 36 CFR Part 79, and therefore the resource Project Applicant’s
archeologist and
interested tribes
4564

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 33
Table 1 Policy Plan Amendment MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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 grounddisturbing activities on the site, a Phase IV Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City documenting
monitoring activities conducted by the project
archaeologist and Native Tribal Monitors within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the impacts to the known resources on the property;
describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled;
document the type of cultural resources recovered and
the disposition of such resources; provide evidence of
the required cultural sensitivity training for the
construction staff held during the required pregrade
meeting; and, in a confidential appendix, include the
daily/weekly monitoring notes from the archaeologist.

All reports produced will be submitted to the City,
County Museum, and consulting tribes.
4565

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
34 Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring

AIR QUALITY
AIR-1-SP: To facilitate the future installation of infrastructure that would charge the batteries that power the motors of electric-powered trucks, the following shall be installed: 1) prior to the shell building permit approval, an electrical room(s) and/or exterior area(s) of the site shall be designated where future electrical panels would be located for the purpose of supplying power to on-site charging facilities for electric powered trucks. Conduit shall be installed from this designated area where the panel would be located to the onsite location where the charging facilities would be located and where electric-powered trucks would park and connect to charging facilities to charge the batteries that power the motors of the electric-powered trucks; 2) prior to 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.

City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
Project Applicant
Prior to Shell Building
Permit Approval
City of Ontario
Planning/Building
Department
AIR-2-SP: In order to promote alternative fuels, and help support “clean” truck fleets, the developer/successor-in-interest shall provide building occupants with information related to South Coast AQMD’s Carl Moyer Program, or other such programs that
promote truck retrofits or “clean” vehicles and information including, but not limited to, the health effect of diesel particulates, benefits of reduced idling time, and CARB regulations. Tenants shall be notified about the availability of: 1) alternatively fueled cargo handling equipment; 2) grant programs for diesel-fueled vehicle engine retrofit and/or replacement; 3) access to alternative fueling stations proximate to the site that supply compressed natural gas; and 4) the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program.

Project Applicant After Construction, at
time of new tenant
occupancy.

City of Ontario
Planning/Building
Department
4566

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 35
Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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.

Project Applicant Prior to issuance of a
certificate of
occupancy
City of Ontario
Planning/Building
Department
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 dieselfueled Medium-Heavy Duty Trucks (MHDT) and Heavy-Heavy Duty Trucks (HHD) use year CARB 2010 or newer engines.

The records should be maintained on-site and be made
available for inspection by the lead agency.
c) Facility operators shall train their managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks.
d) Signs should be posted in the appropriate locations and/or handouts should be provided that show the locations of
nearest food options, fueling, truck maintenance services, and other similar convenience services.

Project Applicant During Operation City of Ontario
Planning/Building
Department
4567

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
36 Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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.
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.

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 Project Applicant Prior to issuance of
building permits
City of Ontario
Planning/Building
Department
4568

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 37
Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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.

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).

Project Applicant During Construction City of Ontario
Planning/Building
Department
AIR-7-SP: City Review of Construction Documents. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following features shall be demonstrated on building and landscape plans to the extent feasible.

Installation shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
a) Install Energy Star-rated heating, cooling, lighting, and appliances
b) Structures shall be equipped with outdoor electric outlets in the front and rear to facilitate use of electrical lawn and garden equipment.
c) Install rooftop solar energy systems which generate enough electricity to meet 45% of the annual warehouse electricity demand.

City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
Project Applicant
Prior to issuance of
building permits
City of Ontario
Planning/Building
Department
4569

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
38 Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
AIR-8-SP: Tenant Lease Agreement. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the following language shall be included within tenant lease agreements in order to reduce operational air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible:
a) Information about energy efficiency, energy-efficient lighting and lighting control systems, energy management, and
existing energy incentive programs.
b) Information about funding opportunities, such as the Carl Moyer Program, that provide incentives for using cleanerthan-required engines and equipment. c) Requirements to use the cleanest technologies available and to provide the necessary infrastructure to support zeroemission 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 Project Applicant Prior to issuance of a
certificate of
occupancy
City of Ontario
Planning/Building
Department
4570

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 39
Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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, weatherproof signs that were installed at initial building occupancy placed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas that identify applicable CARB anti-idling regulations. h) The tenant agreement shall include notification that the tenant shall comply with CARB Truck and Bus regulation, including requirements that only haul trucks meeting model year 2010 engine emission standards shall be used for the on-road transport of materials to and from the site.
i) Requirements for the building owner to provide a Green Cleaning Products and Paint Education Program available to the building tenant, to keep at the building’s office, break room, leasing space, or on an accessible website.

Project Applicant in
coordination with the
Construction
Contractor
During Phase 2 and
Phase 3 construction
activities
City of Ontario
Planning/Building
Department
4571

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
40 Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
a) Apply water or approved soil stabilizers to disturbed soils, unpaved haul roads, staging areas, and stockpiles as necessary to prevent visible dust emissions.
b) Cover, water, or otherwise stabilize all soil stockpiles and inactive disturbed areas.
c) Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces to 15 miles per hour or less.
d) Install and maintain track-out control devices, including rumble plates, wheel washers, or equivalent measures,
at construction access points.
e) Suspend grading and other soil-disturbance activities during high wind events when visible dust cannot be
adequately controlled.
f) Utilize off-road diesel-powered construction equipment meeting U.S. EPA Tier 4 Final emissions standards for
engines rated at 50 horsepower or greater, unless such
equipment is demonstrated to be unavailable or
infeasible.
g) All diesel-powered off-road construction equipment and on-road haul trucks operating during overlap periods
shall utilize renewable diesel meeting California Air
Resources Board specifications to the extent
commercially available and feasible.
h) Require off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts, including plate compactors and pressure
washers, to be electrically powered or battery operated where commercially available and feasible.
i) Prohibit the idling of construction equipment and onroad haul trucks for more than five consecutive minutes, 4572

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 41
Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
except where necessary for safety, operational
requirements, or manufacturer specifications.
j) Utilize electrically powered or battery-powered hand construction tools and equipment where commercial
available and feasible.
k) Require heavy-duty haul trucks entering the construction site during grading and building construction phases to be model year 2014 or newer to the extent feasible and
commercially available.
l) Encourage construction workers to carpool, rideshare, or utilize shared transportation to access the construction site and provide information regarding available
ridesharing and transit opportunities to construction
personnel.
m) Use architectural coatings, including paints, primers, sealants, adhesives, and caulks, that comply with
applicable South Coast AQMD VOC content limits in
effect at the time of construction. To the extent feasible, coatings with VOC levels below applicable regulatory
thresholds shall be utilized.
n) Use high-pressure/low-volume paint applicators with
minimum transfer efficiency of 50 percent or other
application techniques with equivalent or greater
transfer efficiency where feasible.
o) Keep paint container lids closed when not in use and utilize compliant low-VOC cleaning solvents for paint
equipment cleaning activities.
p) Use pre-painted construction materials to the extent feasible.
q) Recycle or properly dispose of all unused paint and paintrelated materials at an authorized facility or household 4573

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
42 Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
hazardous waste collection facility, as applicable. Waterbased and oil-based paints shall be stored and disposed of separately.
r) Sequence grading, excavation, paving, and other
intensive construction activities to avoid simultaneous operation of multiple high-emission equipment fleets in close proximity, limit concurrent operation of heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment where feasible, and
coordinate construction scheduling to reduce peak daily emissions during overlap periods.
s) Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid or minimize exposure to sensitive receptors to the extent
feasible.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1-SP: Pre-disturbance Nesting Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Monitoring. If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds shall be conducted within 3 days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the 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 nodisturbance buffer will be determined by the wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of construction noise and/or surrounding anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between the nest and the construction activity, type and duration of City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
the Project Applicant
No more than 3 days
prior vegetation
removal or grounddisturbing activities
City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
the Project Applicant
Qualified Biologist
4574

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 43
Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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.

BIO-2-SP: Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Surveys. To ensure burrowing owl are still absent from the Specific Plan area, a preconstruction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted in accordance with CDFW’s 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Two surveys shall be conducted, the first 14 to 30 days prior to ground-disturbing activities, and the second within 24 hours before ground-disturbing activities. If no burrowing owls are observed within the Specific Plan area, no further review will be required.

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

City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
the Project Applicant
First 14 to 30 days
prior to grounddisturbing activities,
and the second within
24 hours before
ground-disturbing
activities
City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
the Project Applicant
Qualified Biologist
BIO-3-SP: Pre-disturbance Roosting Site Survey and Bat Management Plan. If on-site clearing or grading will take place between late City of Ontario
Planning Department
Prior to on-site
clearing or grading if it
City of Ontario
Planning Department
4575

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
44 Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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 nonspecial 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.
in coordination with
the Project Applicant
will take place
between late spring
and late summer
and/or in the fall
(generally mid-March
through late October)
in coordination with
the Project Applicant
Qualified Biologist
4576

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 45
Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
BIO-4-SP: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1-SP (Pre-disturbance Nesting Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Monitoring).

See BIO-1-SP See BIO-1-SP See BIO-1-SP
BIO-5-SP: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-3-SP (Pre-disturbance Roosting Site Survey and Bat Management Plan).

See BIO-3-SP See BIO-3-SP See BIO-3-SP

CULTURAL RESOURCES
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;
 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.

City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
the Project Applicant’s
Qualified Archeologist
During Soils-Disturbing
and
grading/excavation/tre
nching activities
City of Ontario
Planning Department
and any interested
parties
4577

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
46 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
4578

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 47
Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
submit a letter indicating whether additional
mitigation is required.
o If the resource is significant, the PI shall submit an Archaeological Data Recovery Program (ADRP) and
obtain written approval from the City of Ontario to
implement that program. In the event that
prehistoric deposits are discovered, the ADRP should
also be reviewed by the Native American
consultant/monitor. Impacts to significant resources
must be mitigated before ground-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.
4579

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
48 Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
 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 sheriffcoroner will determine, with input from the PI, if the remains are or are most likely to be of Native
American origin.
 If Human Remains are determined to be Native American o The medical examiner will notify the NAHC within 24
hours. By law, only the medical examiner can make
this call.
o The NAHC will immediately identify the person or
persons determined to be the Most Likely
Descendent (MLD) and provide contact information.
o The MLD will contact the PI within 24 hours or
sooner after the sheriff/coroner has completed
coordination to begin the consultation process in
accordance with CEQA Section 15064.5(e), the
California PRC, and the State Health and Safety Code.
o The MLD will have 48 hours to make
recommendations to the property owner or
representative for the treatment or disposition with
4580

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 49
Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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.
4581

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
50 Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
o The sheriff-coroner will determine the appropriate
course of action with the PI and City staff (PRC
5097.98).
o If the remains are of historic origin, they shall be
appropriately removed and conveyed to the City of
Ontario. The decision for internment of the human
remains shall be made in consultation with City, the
applicant/landowner, and any known descendant
group.

Post-Construction
A. Preparation and Submittal of Draft Monitoring Report  The PI shall submit to the City of Ontario a draft
monitoring report (even if negative) prepared in
accordance with the agency guidelines, which describes
the results, analysis, and conclusions of all phases of the archaeological monitoring program (with appropriate
graphics).
o For significant archaeological resources encountered
during monitoring, the ADRP 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.
4582

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 51
Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
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
City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
Project Applicant’s
Paleontologist
Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit
City of Ontario
Planning Department
4583

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
52 Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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.

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 4584

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 53
Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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 five5-gallon buckets of fossiliferous sediment. If it is possible to dry screen the sediment in the field, a
4585

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
54 Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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 finegrained 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 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
4586

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 55
Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GHG-1-SP: Project development proposals pursuant to the EBPSP shall implement CCAP Screening Table Measures that achieve at least 100 points per the Screening Tables. The City shall verify that Screening Table Measures achieving the 100-point performance standard are incorporated in development plans prior to the issuance of building permit(s) and/or site plans (as applicable).

The City shall verify implementation of the selected Screening Table Measures prior to the issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy. At the discretion of the City, measures that provide GHG reductions equivalent to GHG emissions reductions
achieved via the Screening Table Measures may be implemented.

Multiple development proposals may, at the discretion of the City, be allowed to collectively demonstrate achievement of at least 100 points per the Screening Tables. Measures that shall be considered include:

City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
Project Applicant
Prior to the issuance
of building permit(s)
and/or site plans
City of Ontario
Planning Department
4587

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
56 Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
 Reduction Measure 1: Building Electrification
 Reduction Measure 2: Solar Energy Systems for New
Warehouse Development only
 Reduction Measure 7: Vehicle Electrification
 Reduction Measure 8: Active Transportation
 Reduction Measure 11: Waste diversion
 Reduction Measure 12: Water conservation
 Reduction Measure AR-1: Charging stations for large trucks.  Reduction Measure AR-3: Installation of EV charging stations for employee vehicle parking spaces.
 Reduction Measure AR-4 Recycled Water.
 Reduction Measure AR-5 Reflective Paving.
 Reduction Measure AR-6 Zero Emission Cargo Equipment
GHG-2-SP: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1-SP through AIR-8-SP. See AIR-1-SP through AIR-8-SP
See AIR-1-SP through
AIR-8-SP
See AIR-1-SP through
AIR-8-SP

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZ-1-SP: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to address potentially unknown soil/soil vapor contamination or unknown subsurface structures (e.g., clarifiers, underground storage tanks [USTs], asbestos containing pipelines [ACPs], etc.) that may be encountered during redevelopment activities. The SMP shall include explicit instructions for the appropriate handling, storage, and disposal of any known or potentially impacted soil during soil moving activities. The general contractor shall follow the requirements of the SMP and stop work to make notification to the environmental team if any potential impacts are observed at any time the environmental team is not already on-site. The SMP shall also require air monitoring activities to monitor the air City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
Project Applicant
Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit
City of Ontario
Planning/Building
Department
4588

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 57
Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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.

TRANSPORTATION
TRA-1-SP: Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each tenant, the operator or tenant shall: 1) prepare and submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to the City for review, detailing strategies for reducing the use of single occupant vehicles by employees; and 2) provide written
documentation to the satisfaction of the City that the TDM Program requirement is incorporated into any lease agreement for the site to ensure enforceability. The TDM Program shall include the following transportation measures recommended by California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and analyzed in the VMT Mitigation Strategy Assessment (see SEIR Appendix K2) as calculated pursuant to the CAPCOA
Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity or other substantial evidence:
 T-5 Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program. Employers
within the EBPSP shall develop CTR programs to discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT.

City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
Project Applicant
Prior to the issuance
of the certificate of
occupancy for each
tenant
City of Ontario
Planning/Building
Department
4589

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
58 Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
 T-7 Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Marketing. Materials shall educate employees about their travel choices to the
employment location beyond driving such as carpooling,
taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT, including:
o Onsite or online commuter information services.
o Employee transportation coordinators.
o Onsite or online transit pass sales.
o Guaranteed ride home service.
 T-8 Ridesharing Program.
o Designating a certain percentage of desirable parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles.
o Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading
and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles.
o Providing an app or website for coordinating rides.
 T-10 End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities. EBPSP land uses shall install and maintain end-of-trip facilities for employee use.

End-of-trip facilities may include bike parking, bike lockers, showers, and personal lockers.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
TCR-1-SP: The EBPSP shall implement MM TCR-2-PPA, MM TCR-3-PPA, MM TCR-4-PPA.

See below See below See below
TCR-2-PPA [Former MM 5-4]: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for a proposed project for which the CEQA document defines
cultural resource mitigation for potential tribal resources, the project applicant shall contact the designated tribe(s) to notify them of the grading, excavation, and monitoring program. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Ontario and the tribal representative(s) to develop mitigation measures that address the designation, responsibilities, and participation of tribal City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
Project Applicant
Prior to issuance of
grading permit(s)
City of Ontario
Planning Department
4590

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 59
Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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.

TCR-3-PPA [Former MM TCR-1]: Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring.

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

3. The protocols and stipulations that the developer, City, Tribes, and project archaeologist will follow in the event of City of Ontario
Planning Department
in coordination with
Project Applicant’s
archeologist and
interested tribes
Prior to and during
construction
City of Ontario
Planning Department
4591

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
60 Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.

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 grounddisturbing activities, including but not limited to brush clearance, grading, trenching, etc., for the proposed project, the following procedures will be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JUNE 2026 61
Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
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 grounddisturbing activities on the site, a Phase IV Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City documenting
4593

ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
62 Table 2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
monitoring activities conducted by the project
archaeologist and Native Tribal Monitors within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the impacts to the known resources on the property;
describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled;
document the type of cultural resources recovered and
the disposition of such resources; provide evidence of
the required cultural sensitivity training for the
construction staff held during the required pregrade
meeting; and, in a confidential appendix, include the
daily/weekly monitoring notes from the archaeologist.

All reports produced will be submitted to the City,
County Museum, and consulting tribes.
4594
RESOLUTION NO. _________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FILE NO. PGPA25-002, A CITYWIDE
AMENDMENT TO THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 POLICY PLAN (GENERAL PLAN), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF — APNs: 0113- 282-15, 0216-174-01, 0216-174-02, 0216-174-06, 0216-174-07, 0216-174- 08, 0216-174-16, 0216-174-17, 0216-211-01, 0216-211-04, 0216-211-20, 0216-211-24, 0216-211-26, 0216-214-01, 0216-214-02, 0216-214-03, 0216- 214-04, 0216-214-05, 0216-214-06, 0216-214-07, 0216-311-03, 0216-311- 04, 0216-311-05, 0216-311-08, 0216-311-09, 0216-312-02, 0216-312-03, 0216-312-04, 0216-312-05, 0216-312-06, 0216-312-07, 0216-312-08, 216- 312-09, 0216-312-10, 0216-313-01, 0216-313-02, 0216-313-03, 0216-313- 04, 0216-313-05, 0216-313-06, 0216-313-07, 0216-313-08, 0216-313-09, 0216-314-01, 0216-314-02, 0216-314-03, 0216-314-04, 0216-314-05, 0216- 314-07, 0216-314-08, 0216-314-09, 0216-321-01, 0216-321-02, 0216-321- 03, 0216-321-06, 0216-321-07, 0216-322-01, 0216-322-02, 0216-322-10, 0216-323-01, 0216-323-02, 0216-323-08, 0216-323-09, 0218-102-10, 0218- 102-11, 0218-111-06, 0218-111-08, 0218-111-09, 0218-111-11, 0218-111- 12, 0218-111-49, 0218-111-50, 0218-121-01, 0218-121-02, 0218-121-03, 0218-121-04, 0218-121-05, 0218-121-06, 0218-121-07, 0218-121-08, 0218- 122-01, 0218-122-02, 0218-122-03, 0218-122-04, 0218-122-06, 0218-122- 08, 0218-122-09, 0218-131-35, 0218-161-13, 0218-161-14, 0218-181-01, 0218-181-02, 0218-181-11, 0218-181-12, 0218-181-15, 0218-181-16, 0218- 181-21, 0218-181-23, 0218-181-24, 0218-181-25, 0218-181-26, 0218-191- 19, 0218-191-24, 0218-241-43, 0218-241-45, 0218-402-32, 1049-101-01, 1049-101-02, 1049-101-04, 1049-101-05, 1049-101-06, 1049-101-07, 1049- 101-08, 1049-101-09, 1049-101-10, 1049-101-11, 1049-101-12, 1049-101- 13, 1049-101-14, 1049-101-15, 1049-101-16, 1049-101-17, 1049-101-18, 1049-101-29, 1049-101-30, 1049-101-31, 1049-101-32, 1049-101-33, 1049- 101-34, 1049-101-35, 1049-101-36, 1049-101-37, 1049-101-38, 1049-101- 39, 1049-131-40, 1049-131-01, 1049-131-02, 1049-131-03, 1049-131-04, 1049-131-05, 1049-131-06, 1049-131-08, 1049-131-09, 1049-131-18, 1049- 131-19, 1049-161-24, 1049-161-25, 1049-171-05, 1049-171-06, 1049-171- 07, 1052-151-02, 1052-151-05, 1052-151-09, 1052-151-10, 1052-151-11, 1052-161-03, 1052-471-02, 1052-481-02, 1052-491-03, 1052-491-05, 1052- 491-06, 1053-091-01, 1053-101-01, 1053-101-02, 1053-111-01, 1053-111- 03, 1053-111-04, 1053-111-08, 1053-151-04, 1053-151-05, 1053-161-02, 1053-171-01, 1053-171-03, 1053-171-04, 1053-171-05, 1053-171-06, 1053- 181-01, 1053-181-02, 1053-191-01, 1053-191-02, 1053-201-01, 1053-301- 01, 1053-301-02, 1053-311-01, 1053-311-02, 1053-321-02, 1053-321-03, 1053-331-04, 1053-341-01, 1053-341-02, 1053-351-02, 1053-391-01, 1053- 411-01, 1053-421-01, 1053-421-02, 1053-511-01, 1053-511-02, 1053-511- 03, 1053-511-05, 1053-511-06, 1053-511-07, 1053-521-01, 1053-521-02, 1053-531-01, 1053-531-02, 1053-531-04, 1053-541-01, 1053-541-02, 1053- 551-01, 1053-571-01, 1053-571-02, 1053-581-03, 1053-581-04, 1053-591-01, 1053-591-02, 1053-601-01, 1053-601-02, 1053-601-03, AND 1053-601-04. 4595
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario (hereinafter referred to as Applicant) has initiated an application for a citywide amendment to the Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Policy Plan (General Plan), File No. PGPA25-002 (hereinafter referred to as the Project); and WHEREAS, the proposed Project consists of targeted updates to the Policy Plan (General Plan) to maintain internal consistency, ensure compliance with State law, and align the City’s long-range planning framework with evolving development patterns; and WHEREAS, the Project includes modifications to multiple elements of the Policy Plan, including but not limited to the Land Use, Housing, Mobility, Community Design, Environmental Resources, Parks and Recreation, and Safety Elements, to ensure consistency with the updated land use framework; and
WHEREAS, the Project is applied at a citywide level to maintain consistency across all Policy Plan elements, while primarily affecting areas within Ontario Ranch (south of Riverside Drive) and portions of the northern part of the City along East Holt Boulevard and South Grove Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario adopted the Policy Plan (General Plan) as part of the component framework for The Ontario Plan on January 27, 2010, and issued Resolution No. 2010-004; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario adopted a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) for the General Plan Amendment for TOP 2050 Technical Update on August 16, 2022, and issued Resolution No. 2022-129. Since the adoption of TOP 2050, the City has evaluated Exhibits LU-01: Official Land Use Plan and LU-03: Future Buildout further and is proposing modifications; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes to Exhibit LU-01 Official Land Use Plan include revisions to land use designations for certain properties, as shown on Attachment 1, to better align with the City’s long-term planning objectives by facilitating employmentgenerating uses; and WHEREAS, Policy Plan Exhibit LU-03 (Future Buildout) specifies the expected buildout for the City of Ontario, incorporating the adopted land use designations. The proposed changes to Exhibit LU-01 (Official Land Use Plan) will require that Exhibit LU-03 (Future Buildout) is modified to be consistent with Exhibit LU-01 (Official Land Use Plan), as depicted on Exhibit B, attached; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.); and WHEREAS, as the first action on the Project, on April 28, 2026, the Planning Commission considered a Resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Final SEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2025110102) prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA; the SEIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Project and identifies mitigation measures and alternatives, as well as significant and unavoidable impacts; and 4596
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft SEIR was issued on November 4, 2025, and a public scoping meeting was held on November 20, 2025, to introduce the Project and solicit input from responsible agencies, stakeholders, and the public regarding the scope and content of the environmental analysis; and WHEREAS, a Draft SEIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines, incorporating input received during the NOP and scoping process; and
WHEREAS, copies of the NOP were made available for public review at the City of Ontario Planning Department, the City’s website, and were distributed through the State Clearinghouse and San Bernardino County Clerk’s office in accordance with CEQA requirements; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period from March 5, 2026, through April 20, 2026; a Notice of Availability (NOA) was distributed to responsible and interested agencies, posted with the San Bernardino County Clerk’s office, and published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin; and WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Chino Airport, within the City of Ontario boundary, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in Reference I, Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CNO ALUCP), which applies only to jurisdictions within City of Ontario, and addresses the safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, on April 28, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a duly noticed public on the Project and concluded said hearing on that date; voting (7-0) to recommend approval of the Project to the City Council, issuing Resolution No. PC26-023 & PC26-024; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the Final SEIR, including all comments received on the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR, together with written responses thereto, and finds that the Final SEIR adequately addresses the environmental issues raised during the public review process and provides decisionmakers with sufficient information regarding the environmental consequences of the Project, and certified the Final SEIR pursuant to CEQA; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. 4597

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:

SECTION 1. Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decisionmaking body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of the Project were analyzed in a SEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2025110102), prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and (2) The SEIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; and
(3) The SEIR was completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and (4) The SEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Ontario as the lead agency.

The City Council hereby adopts the Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program contained in Resolution No. XXXXXX certifying the Final SEIR, which findings are incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. City Council Action. Based on the entire record before the City Council all written and oral evidence presented, the City Council finds the SEIR complies with CEQA for the following reasons:
(1) The SEIR analyzes the environmental effects of the Project and finds that, with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, the following impacts will remain significant and unavoidable: air quality (including AQMP consistency and regional construction and operational emissions), cultural resources (historic resources), greenhouse gas emissions (consistency with applicable climate plans), noise (construction, traffic, and vibration impacts), and transportation (increase in vehicle miles traveled).
(2) The City Council further finds that the Statement of Overriding Considerations demonstrate that the Project’s economic, social, housing, infrastructure, and planning benefits outweigh its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.

Such benefits include:
 Maintaining compliance with State housing law and RHNA requirements  Facilitating employment-generating uses and economic development opportunities;
 Improving land use compatibility and implementation of The Ontario Plan; 4598
 Supporting efficient infrastructure planning and public service delivery;  Improving long-term jobs-housing balance through implementation of the City’s comprehensive planning framework;
 Supporting coordinated truck routing and circulation planning; and  Promoting orderly growth consistent with the City’s long-range planning objectives.
(3) The City Council hereby incorporates by reference and adopts the Findings of Fact, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and statement of Overriding Considerations approved in connection with certification of the Final SEIR (SCH No. 2025110102). The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR have been adopted and that no additional feasible mitigation measures or alternatives would substantially lessen or avoid the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR.

SECTION 3. General Plan Internal Consistency. Pursuant to Government Code section 65300.5, the City Council finds that the amendments to the Policy Plan component of TOP 2050, including revisions to the Land Use, Housing, Mobility, Community Design, Environmental Resources, Parks and Recreation, and Safety Elements, have been prepared in a coordinated manner and maintain the internal consistency of the General plan. The City Council further finds that the amendments to Exhibit LU-01 (Official Land Use Plan), Exhibit LU-03 (Future Buildout), and related Policy Plan text are mutually reinforcing and collectively support the City’s long-range planning objectives while maintain consistency among all mandatory and optional elements of the General Plan.

SECTION 4. Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council finds that, based upon the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, the Project maintains consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of TOP 2050.

The City Council further finds that the Project includes corresponding updates to the Housing Element and land use framework to ensure continued compliance with applicable State housing law, including Government Code sections 65583, 65863, and related provisions governing maintenance of adequate sites inventory and residential development capacity.

The City Council further finds that any reduction in residential capacity associated with amendments to Exhibit LU-01 is offset through corresponding modifications to the City’s housing inventory and land use framework, resulting in no net loss of capacity necessary to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation. The Project maintains adequate sites to accommodate the City’s remaining RHNA obligations across all income categories.
4599
The City Council further finds that the Housing Element updates incorporated into the Project maintain consistency with the City’s obligations to affirmatively further fair housing and do not reduce the City’s ability to provide housing opportunities throughout the community.

Accordingly, the City Council finds that the Project is consistent with the Housing Element and applicable State housing requirements.

SECTION 5. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Compliance. The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670, et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted ALUCP. (1) On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2- 2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the City Council finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP. The City Council further finds that no amendment approved herein authorizes development that would otherwise be prohibited by the ONT ALCUP and that future discretionary proposals within the Airport Influence Area shall remain subject to project-specific consistency review.
(2) On August 2, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted a Development Code Amendment to establish the Chino Airport (CNO) Overlay Zoning District (OZD) and Reference I, Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CNO ALUCP). The CNO OZD and CNO ALUCP established the Airport Influence Area for Chino Airport, solely within the City of Ontario, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. The CNO ALUCP is consistent with policies and criteria set forth within the Caltrans 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The proposed Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Chino Airport and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the CNO ALUCP. As the decisionmaking body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the CNO ALUCP compatibility factors, including Safety, Airspace Protection, Overflight. As a result, the City Council finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction 4600
with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the Chino ALUCP. The City Council further finds that no amendment approved herein authorizes development that would otherwise be prohibited by the Chino ALUCP and that future discretionary development proposals within Airport Influence Areas shall remain subject to projectspecific consistency review.

SECTION 6. Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 through 5, above, the City Council hereby recommends that the City Council conclude as follows:
(1) The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of The Ontario Plan as follows:

Policy Plan (General Plan)
Land Use Element:
 Goal LU-1 Balance: A community that has a spectrum of housing types and price ranges that match the jobs in the City and that make it possible for people to live and work in Ontario and maintain a quality of life.
 LU-1.1 Strategic Growth. We concentrate growth in strategic locations that help create place and identity, maximize available and planned infrastructure, foster the development of transit, and support the expansion of the active and multimodal transportation networks throughout the City.
 LU-1.6 Complete Community. We incorporate a variety of land uses and building types in our land use planning efforts that result in a complete community where residents at all stages of life, employers, workers, and visitors have a wide spectrum of choices of where they can live, work, shop and recreate within Ontario.  Goal LU-2 Compatibility: Compatibility between a wide range of uses and a resultant urban patterns and forms.

Community Economics Element:
 Goal CE-1 Complete Community: A complete community that provides for all incomes and stages of life.
 Goal CE-2 Placemaking: A City of distinctive neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and centers where people choose to be; and
The City Council further finds that consistency with the general plan must be evaluated in light of the General Plan as a whole rather than on the basis of individual policies viewed in isolation. Although the Project modifies certain land use assumptions reflected in prior versions of The Ontario Plan, the Project advances the overall goals and objectives of the General plan by:
4601
 Preserving adequate housing capacity;
 Facilitating employment-generating land uses;
 Maintaining long-term fiscal sustainability;
 Improving land use compatibility;
 Supporting infrastructure efficiency
 Implementing updated circulation and truck route planning; and  Ensuring consistency with applicable State law.

Accordingly, the City Council finds that the project remains consistent with The Ontario Plan when considered as an integrated and internally consistent whole. (2) The proposed General Plan Amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City, as it improves land use compatibility, supports infrastructure planning, and aligns with applicable State law; and
(3) The Land Use Element is a mandatory element of the General Plan and may be amended up to four times per calendar year; this amendment is within the allowable number of amendments for the applicable calendar year consistent with Government Code Section 65358; and
(4) The Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan, and incorporates updates to maintain compliance with State housing law, including requirements related to maintaining adequate sites and ensuring no net loss of residential capacity; (5) The Project maintains sufficient residential development capacity to accommodate the City’s remaining RHNA obligations and does not result in a net loss of residential capacity in violation of State housing law; and (6) During the amendment of the general plan, opportunities for the involvement of citizens, California Native American Indian tribes (Government Code Section 65352.3), public agencies, public utility companies, and civic, education, and other community groups, through public hearings or other means were implemented consistent with Government Code Section 65351.

SECTION 6: City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in the Sections above, the City Council hereby APPROVES The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Policy Plan Amendment (General Plan), File No. PGPA25-002, as set forth in the staff report and accompanying attachments, including revisions to the Policy Plan Land Use Plan (Exhibit LU-01) and Buildout Statistical Summary (Exhibit LU-03), and related updates to the Policy Plan elements.
4602
SECTION 7: HCD Submittal Authorization. The City Council authorizes the City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee, to submit the amended 2021-2029 Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for final approval and make revisions or additions to the adopted Housing Element to facilitate a determination of continued compliance of the Housing Element by HCD.

SECTION 8: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings for the Project include, but are not limited to, the Draft SEIR, Final SEIR, technical appendices, staff reports, resolutions, public hearing materials, written comments, responses to comments, transcripts, exhibits, correspondence, and all other documents relied upon by the City in making its decision.

These documents are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.

SECTION 9: Certification to Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of June 2026. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
4603

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2026- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held June 16, 2026 by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2026- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held June 16, 2026. _____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
4604
ATTACHMENT A:

File No. PGPA25-002
Amendments to the Policy Plan Component of the Ontario Plan 2050 4605
City of Ontario
Policy Plan
Amendments
A Component of The Ontario Plan 2050
Hearing Draft | June 2026
Please note only proposed amendments are included.

The current policy plan is available in a web-based format at:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/community-development/planning/ontarioplan/ontario-plan-policy-plan These amendments will be integrated into the web-based plan if adopted. This draft includes notations and placeholders for links throughout that are not active.

DRAFT
4606
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Hearing Draft TOP 2050 Amendments (2026)
Policy Plan Amendments
Hearing Draft, June 2026
Table of Contents
SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE MARCH 2026 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ........................................................1 POLICY PLAN POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION AMENDMENTS ....................................................................2 NEW AND REVISED POLICIES .................................................................................................................. 3 NEW IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS ......................................................................................................... 3 POLICY PLAN FIGURE AMENDMENTS ...........................................................................................................4 LU-01 OFFICIAL LAND USE PLAN ............................................................................................................ 5 LU-02 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS SUMMARY TABLE .............................................................................. 6 LU-03 FUTURE BUILDOUT TABLE.......................................................................................................... 15 LU-04 MIXED USE AREAS ...................................................................................................................... 19 PR-01 PARK & RECREATION FACILITIES ................................................................................................20 S-06A FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE CONTOURS .......................................................................................... 21 M-01 ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS ...................................................................................................... 22 M-02 MULTIPURPOSE TRAILS & BIKEWAYS ......................................................................................... 23 M-04 TRUCK ROUTES............................................................................................................................ 24 CD-01 PLACE TYPES............................................................................................................................... 25 CD-02 PLACE TYPE CATEGORIES........................................................................................................... 26 CD-03 DOWNTOWN DISTRICT PLACE TYPE..........................................................................................30 CD-04 AIRPORT METRO / ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT PLACE TYPE.....................................................31 CD-05 GUASTI / MULTIMODAL DISTRICT PLACE TYPE ......................................................................... 32 CD-06 SOUTH EUCLID DISTRICT PLACE TYPE........................................................................................ 36 CD-07 SPORTS EMPIRE DISTRICT PLACE TYPE......................................................................................40 CD-08 CORRIDOR PLACE TYPES ............................................................................................................ 42 - EAST HOLT BOULEVARD CORRIDOR .............................................................................................. 42 - INLAND EMPIRE BOULEVARD CORRIDOR...................................................................................... 43 - INTENDED OUTCOMES .................................................................................................................. 44 CD-09 NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER PLACE TYPES.................................................................................... 45 -NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER PLACE TYPE (INFILL).............................................................................. 45 -NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER PLACE TYPE (SOUTH OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE).......................................... 46 - INTENDED OUTCOMES .................................................................................................................. 47 NOTE: When possible, draft amendments are shown as tracked changes with underlined text indicating additions and strike-through text indicating deletions. This results in some formatting errors that will be corrected in the final versions.

DRAFT
4607
SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE MARCH 2026 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT In response to public and agency comments, the following edits have been made to the draft documents released for public review in March 2026, and reviewed by planning commission on April 28. 2026:

LU-02 Land Use Designations Summary Table (Pages 8, 14) The following bullet point was added under the Mixed-Use Category description:
• Any new development project on a site within a mixed-use area that is also identified in the City’s Housing Element sites inventory must include housing. At least 50 percent of the total floor area of the new development project must be for residential use. Sites within the affordable housing overlay (generally those subject to Housing Element Rezoning Program) shall have a minimum density of 20 du/ac. 4,5
Foot notes 4 and 5 were added:

4. Mixed-Use Sites in the Housing Element Sites Inventory. Any new development project on a site within a mixed-use designation that is also identified in the City’s Housing Element sites inventory must include housing. At least 50 percent of the total floor area of the new development project must be for residential use. Sites subject to the rezoning program (generally those within the affordable housing overlay discussed in note 3) shall have a minimum density of 20 du/ac.

5. Ontario Mills Housing Element Sites. The Mixed Use Ontario Mills designation is identified in the City’s Housing Element, but the City does not rely on these sites to meet its housing obligation, and the required zoning updated has not been implemented consistent with Program 13 of the Housing Element. Those sites with the General Plan designation MixedUse Ontario Mills, shall be allowed to develop without the housing requirements identified in note 4 until the City updates the zoning and relies upon the sites to meet any portion of its housing need.

Foot note 4 applies to the following land use designations: Mixed Use Downtown (MU-Downtown), Mixed Use Holt Blvd (MU-Holt),Mixed Use Ontario Center (MU-Ontario Center), Mixed Use Grand Park (MU-Grand Park), Mixed Use Sports Park (MU-SP), Mixed Use Grove (MU-Grove), and Mixed Use Neighborhood Activity Hubs (MU-NH).

Foot note 5 applies to the Mixed Use Ontario Mills (MU-Ontario Mills) designation.

LU-03 Future Buildout Table (Page 16)
Mixed Use Great (Grand) Park Assumed Density Intensity Correction.

In the March 2026 draft LU-03 incorrectly displayed both the current and proposed plan the Assumed Density/Intensity for the Mixed Use Great Park designation. The table has been corrected to reflect • Current assumption:

Residential: 70% at 35 du/ac; Office: 10% at 0.70 FAR; and Retail: 20% at 0.30 FAR. • Proposed assumption:

Residential: 70% at 35 du/ac; Office: 10% at 0.70 FAR; and Retail: 20% at 0.70 FAR.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 1
DRAFT
4608
Policy Plan
Policy and Implementation
Amendments
A Component of The Ontario Plan 2050
Hearing Draft | June 2026
Please note only proposed amendments are included.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 2
DRAFT
4609
Draft TOP 2050 Amendments

NEW/REVISED POLICIES
The following policies additions and amendments to the Environmental Resources and Mobility Elements of The Ontario Plan are proposed, as shown in underlines for added text.

ER-5.4 Transition of Farms. We protect both existing farms and sensitive uses around them as agricultural areas transition to urban uses. When uses transition from agricultural to urban uses, we do not require replacement farmland, nor do we require the dedication or preservation of agricultural land outside of our city.

M-1.9 Safe Systems Approach. Implement a Safe Systems Approach into roadway design, evaluating roadway safety holistically to account for human behavior, vulnerable road users, and infrastructure design.

M-1.10 Priority Safety Corridors. Identify roadways with a higher concentration of collisions and prioritize safety improvements to reduce collisions, with an emphasis on pedestrians, and bicyclists.

M-3.1 Transit Partners. We maintain a proactive working partnership with transit providers to ensure that adequate public transit service is available, cost-efficient, and convenient, particularly for residents in environmental justice areas, and within housing element strategy areas where sites suitable for lower-income housing development were identified in the sites inventory.

M-4.1 Truck Routes. We designate and maintain a network of City truck routes that provide for the safe and efficient transport of goods while minimizing negative impacts on local circulation and noise- and- vibration- sensitive land uses, as shown on Exhibit M-04, Truck Routes. We will minimize conflicts on truck routes through the design and implementation of buffers between travel lanes and pedestrian and bicycle facilities on designated truck routes.

NEW IMPLEMENTATION ACTION
The following new implementation action is proposed to be added to Appendix A, Implementation Plan of The Ontario Plan.

M-1.1 Initiate improvements to Priority Safety Corridors. Analyze the feasibility of potential safety countermeasures along priority safety corridors and incorporate improvements through the City’s Capital Improvement (CIP) Program. Begin implementation by mid 2028, identifying such corridors and regularly monitor progress, with the goal of implementing safety countermeasures on all safety corridors within 25 years.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 3
DRAFT
4610
Policy Plan
Figure Amendments
A Component of The Ontario Plan 2050
Hearing Draft | June 2026
Please note only figures with proposed amendments are included.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 4
DRAFT
4611
LLU-01 Official Land Use Plan
Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 5
DRAFT
4612
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Land Use Element
LU-02 Land Use Designations Summary Table
Land Use
Designation
Residential Density &
Non-Residential Intensity Intention
Residential – A wide range of housing densities and products to meet the demand of current and future residents with varying lifestyles. In addition to the residential uses described below, other uses such as schools, parks, childcare facilities, utilities, live-work units, and other public/institutional uses that are determined to be compatible with, oriented towards the needs of residential neighborhoods they serve, and those that help enhance community may also be allowed. When calculating the number of units permitted, the existing parcel size, before required dedication, shall be used. For developments that 1) encompass multiple properties and/or districts in established specific plans, 2) contain more than one land use designation, and 3) are located South of Riverside Drive, the maximum number of units permitted for the development may be spread over the entire site thereby allowing the blending of residential densities.

Rural 0 to 2.0 dwelling units per acre Single-family detached residences, typically in an estate setting.

Low Density1 2.1 to 5.0 dwelling units per acre Single-family detached residences.

Low-Medium
Density1 5.1 to 11.0 dwelling units per acre
Single/multi-family attached and detached residences,
including small lot subdivisions, townhouses, and
courtyard homes.

Medium Density1 11.1 to 25.02,3 dwelling units per
acre
Single/multi-family attached and detached residences
including townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard homes,
and small lot single-family subdivisions.

High Density1 25.1 to 45.0 dwelling units per acre Multi-family dwellings including stacked flats and midrise and high-rise residential complexes.

Retail/Service – A full spectrum of retail, service, professional, office, medical, tourist-related, and entertainment uses at a range of intensities to respond to market demand and the character of the surrounding environment. In addition to the retail/service uses described below, other uses such as parks, childcare facilities, live-work units, utilities, and other public/institutional uses that are determined to be compatible with, oriented towards the needs of the surrounding neighborhood, and those that help enhance community may also be allowed.

Neighborhood
Commercial1 0.40 FAR
Local serving retail, personal service, office, and dining uses, typically located within a predominantly residential neighborhood.

General
Commercial1 0.40 FAR
Local and regional serving retail, personal service,
entertainment, dining, office, tourist-serving, and related commercial uses.

Office/
Commercial1 0.75 FAR
An intense mixture of professional office, supported by regional serving retail, service, tourist-serving,
entertainment, dining, and supporting service uses that capitalize on strategic locations in Ontario. This
designation also allows for professional offices such as financial, legal, insurance, medical, and other similar uses in a neighborhood setting and/or as adaptive reuse.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 6
DRAFT
4613
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Land Use Element
LU-02 Land Use Designations Summary Table
Land Use
Designation
Residential Density &
Non-Residential Intensity Intention
Hospitality1 1.00 FAR
Regional serving tourist-serving, retail, entertainment, and service uses such as convention centers,
hotels/motels, and restaurants.

Employment – An array of employment uses, such as manufacturing, distribution, research and development, and office, at a range of intensities to meet the demand of current and future market conditions. In addition to the employment uses described below, other uses such as parks, live-work units, utilities, and other public/institutional uses that are determined to be compatible with and oriented towards the surrounding community may also be allowed.

Business Park1 0.60 FAR
Employee-intensive office uses including corporate
offices, technology centers, research and development,
“clean” industry, light manufacturing, and supporting
retail within a business park setting.

Industrial1 0.55 FAR
Variety of light industrial uses, including warehousing / distribution, assembly, light manufacturing, research and development, storage, repair facilities, and supporting retail and professional office uses. This designation also accommodates activities that could potentially generate impacts, such as noise, dust, and other nuisances.

If office uses and/or multiple tenant uses are developed on parcels fronting on the Milliken, Haven, and Archibald corridors, a FAR of 0.60 may be used.

Other
Open Space -
Non-Recreation1 Not applicable
Open space that includes utility easements, and drainage channels. We desire to realize multiple uses from these open spaces, such as trails, greenways, joint-use
recreational amenities, landscaped parkways/medians,
parking lots, and nurseries.

Open Space -
Parkland1 Not applicable
Recreational facilities, such as tot-lots, parks, golf
courses, and sports complexes and joint-use facilities
with schools, utilities, and drainage facilities.

Public Facility1 Not applicable
Public facilities including civic centers, governmental institutions, police and fire stations, transportation
facilities, museums, and public libraries.

Public School1 Not applicable Public schools (K-12) and universities.

Airport Not applicable Airport, including terminals, parking, service commercial, distribution, hangers, repair, and warehousing.

Landfill Not applicable Allows for the use, operation, and reclamation of the Milliken Landfill. If the site is reclaimed, the City will Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 7
DRAFT
4614
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Land Use Element
LU-02 Land Use Designations Summary Table
Land Use
Designation
Residential Density &
Non-Residential Intensity Intention
consider a host of uses including a transit station and multimodal transfer station.

Mixed Use – An intense mixture of uses that, when concentrated, create focal points for community activity and identity and facilitate walking, biking, and the use of transit. The Mixed Use land use category accommodates a horizontal and/or vertical mixture of retail, service, office, restaurant, entertainment, cultural, and residential uses.
• Density, intensity and intended character varies by area, as generally described below, and defined in detail under the applicable Place Type in the Community Design Element. • The densities and intensities of the Mixed Use designation represent the intended level of anticipated development; however, individual projects may vary depending upon an approved master plan, such as a specific plan, or planned unit development.
• The maximum amount of development in each Mixed Use area shall be limited by the Future Buildout Projections detailed in Table LU-03. Further direction regarding land use distributions, densities and intensities within some of these areas are provided by specific plans as noted below. • Most Mixed Use areas are the focal point of the City's Place Type designations illustrated on Figure CD-01 and noted below. Place Types are defined in the Community Design Element, and the vision for the intended outcome and character of each area is established and illustrated in the Place Type Figures noted below.
• Any new development project on a site within a mixed-use area that is also identified in the City’s Housing Element sites inventory must include housing. At least 50 percent of the total floor area of the new development project must be for residential use. Sites within the affordable housing overlay (generally those subject to Housing Element Rezoning Program) shall have a minimum density of 20 du/ac. 4,5
Mixed Use -
Downtown1,4
(MU-Downtown)
• 25.0 to 75.0 dwelling units per acre
• 2.0 FAR for retail and office uses
Subject to PUD at City’s discretion
Envisioned as an intensive vertical and horizontal mixture of retail, office, civic and residential uses in a pedestrian friendly atmosphere. The historic character is enhanced.

The most intensive uses are envisioned along Euclid and Holt Avenues. [Link to Community Design Element
Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-oriented Place Types
Section, Community Design Element Exhibits CD-01, CD02, CD-03 and CD-08] Mixed Use -
Holt Blvd1,4
(MU-Holt)
• 14.03,2
to 40.0 dwelling units per
acre
• 2.0 FAR for office uses
• 1.0 FAR for retail uses
Subject to PUD at City’s discretion
This area is envisioned as a low-rise (3-5 stories)
intensification of the Holt Corridor. The intent is to create identity and place along the Holt Corridor, connect the corridor to Downtown, and connect the Downtown to
the Ontario Airport Metro Center. [Link to Community
Design Element Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-oriented
Place Types Section, Community Design Element Exhibits
CD-01, CD-02, CD-08 and CD-09]
Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 8
DRAFT
4615
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Land Use Element
LU-02 Land Use Designations Summary Table
Land Use
Designation
Residential Density &
Non-Residential Intensity Intention
Mixed Use -
Meredith1
(MU-Meredith)
• 1425.0 to 125.0 dwelling units per
acre
• 3.0 FAR for office and retail uses
This area is envisioned as a mixture of mid-rise buildings, regional-serving retail and office centers, and standalone high density residential projects. [Link to Community Design Element Urban, Mixed Use, and
Transit-oriented Place Types Section, Community Design
Element Exhibits CD-01, CD-02, and CD-08]
Mixed Use -
1Multimodal1
(MU-Multimodal)
• 20.0 to 80.0 dwelling units per acre
• 1.0 FAR for office and retail uses
The Multimodal Mixed Use Area is under consideration
for our future multimodal transit station that links rail, regional, local, and Airport transit. Intensive office, retail, and residential uses are envisioned to be integrated with the transit station, which is expected to be within the area or in close proximity. The transit center is envisioned as an iconic, convenient, and intuitively designed
multimodal transportation center that serves the City of Ontario and the region at-large. [Link to Community
Design Element Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-oriented
Place Types Section, Community Design Element Exhibits
CD-01, CD-02, and CD-05]
Mixed Use -
Inland Empire
Corridor1
(MU-Inland Empire)
• 14.0 to 30.0 dwelling units per acre
• 2.0 FAR for office uses
• 1.0 FAR for retail uses
Located along Inland Empire Boulevard, this area is
primarily residential with a retail center at the corner of Inland Empire Boulevard and Archibald. Commercial uses
that relate to the park are envisioned for the area West of the regional park. [Link to Community Design Element Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-oriented Place Types
Section, Community Design Element Exhibits CD-01, CD02, and CD-08] Mixed Use -
Guasti1
(MU-Guasti)
• 25.0 to 65.0 dwelling units per acre
• 1.0 FAR for office and retail uses
This site includes the Guasti Winery, which is on the
National Register of Historic Places. This area is
envisioned as a mixture of high-quality office, lodging, retail and residential uses that incorporate the Guasti Winery. More intensive office and commercial uses are
envisioned along I-10 while office, commercial, and
lodging uses are envisioned in and around the historic
structures; the southern portion of the area is being
considered as potential site for the multimodal transit center. There is an approved Specific Plan on this site that may require amendment to align with TOP. [Link to
Community Design Element Urban, Mixed Use, and
Transit-oriented Place Types Section, Community Design
Element Exhibits CD-01, CD-02, and CD-05]
Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 9
DRAFT
4616
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Land Use Element
LU-02 Land Use Designations Summary Table
Land Use
Designation
Residential Density &
Non-Residential Intensity Intention
Mixed Use -
Ontario Center1,4
(MU-Ontario Center)
• 20.0 to 125.0 dwelling units per acre
• 2.0 FAR for office uses
• 1.0 FAR for retail uses
This area is one of the most intensive developments in
Ontario and is characterized by low-rise (3-5 stories) and mid-rise (5-10 stories), mixed use buildings, iconic
architecture, and regionally significant uses, such as the City owned arena and other cultural and entertainment
uses. This area accommodates a vertical and horizontal
mixture of entertainment, retail, office, and residential uses in an active, pedestrian oriented atmosphere. In this area, the Haven Corridor is envisioned as an elegant,
landscaped boulevard lined multi-story office uses near the I-10 and mixed and residential uses closer to the
City's northern boundary along 4th Street. There is an
approved Specific Plan on this site that may require
amendment to align with TOP. [Link to Community
Design Element Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-oriented
Place Types Section, Community Design Element Exhibits
CD-01, CD-02, and CD-04]
Mixed Use -
Ontario Mills1,5
(MU-Ontario Mills)
• 25.0 to 85.0 dwelling units per acre
• 1.5 FAR for office uses
• 1.0 FAR for retail uses
This area will continue to be our regional retail center.

We envision intensification of the area to include
additional retail and entertainment, office, and multifamily (3-5 story) residential uses. New development is envisioned to occur along the interior loop road and the perimeter of the area. There is an approved Specific Plan on this site that may require amendment to align with
TOP. [Link to Community Design Element Urban, Mixed
Use, and Transit-oriented Place Types Section,
Community Design Element Exhibits CD-01, CD-02, and
CD-04]
Mixed Use -
Rich Haven
(MU-Rich Haven)
• 14.0 to 50.0 dwelling units per acre
• 0.7 FAR for office and retail uses
Subject to approved Specific Plan
The Rich-Haven Mixed Use Area is within the Rich-Haven
Specific Plan. This area is envisioned as a low-rise (3-5 stories), primarily horizontal mixture of retail, office, medical, and residential uses. The greatest level of
intensity is envisioned along Ontario Ranch Road and
Hamner Avenue. [Link to Community Design Element
Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-oriented Place Types
Section, Community Design Element Exhibits CD-01, CD02, and CD-09] Mixed Use -
Great Grand
Park1,4
(MU-Great Grand
Park)
• 14.03
to 65.0 dwelling units per acre2
• 1.5 FAR for office uses
• 1.0 FAR for retail uses
Subject to Specific Plan3
The Great Grand Park Mixed Use Areas are envisioned as
the southwestern activity centers for citizens of Ontario.

These areas accommodate a vertical and horizontal
mixture of commercial, office, entertainment, and
residential uses all connecting to the Great Park with a Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 10 DRAFT 4617
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Land Use Element
LU-02 Land Use Designations Summary Table
Land Use
Designation
Residential Density &
Non-Residential Intensity Intention
pedestrian oriented atmosphere. It is envisioned that the major roads through these Mixed Use areas are couplets, which are a series of one-way streets that disperse traffic and allow reduced street widths, maximize the sense of
community, and emphasize pedestrian accessibility.

These Mixed Use areas are envisioned as low-rise (3-5
stories) with some mid-rise (5-10 stories) near the
intersection of Euclid and Edison/Ontario Ranch Road.
[Link to Community Design Element Urban, Mixed Use,
and Transit-oriented Place Types Section, Community
Design Element Exhibits CD-01, CD-02, CD-06, CD-09]
Mixed Use -
Sports Park1,4
(MU-SP)
• 25.0 to 65.0 du/ac;
• 1.0 FAR retail & hospitality;
• 1.5 FAR office
Subject to PUD or Specific Plan at City’s
discretion3
The Sports Park Mixed Use Areas are envisioned as a mixed-use recreation and entertainment hub, accommodating a vertical and horizontal mixture of commercial, office, entertainment, hospitality, and residential uses all in proximity to the Sports Park. This Mixed-use area is envisioned as low-rise (3-5 stories) mixture of hospitality, commercial, residential, and office uses that will create identity and place along the corridor and serve the surrounding residents.
[Link to Community Design Element Urban, Mixed Use,
and Transit-oriented Place Types Section, Community
Design Element Exhibits CD-01, CD-02, and CD-07]
Mixed Use -
Grove1,4
(MU-Grove)
• 14.032 to 65.0 dwelling units per acre
• 1.5 FAR for office uses
• 1.0 FAR for retail uses
Subject to Specific Plan33ubject to PU
Envisioned as a low-rise (3-5 stories), mixture of retail and residential uses that will create identity and place along the corridor and serve the surrounding residents. [Link to Community Design Element Urban, Mixed Use,
and Transit-oriented Place Types Section, Community
Design Element Exhibits CD-01, CD-02, and CD-09]
Mixed Use -
Eucalyptus / Chino
Airport Overlay1
(MU-EU)
• 25.0 to 45.0 dwelling units per
acre (outside of airport safety
zone)
• 2.0 FAR for office and verticallymixed uses
• 0.60 FAR for business park and retail
uses
Subject to Specific Plan3
Envisioned to primarily accommodate employeeintensive office, entertainment facilities, live/work, and supporting retail uses in a campus environment
designed to leverage proximity to the park and maintain compatibility with surrounding residential areas. Standalone and mixed use residential is permitted outside of the Chino Airport safety zone, primarily centered on
Grove. Business park uses, such as research and
development and “clean” industrial are also permitted
provided they do not involve the frequent use of trucks (Class 4 or higher) as part of its primary activities. [Link to Community Design Element Urban, Mixed Use, and
Transit-oriented Place Types Section, Community Design
Element Exhibits CD-01, CD-02, and CD-07]
Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 11 DRAFT 4618
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Land Use Element
LU-02 Land Use Designations Summary Table
Land Use
Designation
Residential Density &
Non-Residential Intensity Intention
Mixed Use -
Parkside1
(MU-PS)
• 25.0 to 45.0 dwelling units per
acre
• 1.0 FAR for retail uses
Subject to approved Specific Plan
Envisioned as a low-rise (3-5 stories), mixture of retail and residential uses that will create identity and place and serve the surrounding residents. [Link to Community Design Element Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-oriented
Place Types Section, Community Design Element Exhibits
CD-01, CD-02, and CD-09]
Mixed Use -
Neighborhood
Activity Hubs1,4
(MU-NH)
• 20.0 to 75.0 dwelling units per
acre
• 1.0 FAR for retail and office
Subject to Specific Plan3 within
Ontario Ranch3; projects subject to
PUD outside of Ontario Ranch
subject to PUD at City’s discretion
Envisioned as a low-rise (3-5 stories), mixture of retail and residential uses that will create identity and place along the corridor and serve the surrounding residents. [Link to Community Design Element Urban, Mixed Use,
and Transit-oriented Place Types Section, Community
Design Element Exhibits CD-01, CD-02, and CD-09]
Overlays – An overlay is intended to reflect a particular characteristic of an area and is applied “over” an underlying land use designation to provide guidance above and beyond the underlying land use designation.

Business Park
Transitional Areas
Per the underlying designation unless
a non-residential use is developed in
which case the density and use
requirements of the Business Park land
use designations shall apply.

This area is within existing and future noise and safety impact zones of Ontario International Airport. This
overlay allows residential uses to transition to a Business Park land use if an entire block can be recycled to a
Business Park use and the block is contiguous to another non-residential block. In these cases, the City shall be responsible for the necessary amendments to the Policy
Plan Map and Development Code.

Industrial
Transitional Areas
Per the underlying designation unless
a non-residential use is developed in
which case the density and use
requirements of the Industrial land use
designations shall apply.

This area is within existing and future noise and safety impact zones of Ontario International Airport. This
overlay allows residential uses to transition to an
industrial land use if an entire block can be recycled to an Industrial use and the block is contiguous to another non-residential block. In these cases, the City shall be responsible for the necessary amendments to the Policy
Plan Map and Development Code.

ONT Airport
Influence Area Varies
An area in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may
significantly affect land uses or necessitate restriction on those uses. Refer to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Ontario International Airport.

Chino Airport
Influence Area Varies
An area in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may
significantly affect land uses or necessitate restriction on Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 12 DRAFT 4619
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Land Use Element
LU-02 Land Use Designations Summary Table
Land Use
Designation
Residential Density &
Non-Residential Intensity Intention
those Uses. Refer to the Ontario Development Code for
Chino Airport land use policies and criteria for development.

Landfill Impact
Area Varies
Lands immediately surrounding the Milliken Landfill may be contaminated or have other landfill-related hazards that may limit allowable uses, as well as site design. Development in this area requires the submission of a detailed environmental analysis.

Plan Required Overlay – Denotes areas where specific plans or planned unit development plans are required prior to development, with final determination at the discretion of the City. See adopted specific plans and planned unit development in the City on the City’s website.

Ontario Airport
Metro Center Per approved individual specific plans
Envisioned as the most intensive area outside of downtown Los Angeles with a vertical and horizontal mixture of regionalserving retail, office, restaurant, entertainment, cultural, and residential uses in low to mid-rise buildings (3-10 stories). See adopted specific plans for more detail.

Ontario Ranch Per approved individual specific plans3
Envisioned as a mixture of residential neighborhoods
integrated with areas of high intensity (3-10 stories) with a mixture of employment, retail, service, entertainment,
cultural, and residential uses united by a network of
greenways/trails, open spaces, amenities, and infrastructure.

All development to be oriented toward or designed to
leverage the “Great Park,” a linear open space amenity
containing active and passive recreational features, gardens, water features, and cultural facilities. Additional direction may be provided through the application of place types and
specific plans.

Downtown
Per approved planned unit
development (PUD may be waived at
City’s discretion)3

Envisioned as an intensive vertical and horizontal mixture of retail, office, and residential uses in a pedestrian friendly atmosphere. The historic character is enhanced. The most intensive uses are envisioned along Euclid and Holt Avenues.

See the Downtown District Plan in the City's development code for more detail.

Notes:

1. Some parcels with this designation may fall within a Place Type, which characterizes the vision and urban design intent within a specified area. If any portion of a parcel is within a Place Type boundary, as shown in Figure CD-01, Place Types in the Community Design Element, that parcel is subject to Goal CD-3, and related policies. Projects must demonstrate that they are consistent with the vision and policy intent for the applicable Place Type as defined in Exhibits CD-02 through CD-09. Link to Community Design Element Urban, Mixed-Use, and Transit-oriented Place Types Section.

2. Parcels designated as MDR within the affordable housing overlay zoning district allow a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre if the project includes 25 percent of units affordable to lower incomes, consistent with Tier 2 requirements of the overlay zone.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 13 DRAFT 4620
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Land Use Element
LU-02 Land Use Designations Summary Table
Land Use
Designation
Residential Density &
Non-Residential Intensity Intention

3. All parcels within the affordable housing overlay zoning district have a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. All parcels within the affordable housing overlay zoning district are exempt from the specific plan requirement if there is no existing specific plan and the project includes 20 percent of units affordable to lower incomes, consistent with Tier 1 requirements of the overlay zone.

3.5. Ontario Mills Housing Element Sites. The Mixed Use Ontario Mills designation is identified in the City’s Housing Element, but the City does not rely on these sites to meet its housing obligation, and the required zoning updated has not been implemented consistent with Program 13 of the Housing Element. Those sites with the General Plan designation MixedUse Ontario Mills, shall be allowed to develop without the housing requirements identified in note 4 until the City updates the zoning and relies upon the sites to meet any portion of its housing need.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 14 DRAFT 4621
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Land Use Element
LU-03 Future Buildout Table
Land Use Acres2 Assumed Density/Intensity3 Units Pop4
NonResidential
Square Feet Jobs5
Residential
Rural 529 2.0 du/ac 1,057 3,863 - -
Low Density6,7 6,274
5,810

5.9 du/ac (north of Riverside Dr) 34,848

32.753
127,326
119,671 - - 4.5 du/ac (south of Riverside Dr)7
Low-Medium
Density6 889 930 8.5 du/ac 7,520
7,865
26,475
27,737 - -
Medium
Density7
2,299
2,292

18.0 du/ac (north of Riverside Dr) 47,206
47,010
152,855
152,223 - - 22.0 du/ac (south of Riverside Dr)8
High Density 198536 25.0 du/ac (north of Riverside Dr)

35.0 du/ac (south of Riverside Dr)
5,089
16,902
13,038
43,308 - -
Subtotal 10,189
10,096
95,720
105,587
323,553
346,802 - -
Mixed Use
• Downtown 132
• 60% of the area at 35 du/ac
• 40% of the area at 0.80 FAR for office
and retail
2,762
2,783
7,077
7,131 1,833,291 4,097
• East Holt
Boulevard8 75 92 • 75% of the area at 30 du/ac • 25% of area at 0.80 FAR retail 1,692
2,074
4,336
5,313
655,222
802,882 546 669
• West Holt
Boulevard8 1 • 75% of the area at 30 du/ac
• 25% of area at 0.80 FAR retail 33 84 12,678 11
• Meredith 91 • 50% of the area at 40 du/ac
• 50% at 0.35 FAR for retail uses 1,815 4,651 691,939 577 • Multimodal
Transit Center 73
• 15% of the area at 60 du/ac
• 60% of the area at 1.0 FAR office and
retail
• 25% of the area at 0.70 FAR Lodging 653 1,673 2,449,557 5,993 • Inland Empire
Corridor 37 • 82% of the area at 10 du/ac
• 18% of area at 0.35 FAR retail 300 769 100,455 84
• Guasti 86
• 30% of the area at 30 du/ac
• 15% of area at 1.0 FAR retail
• 30% of area at 0.70 FAR office
• 25% of area at 0.70 FAR Lodging 777 1,991 2,012,077 3,848 • Ontario Center8
(south of Concourse
& east of Haven)
186
• 40% of area at 40 du/ac
• 20% of area at 1.0 FAR office
• 30% of area at 0.70 FAR retail 3,729 9,553 3,329,507 7,327 • Ontario Center8
(north of Concourse
& west of Haven)
169
• 75% of area at 40 du/ac
• 10% of area at 1.00 FAR office
• 15% of area at 0.80 FAR retail
5,076 13,006 1,621,435 3,417
• Ontario Mills 249
• 40% of area at 40 du/ac
• 5% of area at 0.75 FAR office
• 55% of area at 0.50 FAR retail
3,990 10,223 3,394,666 3,971
Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 15 DRAFT 4622
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Land Use Element
LU-03 Future Buildout Table
Land Use Acres2 Assumed Density/Intensity3 Units Pop4
NonResidential
Square Feet Jobs5
• Rich-Haven2 154
• 86% of area at 18 du/ac
• 2% of area at 0.35 FAR office
• 12% of area at 0.30 FAR retail
2,380 6,097 287,946 371
• Parkside 3 • 50% of the area at 35 du/ac
• 50% of area at 0.80 FAR retail
52 132 51,440 129
• Eucalyptus/
Chino Airport2
101 • 40% of the area at 35 du/ac
• 10% of area at 0.80 FAR retail
• 20% of area at 1.00 FAR office
• 30% of area at 0.60 FAR business park
(industrial)
1,471 3,769 2,059,760 4,008
• Grove2
36 45 • 65% of the area at 35 du/ac
• 25% of area at 0.80 FAR retail
• 10% of area at 0.70 FAR Ooffice
821

1.025
2,104
2,627
385,285
481,025
630 786
• Great Grand
Park2 300188
• 70% of area at 35 du/ac
• 10% of area at 0.735 FAR for office
• 20% of area at 0.730 FAR for retail
7,342
4,594
18,813
11,772
2,741,373
1,715,486
4,846
3,032
• Sports Park 71
• 30% of area at 30 du/ac
• 15% of area at 1.00 FAR office
• 25% of area at 0.70 FAR hospitality
• 30% of area at 0.70 FAR retail
637 1,632 1,649,650 2,637
• Neighborhood
Activity Hub8
(Vineyard & Riverside)
37 • 30% of area at 30 du/ac
• 15% of area at 1.00 FAR office
• 25% of area at 0.70 FAR hospitality
• 30% of area at 0.70 FAR retail
331 847 856,025 1,368
• Neighborhood
Activity Hub8
(Mountain Village)
8 • 50% of the area at 35 du/ac
• 50% of area at 0.80 FAR retail 137 350 136,070 340
• Neighborhood
Activity Hub8
(Mountain & Fourth)
7 • 70% of the area at 50 du/ac
• 30% of area at 0.80 FAR retail 251 643 75,008 188
• Neighborhood
Activity Hub8
(Euclid & Francis)
13 • 50% of the area at 30 du/ac
• 50% of area at 0.80 FAR retail 190 487 220,912 552
• Neighborhood
Activity Hub8
(Euclid & Walnut)
16 • 75% of the area at 30 du/ac
• 25% of area at 0.80 FAR retail 369 945 142,840 357
• Neighborhood
Activity Hub2,8
(Euclid & Riverside)
15 • 75% of the area at 35 du/ac
• 25% of area at 0.80 FAR retail 394 1,009 130,662 327
Subtotal 1,752
1,672 - 34,23431,591
87,712
80,935
22,332,123
21,995,551
41,619
40,081
Retail/Service
Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 16 DRAFT 4623
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Land Use Element
LU-03 Future Buildout Table
Land Use Acres2 Assumed Density/Intensity3 Units Pop4
NonResidential
Square Feet Jobs5
Neighborhood
Commercial6 246 237 0.30 FAR - - 3,212,5533,100,519
8,762
8,456
General
Commercial 385 357 0.30 FAR - - 5,033,395
4,661,303
5,605
5,191
Office/
Commercial 309 0.75 FAR - - 10,101,773 28,239
Hospitality 194 167 1.00 FAR - - 8,458,978
7,273,232
11,412
9,812
Subtotal 1,134
1,070 - - 26,806,65925,136,787
54,018
51,698
Employment
Business Park6 1,146
1,426 0.50 FAR - - 25,324,44731,339,693
43,546
48,947
Industrial6 7,651
7,666 0.55 FAR - - 183,314,481183,669,538
148,293
148,588
Subtotal 8,797
9,091 - - 208,638,928215,009,231
191,839
197,535
Other
Open Space–
Non-Recreation 1,200 Not applicable - - - -
Open Space–
Parkland6
1,041
998 Not applicable - - - -
Open SpaceWater 17 Not applicable - - - -
Public Facility 90 Not applicable - - - -
Public School 603 604 Not applicable - - - -
Ontario
International
Airport
1,423
1,408 Not applicable - - - -
Landfill 137 Not applicable - - - -
Railroad 250 Not applicable - - - -
Roadways 5,389 Not applicable - - - -
Subtotal 10,150
10,092 - - - - -
Total 32,022 - 129,952
137,177
411,265
427,737
263,828,479
268,162,895
299,204
301,037
Notes
1 Historically, citywide buildout levels do not achieve the maximum allowable density/intensity on every parcel and are, on average, lower than allowed by the Policy Plan. Accordingly, the buildout projections in this Policy Plan do not assume buildout at the maximum density or intensity and instead are adjusted downward. There are a few notable exceptions to this.

The assumed density for Low-Density Residential north of Riverside Drive is estimated above the allowed density to account for the continued use of areas that were built at densities above the current allowance, and to account for growth in these areas due to accessory dwelling unit (ADU) development and lot splits. Some areas were also entitled at greater densities Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 17 DRAFT 4624
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Land Use Element
LU-03 Future Buildout Table
Land Use Acres2 Assumed Density/Intensity3 Units Pop4
NonResidential
Square Feet Jobs5
due to the use of gross acreage rather than net acreage. These areas, identified in note 7 utilized customized growth assumptions to ensure that the future projection was equal to or larger than the number of existing units in built areas, and equal to or larger than existing entitlements in undeveloped or partially developed areas. 2 Acres are based on the City's Parcel data as of January 2021. 3 Assumed Density/Intensity includes both residential density, expressed as units per acre, and non-residential intensity, expressed as floor area ratio (FAR), which is the amount of building square feet in relation to the size of the lot. 4 Projections of population by residential designation are based on projected occupancy rates and a persons-per-household factor that varies by housing type.
5 The factors used to generate the number of employees by land use category were derived by comparing 2018 employment data published by the U.S. Census as part of the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) dataset to existing building square footage by use type, as recorded in the City's building permit database. 6 Acreages and corresponding buildout estimates for these designations do not reflect underlying land uses within the Business Park and Industrial Overlays. Estimates within overlay areas are included within the corresponding Business Park and Industrial categories.

7. To ensure future projections are equal to or larger than existing conditions in built out areas as of August 2021, and equal to or larger than existing entitlements (approved before August 2021) in undeveloped or partially developed areas, buildout estimates for the following projects, assumed realistic densities as follows: Countryside Specific Plan (Low Density Residential: 6.18 du/ac), Creekside Specific Plan (Low Density Residential: 7.47 du/ac, Medium Density Residential: 15.81 du/ac), Subarea 29 Specific Plan (Low Density Residential: 6.55).

8. In certain mixed use categories, different buildout assumptions were employed on different sites. Variations in assumptions are included in multiple rows within this table.

Last Amended: August 16, 2022
Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 18 DRAFT 4625
LU-04 Mixed Use Areas (Updated Figure)
LU-05 Overlay Areas
Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 19 DRAFT 4626
PR-01 Park & Recreational Facilities (Updated Figure)
Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 20
DRAFT
4627
City of Ontario Policy PlanSafety Element Adopted August 16, 2022 with updates through December 2, 2025 and 2026 Draft Proposed Changes (Tracked) | FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY 2 S-06a Future Traffic Noise Contours (Updated Figure)
Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 21
DRAFT
4628
M-01 Roadway Classifications (Proposed Changes)
Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 22 DRAFT 4629
M-02 Multipurpose Trails & Bikeways (REPLACE)
Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 23 DRAFT 4630
M-04 Truck Routes (PROPOSED REVISIONS)
Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 24 DRAFT 4631
City of Ontario Policy PlanCommunity Design Element Adopted August 16, 2022 with updates through December 2, 2025, Draft Proposed Changes 2026 (Tracked) 2 CD-01 Place Types
Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 25
DRAFT
4632
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Community Design Element
CD-02 Place Type Categories
Place Types
Districts – Districts are geographically large, culturally unique, and regionally significant areas of the city that fulfill different but complementary roles in creating a complete community. As regional destinations, districts serve as the “face of the city.” Each district has a distinct identity that reflects its role within the city context and establishes a defined sense of place through the creation of an amenity-rich, transit-accessible, mixed-use environments where people can live, work, shop, dine, and have many of their daily needs met within a comfortable and convenient walk or bike ride from their residence, transit stop, or parked vehicle. 1 Downtown District
The historic center of Ontario, the Downtown District, is envisioned as the placed-based, people-focused, commercial, and cultural "heart" of the City and features several designated historic districts and landmark. Downtown will support a variety of businesses, housing opportunities for residents with a variety of income levels, creative spaces, entertainment options, and institutional and civic uses, while preserving its historic character, buildings, neighborhoods, and places. Complementing the wide mix of uses are designs, layouts and public spaces that give residents, visitors, and businesses a strong sense of connection and creates a place where people want to spend time.
2 Airport / Metro Entertainment District
The Airport / Metro Entertainment District is envisioned as a largescale regional entertainment hub, leveraging attractions, such as the Toyota Arena and Ontario Mills, supported by a variety of retail and dining options integrated alongside high-intensity office and residential development. This area will evolve into a walkable urban center through the addition of mixed use infill development, a pedestrian-oriented road and trail network, key public realm improvements, and multiple transit options. 3 Guasti District/Multimodal District
The historic Guasti (winery) Village sets the theme and backdrop to the Guasti/Multimodal District. The district is envisioned to preserve and enhance the historic buildings as the focal point of a vibrant mixed use area that leverages its proximity to the Ontario International Airport, Ontario Convention Center, and the potential future development of a multimodal transit center. The district will include intensive office, commercial, and lodging uses along the I-10 corridor, and appropriately scaled residential, office, commercial, and lodging near the Guasti Village historic core. The multimodal mixed use area within the Guasti/Multimodal District is intended to leverage proximity to the future multimodal transportation center and link the Convention Center, Guasti compound, and airport through strong physical and visual design.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 26 DRAFT 4633
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Community Design Element
CD-02 Place Type Categories
Place Types
4 South Euclid District
Lying at the southwest corner of the City, the South Euclid District is envisioned to develop as a vertically- and horizontally- mixed use area to serve the populations of newly developing Ontario Ranch and adjoining communities. The district will include a range of housing types integrated within and alongside retail, commercial, and office uses, as well as public spaces and trails that connect the “Great Grand Park” to Euclid Avenue. The area is intended to be highly walkable with pedestrian-oriented site design and road network and amenitized transit stops that leverage the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) investments.
5 South Employment District
The South Employment District is envisioned to foster employee-intensive office, entertainment facilities, live/work, and supporting retail uses in a campus environment designed to leverage proximity to the “Great Park” and maintain compatibility with surrounding residential areas. Outside of the Chino Airport safety zone, higher density stand-alone and mixed use residential neighborhoods are intended to orient toward the “Great Park” and incorporate transition areas from the surrounding business park uses.
5 Sports Empire District
The Sports Empire district is envisioned as a vibrant, year-round regional destination where local residents and visitors come together around sports, recreation, and entertainment within a walkable, mixed-use environment. Anchored by ONT Field and professional baseball, the district integrates entertainment, hospitality, retail, and housing with open space and recreational assets to form a lively, walkable entertainment district. The district is integrated and highly connected to the surrounding residential communities, supporting daily activity, neighborhood vitality, and seamless connections to sports facilities, community amenities, and everyday destinations.

Together, these elements create a cohesive district that thrives during major events while remaining an inviting place for the Ontario community to live, gather, recreate, and enjoy throughout the year.

Corridors – Corridors are important components of the vehicular circulation system, moving traffic through the city and connecting to the greater region. While this remains an important role of the city's corridors, they are envisioned as vibrant and sustainable places, with a mix of uses, a variety of transportation options, and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle access to surrounding neighborhoods.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 27 DRAFT 4634
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Community Design Element
CD-02 Place Type Categories
Place Types
6 East Holt Boulevard Corridor
Holt Boulevard is an important east-west corridor connecting Ontario to the greater region, with improved connectivity options through the addition of BRT service. This corridor is envisioned to gradually build out over time through infill development that ultimately yields vibrant neighborhood-serving commercial areas, a variety of housing options, and employment opportunities that are clustered around BRT stops that can be easily accessed by pedestrians and bicyclists. 7 Inland Empire Boulevard Corridor
The Inland Empire Boulevard Corridor connects Vineyard Avenue and the Convention Center directly to the heart of the Airport / Metro Entertainment District and future BRT. Near- to mid-term improvements include the addition of significant rows of large street trees to provide shade, spatial definition, and a better pedestrian environment; the addition of new bicycle facilities, infill buildings oriented to the street, and reorientation of existing building entrances toward the street where possible. Over the longer term, this corridor has the potential to become a westward extension of the Airport / Metro Entertainment District environment.

Neighborhood Centers – Neighborhood Centers serve as local gathering places, allow for convenient access to amenities, and help to establish identity for the surrounding neighborhoods. They typically consist of locally serving commercial uses and/or other community-serving uses, and intended to be accessible by foot, bike, transit, or car for those visiting the site or residing in the surrounding area. This place type is generally applied to the area within a short walk of a single or cluster of mixed use parcels along a larger street and/or around an intersection. Neighborhood Centers can be found throughout the existing city fabric (infill) and in areas planned for future growth and development (south of Riverside Drive). 8 (a-e)
Neighborhood Center - Infill
Neighborhood Centers located in areas where the commercial and residential parcels were largely developed in an incremental manner prior to 2020, are north of Riverside Drive, and are categorized as “infill” centers. These centers will range in size, complexity, and relationship to the surrounding streets and neighborhoods. Some are very small centers that may only include a horizontal mix of uses fronting onto a wide sidewalk while others may involve a vertically integrated mix of higher density residential and nonresidential uses oriented around a public plaza or other form of open space. All of these centers are envisioned to incorporate site design that prioritizes safe, and attractive, and well-shaded pedestrian access onsite, Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 28 DRAFT 4635
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Community Design Element
CD-02 Place Type Categories
Place Types
from the public rights-of-way, and from the adjacent neighborhoods. 8 (f-lk)
Neighborhood Center – South of Riverside Drive
Neighborhood Centers identified south of Riverside Drive are generally underutilized or vacant as of 2022. These Neighborhood Centers are envisioned to bring new vitality and involve some level of master planning, with the roadway, pathways, open spaces, public realm designs, and site designs coordinated prior to the development of all of the parcels. These centers will range in size, complexity, and relationship to the surrounding streets and neighborhoods.

Some of these centers will involve a small node of mixed use development that is connected to the “Great Grand Park” or Sports Empire DistrictPark while others will involve larger clusters of mixed- use areas that serve as a focus point for the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The largest of these centers are intended to serve not only as a local focal point but also as a major citywide landmark that also connects directly to the “Great Grand Park” and Ontario Sports Empire. All but the smallest of these centers are envisioned to consist of some amount of vertically integrated and higher intensity residential, office, and retail buildings oriented toward the “Great Grand Park” and Ontario Sports Empire, large public plazas, and/or large trail systems.

All of these centers are envisioned to incorporate site design that prioritizes safe, attractive opportunities for residential, and wellshaded pedestrian access onsite, from the public rights-of-way, and from the adjacent neighborhoods. Parking areas are to be located next to and behind buildings to provide a variety of frontages along streets.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 29 DRAFT 4636
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Community Design Element CD-03 Downtown District Place Type CD-03 Downtown District Place Type

1. Downtown District
VISIONAs the historic center of Ontario, the Downtown District, is envisioned as the placebased, people-focused, commercial, and cultural "heart" of the City and features several designated historic districts and landmarks. Downtown will support a variety of businesses, housing opportunities for residents with a variety of income levels, creative spaces, entertainment options, and institutional and civic uses while preserving its historic character, buildings, neighborhoods, and places. Complementing the wide mix of uses are designs, layouts and public spaces that give residents, visitors, and businesses a strong sense of connection and creates a place where people want to spend time.

LAND USE
Land Use Designation Residential Density & Non-Residential In- tensity Intention Low Density 2.1 to 5.0 dwelling units per acre Single-family detached residences.

Low-Medium Density

5.1 to11.0 dwelling units per acre
Single/multi-family attached and detached residences, including small lot subdivisions, townhouses, and courtyard homes.

Medium Density

11.1 to 25.0 dwelling units per acre
Single/multi-family attached and detached residences including townhouses, courtyard homes, stacked flats, and small lot single-family subdivisions.

High Density 25.1 to 45.0 dwelling units per acre Multi-family dwellings including stacked flats and mid-rise and high-rise residential complexes. Mixed Use - Downtown

25.0 to 75.0 dwelling units per acre 2.0 FAR for retail and office uses Envisioned as an intensive vertical and horizontal mixture of retail, office, and residential uses in a pedestrian friendly atmosphere. The historic character is enhanced. The most intensive uses are envisioned along Euclid and Holt Avenues.

Neighborhood Commercial 0.40 FAR Local serving retail, personal service, office, and dining uses, typically located within a predominantly residential neighborhood. Office Commercial 0.75 FAR An intense mixture of professional office, supported by regional serving retail, service, tourist-serving, entertainment, dining, and supporting service uses that capitalize on strategic locations in Ontario. This designation also allows for professional offices such as financial, legal, insurance, medical, and other similar uses in a neighborhood setting and/or as adaptive reuse.

Industrial 0.55 FAR
Variety of light industrial uses, including warehousing / distribution, assembly, light manufacturing, research and development, storage, repair facilities, and supporting retail and professional office uses. This designation also accommodates activities that could potentially generate impacts, such as noise, dust, and other nuisances.

Open Space - Recreation Not applicable
Open space that includes utility easements, and drainage channels. We desire to realize multiple uses from these open spaces, such as trails, greenways, joint-use recreational amenities, landscaped parkways/medians, parking lots, and nurseries.

Conceptual reconfiguration of Euclid Ave (within existing curb-to-curb dimension) adding a Class IV bikeway, parking lane planters, and “off-peak” parking along the median to maintain three travel lanes during peak traffic volume times.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 30
DRAFT
4637
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Community Design Element CD-03 Downtown District Place Type DOWNTOWN DISTRICT INTENDED OUTCOMES This section describes the intended result, or outcome, of applying Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-oriented Place Type Policies (CD-3.1 to CD-3.6) to this Place Type.

Unique Identity
Downtown Ontario is the historic economic, cultural, and civic hub of Ontario, organized by a simple, walkable network of treelined streets, laid out as a new “Model Colony” in the 1880s. The District’s history, historic buildings, and distinct urban form define downtown’s unique identity. These aspects should be preserved, celebrated, and enhanced to reinforce the area’s existing identity.

Comfortable, Safe, Human
Scale Public Realm
The Downtown’s public realm is a traditional network of streets and public open spaces that are lined with a rich variety of buildings built since the 1880s. Downtown’s streets, parks, and plazas should be enhanced as “outdoor rooms of community,” providing an attractive, comfortable, safe, and lively environment within which to walk, explore, shop, dine, meet friends and neighbors, and participate in community events. Each new public and private improvement in this area should reinforce a “pedestrians first” atmosphere.

Complete and Connected
Network
Downtown Ontario’s robust grid pattern network connects the retail core seamlessly to surrounding neighborhoods, Holt Boulevard, and the Ontario Amtrak station. The layout of street system provides each person with a wide range of choices including travel route and travel mode for each trip. Downtown’s simple, open network of pedestrian-friendly streets and blocks - with perimeters typically less than 1,600 feet – is the ideal public realm framework for any urban, mixed use, or transit-oriented area, the existing block structure should be maintained and completed.

Context Aware and Appropriate
Building Design
Within the Euclid Avenue retail core, buildings from various time periods comfortably mix with newer buildings, unified by a number of important shared characteristics including, 1) tall, clear glass ground floor shopfronts, 2) welcoming entries along the sidewalk that reflect original 25-foot wide lots, 3) upper floor windows that relate to ground floor articulation consistent with a historic main street pattern. Future infill development and renovations should respect and reflect established facade patterns to preserve Downtown’s historic character. The architecture of new buildings should reflect the time in which they are built, while harmonizing with the scale, rhythm, and character of their historic predecessors.

Active Frontages
Within the retail core, the large clear glass shopfronts built right up to the sidewalk “blur the line” between the outdoor public realm and the indoor private businesses, prominently displaying wares and activities to passerby and in many cases allowing those activities – dining in particular – to spill out onto the sidewalks and into plazas and parks. On side streets as one moves toward surrounding neighborhoods, ground floor offices and residences require some degree of privacy from passersby, buildings are set back from the sidewalk, reducing visibility into the residence or office, while offering views outward to the street and other public spaces, improving public safety and pedestrian comfort.

Managed Infrastructure
Successful downtowns require active and coordinated management of parking, public realm maintenance, special events, business recruitment, and on-going promotional activities to remain competitive with other downtown areas, lifestyle shopping centers, and “experience retail” destinations. Downtown Ontario and other regional downtowns must compete for customers, visitors, tenants, and events with successful, managed districts, so active, coordinated, management of the Downtown District is necessary to compete.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 31
DRAFT
4638
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Community Design Element CD-04 Airport Metro / Entertainment District Place Type CD-04 Airport Metro / Entertainment District Place Type

2. Airport Metro / Entertainment District
VISION
The Airport / Metro Entertainment District is envisioned as a large-scale regional entertainment hub, leveraging attractions, such as the Toyota Arena and Ontario Mills, supported by a variety of retail and dining options integrated alongside high-intensity office and residential development. This area will evolve into a walkable urban center through the addition of mixed use infill development, a pedestrian-oriented road and trail network, key public realm improvements, and multiple transit options.

LAND USE
Land Use Designation Residential Density & Non-Residential In- tensity Intention Medium Density

11.1 to 25.0 dwelling units per acre
Single/multi-family attached and detached residences including townhouses, courtyard homes, stacked flats, and small lot single-family subdivisions.

High Density 25.1 to 45.0 dwelling units per acre Multi-family dwellings including stacked flats and mid-rise and high-rise residential complexes. Mixed Use - Ontario Center

20.0 to 125.0 dwelling units per acre 2.0 FAR for office uses 1.0 FAR for retail uses This area is one of the most intensive developments in Ontario and is characterized by lowrise (3-5 stories) and mid-rise (5-10 stories), mixed use buildings, iconic architecture, and regionally significant uses, such as the City owned arena and other cultural and entertainment uses. This area accommodates a vertical and horizontal mixture of entertainment, retail, office, and residential uses in an active, pedestrian oriented atmosphere. In this area, the Haven Corridor is envisioned as an elegant, landscaped boulevard lined multi-story office uses near the I-10 and mixed and residential uses closer to the City's northern boundary along 4th Street. There is an approved Specific Plan on this site that may require amendment to align with TOP.

Mixed Use - Ontario Mills

25.0 to 85.0 dwelling units per acre 1.5 FAR for office uses 1.0 FAR for retail uses This area will continue to be our regional retail center. We envision intensification of the area to include additional retail and entertainment, office, and multi-family (3-5 story) residential uses. New development is envisioned to occur along the interior loop road and the perimeter of the area. There is an approved Specific Plan on this site that may require amendment to align with TOP.

Office Commercial 0.75 FAR
An intense mixture of professional office, supported by regional serving retail, service, tourist-serving, entertainment, dining, and supporting service uses that capitalize on strategic locations in Ontario. This designation also allows for professional offices such as financial, legal, insurance, medical, and other similar uses in a neighborhood setting and/or as adaptive reuse.

Public Facility Not applicable Public facilities including civic centers, governmental institutions, police and fire sta- tions, transportation facilities, museums, and public libraries. Public School Not applicable Public schools (K-12) and universities. 3 Conceptual illustration showing mixed
use infill development, streetscaping, and public realm improvements on Concourse Steet, near the Toyota Arena.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 32
DRAFT
4639
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Community Design Element CD-04 Airport Metro / Entertainment District Place Type AIRPORT METRO / ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT INTENDED OUTCOMES This section describes the intended result, or outcome, of applying Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-oriented Place Type Policies (CD-3.1 to CD-3.6) to this Place Type.

Unique Identity
The Airport Metro/ Entertainment District is envisioned as a major urban hub with a significant concentration of jobs, retail, entertainment, and housing, organized around a pedestrian-oriented street pattern that provides a uniquely urban experience and a rich public realm.

Comfortable, Safe, Human
Scale Public Realm
A walkable, urban-scale public realm that includes the street network and a series of connected public spaces is envisioned to create comfortable, human-scale, pedestrian-oriented public spaces. To achieve this, as new infill development occurs, surface parking lots should be reorganized into smaller blocks by introducing new public and private streets that extend through parking areas to establish a walkable network. New streets should include generous sidewalks, large shade trees, and new buildings should be sited and designed to form a strong “streetwall” of urban buildings that define the public spaces.

Complete and Connected Network
The existing street network should be reorganized by adding additional local roads (public and private) that incorporate linkages through existing parking lots to create a walkable block pattern with high-quality pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. In addition to adding more local streets, modifications to existing streets, such as new bicycle facilities, new curbside parking, new bus stops, and new shade trees should be considered to ensure multimodal connectivity, and create walkable, enjoyable urban spaces. The District’s multimodal network of streets, trails, and transit options should link to nearby destinations, including the Ontario International Airport (ONT), Downtown and Guasti/Multimodal Districts, the multimodal transit center, and nearby Metrolink stations.

Context Aware and Appropriate
Building Design
Just as existing major streets can be updated to radically improve walkability and urban character, many existing buildings can be updated to provide better streetfacing frontages. New infill development, on the other hand, should be sited and designed to front sidewalk and other public spaces to establish “outdoor rooms” where people want to spend time. The scale of buildings in this District is envisioned to range from 2 and 3 stories up to 10. Taller buildings should be sited and designed to shape the adjacent public spaces, and providing views of the San Bernardino Mountains and surrounding city from the windows, balconies and roof terraces.

Active Frontages
Commercial frontages in this District should be characterized by tall, clear glass ground floors filled with restaurants and bars, nightclubs and music venues, retail shops, restaurants, and offices. Many of the District’s streets – as well as other open spaces such as plazas, squares, courtyards, balconies, and roof terraces – will be activated by outdoor dining and other interior uses that spill into the street, creating a lively street life and blurring the line between outdoor and indoor uses. Residential and office uses should overlook the public realm from upper floors, and on some local streets ground floor.

Managed Infrastructure
Active and coordinated management of the public realm will be critical to the success of the Entertainment District as it becomes an increasingly vibrant, active, and intense urban environment. Shared parking, should be prioritized to efficiently utilize parking throughout the day, limit the amount of land needed to accommodate parking, encourage people to park once and walk to a variety of destinations within the District, and promote transit ridership. In addition to shared infrastructure, shared maintenance and management of public open spaces throughout the District would ensure a cohesive, efficient, and coordinated series of public spaces.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 33
DRAFT
4640
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Community Design Element CD-05 Guasti/Multimodal District Place Type CD-05 Guasti/Multimodal District Place Type

3. Guasti/Multimodal District
VISION
The historic Guasti (winery) Village sets the theme and backdrop for the Guasti/Multimodal District. The district is envisioned to preserve and enhance the historic buildings as the focal point of a vibrant mixed use area that leverages its proximity to the Ontario International Airport, Ontario Convention Center, and the potential future development of a multimodal transit center. The district will include intense office, commercial, and lodging uses along the I-10 corridor, and —appropriately-scaled residential, office, commercial, and lodging near the Guasti Village historic district core. The multimodal mixed use area within the Guasti/Multimodal District is intended to leverage proximity to the future multimodal transportation center and link the Convention Center, Guasti compound, and airport through strong physical and visual design. .

LAND USE
Land Use Designation Residential Density & Non-Residential In- tensity Intention Mixed Use - Guasti

25.0 to 65.0 dwelling units per acre 1.0 FAR for office and retail uses This site includes the Guasti Winery, which is on the National Register of Historic Places. This area is envisioned as a mixture of high-quality office, lodging, retail and residential uses that incorporate the Guasti Winery. More intensive office and commercial uses are envisioned along I-10 while office, commercial, and lodging uses are envisioned in and around the historic structures; the southern portion of the area is being considered as potential site for the multimodal transit center. There is an approved Specific Plan on this site that may require amendment to align with TOP.

Mixed Use - Multimodal

20.0 to 80.0 dwelling units per acre 1.0 FAR for office and retail uses The Multimodal Mixed Use Area is under consideration for our future multimodal transit station that links rail, regional, local, and Airport transit. Intensive office, retail, and residential uses are envisioned to be integrated with the transit station, which is expected to be within the area or in close proximity. The transit center is envisioned as an iconic, convenient, and intuitively designed multimodal transportation center that serves the City of Ontario and the region at-large.

Open Space - Non-Rec Not applicable
Open space that includes utility easements, and drainage channels. We desire to realize multiple uses from these open spaces, such as trails, greenways, joint-use recreational amenities, landscaped parkways/medians, parking lots, and nurseries.

Guasti Village will be the heart of a unique retail/entertainment district and destination that is unlike any-thing else in the city or broader region.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 34
DRAFT
4641
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Community Design Element CD-05 Guasti/Multimodal District Place Type GUASTI DISTRICT INTENDED OUTCOMES This section describes the intended result, or outcome, of applying Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-oriented Place Type Policies (CD-3.1 to CD-3.6) to this Place Type.

Unique Identity
The remaining historic buildings, structures, landscape, and spatial relationships that represent the viticulture company town of Guasti Village establish a clear and unique identity that will be preserved and celebrated as the area evolves into a unique urban hub that blends modern mixed use development, hospitality, jobs, housing, and transit access with the historic agrarian scale, character, and landscapes of the original Guasti (winery) Village.

Comfortable, Safe, Human
Scale Public Realm
A new network of comfortable, human-scale, pedestrian-oriented public spaces that preserve and enhance the historic site is envisioned within this District. To achieve this, a new network of pedestrian-oriented, shaded, treelined streets, and other public open spaces should be established. The design of the overall District should celebrate and connect the historic site to other points of interest such as the Ontario Convention Center, Ontario International Airport (ONT), and a planned multimodal transit center. Existing heritage trees should be utilized to offer shade, define the boundaries of public spaces, and provide wind-protection.

Complete and Connected
Network
A walkable block structure, similar in scale to the Downtown District, is envisioned to create connections between the Ontario International Airport (ONT), the Ontario Convention Center, the Guasti site, higher intensity uses along the I-10 corridor, and the District’s multimodal transit options including BRT service, Ontario Airport Loop, and creation of the city’s multimodal transit center. The street pattern should be augmented by a network of public spaces that blend the District’s historical roots with more urban forms of land use. Within this walkable block structure, some variation may occur. For example, some blocks may be dedicated entirely to surface or structured parking to accommodate the needs of regional-serving retail uses and businesses.

Context Aware and Appropriate
Building Design
This District is located between the I-10 freeway, and ONT airport, with limited transitions between this area and other uses. As a result, context aware design should focus on providing appropriate transitions between the historic site within the District, the more intense uses along the I-10 corridor, and the hospitality uses near the Ontario Convention Center. Buildings of all scales should be sited and designed to spatially define the network of local streets and open spaces.

Active Frontages
The array of uses envisioned for this District requires a flexible palette of frontage activation strategies. Streetscapes and open spaces adjacent to office and employment uses should be activated by large main entries, lobbies, bike parking areas and employee break rooms and yards. Retail, restaurant, and entertainment uses should incorporate large windows that encourages uses to spill out into the street. Hotels or other hospitality uses should face the public realm with lobbies and restaurants, and housing should serve to activate some of the smaller streets, green spaces, and paseos by orienting lobbies, community rooms, terraces, courtyards, and balconies towards public spaces in a way that provides residents with both privacy and views of the streets and other public open spaces.

Managed Infrastructure
To reduce the land area devoted to parking cars to the practical minimum, it will be important that good transit service is provided to the District by the several lines currently in the planning stages, and that shared parking facilities are provided and actively managed. Coordinated maintenance and management of public and common area landscaping and lighting within cohesive areas of the District should also be required.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 35
DRAFT
4642
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Community Design Element CD-06 South Euclid District Place Type CD-06 South Euclid District Place Type

4. South Euclid District
VISION
Lying at the southwest corner of the city, the South Euclid District is envisioned to develop as a vertically- and horizontally mixed use area to serve the populations of newly developing Ontario Ranch and adjoining communities. The district will include a range of housing types integrated within and alongside retail, commercial, and office uses, as well as public spaces and trails that connect the "Great Grand Park" to Euclid Avenue.

The area is intended to be highly walkable with pedestrian-oriented site design and road network and amenitized transit stops that leverage the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) investments.

LAND USE
Land Use Designation Residential Density & Non-Residential In- tensity Intention Medium Density 20.1 to 25.0 dwelling units per acre1 Single/multi-family attached and detached residences including townhouses, court- yard homes, stacked flats, and small lot single-family subdivisions.Mixed Use - Great Grand Park

14.01 to 65.0 dwelling units per
acre 1.5 FAR for office uses 1.0 FAR for retail uses Subject to Specific Plan1 The Great Grand Park Mixed Use Areas are envisioned as the southwestern activity centers for citizens of Ontario. These areas accommodate a vertical and horizontal mixture of commercial, office, entertainment, and residential uses all connecting to the Great Grand Park with a pedestrian oriented atmosphere. It is envisioned that the major roads through these Mixed Use areas are couplets, which are a series of one-way streets that disperse traffic and allow reduced street widths, maximize the sense of community, and emphasize pedestrian accessibility. These Mixed Use areas are envisioned as low-rise (3-5 stories) with some mid-rise (5-10 stories) near the intersection of Euclid and Edison/Ontario Ranch Road.

Note:

1. All medium density and mixed use parcels within the South Euclid District are within the affordable housing overlay zoning district. The overlay, 1) sets a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre; and 2) waives the specific plan requirement if there is no existing specific plan and the proposed project includes 20 percent of units affordable to lower incomes, consistent with Tier 1 requirements outlined in the development code; and 3) allows a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre in the medium density land use category if the project includes 25 percent of units affordable to lower incomes, consistent with Tier 2 requirements outlined in the development code.

A new mixed use and lifestyle center within the South Euclid District would create a destination and amenity for neighborhoods in south Ontario - as well as surrounding neighborhoods in Chino, Eastvale, and beyond.

SCE Easement
Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 36
DRAFT
4643
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Community Design Element CD-06 South Euclid District Place Type SOUTH EUCLID DISTRICT INTENDED OUTCOMES This section describes the intended result, or outcome, of applying Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-oriented Place Type Policies (CD-3.1 to CD-3.6) to this Place Type.

Unique Identity
The design character of the South Euclid District is envisioned to be varied, with a retail and civic core near Euclid Avenue that acts as a high-quality lifestyle center, with a highly walkable system of local roads, building and site design that enhance the pedestrian experience, and a connected network of outdoor spaces that link the larger open spaces of the “Great Grand Park” and provide access to transit stops. The District will include a variety of attached and multifamily housing types in a very walkable, sustainable, and urban neighborhood setting.

Comfortable, Safe, Human
Scale Public Realm
The public realm in the South Euclid District is envisioned as a walkable local street pattern that links a network of other public spaces, like plazas and parks, together, ultimately connecting to the “Great Grand Park.” The public realm is defined by thoughtfully designed adjacent buildings and appropriate landscaping. To achieve this, buildings should be sited to create inviting outdoor spaces, and facades should be articulated at regular intervals. Indoor uses should engage adjacent public spaces. Retail shops and restaurants should face wide, shaded sidewalks that provide opportunities for indoor uses, such as dining, to spill out into the street. Whenever possible, commercial parking should be located in shared parking lots or structures within blocks behind shops and buildings, while residential parking should be alley-loaded.

Complete and Connected
Network
The South Euclid District is envisioned to be organized around a simple connective block structure that is similar in scale to the Downtown District, with typical blocks that are approximately 1,600 feet in perimeter, a size that facilitates pedestrian activity. The street pattern should logically and conveniently link to neighborhoods within and next to the District, and the public space network within the District should establish a strong connection to the “Great Grand Park”, linking it to the District, Euclid Avenue, and transit stops along Ontario Ranch Road. Some variation in the pattern may occur. Streets may be closed to vehicular access, with buildings fronting public spaces. Alternatively, blocks may be dedicated to surface or structured parking to serve retail and business uses. Maintaining safe and convenient pedestrian access should be prioritized.

Context Aware and Appropriate
Building Design
Buildings should be designed and scaled relative to the spaces they front. In commercial areas, buildings may include vertically mixed use projects with commercial on the ground floor, and housing or offices on the upper floors, standalone multifamily housing, or stand-alone office buildings. Less intense development is envisioned to the east along the “Great Grand Park” frontage with, one- to threestory commercial, residential, and office uses that provide a strong presence and enhance the pedestrian environment. Housing should reflect the scale, massing, and character of nearby buildings, with higher density apartments near the commercial core and around transit stops, transitioning to smaller scale multifamily and attached homes near adjacent neighborhoods.

Active Frontages
Within the commercial areas, ground floor building design should incorporate tall, clear shopfronts that blur the line between outdoor and indoor environments and allow for activities like outdoor dining to occupy adjacent sidewalks or other public spaces. Residential buildings should be sited and designed to engage the street while maintaining privacy. Front doors and stoops should front the street and outdoor living spaces should overlook residential street and spaces.

Managed Infrastructure
Coordinated management of District-wide facilities and infrastructure will play an integral role in fostering a robust pedestrian atmosphere. Shared parking strategies in the commercial core should be established to encourage visitors to park once and enjoy the area on foot, fully utilize available parking at all times of day, and provide flexibility to better adapt to changes in land use as well as changing trends in how people travel. Shared maintenance should also be established to provide efficient, consistent, and sustainable maintenance and management of public spaces.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 37
DRAFT
4644
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Community Design Element CD-07 South Employment District Place Type CD-07 South Employment District Place Type

5. South Employment District
VISIONThe South Employment District is envisioned to foster employee-intensive office, entertainment facilities, live/work, and supporting retail uses in a campus environment designed to leverage proximity to the Great Park and maintain compatibility with surrounding residential areas. Outside of the Chino Airport safety zone, higher density stand-alone and mixed use residential neighborhoods are intended to orient toward the Great Park and incorporate transition areas from the surrounding business park uses. .LAND USE
Land Use Designation Residential Density & Non-Residential In- tensity Intention Mixed Use -
Eucalyptus / Chino Airport Overlay

25.0 to 45.0 dwelling units per acre (outside of airport safety zone) 2.0 FAR for office and verticallymixed uses 0.60 FAR for business park and retail uses Subject to Specific Plan1 Envisioned to primarily accommodate employee-intensive office, entertainment facilities, live/work, and supporting retail uses in a campus environment designed to leverage proximity to the park and maintain compatibility with surrounding residential areas. Stand-alone and mixed use residential is permitted outside of the Chino Airport safety zone, primarily centered on Grove. Business park uses, such as research and development and “clean” industrial are also permitted provided they do not involve the frequent use of trucks (Class 4 or higher) as part of its primary activities.

Open Space -
Recreation Not applicable
Open space that includes utility easements, and drainage channels. We desire to realize multiple uses from these open spaces, such as trails, greenways, joint-use recreational amenities, landscaped parkways/medians, parking lots, and nurseries.

Note:

1. All mixed use parcels within the South Employment District are within the affordable housing overlay zoning district. The overlay, 1) sets a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre; 2) waives the specific plan requirement if there is no existing specific plan and the proposed project includes 20 percent of units affordable to lower incomes, consistent with Tier 1 requirements outlined in the development code; and 3) allows a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre in the medium density land use category if the project includes 25 percent of units affordable to lower incomes, consistent with Tier 2 requirements outlined in the development code.

The Great Park-inspired, campus-like setting of the South Employment District will attract a variety of employment generating uses.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 38
DRAFT
4645
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Community Design Element CD-07 South Employment District Place Type SOUTH EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT INTENDED OUTCOMES This section describes the intended result, or outcome, of applying Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-oriented Place Type Policies (CD-3.1 to CD-3.6) to this Place Type.

Unique Identity
The South Employment District is envisioned as an employment hub with integrated residential uses concentrated around Grove Avenue, and supporting commercial uses, set in a campus-like environment. Proximity to the “Great Park,” higher-density housing, and transit opportunities along Ontario Ranch Road will drive the success of this District as a pedestrian-first, transitoriented campus. A roadway between the mixed use area and the southern park boundary will provide public access to the “Great Park” from within the District, and attract visitors to the area outside of office hours.

Comfortable, Safe, Human
Scale Public Realm
A complete network of complete streets will combine with Great Park access to form the foundation for establishing a comfortable, human-scale public realm in this District. The “Great Park” will bring broad open spaces and citywide trail connections into this area, which should connect to the new network of streets. The planned roadways in this area provide the foundation for a walkable network of streets and sidewalks, but an interconnected system of secondary local streets that link public spaces to the Great Park should be established.

Complete and Connected
Network
The South Employment District is envisioned to be organized around a connective multimodal network in a campus-like environment. Portions of the network will provide vehicular accesses, but circulation within the District will focus on providing pedestrian and bicycle connections between residences, employment centers, the “Great Park,” and transit stops along Ontario Ranch Road through a network of interconnected pedestrian malls, local streets, and other public spaces.

Context Aware and Appropriate
Building Design
Buildings in this District are expected to range from 2 to 4-stories in height, with simple massing, and modern design. Uses may include office, apartments, attached residential, vertically mixed use projects, buildings that mix offices with and supporting retail and commercial uses. “Clean industrial” and business park uses like R&D and maker spaces should be clustered near Eucalyptus Avenue, and buildings should have minimal dock doors. To ensure compatibility within and adjacent to the District, housing should be located near the "Great Park.” oriented toward quieter local streets and open spaces, and screened from parking, loading areas, and noises produced by nearby uses. Commercial uses should be concentrated at strategic locations where they are convenient to workers, residents, and visitors, accessible by all travel modes, and located between major destinations and transit stops.

Active Frontages
Buildings in this District are envisioned to have large footprints and simple massing. They should be designed to activate the public spaces by locating primary entrances, main lobbies, bike parking areas, employee lunchrooms, outdoor break areas, and other active uses along those frontages. Long walls should be articulated using appropriately placed windows, architectural details, and human-scale landscaping. Uses that benefit from limited fenestration should be located toward the rear of the building, while commercial, office, and residential uses should overlook adjacent public spaces. Service areas like, trash enclosures, loading docks, and utility service entrances should be located to the rear of the buildings, along alleys, loading areas, and parking area.

Managed Infrastructure
Coordinated management of facilities and infrastructure will play an integral role in maintaining a robust district where people want to spend time. Shared parking strategies should be established to encourage visitors to park once and enjoy the area on foot, fully utilize available parking at all times of day, and provide flexibility to better adapt to changes in land use as well as changing trends in how people travel. Shared maintenance should also be established to provide efficient, consistent, and sustainable maintenance and management of public spaces.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 39
DRAFT
4646
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Community Design Element CD-07 Sports Empire District Place Type CD-07 Sports Empire District Place Type

5. Sports Empire District
VISION
The Sports Empire district is envisioned as a vibrant, year-round regional destination where local residents and visitors come together around sports, recreation, and entertainment within a walkable, mixed-use environment. Anchored by ONT Field and professional baseball, the district integrates entertainment, hospitality, retail, and housing with open space and recreational assets to form a lively, walkable entertainment district. The district is integrated and highly connected to the surrounding residential communities, supporting daily activity, neighborhood vitality, and seamless connections to sports facilities, community amenities, and everyday destinations. Together, these elements create a cohesive district that thrives during major events while remaining an inviting place for the Ontario community to live, gather, recreate, and enjoy throughout the year.LAND USE Land Use
Designation
Residential Density &
Non-Residential
Intensity
Intention
Open Space -
Recreation Not applicable
We desire to realize multiple uses from these open spaces both public and private, such as trails, greenways, joint-use recreational amenities, landscaped parkways/ medians.

Open Space –
Non-Recreation Not applicable
Open space that includes utility easements and drainage channels. We desire to realize multiple uses from these open spaces, such as trails, greenways, parking lots, and nurseries.

Hospitality 1.00 FAR Regional serving tourist-serving, retail, entertainment, and service uses that support the Ontario Sports Empire. Mixed Use – Sports Park

25.0 to 65.0 du/ac; 1.0 FAR retail & hospitality; 1.5 FAR office Subject to PUD or Specific Plan1 The Sports Park Mixed Use Areas are envisioned as a mixed-use recreation and entertainment hub, accommodating a vertical and horizontal mixture of commercial, office, entertainment, hospitality, and residential uses all in proximity to the Sports Park. This Mixed-use area is envisioned as low-to-mid-rise (3-5 stories), a mixture of hospitality, commercial, residential, and office uses that will create identity and place along the corridor and serve the surrounding residents.

High Density 25.1 to 45.0 dwelling units per acre Multi-family dwellings, including stacked flats and mid-rise and high-rise residential complexes.

Notes: 1. Mixed-use and residential parcels South of Chino Avenue within this District are identified in the City’s Housing Element, and are included in the affordable housing overlay zoning district. These properties are exempt from the specific plan requirement if there is no existing specific plan or PUD and the project seeking exemption includes 20 percent of units affordable to lower incomes, consistent with Tier 1 requirements of the affordable housing overlay zone.

The Ontario Sports Empire will create a
local, regional, and national destination for sports and entertainment uses. The facility distinguishes itself as the “largest multi-use sports complex west of the Rocky Mountains” capable of hosting a wide range of recreational, tournament, and event activities, Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 40
DRAFT
4647
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Community Design Element CD-07 Sports Empire District Place Type SPORTS EMPRIRE DISTRICT INTENDED OUTCOMES This section describes the intended result, or outcome, of applying Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-oriented Place Type Policies (CD-3.1 to CD-3.6) to this Place Type.

Unique Identity
The Ontario Sports Empire District will be recognized as a distinct, sports-themed destination and community place. District design, architecture, public art, signage, and open spaces reinforce an energetic identity centered on sports, competition, recreation, and year-round activity. ONT Field serves as a focal landmark, incorporating aviation-inspired design elements that reference Ontario’s airport legacy while remaining rooted in the district’s overall sports character. Gateways, plazas, and major pedestrian corridors create memorable arrival experiences and a cohesive sense of place that distinguishes the Sports Empire within the city.

Comfortable, Safe, Human
Scale Public Realm
Pedestrian corridors, plazas, parks, and open spaces are designed at a comfortable, human scale that supports daily activity, play, and large event crowds. Wide walkways, shade trees, shade structures, seating, lighting, intuitive circulation, and clear wayfinding create welcoming spaces for walking, socializing, playing, and outdoor dining. Public spaces accommodate both pre- and post-event activity and everyday community use, encouraging social interaction, safety, extended stays, and casual recreation. Housing integrated within the district benefits from direct access to these corridors, amenities, and open spaces, while remaining comfortably connected to higher-intensity event areas.

Complete and Connected
Network
A coordinated network of pedestrian corridors, trails, and streets links uses within the district, including ONT Field, sports and recreational facilities, parks, housing, and visitor-serving amenities, and safe, accessible connections across major streets provides connections to future communities. Internal pathways are designed to support a park-once approach, enabling visitors to reach multiple destinations safely and comfortably without moving vehicles between venues. Wide walkways, shade, seating, intuitive circulation, and clear wayfinding create comfortable, human-scale routes that support walking, biking, play, socializing, and casual recreation. The City will also collaborate with transit providers to bring transit access to the site as the district develops.

Context Aware and Appropriate
Building Design
Buildings within the Sports Empire District express a cohesive architectural character that supports entertainment, hospitality, retail, and residential activity. Landmark buildings frame plazas, parks, and corridors with engaging façades, shaded walkways, and features that reinforce the district’s identity and create memorable public spaces. Design emphasizes active, pedestrianoriented edges that connect open spaces, streets, hotels, retail, and event venues. Housing is located and designed to be compatible with nearby sports facilities by thoughtfully addressing lighting and activity impacts while maintaining visual and pedestrian links to district amenities. Success is evident in buildings and public spaces that are welcoming for daily use, accommodate visitors and community life, enhance retail vitality, and contribute to a cohesive, walkable district that functions well on both event and non-event days.

Active Frontages
Streets, plazas, and pedestrian corridors within the Sports Empire District are enlivened by active building edges supporting entertainment, hospitality, retail, and residential uses. Ground-floor facades and frequent entrances engage sidewalks, parks, and gathering spaces, creating visual interest, shade, and comfort throughout the day and evening. Outdoor dining, seating, and amenity spaces adjacent to walkways extend activity into the public realm. Hotel lobbies, retail storefronts, and venue entrances face key pedestrian routes, reinforcing connections between uses and encouraging continuous movement. Where housing abuts public spaces, thoughtful design balances activation with privacy and comfort. Success is evident in streetscapes that feel lively, safe, and walkable on both event and non-event days, supporting seamless connections throughout the district.

Managed Infrastructure
Infrastructure within the Sports Empire District is planned cohesively to support a vibrant, park once walkable environment that shares resources to accommodate entertainment, hospitality, retail, and residential uses across both event and everyday conditions. Parking, utilities, stormwater systems, and service access are designed at a district scale to function efficiently during peak activity while enhancing overall connectivity, comfort, and character. Shared circulation infrastructure supports park-once goals and creates a cohesive network to navigate the site, while green infrastructure, shade elements, and landscape features are integrated throughout to improve comfort, environmental performance, and visual quality. Success is evident in infrastructure that supports seamless movement, reinforces the district’s identity, and enhances experiences for visitors and residents alike.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 41
DRAFT
4648
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Community Design Element CD-08 Corridors Place Type
CD-08 Corridor Place Types

6. East Holt Boulevard Corridor
VISIONHolt Boulevard is an important east-west corridor connecting Ontario to the greater region, with improved connectivity options through the addition of BRT service. This corridor is envisioned to gradually build out over time through infill development that ultimately yields vibrant neighborhood-serving commercial areas, a variety of housing options, and employment opportunities that are clustered around BRT stops that can be easily accessed by pedestrians and bicyclists. .

LAND USE
Land Use Designation Residential Density & Non-Residential In- tensity Intention Low Density 2.1 to 5.0 dwelling units per acre Single-family detached residences. Medium Density 11.1 to 25.0 dwelling units per acre Single/multi-family attached and detached residences including townhouses, court- yard homes, stacked flats, and small lot single-family subdivisions. Mixed Use - Downtown1

Mixed Use - Holt Blvd1

14.02 to 40.0 dwelling units per
acre 2.0 FAR for office uses 1.0 FAR for retail uses
This area is envisioned as a low-rise (3-5 stories) intensification of the Holt Corridor. The intent is to create identity and place along the Holt Corridor, connect the corridor to Downtown, and connect the Downtown to the Ontario Airport Metro Center.

Neighborhood Commercial 0.40 FAR Local serving retail, personal service, office, and dining uses, typically located within a predominantly residential neighborhood. Business Park 0.60 FAR Employee-intensive office uses including corporate offices, technology centers, research and development, “clean” industry, light manufacturing, and supporting retail within a business park setting.

Public Facility Not applicable Public facilities including civic centers, governmental institutions, police and fire sta- tions, transportation facilities, museums, and public libraries.

Notes:

1. Subject to PUD at City’s discretion. 2. Some mixed use parcels within the Holt Boulevard Corridor are within the affordable housing overlay zoning district. The overlay sets a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre.

Conceptual rendering showing how mixed use and business park infill development could create active frontages, a lively pedestrian experience, and new public spaces along Holt Boulevard.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 42
DRAFT
4649
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Community Design Element CD-08 Corridors Place Type 7. Inland Empire Boulevard Corridor VISION
The Inland Empire Boulevard Corridor connects Vineyard Avenue and the Convention Center directly to the heart of the Airport / Metro Entertainment District and future BRT. Near- to mid-term improvements include the addition of significant rows of large street trees to provide shade, spatial definition, and a better pedestrian environment; the addition of new bicycle facilities, infill buildings oriented to the street, and reorientation of existing building entrances toward the street where possible. Over the longer term, this corridor has the potential to become a westward extension of the Airport / Metro Entertainment District environment. .

LAND USE
Land Use Designation Residential Density & Non-Residential In- tensity Intention Mixed Use - Meredith
1425.0 to 125.0 dwelling units
per acre 3.0 FAR for office and retail uses
This area is envisioned as a mixture of mid-rise buildings, regional-serving retail and office centers, and stand-alone high density residential projects.

Mixed Use - Inland Empire Corridor

14.0 to 30.0 dwelling units per acre 2.0 FAR for office uses 1.0 FAR for retail uses Located along Inland Empire Boulevard, this area is primarily residential with a retail center at the corner of Inland Empire Boulevard and Archibald. Commercial uses that relate to the park are envisioned for the area West of the regional park.

Aerial image of Inland Empire Boulevard Corridor looking East from Vineyard Avenue.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 43
DRAFT
4650
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Community Design Element CD-08 Corridors Place Type CORRIDOR INTENDED OUTCOMES (ALL CORRIDORS) This section describes the intended result, or outcome, of applying Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-oriented Place Type Policies (CD-3.1 to CD-3.6) to this Place Type.

Unique Identity
Corridors present the opportunity to transform an underutilized transportation corridor into a distinctive urban place, with infill development including new housing, transit-accessible job centers, and inviting commercial areas. Public spaces along the transportation corridors should be designed to allow for widened sidewalks, framed by street trees, and multi-story housing, offices, or mixed use buildings.

Comfortable, Safe, Human
Scale Public Realm
The primary street, and important cross streets within a corridor should be designed to allow for wide, walkable sidewalks that provide access to new housing, offices shops and restaurants, and create a pedestrian experience that is attractive, enjoyable, and meets the daily needs of local residents, transit riders, workers and visitors. The tree-lined corridor and landscaped cross streets should be augmented by a network of small plazas and public spaces that provide neighborhood gathering points, and ideal locations for transit stops.

Complete and Connected
Network
Access to corridor parcels and flanking uses should be organized as regularly spaced multimodal streets, or access points. These intersections should be designed to ensure safe, comfortable, and convenient pedestrian and bicycle travel, with for low-speed vehicular access at limited intervals. Vacant, underdeveloped, and underutilized parcels should be organized into new walkable blocks that link destinations within the corridor, such as commercial areas and transit stops to adjacent neighborhoods and employment centers. Large blocks (greater than 500 feet) on corridors adjacent to residential neighborhoods or employment centers should establish mid-block pedestrian paseos to encourage people to walk and bike to destinations along the primary corridor street.

Context Aware and Appropriate
Building Design
The linear nature of corridors focuses development and investments in relatively shallow infill sites, leaving little room to transition from an active mixed use environment to a quieter neighborhood. Parcels adjacent to residential uses should provide seamless transitions from more intense corridor development to less intense neighborhoods. Types of transitions will vary based on the type of adjacent uses, scale of buildings, and lot depth. Appropriate transitions may include, but are not limited to, “step down” building massing that reduces height as it approached residential neighborhoods, landscaped setbacks, scaled down development overall, and interior green or public spaces that provide a buffer between uses.

Active Frontages
Frontages within corridors should enable and promote human activity in the public realm. Retail and restaurant frontages should have tall shopfronts that face and wide shaded sidewalks. Residential frontages should raise the ground floor units above the street to provide adequate privacy, but not so high that pedestrians must walk past a blank ground floor. All buildings should also provide “eyes on the street” from both ground floor and upper floor windows, terraces, and balconies, to improve safety for transit riders and pedestrians.

Policy CD-3.6 Managed Infrastructure
Segments of Urban Corridors with significant amounts of nonresidential use are prime candidates for shared parking districts and maintenance districts.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 44
DRAFT
4651
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Community Design Element CD-09 Neighborhood Centers Place Type CD-09 Neighborhood Center Place Types
8 (a-e) Neighborhood Center - Infill
VISION
Neighborhood Centers located in areas where the commercial and residential parcels were largely developed in an incremental manner prior to 2020, are north of Riverside Drive, and are categorized as “infill” centers. These centers will range in size, complexity, and relationship to the surrounding streets and neighborhoods. Some are very small centers that may only include a horizontal mix of uses fronting onto a wide sidewalk while others may involve a vertically integrated mix of higher density residential and nonresidential uses oriented around a public plaza or other form of open space. All of these centers are envisioned to incorporate site design that prioritizes safe, and attractive, and well-shaded pedestrian access onsite, from the public rights-of-way, and from the adjacent neighborhoods. .

LAND USE
Land Use Designation Residential Density & Non-Residential Intensity Intention Low Density 2.1 to 5.0 dwelling units per acre Single-family detached residences.

Low-Medium Density 5.1 to 11.0 dwelling units per acre Single/multi-family attached and detached residences, including small lot sub- divisions, townhouses, and courtyard homes.

Medium Density 11.1 to 25.0 dwelling units per acre Single/multi-family attached and detached residences including townhouses, courtyard homes, stacked flats, and small lot single-family subdivisions. High Density 25.1 to 45.0 dwelling units per acre Multi-family dwellings including stacked flats and mid-rise and high-rise resi- dential complexes. Mixed Use -Neighborhood Activity Hubs

20.0 to 75.0 dwelling units per acre 1.0 FAR for retail and office Subject to PUD at City’s discretion Envisioned as a low-rise (3-5 stories), mixture of retail and residential uses that will create identity and place along the corridor and serve the surrounding residents. [Link to Community Design Element Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-oriented Place Types Section, Community Design Element Exhibits CD-01, CD-02, and CD-09] Neighborhood Commercial 0.40 FAR Local serving retail, personal service, office, and dining uses, typically located within a predominantly residential neighborhood. General Commercial 0.40 FAR Local and regional serving retail, personal service, entertainment, dining, office, tourist-serving, and related commercial uses. Office Commercial 0.75 FAR An intense mixture of professional office, supported by regional serving retail, service, tourist-serving, entertainment, dining, and supporting service uses that capitalize on strategic locations in Ontario. This designation also allows for professional offices such as financial, legal, insurance, medical, and other similar uses in a neighborhood setting and/or as adaptive reuse.

Business Park 0.60 FAR
Employee-intensive office uses including corporate offices, technology centers, research and development, “clean” industry, light manufacturing, and supporting retail within a business park setting.

Mixed use Neighborhood Centers are intended to bring many daily needs and community amenities within easy reach of most residents.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 45
DRAFT
4652
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Community Design Element CD-09 Neighborhood Centers Place Type 8 (f-jl) Neighborhood Center – South of Riverside DriveVISION Neighborhood Centers identified south of Riverside Drive are generally underutilized or vacant as of 2022. These Neighborhood Centers are envisioned to bring new vitality and involve some level of master planning, with the roadway, pathways, open spaces, public realm designs, and site designs coordinated prior to the development of all of the parcels. These centers will range in size, complexity, and relationship to the surrounding streets and neighborhoods. Some of these centers will involve a small node of mixed use development that is connected to the “Grandeat Park” while others will involve larger clusters of mixed use areas that serve as a focaluspoint for the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The largest of these centers are intended to serve not only as a local focal point but also as a major citywide landmark that also connects directly to the “Grandeat Park”. All but the smallest of these centers are envisioned to consist of some amount of vertically integrated and higher intensity residential, office, and retail buildings oriented toward the “Grandeat Park”, large public plazas, and/or large trail systems. All of these centers are envisioned to incorporate site design that prioritizes safe, attractive, and well-shaded pedestrian access onsite, from the public rights-of-way, and from the adjacent neighborhoods. Parking areas are to be located next to and behind buildings to provide a variety of frontages along streets.

LAND USE
Land Use Designation
Residential Density &
Non-Residential Intensity
Intention
Low Density 2.1 to 5.0 dwelling units per acre Single-family detached residences. Low-Medium Density 5.1 to 11.0 dwelling units per acre Single/multi-family attached and detached residences, including small lot subdivisions, townhouses, and courtyard homes. Medium Density 11.11 to 25.0dwelling units per acre Single/multi-family attached and detached residences including townhouses, court- yard homes, stacked flats, and small lot single-family subdivisions. High Density 25.1 to 45.0 dwelling units per acre Multi-family dwellings including stacked flats and mid-rise and high-rise residential complexes. Mixed Use - Great Grand Park

14.01 to 65.0 dwelling units per acre

1.5 FAR for office uses 1.0 FAR for retail uses Subject to Specific Plan1 The Great Grand Park Mixed Use Areas are envisioned as the southwestern activity centers for citizens of Ontario. These areas accommodate a vertical and horizontal mixture of commercial, office, entertainment, and residential uses all connecting to the Great Grand Park with a pedestrian oriented atmosphere. It is envisioned that the major roads through these Mixed Use areas are couplets, which are a series of one-way streets that disperse traffic and allow reduced street widths, maximize the sense of community, and emphasize pedestrian accessibility. These Mixed Use areas are envisioned as low-rise (3-5 stories) with some mid-rise (5-10 stories) near the intersection of Euclid and Edison/Ontario Ranch Road.

Mixed Use - Grove

14.01 to 65.0 dwelling units per acre

1.5 FAR for office uses 1.0 FAR for retail uses Subject to Specific Plan1 Envisioned as a low-rise (3-5 stories), mixture of retail and residential uses that will create identity and place along the corridor and serve the surrounding residents.

Mixed Use - Parkside

25.0 to 45.0 dwelling units per acre

1.0 FAR for retail uses
Subject to approved Specific Plan
Envisioned as a low-rise (3-5 stories), mixture of retail and residential uses that will create identity and place and serve the surrounding residents.

Mixed Use Neighborhood Activity Hubs

20.0 to 75.0 dwelling units per acre 1.0 FAR for retail and office Subject to Specific Plan1 Envisioned as a low-rise (3-5 stories), mixture of retail and residential uses that will create identity and place along the corridor and serve the surrounding residents.

Neighborhood Commercial 0.40 FAR Local serving retail, personal service, office, and dining uses, typically located within a predominantly residential neighborhood. General Commercial 0.40 FAR Local and regional serving retail, personal service, entertainment, dining, office, tourist- serving, and related commercial uses. Open Space - Recreation Not applicable Open space that includes utility easements, and drainage channels. We desire to realize multiple uses from these open spaces, such as trails, greenways, joint-use recreational amenities, landscaped parkways/medians, parking lots, and nurseries. Open Space - NonRec Not applicable Open space that includes utility easements, and drainage channels. We desire to realize multiple uses from these open spaces, such as trails, greenways, joint-use recreational amenities, landscaped parkways/medians, parking lots, and nurseries. Public Facility Not applicable Public facilities including civic centers, governmental institutions, police and fire stations, transportation facilities, museums, and public libraries.

Note:

1. Some medium density, high density, and mixed use parcels in the Neighborhood Centers South of Riverside Drive are within the affordable housing overlay zoning district. The overlay, 1) sets a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre; 2) waives the specific plan requirement if there is no existing specific plan and the proposed project includes 20 percent of units affordable to lower incomes, consistent with Tier 1 requirements outlined in the development code; and 3) allows a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre in the medium density land use category if the project includes 25 percent of units affordable to lower incomes, consistent with Tier 2 requirements outlined in the development code. If not covered by a specific plan, projects are still subject to a PUD at the City’s discretion.

Conceptual illustration showing a potential Neighborhood Center – South of Riverside Drive with wide sidewalks, buildings oriented toward the streets, and a variety of transportation options.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 46
DRAFT
4653
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Community Design Element
CD-09 Neighborhood Centers Place Type

NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS INTENDED OUTCOMES (ALL CENTERS)
This section describes the intended result, or outcome, of applying Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-oriented Place Type Policies (CD-3.1 to CD-3.6) to this Place Type Unique Identity
Neighborhood Centers are organized by a pattern of walkable blocks, tree-lined streets and varied architecture within a compact area. Each building, business, and
use contributes to the Center’s
unique character adding value to
the Center and surrounding
neighborhoods by its proximity
and accessibility to them. These
centers are connected to adjoining neighborhoods by a
network of neighborhood streets
and pedestrian connections, not
separated from them by loading
zones, trash enclosures and tall
walls. Appropriate transitions
from the busy environment of the
commercial core of the center to
the quiet neighborhood environments is achieved by gradual transitions in building scale and
level of activity.

Comfortable, Safe, Human
Scale Public Realm
The public realm of Neighborhood Centers includes streets connecting to neighborhoods, and parking lots and other publicly accessible open spaces. These interwoven open spaces meet the functional requirements for vehicular access and parking that are met in
conventional shopping centers by
large parking lots connected to
large streets with auto-only driveways, and provide a comfortable retail experience for residents and
visitors to shop, dine, and spend
time with friends and family.

Complete and Connected
Network
Centers are organized around a
network of local streets, both public and private, that form walkable blocks. Neighborhood centers should be connected to larger
cross-town streets and corridors
by local cross-streets.

To encourage walking and to provide equitable access to goods and services for residents who are unable to drive, additional paseos and other “pedestrian shortcuts”
should be provided when lots or
blocks exceed approximately 500
feet in width.

Context Aware and Appropriate
Building Design
Most Neighborhood Centers face
on crosstown avenues and Neighborhood Corridors. They should front these streets with larger
buildings and high levels of commercial activity. The height, size, and scale of buildings and levels
of activity should systematically
step downward toward adjoining
neighborhoods. Building masses
near single-family neighborhoods
should be reduced in height,
width and bulk, and activities
should transition for very busy
and active retail and restaurant
uses to quieter office and residential uses.

Active Frontages
The ground floors of buildings -
and the public spaces they front -
should be designed to balance the
needs of interior uses with the active public realm.

Retail and restaurant businesses
near the main avenue and within
the retail core of the center, should
be adjacent to wide sidewalks,
and building facades should include with tall, transparent shopfronts providing clear views of merchandise and activity within
each business.

As uses transitions from the retail
core to adjacent neighborhoods
streetscape improvements and
sidewalks should change with
landscape pallet giving way to
sidewalks behind green parkway
strips. Similarly, deeper setbacks
should mark the transition from
Center to neighborhood.

Managed Infrastructure

Coordinated management of facilities and infrastructure will play an integral role in maintaining a successful Neighborhood Center where people want to
spend time.

Shared parking strategies should
be established to encourage visitors to park once and enjoy the area on foot, fully utilize available
parking at all times of day, and
provide flexibility to better adapt
to changes in land use as well as
changing trends in how people
travel.

Shared maintenance should also
be established to provide efficient,
consistent, and sustainable
maintenance and management of
public space.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 47 DRAFT 4654
Housing Element Technical Report
Amendments
A Component of The Ontario Plan 2050
Hearing Draft | June 2026
Please note only sections with proposed amendments are included The current Housing Element Technical Report is available here:
https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2024- 12/HE%20Adopted%2020220821%20Clean_0_0.pdf
Sections with amendments include:
• Chapter 3
• Chapter 5
• Section 9.2
• Appendix B
NOTE: When possible, draft amendments are shown as tracked changes with underlined text indicating additions and strike through text indicating deletions. This results in some formatting and pagination errors in the "H-" numbering. These errors will be corrected in final versions. 4655
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Draft TOP 2050 Amendments (2026)
Housing Element Technical Report
Hearing Draft, June 2026
Table of Contents

HOUSING ELEMENT TECHINCAL REPORT AMENDED SECTIONS
CHAPTER 3.
2026 SITES INVENTORY STRATEGY AND RELATIONSHIP TO ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING ..... 1 SECTION 3.1 OUTREACH ......................................................................................................................... 2 SECTION 3.2 DESCRIPTION OF ONTARIO BY AREA ................................................................................. 5 SECTION 3.3 CITY OF ONTARIO HISTORY................................................................................................ 8 SECTION 3.4 ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING ISSUES ........................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 5.

SECTION 5.1 HOUSING RESOURCES ..................................................................................................... 92 SECTION 5.2 ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES ............................................................ 221 CHAPTER 9.

SECTION 9.2 HOUSING SUPPLY AND DIVERSITY ................................................................................. 229 APPENDIX B.

FIGURE B-1 .......................................................................................................................................... 243 TABLE B-1 ............................................................................................................................................ 245 TABLE B-2 ............................................................................................................................................ 247

ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1: CHAPTER 5. CHANGES BETWEEN PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT AND HEARING DRAFT IN

TRACKED CHANGES
Policy Play Amendments, Hearing DraŌ, June 2026
4656
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adopted March 2022, Revised August 2022, Hearing Draft June 2026 H-1

3. Assessment of Fair Housing
2026 Sites Inventory Strategy and Relationship to
Assessment of Fair Housing
The City has refined its Housing Element sites inventory to respond to updated development trends, site availability, and State housing law requirements, while maintaining the core strategy described in this chapter to affirmatively further fair housing. The revised sites inventory continues to focus on lower and very low income development potential in Ontario Ranch, a TCAC/HCD high-resource area, and along Holt Boulevard and Downtown to support place-based revitalization and address overcrowding, overpayment, and displacement risk in northwest Ontario. Figure 3-13 (2021) shows the 2022 sites inventory relative to the 2021 TCAC opportunity areas, and Figure 3-13 (2026) shows the 2026 sites inventory relative to the 2026 TCAC opportunity areas.

Although specific parcels in the sites inventory have been updated, the overall geographic distribution of capacity by income category and the associated fair housing factors remain consistent with the AFH analysis in this chapter. The updated inventory continues to:
• Reduce the concentration of lower-income households in northwest Ontario.
• Expand affordable housing opportunities in high-resource areas. • Support neighborhood reinvestment in low-resource areas without causing displacement.

The revised sites inventory advances the same fair housing strategy. The City opted to provide a map of 2026 TCAC data due to the role that TCAC plays in the distribution of funds for affordable housing projects.

Otherwise, consistent with direction from HCD, the charts and maps in this section were updated to reflect the new sites inventory and associated analysis. Overall, the changes in the distribution from the new sites inventory were nominal and did not indicate a need to change the identification or prioritization of contributing factors or programs.

About the Assessment of Fair Housing
Assembly Bill (AB) 686 requires that all housing elements due on or after January 1, 2021, contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule of July 16, 2015.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 1
4657
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adopted March 2022, Revised August 2022, Hearing Draft June 2026 H-2 Under state law, AFFH means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.”
AB 686 requires the City of Ontario (City), and all jurisdictions in the state, to complete three major requirements as part of the housing element update:

1. Conduct an AFH that includes a summary of fair housing issues; an analysis of available federal, state, and local data knowledge to identify patterns of segregation or other barriers to fair housing; and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues.

2. Prepare the Housing Element Land Inventory and identification of sites through the lens of AFFH.

3. Include a program in the Housing Element that affirmatively furthers fair housing and promotes housing opportunities throughout the community for protected classes and addresses contributing factors identified in the AFH (applies to housing elements beginning January 1, 2019).

To comply with AB 686, the City has completed the following outreach and analysis. Some of the information is based on the City of Ontario’s 2020 AFH adopted in June 2020, and the San Bernardino County Regional Analysis of Impediments (Regional AI), completed in April 2020.

3.1 Outreach
As discussed in Section 7, Housing Element Outreach, the City has used a variety of outreach methods, in addition to the standard public hearing process, to reach stakeholders and members of all socioeconomic segments of the city.

Feedback obtained through the concurrent greater TOP update outreach effort, which included stakeholder interviews, an online survey, and community and local group workshops, highlighted prominent fair housing issues Ontario residents experience. The City also conducted outreach specific to the topic of Environmental Justice, including stakeholder interviews, and an on‐line Environmental Survey which was advertised on social media and posters at the Community Centers. Staff attended two Concert in the Park events resulting in over 200 responses to the Environmental Survey.

With respect to barriers to access affordable housing, environmental justice groups and residents both identified the rapid increase of housing and rental prices in Ontario, and anecdotally observed an increase in Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 2
4658
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adopted March 2022, Revised August 2022, Hearing Draft June 2026 H-3 displaced and unhoused households. As will be discussed in the analysis of Displacement Risk, this feedback reinforces findings that the prevalence of poverty, particularly in northwest Ontario, makes lower income households vulnerable to displacement with even minor increases in rent. As rapidly rising rent continues to be of concern for Ontario residents and community stakeholders, the City has committed to Programs 2, 23, 24, 27, 31, and 32 that work to implement antidisplacement efforts for lower income households. Community members and stakeholders shared difficulty qualifying for income-restricted affordable housing units, indicating a need to review if the qualification requirements for income-restricted units appropriately address Ontario residents’ housing needs to identify barriers to qualifying (e.g., proof of residency, income levels, employment record, credit history, etc.). This request was included in Programs 7 and 27 (ADUs and Fair Housing) to consider barriers for persons with disabilities in accessing incomerestricted units and as a program consideration for ADU incentive programs. Overall, both community members and environmental justice groups identified that existing affordable housing is largely concentrated in one area of the City, establishing a need to disperse affordable housing in neighborhoods citywide. In particular, community members and stakeholders identified that new development in Ontario Ranch should not be limited to affluent households but include a balance of affordable housing, with the caveat that Ontario Ranch is served by consistent and safe transit options to access essential services. This consideration was included with Program 27 (Fair Housing). To prepare the Ontario 2020 AFH, the City and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law conducted a broad array of outreach to ensure active community involvement, including groups typically underrepresented in the planning process. Through a combination of community meetings, focus groups, community surveys, and public hearings, the City and the Lawyers’ Committee reached out to Ontario residents, including Hispanic groups, tenants, homeowners, fair housing organizations, advocacy groups, social service providers for persons with disabilities, low-income households, and persons experiencing homelessness, among others.

Beginning in February 2020, the Lawyers’ Committee held meetings with individual stakeholders throughout the region. In addition, the City of Ontario organized a series of meetings in predominantly Hispanic communities. On Saturday, February 29, 2020, an all-day community fair was held that attracted hundreds of residents. The City also held an evening meeting with a wide array of organizations to discuss the AFH.

All community meetings had translation services available in Spanish. In addition, all meetings were held in locations accessible to people with mobility issues.

Through the outreach process, the City and the Lawyers’ Committee identified the following salient Fair Housing Goals and Policies, which Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 3
4659
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adopted March 2022, Revised August 2022, Hearing Draft June 2026 H-4 informed the Ontario 2020 AFH. The City’s commitment to these goals and priority actions is included as Program 27.

Goal #1: Increase the supply of affordable housing in
high-opportunity areas.

Ontario has a significant portion of its residents who are rent-burdened and facing severe housing problems. Additionally, publicly supported affordable housing accounts for slightly under 3 percent of the total housing stock, and Ontario and its environs are experiencing rapidly rising housing costs. Members of protected classes, particularly Hispanic and Black residents, experience these problems most acutely. These findings indicate a need to expand the supply of affordable housing. The Ontario 2020 AFH proposes the following priorities to increase the supply of affordable housing:

1. Explore the creation of new funding sources of affordable housing.

2. Using best practices from other jurisdictions, explore policies and programs that increase the supply of affordable housing, such as linkage fees, inclusionary housing, public land set-aside, community land trusts, transit-oriented development, and expedited permitting and review.

3. Explore opportunities to provide low-interest loans to singlefamily homeowners and grants to homeowners with household incomes of up to 120 percent of the Area Median Income to develop accessory dwelling units with affordability restriction on their property.

4. Align development codes to conform to recent California affordable housing legislation.

Goal #2: Increase community integration for persons
with disabilities.

There is a lack of permanent supportive housing for non-elderly persons with disabilities in Ontario. The Ontario 2020 AFH identifies the following priority to expand housing opportunity for non-elderly persons with disabilities.

1. Prioritizing HOME funding for such projects, which should ideally set aside 10 to 25 percent of units for persons with disabilities who need supportive services, the City can help make development proposals more competitive for low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) and Mental Health Services Act assistance.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 4
4660
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adopted March 2022, Revised August 2022, Hearing Draft June 2026 H-5 Goal #3: Ensure equal access to housing for persons with protected characteristics, who are disproportionately
likely to be lower-income and to experience
homelessness.

As community stakeholder meeting attendees were unaware that landlords are required to accept housing vouchers and third-party checks and would benefit from fair housing education, targeted education efforts would help to reduce the incidence of unlawful source of income discrimination. Therefore, the Ontario 2020 AFH proposes the following priority to ensure equal access to housing.

1. Conduct fair housing training for landlords and tenants on California’s Source of Income Discrimination protections to reduce the number of voucher holders turned away.

The San Bernardino County Regional AI used a variety of approaches to achieve meaningful public engagement with residents and stakeholders, including 20 public meetings, 20 stakeholder interviews, and a communitywide survey. Respondents to the community survey reported overwhelmingly that there is a lack of affordable housing in San Bernardino County for both individual and families (selected by 71 percent of respondents) and additionally identified displacement risk due to rising housing costs as a barrier to fair housing (selected by 67 percent of respondents). Stakeholder interviews were conducted with 20 local providers of fair housing/legal advocacy, affordable housing, persons with disabilities, seniors, low-income households, and others.

Stakeholders spoke about housing conditions and fair housing issues regionally but offered insights specific to Ontario. In response to the question “Are public resources (e.g., parks, schools, roads, police & fire services, etc.) available evenly throughout all neighborhoods in your community?” stakeholders found that Ontario has “a good distribution of parks, schools, and community centers.”

3.2 Description of Ontario by Area
The AFH relies on comparing the history of development and land use practices across neighborhoods in Ontario and resulting differences in demographics and access to opportunity that have potential to affect the quality of life and achievement for residents in differing areas of the city.

For the purposes of the AFH, the areas of the city used for comparison are based on the 2021 California Housing and Community Development (HCD) and California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) Opportunity Area Map (Figure 3-2). As will be described in more detail, the HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map shows broadly that residents may experience differing access to opportunity depending on what area of Ontario they live in and, therefore, defining these areas of the city is Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 5
4661
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adopted March 2022, Revised August 2022, Hearing Draft June 2026 H-6 meaningful to understand land use patterns that result in fair housing issues. Unless otherwise specified, these areas of Ontario identified in the HCD/TCAC Map that are used in this assessment for the purposes of comparison are defined by streets as follows (see Figure 3-1, Areas of Ontario, for visual representation).

Northwest area/Northwest Ontario: West of Archibald Avenue, inclusive of Ontario International Airport to the city’s western limits and north of Riverside Drive to the city’s northern limits.

Southeast area/Southeastern Ontario: East of the Ontario International Airport and Archibald Avenue to the eastern city limits and south of Riverside Drive to the city’s southern limits.

South and east Ontario is further delineated by:

Eastern area/Eastern Ontario: East of the Ontario International Airport and Archibald Avenue to the city limits and north of Riverside Drive.

Southern area/South Ontario: South of Riverside Drive, bounded by the city’s southern limits.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 6
4662
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adopted March 2022, Revised August 2022, Hearing Draft June 2026 H-7 Figure 3-1 Areas of Ontario
Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 7
4663
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adopted March 2022, Revised August 2022, Hearing Draft June 2026 H-8

3.3 City of Ontario History
The City of Ontario was established in the 1880s with the founders’ vision of a planned community created on guiding principles including a mutual water company, prohibition of liquor, a grand thoroughfare through the city (Euclid Avenue), and an agricultural college for general education.

Ontario was incorporated in 1891, and in 1903, Ontario had been declared the “Model Colony” by an Act of Congress for its establishment of a new standard for urban living.

The City of Ontario first developed as an agricultural community, primarily producing citrus. The town expanded around Euclid Avenue, which established two of Ontario’s historic districts, the Historic Downtown and the College Park Historic District. Ontario’s population grew in the 1950s as the city shifted from an agricultural-based economy to an industry-based economy and manufacturing jobs became increasingly available. Mass production housing was constructed, reflecting a national beginning of suburban sprawl and the rise of the middle class. This growth radiated from the city’s historic cores, establishing most of the residential neighborhoods that dominate northwestern Ontario as it exists today. With the exception of the College Park Historic District, housing in the northwestern area is primarily renter-occupied, and as will be discussed further, households are projected to have poor economic and educational outcomes.

Ontario’s rapid job growth continued through the late twentieth century (1980s and 1990s), especially in industrial expansion of automotive plants, air cargo, commerce centers, and housing to match the growing job opportunities. During the 1980s, Ontario was ranked the seventh-fastest growing city in California. Much of the housing growth was focused in master-planned communities on either side of Riverside Drive in the southern and eastern areas of Ontario, including the communities of Archibald Ranch and Creekside. Currently, this area has higher rates of owner-occupied housing and generally higher median incomes than northwestern Ontario.

In 1999, Ontario annexed an 8,200-acre sphere of influence south of Ontario’s “Model Colony” southern border, referred to as the “Ag Preserve” and dedicated as the “New Model Colony,” and later renamed to “Ontario Ranch.” The annexation included the last significant remaining agricultural areas in San Bernardino Valley and provided land development opportunity. Ontario Ranch is the largest master-planned community in Southern California and includes residential neighborhoods, commercial facilities, and public open space, parks, and schools. Ontario’s 2020 AFH identified a “lack of affordable housing in south Ontario, in general, and Ontario Ranch in particular” as an Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 8
4664
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adopted March 2022, Revised August 2022, Hearing Draft June 2026 H-9 impediment to fair housing. The western half of Ontario Ranch is still largely undeveloped and used for agriculture.

Growth areas for future development include intensified development in the downtown and Holt Boulevard areas, including affordable housing.

Development around the Ontario International Airport will continue to include a mix of uses, including hospitality, entertainment, and housing.

Future development of the Ontario Mills mall area will not include a reduction in commercial uses, but instead will focus on redevelopment that allows housing opportunities within mixed-use areas.

Recent affordable housing developments have been completed in downtown and along Holt Boulevard. The developments include Emporia Place (75 units of family housing for households with incomes ranging up to 60 percent of area median income) and Vista Verde Apartments (101 units of family housing for households with incomes ranging up to 60 percent of area median income). Additional affordable housing developments are planned in these areas, as well as other housing developments, including new rental and owner-occupied housing.

3.4 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues
California Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires the City to analyze areas of segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk. According to the 2021 HCD/TCAC Opportunity Area Maps (Figure 3-2), Ontario contains a mixture of high-resource, moderate-resource, and low-resource areas.

The HCD/TCAC Opportunity Area Maps identify areas in every region of the state whose characteristics have been shown by research to support positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low-income families—particularly long-term outcomes for children. Specifically, the HCD/TCAC Opportunity Area Map uses a composite score based on education, economic, and environmental indicators to categorize areas as “high resource,” “medium resource,” and “low resource.” Some of the indicators identified by TCAC and HCD to determine the access to opportunity include high levels of employment and close proximity to jobs, access to effective educational opportunities for both children and adults, low concentration of poverty, and low levels of environmental pollutants, among others. For purposes of evaluating fair housing, resource levels refer to the geographic proximity and ease of access to resources, such as low-cost transportation, jobs, and high-quality schools, with low-resource areas having the most limited access.

Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 9
4665
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adopted March 2022, Revised August 2022, Hearing Draft June 2026 H-10 Ontario’s high-resource areas are concentrated in the southeastern areas of the city, east of the Ontario International Airport and Archibald Avenue to the city limits and south of Highway 60 to S Archibald Avenue and E Riverside Drive, bounded by the city’s southern limits. Ontario’s high-resource areas are characterized by the city’s recent and future development. Business parks and industrial commerce centers dominate east Ontario north of Highway 60, while housing (primarily single-family residential) is south of Highway 60 in eastern Ontario Ranch (east of Archibald Avenue to Hamer Avenue). Western Ontario Ranch (west of Archibald Avenue to Euclid Avenue), largely dairy and other agricultural farms, will continue to be developed into a mixed-use area of residential homes, commercial centers, and industrial and business parks.

More than half of Ontario’s northwestern area (west of Archibald Avenue, inclusive of Ontario International Airport and north of Riverside Avenue to Euclid Avenue and Highway 60 west of Euclid Avenue) is considered low-resource and has relatively low access to education and employment opportunities. In comparison to Ontario’s high-resource areas, Ontario’s low-resource areas score poorly for economic and educational indicators.

This implies low economic mobility from high rates of poverty and unemployment, low rates of post-secondary school attainment and proximity to jobs, and low upward mobility because of the impact of neighborhood conditions on students’ academic proficiency measured by math and reading proficiency, high school graduate rates, and student poverty rates. The remainder of Ontario’s northwestern area is made up of moderate-resource areas. These areas have scored much higher for economic outcomes than the low-resource areas but only slightly higher for educational outcomes, indicating Ontario’s moderate-resource areas received this categorization based on ability to achieve higher economic mobility than the low-resource areas. All of Ontario, including highresource areas, scored poorly for environmental outcomes, suggesting Ontario has high exposure to pollution that could result in significant health issues.

Three census tracts in the city are designated as an area of high segregation and poverty (Figure 3-3). The TCAC/HCD created the high segregation and poverty designation to identify census tracts where at least 30 percent of the population is below the federal poverty level ($26,500 annually for a family of four in 2021) coincides with an overrepresentation of people of color relative to the county. Two of the census tracts are adjacent and are bounded by Holt Boulevard to the south, N Vineyard Avenue to the east, E G Street to the north, and N Allyn Avenue to E D Street and Florence Avenue to the west. N Grove Avenue divides the two census tracts. The third census tract is bounded by Interstate 10 to the south, N Baker Avenue to E 6th Street and N Grove Avenue to the east, Ontario city boundaries to the north and west to Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 10
4666
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adopted March 2022, Revised August 2022, Hearing Draft June 2026 H-11 Interstate 10. All three census tracts are primarily characterized by smalllot single-family residential and multifamily development.

The City has conducted the following analysis of available data to assess local access to opportunities and indicators of fair housing issues, in addition to the designations provided by the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas Map. Data for racial/ethnic concentrations of poverty, median income, poverty status, predominant population (Hispanic), familial status, overpayment, and overcrowding was available at the census-tract level, and data for overpayment and diversity were available at the blockgroup level. The City has used the most localized level of data available for the analysis.

Patterns of Integration and Segregation
To assess patterns of segregation and integration, the City analyzed six characteristics: Racially/Ethnic Concentrations or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP), Hispanic majority, diversity index, income and poverty, familial status, and population with a disability as of 2019 (2018 for Diversity Index and 2010 for Hispanic Majority). Ontario has two census tracts that are considered a R/ECAP, as defined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (Figure 3-3). HUD identifies an R/ECAP as any area with a non-white population of more than 50 percent and either a poverty rate of 40 percent or more or a poverty rate of more than three times the average poverty rate for the county. The R/ECAPs are adjacent to one another and located in central Ontario within the low-resource area, and border two of the areas of high segregation and poverty identified in the TCAC /HCD map. One R/ECAP includes Ontario International Airport to the east and is bounded by Mission Boulevard to the south, the city limits along Benson Avenue to the west, and Holt Boulevard to Main Street and Holt Boulevard to N Vineyard Avenue, Interstate 10 to N Archibald Avenue, and E Airport Drive to S Haven Avenue to the north.

The second R/ECAP is located north of the first, bounded by Holt Boulevard to the south, N Sultana Avenue to the west, E G Street to the north, and Florence Avenue to E D Street and N Allyn Avenue to the east.

According to the analysis provided in the Ontario 2020 AFH, the presence of R/ECAPs has arisen in the last 10 years; from 1990 to 2010, there were no R/ECAPs present in the city. This indicates poverty has become increasingly concentrated in Ontario and may correlate with issues such as increasing economic pressure, lack of affordable housing choice, and lack of educational or economic mobility, and this has disproportionately impacted communities of color. As of the 2015–2019 American Community Survey (ACS), the population of the R/ECAP tracts were estimated to be 4,218 people for the northern R/ECAP (census tract 15.01) and 5,363 people for the southern R/ECAP (census tract 16.0). While there are few Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) in use in either R/ECAP, the Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 11
4667
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adopted March 2022, Revised August 2022, Hearing Draft June 2026 H-12 south R/ECAP has 11 vouchers in use (1.2 percent of renting households) and the north R/ECAP does not have any HCVs in use, both areas are predominantly renting households, suggesting that low-income housing is concentrated in this area and is a contributing factor to mobility to medium- and high-resources areas in the city. While the majority of Ontario’s population identifies as Hispanic, there is a predominant Hispanic majority in both R/ECAPs (gap greater than 50 percent of the population), as well as in the TCAC-identified areas of high segregation and poverty, whereas much of the rest of the city only has a gap between 10 and 50 percent Hispanic (Figure 3-4). The R/ECAPs correlate with the highest levels of linguistic isolation, which can limit residents’ access to resources, essential services, and mobility to moderate- and high-resource areas because of language barriers outside of the R/ECAP neighborhoods. Much of San Bernardino Valley’s population, including the cities of Fontana, Bloomington, Rialto, and San Bernardino, predominantly identify as Hispanic. These areas similarly coincide with R/ECAPs within those cities, higher levels of linguistic isolation, and predominantly low-resource areas and areas of high poverty and segregation. This indicates that San Bernardino Valley’s Hispanic population is more likely to reside in neighborhoods with limited upward mobility due to poor economic outcomes, educational outcomes, and linguistic barriers. Conversely, the cities of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga are predominantly White by a gap ranging from 10 to 50 percent. Northern Upland and Rancho Cucamonga are categorized as highest resource on the TCAC /HCD map, suggesting the residents of these neighborhoods (predominantly White) will have the best economic, educational, and health outcomes. The City has included Program 24 to promote its first-time homebuyer program and other means of connecting residents with housing opportunities in the city, and Programs 6, 24, and 27 to reduce barriers to mobility from language barriers, particularly Spanish, to promote an inclusive community for all families, individuals, and households.

Overall, Ontario exhibits high diversity based on the Diversity Index, with nearly all of the city receiving a diversity index greater than or equal to 70, with 100 being perfect diversity and 0 being no diversity (Figure 3- 5). With exception to the R/ECAP south of Holt Boulevard, the city’s other R/ECAPs and TCAC/HCD-identified areas of high segregation and poverty coincide with very high levels of diversity. While predominantly Hispanic, the second most prevalent population in the block groups that form the census tracts are either White or Black/African American. Much of southeastern Ontario exhibit the very high levels of diversity, receiving a diversity index of 85 or higher. Hispanics comprise the majority of the population in these block groups; however, Whites are the second-most prevalent population, indicating the diversity in Ontario’s high resource areas are primarily Hispanic and White residents Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 12
4668
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adopted March 2022, Revised August 2022, Hearing Draft June 2026 H-13 and that other communities of color are not highly represented in Ontario’s high resource areas. Regionally, similar patterns arise; overall, nearly all of the San Bernardino Valley received a diversity index greater than or equal to 70, an indicator of integrated communities. As seen in Ontario, regionally TCAC/HCD-identified areas of high segregation and poverty and low-resource areas correspond with high levels of diversity, particularly in the cities of San Bernardino, Bloomington, Rialto, and Fontana. The population for the block groups that comprise the areas of high segregation and poverty and low-resource areas are predominantly Hispanic with Black/African Americans often the second-most prevalent community. Conversely, San Bernardino Valley’s high-resource areas have relatively low diversity with a predominantly White population.

Regionally, Ontario’s diversity reflects the highly urbanized areas of Los Angeles County, Orange County, and Riverside County, often corresponding with the low-resource areas. Rural areas to the east and coastal areas to the south have lower diversity and are predominantly White. The coastal areas are largely categorized as high and highest resource.

The City will address concentrations of communities of color in lowresource areas, TCAC/HCD-identified areas of high segregation and poverty, and R/ECAPs through implementing Program 11 and Program 27, improving housing choice citywide by providing opportunities for affordable housing in high-resource areas.

The areas with the highest median income in Ontario are in south Ontario, which includes newer, high-end single-family homes in eastern Ontario Ranch (east of S Archibald Avenue) and the future Ontario Ranch (Figure 3-6). Currently, western Ontario Ranch (west of S Archibald Avenue) is largely agriculture and industrial uses, particularly truck parking and related small-scale transportation services. However, single-family development east of S Archibald Avenue is under construction and will be affordable to above-moderate income households. Few neighborhoods north of Highway 60 exceed a median income greater than the HCD 2020 State Median Income ($87,100). Further, Ontario’s R/ECAP neighborhoods and areas of high segregation and poverty primarily are low income, with median income not exceeding $55,000. These areas similarly show high rates of poverty with at least 20 to 30 percent of the population whose income is below the poverty level and two neighborhoods with 30 to 40 percent living in poverty (Figure 3-7).

Ontario’s distribution of income and poverty mirrors similar cities in the San Bernardino Valley, with patterns of R/ECAPs and TCAC/HCDidentified areas of high segregation and poverty reinforced by low median income and high rates of poverty. San Bernardino, the County’s largest city and with the highest number of census tracts designated as R/ECAPs, also contains the block groups with the lowest median incomes in the county (as low as $13,500). Fontana, the second largest city in San Policy Plan Amendments, Hearing Draft, June 2026 13
4669
City of Ontario Policy Plan
Housing Element Technical Report
Adopted March 2022, Revised August 2022, Hearing Draft June 2026 H-14 Bernardino County, also features block groups with median incomes less than $30,000 (as low as $21,500). As with Ontario, Fontana’s block groups with low median income fall within census tracts with majority Hispanic populations. Rancho Cucamonga, while having a similar population size to Ontario, features block groups with median incomes greater than $125,000 (as high as $171,000). These block groups coincide with census tracts with a predominantly White population. Ontario and the San Bernardino Valley reflect a general trend observed throughout the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, showing a decrease in median income, increase in poverty levels, presence of R/ECAPs, and increase in non-White populations (particularly Hispanic) within large city centers. Riverside, Los Angeles, and Anaheim all feature concentrated areas of low median income and higher rates of poverty in census tracts designated as R/ECAPs and/or with a predominantly Hispanic population.

Ontario has historically been a family-oriented community, influencing the dominance of single-family housing in many parts of the city, and results in patterns that still exist today. In most areas of the city, including all areas south of Highway 60 and east of Archibald Avenue, 40 percent of households consist of married couples with children (Figure 3-8); however, neighborhoods with lower percentages of children in marriedcouple households (20 to 40 percent) coincide with the city’s low-resource areas in northwest Ontario, including the R/ECAPs and areas of high segregation and poverty north of Holt Boulevard. This suggests Ontario’s low-resource areas have a higher percentage of single-parent households.

Single-parent households, reliant on one income, tend to have a lower rate of home ownership and face additional difficulties securing housing.

Affordable housing options available to single-parent households may be limited to the low-resource areas in northwest Ontario, resulting in the concentration of single-parent households in these areas. The concentration of single-parent households could also indicate discriminatory practices or an uneven distribution of housing types throughout Ontario that would support single-parent households.

Similar trends persist regionally within the San Bernardino Valley and countywide, implying that single-parent households have limited housing options in moderate- and high-resource areas of the county. In particular, the cities of San Bernardino, Adelanto, and Victorville all feature a higher proportion of census tracts where children living with married parents represents less than 50 percent of households with children. In Adelanto and San Bernardino, census tracts designated as R/ECAPs largely coincide with census tracts where children living with married parents represents less than 50 percent of households with children. To address the discrepancy in access in Ontario, the City will implement Program 10 and 11 to ensure the development of a variety of affordable housing options, including in high-resource areas.

Ontario City CouncilJune 16, 2026

Ontario City Council
June 16, 2026