Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, June 16, 2026 (part 4 of 28)

Ontario PD - CNC.Live and Service, Support and Training Extension Term: 04/01/26 - 03/31/28
05/31/2026
TO:

CUSTOMER ID

EXPIRATION DATE
City of Ontario
303 East B Street
Ontario CA 91764
Quote Prepared By: CNC Technologies, LLC
1 CNC Live Yearly Subscription (1 Year)
1 $ 52,475.00 $ 52,475.00
> Supports an unlimited number of users
> HTTPS security on all streams
> Supports iOS, Android, Windows, Linux
> Supports multiple resolutions / quality
> Supports G3, LTE, WiFi connections
> Administrator management of access privileges:
- User
- Time of day - Events
- Groups
> Includes 1TB of user outbound data per month (20 continuous users, @ 1Mbps, 4 hours a day, 30 days a month)
- Additional data can be purchased on a monthly basis in 1TB increments, for an additional charge
> This service allows for 16 Maximum Video Inputs and 4 Maximum Simultaneous Outbound Streams. Additional Video Inputs and Simultaneous Outbound Streams would require an extended service plan > Yearly subscription valid for twelve (12) months from activation date - Annual renewal required (every 12 months)
> Term: 04/01/26 - 03/31/28
2 Extended 24/7 Service, Support and Training
1 Includes:
> Oversight and coordination of Downlink Receive Site + CNC.Live > 24/7/365 live technical support
> Unlimited service calls with a tech on-site within 3 business days of repair request.
> On-site system and operational training for agency personnel. > Comprehensive and ongoing training to operate mission suite solution with maximum ease and efficiency.
> Training courses are done at CUSTOMER facility with CUSTOMER equipment and offer a hands-on learning experience that includes an in-depth review of all equipment, system functionality, user interface, and routine maintenance procedures.
> Valid transfers of OEM factory warranties from new equipment > All parts and labor to repair or replace defective components covered by factory warranty plus expedited factory service from OEMs (This does not apply to systems out of warranty)

ATTACHMENT A
468
Notes
TOTAL

Page 2 of 2 ends

82,150.00$
Quote Prepared By: CNC Technologies, LLC
> Technical and operational consultation services for Local, State and Federal agencies.
3 Extended 24/7 Service, Support and Training
1 $ 29,675.00 $ 29,675.00
> Assets:
- RX Site System + CNC.Live
- Handheld RX Systems
> Term: 04/01/26 - 03/31/28
4 NOTES1
> Term: 04/01/26 - 03/31/28

ATTACHMENT A
469
Department: Fire Department
Prepared By: Kemi Makinde
Staff Member Presenting: Mike Gerken, Fire
Chief
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 18
SUBJECT: AN UPDATED LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO AND CONFIRE

JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY FOR INITIAL CAPITAL FUNDING TO ESTABLISH

AMBULANCE SERVICING

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
June 16, 2026
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute all documents related to the Loan Agreement between the City of Ontario and CONFIRE Joint Powers Authority in the amount of $20,000,000.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy Operate in a Businesslike Manner
Pursue City's Goals and Objectives by Working with Other Governmental Agencies FISCAL IMPACT: The City will issue a loan to CONFIRE in an amount not-to-exceed $20,000,000 with an annual interest rate equal to the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) daily effective yield rate on the date of the first advance. The loan will be funded from available City funds, excluding the General Fund. Quarterly repayments will commence the third quarter after the first advance, and the loan will be repaid in full within two years.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: On December 19, 2023, the City Council approved a Loan Agreement between the City and CONFIRE to provide initial capital funding to establish ambulance servicing throughout San Bernardino County. The program was subsequently delayed due to litigation initiated by AMR in September 2024, which halted progress and prevented CONFIRE from drawing on the loan. As the agreement expired before litigation was resolved, Staff brought a revised Loan Agreement back to Council on February 17, 2026, for reapproval; however that agreement also remained unexecuted while the legal proceedings continued.

With litigation now resolved and CONFIRE anticipating a first loan draw in July 2026 and a program start date of October 2026 for ambulance services, Staff is bringing forward an updated Loan Agreement to reflect the program’s current implementation and billing schedule. CONFIRE expects to begin receiving projected billing revenues approximately three months after the start of service. 470
The loan structure in the updated Agreement remains unchanged. Borrowing will occur through individual advances between $1 million and $5 million per request, with a maximum cumulative loan amount of $20 million. All loan amounts must be fully repaid within two years from the date of the first advance.

The repayment terms are being revised to align more closely with the timing of projected revenues from the EMS program. CONFIRE will make quarterly principal and interest payments due January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1. After the first advance, the first repayment will now be due on the third quarterly payment date following the initial draw, rather than the next immediate quarterly date. For example, if the first advance occurs in July 2026, the first payment will be due April 1, 2027. This revision allows CONFIRE to draw initial start-up funds and ample time to begin generating revenue after the program’s anticipated October 2026 service start date. Interest accrues on the outstanding principal balance from the date of the first advance until the loan is fully repaid. A payment schedule will be issued after the first advance and updated with each subsequent advance.

Staff recommends the City of Ontario enter into this updated Loan Agreement to facilitate the implementation of the EMS Division of CONFIRE. The funds will be used for administrative support, startup operations, and service delivery until billing and collections stabilize and fully fund the operation.
471
46700.02320\41794755.7
1 CITY OF ONTARIO

CONFIRE EMS PROGRAM

LOAN AGREEMENT
This CITY OF ONTARIO CONFIRE EMS PROGRAM LOAN AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made as of _______ 2026, by and between CONSOLIDATED FIRE AGENCIES (“Borrower”), a joint powers agency, acting on behalf of its CONFIRE EMS, a division of the Borrower (“EMS”) and the CITY OF ONTARIO, a California municipal corporation (“Lender”).

R E C I T A L S
A. Borrower is a joint powers agency, was created to provide services relating to the operation of a regional public safety communication system and cooperative program of fire protection, rescue and emergency medical services system.

B. EMS is a subsidiary division of Borrower, which provides emergency medical services to Borrower’s member agencies (the “Member Agencies”).

C. Borrower has requested that the Lender extend credit to Borrower in the form of this agreement with a maximum credit limit of Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000) for the purpose of providing emergency medical services and ambulance transportation services, and to fund the administrative support to commence operations, billings and collection services (the “Program”).

D. The Lender has agreed to extend credit to Borrower, subject to and in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the other “Loan Documents” as that term is defined below.

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration the parties agree as follows:

1. DEFINITIONS AND CONSTRUCTION.

1.1 Definitions. Capitalized terms in this Agreement that are not defined when first used shall have the meanings set forth below:
(a) Advances. The term “Advances” shall mean all funds advanced to the Borrower under the terms of this Agreement.
(b) Administrative Statements. Borrower’s statements regarding administration of billing to insurance providers and federal and State agency reimbursement applications related to the Program. (c) Agreement. The term “Agreement” shall mean this Agreement, any schedules hereto, any promissory notes, and assignments required hereunder (whether executed concurrently with or prior or subsequent to the date hereof), and any concurrent or subsequent amendments, 472
46700.02320\41794755.7
2 modifications, supplements, chattel paper, extensions, or schedules to any of the foregoing.
(d) Authorized Officer. The term “Authorized Officer” shall mean Executive Director of the Borrower.
(e) Borrower’s Books. The term “Borrower’s Books” shall mean: (a) all of Borrower’s books and records including ledgers, records indicating, summarizing, or evidencing Borrower’s assets or liabilities related to the Program; (b) all information relating to Borrower’s business operations or financial condition related to the Program; and (c) all computer programs, disk or tape files, printouts, runs, or other computer prepared information, and the equipment containing such information related to the Program.
(f) Business Day. The term “Business Day” shall mean any day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or other day on which banks in the State of California are authorized or required to close.
(g) Event of Default. The term “Event of Default” shall mean the occurrence of an event described in Section 6.1 below.
(h) Financial Statement(s). The term “Financial Statement(s)” shall mean all income statements, balance sheets, statements of retained earnings or other related statements which reflect the financial worth of Borrower related to the Program.
(i) Loan. The term “Loan” shall mean the aggregate of all Advances made by Lender to Borrower hereunder, and represented in a Payment Schedule.
(j) Loan Documents. The term “Loan Documents” shall mean, collectively, this Agreement, the Payment Schedule, any other obligation or schedule executed by Borrower to the order of Lender, and any other document, instrument and agreement executed by Borrower in connection with this Agreement.
(k) Maximum Credit Limit. The term “Maximum Credit Limit” has the meaning provided in Section 2.1 below.
(l) Members of the Borrower. The term “Members of the Borrower” shall mean the “Parties” as described in the Joint Powers Agreement (Third Amended and Restated) and dated March 23, 2021, by and among the Members.
(m) Obligations. The term “Obligations” shall mean all Advances together with interest thereon, Lender’s expenses, and all other amounts payable by Borrower under the Loan Documents, whether direct or indirect, 473
46700.02320\41794755.7
3 absolute or contingent, due or to become due, now existing or hereafter arising, and including any debt, liability, or obligation owing from Borrower to others which Lender may have obtained by assignment or otherwise, and further including all interest not paid when due and all Lender’s expenses which Borrower is required to pay or reimburse by the Loan Documents, by law or otherwise.
(n) Payment Date. The term “Payment Date” shall mean January 1, April 1, July 1 and October 1 of each calendar year, and shall be in the form of Exhibit A hereto, as such may be amended or modified. (o) Payment Schedule. The term “Payment Schedule” shall mean a schedule of principal and interest payments due hereunder, as modified from time to time representing Advances made to Borrower. (p) Revenues. The term “Revenues” means all billings for transport services and GMS services, which includes State and Federal reimbursement or supplemental reimbursement funds.

1.2 Construction. Unless the context of this Agreement clearly requires otherwise, references to the plural include the singular, to the singular include the plural, to the part include the whole, and “including” is not limiting, and “or” has the inclusive meaning represented by the phrase “and/or.” The words “hereof,” “herein,” “hereby,” “hereunder” and similar terms in this Agreement refer to this Agreement as a whole and not to any particular provision of this Agreement.

Section, subsection, clause, and exhibit references are to this Agreement unless otherwise specified.

1.3 Accounting Terms. All accounting terms not specifically defined herein shall be construed in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) as in effect from time to time. When used herein, the term “financial statements” shall include the notes and schedules thereto.

2. ADVANCES AND TERMS OF PAYMENT.

2.1 Extension of Credit. Subject to the full satisfaction of each and all of the conditions set forth in this Article II, and subject to the all other terms and conditions of this Agreement, Lender shall, upon the request of Borrower made from time to time but no later than two (2) years from the date of the first draw of funds under this Agreement, and so long as no Event of Default has occurred and is continuing, or so long as this Agreement has not been terminated, and subject to the full satisfaction of each and all of the conditions set forth in this Agreement, make Advances to Borrower in an aggregate amount not to exceed the sum of the following (the “Maximum Credit Limit”): Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000.00), provided through the Lender’s unrestricted funds other than the General Fund of the Lender.

2.2 Request for Advance. Borrower may take Advances in a minimum amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) and a maximum amount of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000). Total draws cannot exceed Twenty Million ($20,000,000) in the aggregate. Advances, as well as directions for payment from Borrower’s deposit accounts maintained with Lender, must be requested in writing on behalf of Borrower by any Authorized Officer. Borrower agrees to be liable 474
46700.02320\41794755.7
4 for all sums advanced in accordance with Borrower’s or Borrower’s authorized representative’s instructions. The unpaid Advances owing hereunder, at any time, will be evidenced by a separate Payment Schedule to be added to this Agreement. All requests for Advances shall be received by Lender ten (10) Business Days prior to the proposed date the requested Advance is to be made. Each request made to Lender for an Advance shall contain the following: (a) the aggregate principal amount of the Advance; and (b) satisfaction of conditions of Section 2.13 hereof.

2.3 Authorization to Make Advances. Lender is hereby authorized to make Advances, solely from its unrestricted funds, other than the Lender’s General Fund, based on a written request to Lender made by anyone purporting to be an Authorized Officer. Borrower hereby holds Lender harmless against any loss, claim, liability, cause of action, and damages arising out of Lender’s reliance on such request in making an Advance hereunder.

2.4 Maturity Dates. The first Advance shall have two (2) years from the date of the effective Advance payment date (the “Closing Date”) to repay the loan (the “Maturity Date”). Each subsequent Advance shall be repaid no later than the Maturity Date stated above. For avoidance of doubt, the final Maturity Date for all amounts drawn hereunder shall be the date which is two (2) years from the first Closing Date.

2.5 Security. The Loan and all other payment obligations under this Agreement and the Loan Documents will be payable from and secured by the Revenues of the Borrower.

2.6 Repayment of Advance. For each Advance, Borrower will pay scheduled principal and interest as follows:
(a) the first payment due for the first Advance shall be the third Payment Date succeeding such Advance (for example, if the first draw is July 1, 2026, then the first payment shall be made on April 1, 2027) and such repayment shall be reflected in a Payment Schedule; and (b) thereafter, on each Payment Date;
(c) for each subsequent Advance, the Payment Schedule shall be amended and all amounts due thereunder shall be paid on each Payment Date; (d) all or any portion of the Loan may be prepaid on any Business Day without premium or penalty at the option of the Authority, by presentment of the unpaid principal portion together with interest accrued thereon to the date set for prepayment upon delivery to the Lender of notice of intent to prepay the Loan no less than 10 days prior to the date of such prepayment.

The entire Loan shall be paid in full by the Maturity Date.

2.7 Interest. Interest rate on all amounts due hereunder shall be determined by using the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) daily effective yield rate, on the first Closing Date. 475
46700.02320\41794755.7
5 2.8 Default Interest Rate. The interest rate after the occurrence of any Event of Default shall be calculated at the rate of 8.00% (the “Default Rate”) on a monthly basis.

2.9 Insurance.
(a) Coverage. For the duration of this Agreement, Borrower shall maintain insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the Program. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
(1) Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal & advertising injury with limits no less than $5,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (ISO CG 25 03 or 25 04) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (2) Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 01
covering any auto (Code 1), or if Borrower has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
(3) Workers’ Compensation: as required by the State of
California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
(4) Fidelity & Crime: Fidelity & Crime coverage with a limit no less than $1,000,000 including coverage for employee dishonesty and theft, disappearance and destruction of money and securities.

If the Borrower maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the Lender requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher limits maintained by the Borrower. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the Lender. (b) Policies. The insurance policies shall contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
(1) Additional Insured Status. The Lender, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Borrower including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations.

General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Borrower’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 or if not available, through the addition of both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 if a later edition is used). (2) Primary Coverage. For any claims related to this contract, the Borrower’s insurance coverage shall be primary and non-contributory and at least as broad as 476
46700.02320\41794755.7
6 ISO CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the Lender, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Lender, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Borrower’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. This requirement shall also apply to any Excess or Umbrella liability policies. (3) Umbrella or Excess Policy. The Borrower may use
Umbrella or Excess Policies to provide the liability limits as required in this agreement. This form of insurance will be acceptable provided that all of the Primary and Umbrella or Excess Policies shall provide all of the insurance coverages herein required, including, but not limited to, primary and non-contributory, additional insured, Self-Insured Retentions (“SIRs”), indemnity, and defense requirements. The Umbrella or Excess policies shall be provided on a true “following form” or broader coverage basis, with coverage at least as broad as provided on the underlying Commercial General Liability insurance. No insurance policies maintained by the additional insureds, whether primary or excess, and which also apply to a loss covered hereunder, shall be called upon to contribute to a loss until the Borrower’s primary and excess liability policies are exhausted.
(4) Notice of Cancellation. Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the Lender. (5) Waiver of Subrogation. Borrower hereby grants to Lender a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Borrower may acquire against the Lender by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Borrower agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the Lender has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
(6) Self-Insured Retentions. Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Lender. The Lender may require the Borrower to purchase coverage with a lower retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or Lender. The CGL and any policies, including Excess liability policies, may not be subject to a SIR or deductible that exceeds $25,000 unless approved in writing by Lender. Any and all deductibles and SIRs shall be the sole responsibility of Borrower or subcontractor who procured such insurance and shall not apply to the indemnified additional insured parties. The Lender may deduct from any amounts otherwise due Borrower to fund the SIR/deductible. Policies shall not contain any SIR provision that limits the satisfaction of the SIR to the named insured.

The policy must also provide that Defense costs, including the allocated loss adjustment expenses, will satisfy the SIR or deductible. The Lender reserves the right to obtain a copy of any policies and endorsements for verification.
(7) Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers authorized to conduct business in the state with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the Lender.
477
46700.02320\41794755.7
7 (8) Verification of Coverage. Borrower shall furnish the Lender with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsements Pages of the CGL and any Excess policies listing all policy endorsements. All certificates and endorsements and copies of the Declarations and Endorsements pages are to be received and approved by the Lender before the Program commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Borrower’s obligation to provide them. The Lender reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time. The Lender reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.

2.10 Accounting System. Borrower at all times hereafter shall maintain a standard and modern system of accounting in accordance with GAAP, with ledger and account cards or computer tapes, disks, printouts, and records pertaining to the Program which contain information as may from time to time be requested by Lender.

2.11 Records. Borrower shall keep full and accurate accounts and records of its operations according to GAAP.

2.12 Audit. Borrower shall permit Lender, its employees or agents upon request to inspect and test Borrower’s books and records for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of all information required under the terms of this Agreement or submitted pursuant to this Agreement. Pursuant to this Section, Borrower shall grant Lender complete access (including computer access) to all records in whatever form, including accounts, bank statements, delinquency reports, collection reports and litigation reports, whether in hard form or on software.

2.13 Conditions to Each Advance. Lender shall not be obligated to disburse all or any portion of the first Advance and each subsequent Advance, unless and until Borrower has fully satisfied each and all of the following conditions:
(a) The outstanding principal balance owed on the Loan as evidenced by the Payment Schedule does not at any time exceed the Maximum Credit Limit;
(b) Borrower shall have executed and delivered to Lender an original counterpart of this Agreement;
(c) Borrower shall have executed and delivered to Lender a revised Payment Schedule for all Advances made hereunder;
(d) A duly executed resolution to borrow authorizing the loan transactions and authorizing specific officers to act on behalf of the Borrower in connection with this Agreement shall be delivered to Lender; and (e) Borrower has delivered all approvals and incumbency certificates of officers of the Borrower executing any Loan Documents;
478
46700.02320\41794755.7
8 (f) Borrower’s Counsel has delivered legal opinions addressed to Lender in form and substance satisfactory to the Lender and Lender’s Counsel; (g) Lender shall have received any and all additional documents, instruments and certificates required pursuant to this Agreement, or otherwise deemed necessary and requested by Lender.
(h) Borrower has delivered a certificate to Lender evidencing that (i) no Event of Default has occurred, (ii) all representations, warranties, and covenants are true and correct and (iii) no material adverse change has occurred with respect to the Borrower, since the date of the most recent audited financial statements delivered to the Lender.
(i) Borrower has paid all closing fees and expenses.

3. CONTINUING REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
Borrower represents and warrants to Lender as follows, each such representation and warranty to continue so long as any Obligations remain unpaid:

3.1 Organization; Authority as to Loan Documents. The Borrower is in good standing under the laws of the State, has full legal right, power and authority to enter into the Loan Documents, and to carry out and consummate all transactions contemplated by the Loan Documents, and by proper action of its legislative body has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of the Loan Documents. The person(s) of the Borrower executing the Loan Documents to which the Borrower is a party are fully authorized to execute the same. The Loan Documents have been duly authorized, executed and delivered by the Borrower.

3.2 Proceedings; Enforceability. Assuming due execution and delivery by the other parties thereto, the Loan Documents to which the Borrower is a party will constitute the legal, valid and binding agreements of the Borrower enforceable against the Borrower in accordance with their terms; except in each case as enforcement may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or other laws affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights against public entities in the State of California, by the application of equitable principles regardless of whether enforcement is sought in a proceeding at law or in equity and by public policy.

3.3 No Conflicts. The execution and delivery of the Loan Documents, the consummation of the transactions herein and therein contemplated and the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and conditions hereof and thereof, will not, in any material respect, conflict with or constitute a violation or breach of or default (with due notice or the passage of time or both) under the Joint Powers Agreement for the Borrower entered into on September 21, 1990, as subsequently amended (“JPA Agreement”), its bylaws or to the best knowledge of the Borrower, any applicable law or administrative rule or regulation, or any applicable court or administrative decree or order, to which Borrower is subject, or any mortgage, deed of trust, loan agreement, lease, contract or other agreement or instrument to which the Borrower is a party or by which it or its properties are otherwise subject or bound, or result in the creation or imposition of any lien, charge or encumbrance of any nature whatsoever upon any of the property or assets of the Borrower, which conflict, violation, breach, default, lien, charge or encumbrance might have consequences that 479
46700.02320\41794755.7
9 would materially and adversely affect the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Loan Documents or the financial condition, assets, properties or operations of the Borrower.

3.4 Litigation; Adverse Facts. Except as disclosed to Lender in writing prior to the date hereof, there is no legal action, nor is there a basis known to Borrower for any legal action, before or by any court or federal, state, municipal or other governmental authority, pending, or to the knowledge of the Borrower, after reasonable investigation, threatened, against or affecting the Borrower, or its assets, properties or operations which, if determined adversely to the Borrower or its interests, would have a material adverse effect upon the consummation of the transactions contemplated by, or the validity of, the Loan Documents, upon the ability of Borrower to perform its obligations under the Loan Documents, or upon the financial condition, assets, properties or operations of the Borrower. Borrower is not in default (and no event has occurred and is continuing which with the giving of notice or the passage of time or both could constitute a default) with respect to any order or decree of any court or any order, regulation or demand of any federal, state, municipal or other governmental authority, which default might have consequences that would materially and adversely affect the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Loan Documents, the ability of Borrower to perform its obligations under the Loan Documents, or the financial condition, assets, properties or operations of the Borrower. Borrower is not (a) in violation of any applicable law, which violation materially and adversely affects or may materially and adversely affect the business, operations, assets condition (financial or otherwise) or prospects of Borrower; (b) subject to, or in default with respect to, any other legal requirements that would have a material adverse effect on the business, operations, assets, condition (financial or otherwise) or prospects of Borrower; or (c) in default with respect to any agreement to which Borrower is a party or by which it is bound, which default would have a material adverse effect on the business, operations, assets, condition (financial or otherwise) or prospects of Borrower; and (d) there is no legal action pending or, to the knowledge of Borrower, threatened against or affecting Borrower questioning the validity or the enforceability of this Agreement.

3.5 Agreements; Consents; Approvals. Except as contemplated by the Loan Documents, the Borrower is not a party to any agreement or instrument or subject to any restriction that would materially adversely affect the Borrower. The Borrower is not in default in any material respect in the performance, observance or fulfillment of any of the obligations, covenants or conditions contained in any other agreement or instrument to which it is a party or by which it is bound.

No consent or approval of any trustee or holder of any indebtedness of the Borrower, and to the best knowledge of the Borrower and only with respect to the Borrower, no consent, permission, authorization, order or license of, or filing or registration with, any governmental authority (except no representation is made with respect to any state securities or “blue sky” laws) is necessary in connection with the execution and delivery of the Loan Documents or the consummation of any transaction herein or therein contemplated, or the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and conditions hereof or thereof, except as have been obtained or made and as are in full force and effect.

3.6 No Bankruptcy Filing. The Borrower is not contemplating either the filing of a petition by it under any state or federal bankruptcy or insolvency law or the liquidation of all or a major portion of its property, and the Borrower has no knowledge of any person contemplating the 480
46700.02320\41794755.7
10 filing of any such petition against it. As of the Closing Date, the Borrower has the ability to pay its debts as they become due.

3.7 Full and Accurate Disclosure. No statement of fact made by the Borrower in any Loan Document contains any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state any material fact necessary to make statements contained therein in light of the circumstances in which they were made, not misleading. There is no material fact or circumstance presently known to the Borrower that has not been disclosed to the Lender which materially and adversely affects the Program or the business, operations or financial condition or business prospects of the Borrower or the Borrower’s ability to meet its obligations under this Agreement in a timely manner.

3.8 Compliance. The Borrower will comply, to the extent required, in all material respects with all applicable legal requirements. The Borrower is not in default or violation of any order, writ, injunction, decree or demand of any governmental authority, the violation of which would materially adversely affect the financial condition or business prospects or the business of the Borrower.

3.9 Contracts. All service, maintenance or repair contracts affecting the Projects have been entered into at arm’s length (except for such contracts between the Borrower and the Lender) in the ordinary course of the Borrower’s business and provide for the payment of fees in amounts and upon terms comparable to existing market rates.

3.10 Financial Information. All financial data, including any statements of cash flow and income and operating expense, that have been delivered to the Lender in respect of the Program by or on behalf of the Borrower, to the best knowledge of the Borrower, (a) are accurate and complete in all material respects, (b) accurately represent the financial condition of the Program as of the date of such reports, and (c) to the extent prepared by an independent certified public accounting firm, have been prepared in accordance with GAAP consistently applied throughout the periods covered, except as disclosed therein. Other than pursuant to or permitted by the Loan Documents or the Borrower organizational documents, the Borrower has no contingent liabilities, unusual forward or long-term commitments or unrealized or anticipated losses from any unfavorable commitments. Since the date of such financial statements, there has been no materially adverse change in the financial condition, operations or business of the Borrower from that set forth in said financial statements.

3.11 Federal Reserve Regulations. No part of the proceeds of the Borrower Loan will be used for the purpose of purchasing or acquiring any “margin stock” within the meaning of Regulation U of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or for any other purpose that would be inconsistent with such Regulation U or any other regulation of such Board of Governors, or for any purpose prohibited by law or any Loan Document.

3.12 Not a Foreign Person. The Borrower is not a “foreign person” within the meaning of §1445(0(3) of the Code.

3.13 Enforceability. The Loan Documents are not subject to, and the Borrower has not asserted, any right of rescission, set-off, counterclaim or defense, including the defense of usury. 481
46700.02320\41794755.7
11 3.14 Insurance. The Borrower has obtained the insurance required by Section 2.9 hereof and has delivered to the Lender copies of insurance policies or certificates of insurance reflecting the insurance coverages, amounts and other requirements set forth in this Agreement.

3.15 State Law Requirements. The Borrower hereby represents, covenants and agrees to comply with the provisions of all applicable state laws relating to the Loan Documents.

3.16 Fraudulent Transfer. The Borrower has not accepted the Loan or entered into any Loan Document with the actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor, and the Borrower has received reasonably equivalent value in exchange for its obligations under the Loan Documents.

The Borrower does not intend to, and does not believe that it will, incur debts and liabilities (including contingent liabilities and other commitments) beyond its ability to pay such debts as they mature (taking into account the timing and amounts to be payable on or in respect of obligations of the Borrower).

3.17 Filing of Taxes. The Borrower has filed (or has obtained effective extensions for filing) all federal, state and local tax returns required to be filed, if any, and has paid or made adequate provision for the payment of all federal, state and local taxes, charges and assessments, if any, payable by the Borrower.

3.18 Approval of the Loan Documents. By its execution and delivery of this Agreement, the Borrower approves the form and substance of the Loan Documents, and agrees to carry out the responsibilities and duties specified in the Loan Documents to be carried out by the Borrower. The Borrower acknowledges that (a) it understands the nature and structure of the Program, (b) it is familiar with the provisions of all of the Loan Documents and other documents and instruments relating to the financing, and (c) it has not relied on the Lender for any guidance or expertise in analyzing the financial or other consequences of the transactions contemplated by the Loan Documents or otherwise relied on the Lender in any manner.

3.19 Other Documents. Each of the representations and warranties of Borrower contained in any of the other Loan Documents is true and correct in all material respects (or, in the case of representations or warranties contained in any of the other Loan Documents that speak as of a particular date, were true and correct in all material respects as of such date). All of such representations and warranties are incorporated herein for the benefit of Lender.

3.20 Survival of Representations and Covenants. All of the representations and warranties in the Loan Documents (i) shall survive for so long as any portion of the Obligations remains due and owing and (ii) shall be deemed to have been relied upon by the Lender notwithstanding any investigation heretofore or hereafter made by the Lender or on its or their behalf.

3.21 Reliance by Lender; Cumulative. Each warranty, representation, and agreement contained in this Agreement shall be automatically deemed repeated with each Advance and shall be conclusively presumed to have been relied on by Lender regardless of any investigation made or information possessed by Lender. The warranties, representations, and agreements set forth in this Agreement shall be cumulative and in addition to any and all other warranties, representations, and agreements which Borrower shall now or hereafter give, or cause to be given, to Lender. 482
46700.02320\41794755.7
12 3.22 No Advisory or Fiduciary Role. The Borrower acknowledges and agrees that:
(a) the Lender has not assumed any advisory or fiduciary responsibility to the Borrower with respect to the transaction contemplated hereby and the discussions, undertakings and procedures leading thereto; (b) the only obligations the Lender has to the Borrower is with respect to this Agreement and the Loan Documents; and
(c) the Borrower has consulted its own legal, accounting, tax, financial and other advisors, as applicable, to the extent it has deemed appropriate.

4. AFFIRMATIVE COVENANTS
During the term of this Agreement, the Borrower hereby covenants and agrees with the Lender that:

4.1 Existence. The Borrower shall (i) do or cause to be done all things necessary to preserve, renew and keep in full force and effect its existence and its material rights, (ii) continue to engage in the business presently conducted by it, and (iii) qualify to do business and remain in good standing under the laws of the State.

4.2 Litigation. The Borrower shall give prompt written notice to the Lender of any litigation, governmental proceedings or claims or investigations regarding an alleged actual violation of a state or federal law pending or, to the Borrower’s knowledge, threatened against the Borrower which might materially adversely affect the Borrower’s condition (financial or otherwise) or business.

4.3 Performance of Other Agreements. The Borrower shall observe and perform in all material respects each and every term to be observed or perforated by it pursuant to the terms of any agreement or instrument affecting or pertaining to the Program.

4.4 Notices. The Borrower shall promptly advise the Lender in writing of (a) any material adverse changes in the Borrower’s financial condition, assets, or properties or operations, (b) any fact or circumstance affecting the Borrower or the Program that materially and adversely affects the Borrower’s ability to meet its obligations hereunder or under any of the other Loan Document to which it is a party in a timely manner, or (c) the occurrence of any Event of Default of which the Borrower has knowledge.

4.5 Lender’s Fees. The Borrower covenants to pay the reasonable fees and expenses of the Lender or any agents, attorneys, accountants, consultants selected by the Lender to act on its behalf in connection with this Agreement and the other Loan Documents, including, without limitation, any and all reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the making of the Loan or in connection with any litigation which may at any time be instituted involving the Loan, this Agreement, the other Loan Documents, or any of the other documents contemplated thereby, or in connection with the reasonable supervision or inspection of the Borrower, its properties, assets or operations or otherwise in connection with the administration of the foregoing. This obligation shall 483
46700.02320\41794755.7
13 remain valid and in effect notwithstanding repayment of the Loan hereunder or termination of this Agreement.

4.6 Expenses. The Borrower shall pay all reasonable expenses incurred by the Lender in connection with the Loan, including reasonable fees and expenses of the Lender’s attorneys and other consultants. The Borrower shall, upon request, promptly reimburse the Lender for all reasonable amounts expended, advanced or incurred by the Lender to collect the amounts advanced hereunder, or to enforce the rights of the Lender under this Agreement or any other Loan Document, or to defend or assert the rights and claims of the Lender under the Loan Documents arising out of an Event of Default or with respect to the Program (by litigation or other proceedings) arising out of an Event of Default, which amounts will include all court costs, attorneys’ fees and expenses, fees of auditors and accountants, and investigation expenses as may be reasonably incurred by the Lender in connection with any such matters (whether or not litigation is instituted), together with interest at the Default Rate.

4.7 Indemnity. In addition to its other obligations hereunder, and in addition to any and all rights of reimbursement, indemnification, subrogation and other rights of Lender pursuant hereto and under law or equity, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Borrower agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the Lender, and each of its respective officers, directors, employees, attorneys and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”), against any and all losses, damages, claims, actions, liabilities, reasonable costs and expenses of any nature, kind or character (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation and court costs, amounts paid in settlement (to the extent that the Borrower has consented to such settlement) and amounts paid to discharge judgments) (hereinafter, the “Liabilities”) to which the Indemnified Parties, or any of them, may become subject under federal or state securities laws or any other statutory law or at common law or otherwise, to the extent arising out of or based upon or in any way relating to this Agreement and the Loan Documents in all cases except where the Lender is proven to have been guilty of gross negligence or willful misconduct. The rights of any persons to indemnity hereunder shall survive the final payment or defeasance of the Loan. The provisions of this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

4.8 Notice of Default. The Borrower will advise the Lender promptly in writing of the occurrence of any Event of Default hereunder, specifying the nature and period of existence of such event and the actions being taken or proposed to be taken with respect thereto.

4.9 Information; Financial Statements and Reports; Debt Service Coverage. (a) Borrower shall furnish or cause to be furnished to Lender:
(1) Notice of Default. As soon as possible, and in any event not later than five (5) Business Days after the occurrence of any Event of Default, a statement of an Authorized Representative of Borrower describing the details of such Event of Default and any curative action Borrower proposes to take;
(2) Financial and Administrative Statements. The Borrower shall provide to Lender monthly Financial Statements and Administrative Statements for the Lender to review, and prior to __________, 2026, such reports shall include the Borrower’s 484
46700.02320\41794755.7
14 monthly report of Administrative Activities, with a separate statement of EMS activity, and after __________, 2026, the Borrower shall include in its monthly report the number of service calls received in the previous month;
(3) Audit Reports. Promptly upon receipt thereof, copies of all reports, if any, submitted to Borrower by independent public accountants in connection with each annual, interim or special audit of the financial statements of Borrower made by such accountants, including the comment letter submitted by such accountants to management in connection with their annual audit;
(4) Certification of Non-Foreign Status. Promptly upon request of Lender from time to time, a Certification of Non-Foreign Status, executed on or after the date of such request by Lender;
(5) Compliance Certificates. Borrower provides a compliance certificate, in form and substance satisfactory to Lender and certified by an Authorized Borrower Representative, to the effect that Borrower is in compliance with all covenants, terms and conditions applicable to Borrower, under or pursuant to the Loan Documents and under or pursuant to any other debt owing by Borrower, and disclosing any noncompliance therewith, and any Event of Default, and describing the status of Borrower’s actions to correct such noncompliance or Event of Default, as applicable; and
(6) Other Items and Information. Such other information concerning the assets, business, financial condition, operations, property, prospects and results of operations of Borrower, as Lender reasonably requests from time to time.

4.10 Continued Existence of Borrower. The Borrower shall take or cause to be taken all actions reasonably necessary to continue the Borrower’s existence during the term of this Agreement, including but not limited to the addition or substitution of one or more members of the Borrower and execution of an amendment to the Borrower’s JPA Agreement, to provide for the addition or substitution of such members.

5. NEGATIVE COVENANTS.

Borrower hereby covenants and agrees as follows, which covenants shall remain in effect so long as any Obligation or other obligation of Borrower under any of the other Loan Documents remains outstanding or unperformed. Borrower covenants and agrees that it will not, directly or indirectly:

5.1 Assignment of Rights. Borrower shall not attempt to assign Borrower’s rights under the Loan Document without the Lender’s prior written consent.

5.2 Principal Place of Business. Borrower shall not change its principal place of business without providing 30 days’ prior written notice of the change to the Lender.

5.3 Fiscal Year. Borrower shall not change the times of commencement or termination of its fiscal year or other accounting periods, or change its methods of accounting, other than to conform to GAAP, without written notice to the Lender.
485
46700.02320\41794755.7
15 5.4 Publicity. Borrower shall not issue any publicity release or other communication to any print, broadcast or on-line media, post any sign or in any other way identify Lender as the source of the financing provided for herein, without the prior written approval of Lender in each instance (provided that nothing herein shall prevent Borrower from identifying Lender as the source of such financing to the extent that Borrower is required to do so by disclosure requirements applicable to public entities within the State of California).

6. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES.

6.1 Events of Default. Any one or more of the following events shall constitute an “Event of Default” by Borrower under this Agreement:
(a) Borrower fails to pay the regularly scheduled principal or interest on the Loan when due.
(b) Borrower fails to pay when due and payable, or when declared due and payable, any amounts payable hereunder or other Loan Documents and such amount is not paid within five (5) days after such amount is due and payable;
(c) Borrower fails or neglects to perform, or observe when due, any term, provision, condition, covenant, warranty or representation contained in this Agreement or in any Loan Documents, or in any other present or future agreement or arrangement between Borrower and Lender, and such default shall not have been cured within fifteen (15) business days after notice thereof is given to Borrower by Lender;
(d) Any material portion of Borrower’s assets are attached, seized, subjected to a writ or distress warrant, or are levied upon, or come into the possession of any judicial officer, or any lien is filed or recorded against the assets of the Borrower by a governmental agency, or any judgment against the Borrower becomes a lien against any of the Borrower’s assets;
(e) A voluntary or involuntary petition in bankruptcy or for reorganization or for an arrangement or any composition, readjustment, liquidation, dissolution or similar relief pursuant to the federal bankruptcy law or under similar present or future federal or state bankruptcy or insolvency law, is filed by or against Borrower, and such petition is not dismissed within sixty (60) days thereafter;
(f) Borrower makes an assignment of all or any portion of its assets for the benefit of creditors;
(g) Borrower is enjoined, restrained, or in any way prevented by court order from continuing to conduct all or any material part of its business affairs;
486
46700.02320\41794755.7
16 (h) There is a default in any material agreement to which Borrower is a party with third parties resulting in a right by such third parties to accelerate the maturity of Borrower’s indebtedness;
(i) Any government agency files a lien or commences an action or any third party files a claim or lawsuit against Borrower in connection with a violation of state or federal environmental statutes, which claim may result in a substantial fine or penalty or the payment of damages; (j) Borrower suspends its business or ceases doing business as a going concern;
(k) Failure by the Borrower to pay, when due, a final, non-appealable judgment or order over $500,000 which shall be rendered against the Borrower and such judgment has not been vacated, discharged, satisfied or stayed by the Borrower within a period of 30 days; and (l) Any representation or warranty in the Loan or Loan Documents is not true when made.

6.2 Lender’s Rights and Remedies. Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, Lender may, at its election, without notice of its election and without demand, do any one or more of the following, all of which are authorized by Borrower:
(a) Terminate Lender’s obligation to make Advances to Borrower hereunder;
(b) Declare all of Borrower’s obligations to Lender immediately due and payable, whether evidenced by the Payment Schedule, this Agreement, by any of the other (collectively “Loan Documents”) or otherwise; (c) Exercise such remedies against the Members of the Borrower pursuant to Section 7(d) of the Joint Powers Agreement (Third Amended and Restated) dated March 23, 2021, by and among such Members of the Borrower, up to the maximum pro rata liability described therein for each of the Members of the Borrower; and
(d) Exercise all other rights and remedies available to Lender under the Loan Documents, at law or in equity.

6.3 Default Interest. From and after the occurrence of any Event of Default, interest shall accrue daily at the Default Interest Rate on all amounts outstanding under the Loan and shall be payable on demand.

6.4 Remedies Cumulative. Lender’s rights and remedies under this Agreement, the Payment Schedule, the Loan Documents, and all other agreements shall be cumulative. No exercise by Lender of one right or remedy shall be deemed an election, and no waiver by Lender of any 487
46700.02320\41794755.7
17 Event of Default on Borrower’s part shall be deemed a continuing waiver. No delay by Lender shall constitute a waiver, election, or acquiescence by it.

7. MISCELLANEOUS.

7.1 Further Assurances. Borrower shall execute and acknowledge (if appropriate) any further documents consistent with the terms of this Agreement, including documents in recordable form, as the Lender shall from time to time find necessary or appropriate to effectuate its purposes in entering into this Agreement.

7.2 Entire Agreement, Waivers, and Amendments. This Agreement incorporates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein, or incidental hereto, and supersedes all negotiations and previous agreements between the parties with respect to all or part of the subject matter of this Agreement. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of the party to be charged. A waiver of the breach of the covenants, conditions or obligations under this Agreement by either party shall not be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach of the same or other covenants, conditions or obligations of this Agreement.

Any amendment or modification to this Agreement must be in writing and executed by the appropriate authorities of Lender and Borrower.

7.3 Waiver of Jury Trial. The Lender and the Borrower shall waive their right to trial by jury; provided, however, that in the event that the waiver of jury trial is unenforceable for any reason, the parties shall be submit to judicial reference.

7.4 Governing Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any legal action brought under this Agreement must be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino, State of California, in an appropriate municipal court in that county, or in the Federal District Court in the Central District of California.

7.5 Non-Discrimination. Borrower covenants by and for itself, its successors and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry in the construction, use, or enjoyment of the Program, nor shall Borrower itself or any person claiming under or through it, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation. Borrower shall comply with all applicable nondiscrimination laws.

7.6 Assignment. Lender may, at its option, assign this Agreement and/or its right to receive repayment of the Loan without the consent of Borrower. In no event shall Borrower assign or transfer any portion of this Agreement without the prior express written consent of Lender, which consent may be withheld in Lender’s sole and absolute discretion. No assumption of the Loan shall be permitted at any time.

7.7 Compliance With Laws. Borrower shall comply with all federal and state laws, statutes and regulations affecting the ownership of its property and the conduct of its business

7.8 Notices. All notices, consents, approvals and requests required or permitted hereunder or under any other Loan Document shall be deemed to be given and made when delivered 488
46700.02320\41794755.7
18 by hand, by recognized overnight delivery service, confirmed facsimile transmission (provided any telecopy or other electronic transmission received by any party after 4:00 p.m., local time, as evidenced by the time shown on such transmission, shall be deemed to have been received the following Business Day), or five (5) calendar days after deposited in the United States mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid, with return receipt requested, addressed as follows:

If to the Borrower: Consolidated Fire Agencies
1743 Miro Way
Rialto, California 92376
Attention: Executive Director
Telephone: ____________
with a copy to:
(which shall not constitute
notice to Borrower)
Lindsay K. Moore
Attorney at Law
Kingsley Bogard LLP
600 Coolidge Drive, Suite 160
Folsom, California 95630
Telephone: (916) 932-2500
If to the Lender: City of Ontario
303 East B Street
Ontario, California 91764
Attention: City Manager
Telephone: (909) 395-2000
and with a copy to:
(which shall not constitute
notice to Lender)
Best Best & Krieger LLP
3390 University Avenue, 5th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Attention: Kim Byrens
Telephone: (951) 826-8273

7.9 Expenses. Borrower shall pay all expenses incurred by Lender with respect to this Agreement and the Loan.

7.10 Execution in Counterpart. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, and all so executed shall constitute one agreement binding on all parties hereto, notwithstanding that all parties are not signatories to the original or the same counterpart. (Signature page follows)
489
46700.02320\41794755.7
S-1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.

CONSOLIDATED FIRE AGENCIES a joint
powers agency, acting on behalf of its

CONFIRE EMS
Signature
Print Name
Signature
Print Name

CITY OF ONTARIO
By:

Its: City Manager
ATTEST:

City Clerk
-Signature PageCity of Ontario
CONFIRE EMS Program
Loan Agreement
APPROVED: City Attorney
By:
490
46700.02320\41794755.7
A-1

EXHIBIT A

PAYMENT SCHEDULE
[To Come]
491
Department: Human Resources
Prepared By: Amanda Elias
Department:

Prepared By: Amanda Elias
Staff Member Presenting: Angela C. Lopez,
Executive Director Human Resources
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 19
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN UPDATE TO THE CITY'S 529 COLLEGE SAVINGS PLAN

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
June 16, 2026
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a Resolution designating a plan sponsor and a plan administrator for the City's voluntary 529 college savings plan administered by American Funds.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Operate in a Businesslike Manner
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. The City's 529 college savings plan is a voluntary, employee-funded benefit. The proposed Resolution updates the City's plan sponsor and plan administrator and does not approve new funding, appropriate funds, or changes to the benefits offered to employees.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: The City offers employees access to a voluntary 529 college savings plan administered by American Funds. A 529 college savings plan allows employees to save for qualified education expenses through payroll deductions, and is fully employee-funded with no City contribution.

The current plan identifies a former employee as both the plan sponsor and plan administrator.

Since this employee is no longer with the City, the Human Resources/Risk Management agency needs to update these roles to ensure continued access to the plan and to allow for any necessary changes on behalf of the City.

Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service regulations, as well as the American Funds’ plan requirements, as the City’s governing body, the City Council is responsible for establishing oversight of the City’s 529 college savings plan to ensure compliance with federal regulations and consumer protections.

This oversight includes designating a plan sponsor and a plan administrator to ensure the program operates in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code.

Adoption of the proposed Resolution will designate Jose Rodriguez, Assistant Human 492
Resources/Risk Management Director, as the plan sponsor, and Amber Smith, Departmental Administrator of Benefits and Classification/Compensation, as the plan administrator.

This action is administrative in nature and will allow Human Resources/Risk Management to continue supporting employees who participate in, or need information about, their respective plans.

Following City Council approval, City Staff will submit the adopted Resolution and any required documentation to American Funds for processing.
493
RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO,

CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING A PLAN SPONSOR AND PLAN
ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE CITY’S VOLUNTARY 529 COLLEGE
SAVINGS PLAN.

WHEREAS, the City of Ontario offers employees access to a voluntary 529 College Savings Plan administered by American Funds, which allows employees to save for qualified education expenses through payroll deductions; and WHEREAS, the City’s 529 College Savings Plan is fully employee-funded and does not require contributions from the City; and
WHEREAS, the current plan documents identify a former City employee as both the plan sponsor and plan administrator; and
WHEREAS, because the identified employee is no longer employed by the City, it is necessary to update the plan sponsor and plan administrator designations to ensure continued administration of the program and compliance with applicable federal regulations and plan requirements; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Internal Revenue Service regulations and American Funds’ plan requirements, the City Council, as the governing body of the City, is responsible for establishing oversight of the City’s 529 College Savings Plan and designating appropriate representatives to administer the program; and WHEREAS, the Human Resources/Risk Management Agency has recommended that Jose Rodriguez, Assistant Human Resources/Risk Management Director, be designated as the Plan Sponsor and that Amber Smith, Departmental Administrator of Benefits and Classification/Compensation, be designated as the Plan Administrator.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Ontario, California, as follows:

SECTION 1. That Jose Rodriguez, Assistant Human Resources/Risk Management Director, is hereby designated as the Plan Sponsor for the City’s voluntary 529 College Savings Plan administered by American Funds.

SECTION 2. That Amber Smith, Departmental Administrator of Benefits and Classification/Compensation, is hereby designated as the Plan Administrator for the City’s voluntary 529 College Savings Plan administered by American Funds.

SECTION 3. That the designated Plan Sponsor and Plan Administrator are authorized to execute and submit any documents, forms, certifications, or other materials 494
required by American Funds or applicable regulatory agencies for the administration of the City’s 529 College Savings Plan.

SECTION 4. That City staff is authorized to take all actions necessary to implement this Resolution and to maintain the City’s voluntary 529 College Savings Plan in compliance with applicable federal regulations and plan requirements.

SECTION 5. That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as 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
495

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)
496
Department: Planning
Prepared By: Robert Morales
Staff Member Presenting: Rudy Zeledon,
Executive Director Community Development
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 20
SUBJECT: A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, INCLUDING ADOPTION OF

A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; APPROVAL OF THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 POLICY PLAN (GENERAL PLAN) AMENDMENT; AND APPROVAL OF A ZONING MAP

AMENDMENT

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
June 16, 2026
SECTION:

PUBLIC HEARINGS
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct a public hearing and take the following actions:

A. Consider and adopt a Resolution certifying the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), including adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and B. Consider and adopt a Resolution approving The Ontario Plan 2050 Policy Plan Amendment (General Plan), File No. PGPA25-002; and
C. Introduce and waive further reading of an Ordinance approving a Zoning Map Amendment, File No. PZC25-002, to implement the Policy Plan Amendment.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Operate in a Businesslike Manner
Pursue City's Goals and Objectives by Working with Other Governmental Agencies FISCAL IMPACT: There is not a direct fiscal impact associated with this action.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: The City updated The Ontario Plan (TOP) Policy Plan (General Plan) in 2022 to guide long-term growth and development. The proposed Policy Plan Amendment provides targeted updates to the City’s long-range planning framework to maintain internal consistency, ensure compliance with State law, accommodate evolving development patterns, preserve adequate housing capacity, and facilitate employment-generating land uses in strategic locations throughout the City. A Zoning Map Amendment is processed concurrently to maintain consistency between the General Plan and the Development Code.

PROJECT ANALYSIS: The proposed project consists of a citywide amendment to The Ontario Plan 497
2050 Policy Plan (General Plan) and a related Zoning Map Amendment to implement the updated land use framework. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report also evaluates the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (EBPSP) at a programmatic/project level so that its potential environmental impacts are analyzed in conjunction with the broader Policy Plan Amendment.

The purpose of the project is to refine land use designations and supporting policies to improve land use compatibility, facilitate employment-generating uses, and maintain consistency with State law and the City’s long-term planning framework. The Zoning Map Amendment aligns with the updated land use designations and does not result in separate environmental impacts, as it is evaluated as part of the SEIR.

The Policy Plan Amendment includes targeted updates to multiple elements of the General Plan, with primary changes occurring in Ontario Ranch and limited areas in the northern portion of the City near Holt Boulevard and Grove Avenue. These updates reallocate select properties from residential, mixed-use, and open space designations to Business Park uses, while also increasing development intensity along key corridors to support more efficient land use patterns.

Overall, the proposed changes result in a net increase of 7,225 dwelling units, 16,473 residents, 4,334,416 square feet of nonresidential development, and 1,831 jobs compared to the currently adopted TOP 2050 buildout assumptions.

The amendment also includes related updates to the Housing, Mobility, and Community Design elements so the City’s policy framework remains consistent with the revised land use plan. The Housing Element updates address State housing requirements, including Senate Bill 330’s no-netloss provisions and Senate Bill 166’s requirement to maintain adequate sites for the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation.

HOUSING CAPACITY AND STATE HOUSING LAW COMPLIANCE: The City has evaluated the proposed amendments for consistency with State housing laws, including Government Code sections 65583, 65863, and related provisions governing maintenance of adequate housing sites inventory. Although the Project redesignates certain residential, mixed-use, and open-space properties, the overall amendments result in a net increase of approximately 7,225 dwelling units and 16,473 residents compared to the currently adopted top 2050 buildout assumptions.

The Project maintains sufficient residential development capacity to accommodate the City’s remaining RHNA obligations across all income categories and does not result in a net loss of residential development capacity necessary to comply with State housing law. The City has also evaluated the amendments for consistency with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing and determined that the Project maintains opportunities for housing throughout the community while preserving compliance with the State housing requirements.

GENERAL PLAN INTERNAL CONSISTENCY: Government Code section 65300.5 requires that all elements of a general plan comprise an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies. The proposed Policy Plan Amendment includes coordinated revisions to the Land Use, Housing, Mobility, Community Design, Environmental Resources, Parks and Recreation, and Safety Elements to ensure continued internal consistency.
498
The amendments have been prepared in a coordinated manner to maintain consistency among land use designations, housing capacity assumptions, circulation planning, infrastructure planning, and implementation policies throughout The Ontario Plan. Together, these changes adjust land use designations and housing capacity to preserve the City’s ability to meet its housing obligations while implementing the broader Policy Plan Amendment.

Mobility Element updates include targeted modifications to the truck route network to improve compatibility between freight movement and surrounding land uses and to support compliance with Assembly Bill 98. As part of this effort, the City evaluated its existing truck routes and identified areas where changes were needed to improve operational efficiency, reduce potential conflicts with sensitive land uses, and maintain consistency with evolving State requirements.

Public outreach highlighted concerns related to truck traffic near residential neighborhoods, including noise, safety, and air quality impacts. In response, the proposed project includes targeted updates to the truck route network as follows: Removal of Archibald Avenue between SR-60 and Merrill Avenue; Removal of Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road between Euclid Avenue and Walker Avenue; Addition of Eucalyptus Avenue between Euclid Avenue and South Hellman Avenue; Addition of Walker Avenue between Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road and Merrill Avenue; and Addition of South Hellman Avenue between Eucalyptus Avenue and Merrill Avenue.

The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) prepared for the Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Policy Plan Amendment evaluates the environmental effects associated with the proposed land use changes and the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan. The Specific Plan area includes approximately 189 acres bounded by Eucalyptus Avenue, Walker Avenue, and Campus Avenue, and the SEIR analyzes approximately 2.9 million square feet of Business Park uses, approximately 36 acres of open space and parkland, and an estimated 1,590 jobs at buildout.

The Specific Plan will be brought forward to City Council for review and consideration as a separate agenda item. The SEIR determined that most environmental issue areas associated with the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts, no impacts, or impacts that can be reduced to less-than-significant levels through mitigation.

However, significant and unavoidable impacts would remain related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation/VMT, and noise, even with the implementation of mitigation measures.

Therefore, certification of the SEIR would require adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

The Zoning Map Amendment (File No. PZC25-002) updates zoning designations to align with the revised land use framework established by the Policy Plan Amendment. The zoning changes do not result in separate environmental impacts, as they are evaluated as part of the SEIR.

PUBLIC OUTREACH: Public outreach for the Project included a Notice of Preparation (NOP) distributed to agencies and a public scoping meeting held on November 20, 2025, to solicit input on the environmental analysis. Key topics raised included truck routes, air quality, noise, agricultural land conversion, and housing density.

Additional outreach included a citywide survey conducted in July and August 2025 to gather input 499
on policy topics such as open space, environmental conditions, and transportation. The Draft SEIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period from March 5, 2026, through April 20, 2026. A Notice of Availability (NOA) was published, filed with the County Clerk, and distributed through the State Clearinghouse, and the document was made available at City Hall and on the City’s website.

At the conclusion of the public review period, a total of 17 comment letters were received. Issues raised included agricultural land conversion, warehouse development, housing capacity, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, truck routes, environmental justice, transportation impacts, and consistency with State housing law.

Written responses to all comments received during the public review period are included in the Final SEIR. The responses evaluate the issues raised, provide clarifications where appropriate, identify revisions to the environmental analysis, and explain the City’s conclusions regarding the environmental impacts of the Project.

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 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 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

As the decision-making body for File Nos. PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002, 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).

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 a result, the City Council finds and determines that the Project is consistent with applicable 500
safety, noise, airspace protection, and overflight policies of the ONT and CNO ALUCP. The proposed amendments do not authorize development that would otherwise be prohibited by the applicable ALUCPs, and future discretionary development proposals within the Airport Influence Areas will remain subject to project-specific airport compatibility review.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The environmental impacts of the Project were evaluated in the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2025110102), prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines.

The SEIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Project, identifies mitigation measures to reduce impacts where feasible, and evaluates project alternatives. The SEIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, cultural resources, and transportation (VMT, vehicle miles traveled).

The Final SEIR evaluates the environmental impacts associated with the Project, including comments concerning overlapping construction and operational emissions associated with implementation of the project. The City considered whether additional feasible mitigation measures could further reduce overlap-period emissions and incorporated all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR into the Project through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Despite implementation of feasible mitigation measures, certain regional air quality impacts remain significant and unavoidable as discussed in the Final SEIR. For impacts that remain significant and unavoidable, the City Council may adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if it determines that the Project’s economic, social, housing, infrastructure, and planning benefits outweigh those impacts.

Such benefits include, but are not limited to, maintaining compliance with State housing law, preserving adequate RHNA capacity, facilitating employment-generating land uses, supporting economic development opportunities, improving land use compatibility, implementing coordinated truck routing improvements, enhancing infrastructure efficiency, and advancing the City’s long-term planning objectives.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On April 28, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and considered the entire oral and written record for the Project. Public comments focused on land use changes, potential environmental impacts, Proposition 70 lands, and truck routes.

After considering all public testimony, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend that the City Council take the following actions: (1) certify the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR, including adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations; (2) approve The Ontario Plan 2050 Policy Plan (General Plan) Amendment (File No.

PGPA25-002); and (3) approve a Zoning Map Amendment (File No. PZC25-002).

CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the City Council certify the Final SEIR, adopt the CEQA 501
Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, approve The Ontario Plan 2050 Policy Plan Amendment (File No. PGPA25-002), and introduce for first reading an Ordinance Approving the Zoning Map Amendment (File No. PZC25- 002) because the Project maintains compliance with State housing law, preserves General Plan consistency, facilitates implementation of the City’s long-range planning objectives, and provides substantial public benefits that support approval notwithstanding the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Final SEIR.
502
Case Planner: Robert Morales / Thomas Grahn Hearing Body Date Decision Action Planning Director
Approval:

DAB N/A N/A N/A
PC 04/28/2026 Recommend
Submittal Date: N/A CC 06/16/2026
FILE NOS: PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002
SUBJECT: A public hearing to consider the Certification of the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2025110102), including adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations for The Ontario Plan 2050 Policy Plan Amendment and the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan; and approval of the following: [1] an amendment to The Ontario Plan 2050 Policy Plan (General Plan) (File No. PGPA25-002); and [2] a Zoning Map Amendment (File No. PZC25- 002) to implement the proposed Policy Plan Amendment; (APNS: Various) City Initiated.

City Council action is required.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Planning Commission consider and recommend, pursuant to the facts and reasons contained in the staff report and the attached Resolutions, that the City Council take the following actions:
(1) Adopt a Resolution certifying the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2025110102), including adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, for The Ontario Plan 2050 Policy Plan Amendment and the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan; and (2) Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve The Ontario Plan 2050 Policy Plan Amendment (File No. PGPA25-002), pursuant to the facts and reasons contained in the staff report and attached Resolution; and (3) Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve a Zoning Map Amendment (File No. PZC25-002), pursuant to the facts and reasons contained in the staff report and attached Resolution.

PROJECT SETTING: The City of Ontario is in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County and is surrounded by the cities of Chino and Montclair and unincorporated San Bernardino County to the west; the cities of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga to the north; the City of Fontana and unincorporated San Bernardino County to the east; and the cities of Eastvale and Jurupa Valley to the south. The City of Ontario is situated in the central part of the Upper Santa Ana River Valley, bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the north; the Chino Hills, Puente Hills, and San Jose Hills to the west; the Santa Ana River to the south; and Lytle Creek Wash on the east. The City comprises approximately 50 square miles (32,022 acres), including the 8,200-acre Ontario Ranch in the southern 303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Email: [email protected]

PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
April 28, 2026
Approval
503
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002
April 28, 2026

Page 2 of 13 ends

part of the City—formerly known as the New Model Colony (NMC) and formerly the City’s sphere of influence (SOI). The northern, more urbanized part of the City is known as the Old Model Colony (OMC) in reference to the City’s founding as a model colony for cities in terms of layout and infrastructure. Generally, the City is bounded by Benson Avenue and Euclid Avenue on the west; Interstate 10 (I-10), 8th Street, and 4th Street on the north; Etiwanda Avenue and Hammer Avenue on the east; and Merrill Avenue and the San Bernardino County/Riverside County boundary on the south. Regional circulation to and through the City is provided by Interstate 10 (I-10) and State Route 60 (SR 60), east to west, and by I-15 and SR 83 (Euclid Avenue), north to south. The City is also home to the Ontario International Airport and proximate to Chino Airport.

PROJECT ANALYSIS:
(1) Background — The City of Ontario’s general plan, The Ontario Plan (TOP), was comprehensively updated with the adoption of TOP 2050 in 2022. Following adoption, the City approved a technical amendment to TOP 2050 in December 2025 to refine and clarify elements of the plan and ensure internal consistency and compliance with statelaw. Prior to these updates, the City had adopted numerous general plan amendments (GPAs) since 1992, including the 1998 New Model Colony GPA, GPAs associated with the 2001, 2010, and 2013 Housing Element updates, and various project-related GPAs.

State General Plan Guidelines recommend that general plans be periodically updated to remain relevant to changing conditions, while housing elements are required to be updated every 8 years. In recent years, significant state and regional policy initiatives affecting the City have emerged, including new housing mandates, climate and sustainability policies, and evolving regional planning priorities. The adoption of TOP 2050, along with subsequent refinements, ensures the City’s general plan reflects these changes, meets State mandates, and provides a framework to guide growth, development, and community investment through the year 2050.

The TOP Policy Plan includes the following elements:
• Land Use Element: The Land Use Element establishes how land is developed, used, and arranged to ensure compatibility and add value to the community in terms of function, design, and fiscal return.
• Housing Element: The Housing Element ensures greater production, preservation, and improvement of housing in the community in the context of existing and future housing needs, constraints to the production of housing, and available land and financial resources.
• Parks and Recreation Element: The Parks and Recreation Element establishes broad direction for the Ontario park system and recreation programs, emphasizing the vital role parks and recreation programs play in economic development, land use, housing, community health, infrastructure, and transportation goals. 504
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002
April 28, 2026

Page 3 of 13 ends

• Environmental Resources Element: The Environmental Resources Element addresses how resources are managed comprehensively using systems that are environmentally and economically sustainable and meet growth demands in Ontario.
• Community Economics Element: The Community Economics Element articulates the City’s approach to developing and maintaining the local economy, retaining and attracting investment, and connecting economic development with the City’s long-term fiscal health.
• Safety Element: The Safety Element describes how the City protects life, property, and commerce from impacts associated with human-made and natural hazards, disasters, and other threats to public safety. It also identifies strategies to adapt to increased hazard risks and strengthen community resilience. • Mobility Element: The Mobility Element coordinates the circulation system with future land use patterns and buildout to meet local and subregional mobility needs, ensuring access and connectivity among neighborhoods, centers, corridors, and districts.
• Community Design Element: The Community Design Element establishes design guidance and requirements to protect existing investments, promote sustainable environments, add community value, and create safe and inviting places where people want to live, work, and recreate.
• Social Resources Element: The Social Resources Element improves equitable access to quality healthcare, education, community services, and cultural activities — critical components of a prosperous, inclusive, and complete community, and key to addressing environmental justice issues in disadvantaged areas of Ontario.
(2) Project Description — The proposed project consists of 3 related components:
(A) a citywide Policy Plan Amendment (PPA) to the Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP); (B) the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (EBPSP); and (C) a Zoning Map Amendment to implement the proposed PPA. These components are supported by the PPA SEIR and are intended to guide both citywide policy consistency and site-specific development within the EBPSP project area.

The purpose of the proposed project is to realign land use designations and supporting policies to facilitate employment-generating uses, improve land use compatibility, and ensure consistency with State law and the City’s long-term planning framework. The Zoning Map Amendment aligns with the updated land use framework and does not result in separate environmental impacts, as it is encompassed within the SEIR analysis. 505
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002
April 28, 2026

Page 4 of 13 ends

(a) Policy Plan Amendment (Citywide) (File No. PGPA25-002) The proposed PPA includes targeted updates to TOP 2050’s Policy Plan component to maintain internal consistency, ensure compliance with State law, and align the City’s long-range planning framework with evolving development patterns. Although the amendment primarily impacts areas of southern Ontario, including Ontario Ranch and a few parcels in the northern part of the City near the intersection of Holt Boulevard and Grove Avenue it is applied at a citywide level to maintain consistency across all Policy Plan elements.

The amendment focuses on refining existing policies and land use designations rather than restructuring the overall framework of TOP. The proposed changes shift select properties toward employment-generating uses and updates supporting policies across multiple elements to ensure the revised land use pattern is consistent, implementable, and compliant with State requirements.

The specific changes to each Policy Plan element are summarized below:
• Land Use Element: The Land Use Plan would be amended to reflect targeted changes to over 1,300 acres within the project area, primarily within the Ontario Ranch area (south of Riverside Drive), with additional changes in the northern portion of the City along East Holt Boulevard and South Grove Avenue. Additional figures within the Land Use Element, including Figures LU-02, LU-03, and LU-04, would be updated to maintain internal consistency.

Within Ontario Ranch, the proposed amendments reallocate select sites from residential, mixed-use, and open space designations to Business Park.

Concurrently, the amendments include targeted increases in development intensity along key corridors, including Grove Avenue, Ontario Ranch Road, and Vineyard Avenue, to support more efficient land use patterns and corridorfocused development.

In the northern portion of the City, land use changes include the reallocation of select Business Park designations to mixed-use designations to support more integrated land use patterns, along with other targeted adjustments to ensure compatibility with surrounding existing and future development and infrastructure.

Additional updates include modifications to mixed-use place types and clarification of building densities and intensities for certain mixed-use categories.

These changes adjust the distribution and intensity of uses while maintaining the overall framework established by TOP 2050.

The Buildout Statistical Summary compares development potential under the currently approved TOP 2050 Policy Plan and the proposed PPA. 506
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002
April 28, 2026

Page 5 of 13 ends

Buildout Statistical Summary
Scenario Housing Units Population
Nonresidential
Square Feet Employment
Approved TOP 129,951 411,268 263,828,479 299,204
Proposed TOP
Policy Plan Amendment 137,177 427,741 268,162,895 301,035 Net Difference
(Proposed TOP - Approved TOP) 7,225 16,473 4,334,416 1,831 • Housing Element: The Housing Element would be updated to reflect changes to sites identified in the City’s housing inventory. Where land use changes reduce residential capacity on these sites, corresponding adjustments would be made elsewhere to maintain compliance with State housing law, including no net loss requirements and the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation.

The proposed project includes changes to the land use plan that convert certain sites designated for residential and mixed-use development to employmentgenerating uses, thereby reducing residential capacity on those properties. To maintain compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 330, which requires no net loss of residential development capacity, the project includes the redesignation of other sites to higher-density residential classifications. These adjustments result in a net increase in residential capacity from 129,951 to 137,177 housing units, representing an approximate 5.6 percent increase.

In addition, SB 166 requires the City to maintain an adequate inventory of sites to accommodate its RHNA allocation, including sites suitable for lower-income households. As sites are removed or modified through the proposed project, the Housing Element would be updated to identify replacement sites that meet State requirements. These sites are evaluated based on criteria such as minimum density, infrastructure availability, development potential, and consistency with Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements.

For the 6th Cycle (2021–2029), the City’s RHNA allocation totals 20,854 housing units across all income categories. The proposed project includes site adjustments and upzoning to maintain sufficient capacity to meet this obligation and ensure continued compliance with State housing law.
507
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002
April 28, 2026

Page 6 of 13 ends

City of Ontario 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation by Income Category Income Category
(Percent of Annual Mean Income) RHNA Allocation
Very Low (31 to 50) 5,640
Low (51 to 80) 3,286
Moderate (81 to 120) 3,329
Above Moderate (121 or more) 8,599
Total 20,854
• Mobility Element: The Mobility Element would be revised to reflect updates to the circulation network associated with the proposed land use changes. Key updates include changes to truck routes to improve compatibility with surrounding uses, adjustments to roadway classifications, and refinements to bikeway and connectivity plans. Additional updates incorporate State requirements related to transportation safety and access, including provisions for priority safety corridors and improved multimodal connectivity.

The proposed project includes updates to the City’s truck routes network to ensure compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 98, which is intended to improve community health and environmental conditions by guiding how and where heavy-duty trucks travel to and from logistics and warehousing facilities. Consistent with State requirements, truck routes are prioritized along freeways and major roadways while minimizing travel through residential areas and near sensitive land uses such as homes, schools, and parks.

As part of this effort, the City evaluated its existing truck routes and identified areas where changes were needed to improve compatibility with surrounding uses.

Public outreach highlighted concerns related to truck traffic near residential areas, including noise, safety, and air quality impacts. In response, the proposed project includes targeted updates to the truck routes network as follows:
• Removal of Archibald Avenue between SR-60 and Merrill Avenue • Removal of Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road between Euclid Avenue and Walker Avenue
• Addition of Eucalyptus Avenue between Euclid Avenue and South Hellman Avenue
• Addition of Walker Avenue between Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road and Merrill Avenue
• Addition of South Hellman Avenue between Eucalyptus Avenue and Merrill Avenue
These updates ensure the circulation network remains consistent with the proposed land use framework while advancing State-mandated objectives 508
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002
April 28, 2026

Page 7 of 13 ends

related to transportation safety, environmental quality, and multimodal connectivity.

Additional updates include new policies and implementation actions addressing priority safety corridors consistent with SB 932, as well as policies promoting reduced truck speeds near noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses. Policy M-3.1 would be updated to prioritize coordination of transit access in areas near sites identified in the Housing Element for lower-income households, and Policy M-4.1 would be revised to clarify that noise-sensitive land uses include both noise and vibration-sensitive uses.
• Community Design Element: The Community Design Element would be amended to refine existing place types and ensure consistency with the updated land use pattern. Updates include the removal of affordable overlay districts, revisions to mixed-use classifications, and the introduction or modification of place types to better reflect employment-focused development areas. These changes aim to ensure consistent development patterns and suitable transitions between land uses.
• Environmental Resources Element: The Environmental Resources Element would be updated to address the transition of land from agricultural to urban uses within the project area. Policy refinements clarify the City’s approach to agricultural land conversion and remove requirements related to agricultural land replacement outside the City, ensuring consistency with the planned urbanization of Ontario Ranch while maintaining broader environmental policy objectives. • Parks and Recreation Element: The Parks and Recreation Element would be updated to reflect changes in land use designations and development patterns.

Updates include revisions to policies, mapping, and planning assumptions to maintain consistency with the revised land use framework. This includes updates to the location of planned park facilities in TOP Figure PR-01 to align with approved projects and the proposed land use plan, ensuring adequate park and recreational planning moving forward.
• Safety Element: The Safety Element would be updated to reflect revised mapping and current data related to environmental constraints, including noise and other development considerations. Updates include revisions to the Traffic Noise Contours Map (S-06a) to align with proposed changes in land use and circulation, as well as minor updates to base mapping for Critical Facilities (S-08), Evacuation Constrained Properties (S-09), and Evacuation Routes (S-10) to reflect changes in the City’s park network. These updates ensure that safety-related policies and mapping remain consistent with the updated land use and circulation framework. • Environmental Justice (Interwoven within Policy Plan): Although Environmental Justice is not a standalone element within the Policy Plan, it is incorporated 509
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002
April 28, 2026

Page 8 of 13 ends

throughout the plan consistent with State law requirements. Pursuant to SB 1000, the City is required to evaluate its environmental justice policies when 2 or more General Plan elements are amended. As part of the proposed project, the City reviewed its existing environmental justice goals and policies in conjunction with updates to multiple Policy Plan elements.

Aside from the addition of residential and commercial capacity along Holt and Grove Avenue, no land-use changes are proposed within or near the mapped Environmental Justice Areas. The proposed Business Park land-use changes are approximately 2 miles from the nearest Environmental Justice Area. Based on this review, the City determined that existing environmental justice policies remain adequate, and no amendments are necessary to maintain compliance with State law.

These updates ensure that the proposed land use changes are supported by consistent policies across all elements of the Policy Plan and that the City’s general plan remains internally aligned and compliant with applicable State requirements. (b) Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (Project Level): The EBPSP establishes a comprehensive framework for development of the approximate 189-acre project site.

The plan provides for 2,939,000 square feet of Business Park development across 137.9 acres, supported by 36.15 acres of Open Space–Parkland and approximately 14.97 acres of roadway improvements.

The Specific Plan implements the PPA at the site-specific level and establishes land use designations, development standards, design guidelines, circulation, infrastructure, and implementation measures to guide future development. These elements define site planning standards, building form, site access, and public improvements to ensure coordinated and orderly buildout. Future discretionary and ministerial approvals, including subdivision maps, conditional use permits, and grading and building permits, must demonstrate consistency with the Specific Plan.

Development within the EBPSP area is organized into 9 planning areas, consisting of 6 Business Park areas and 3 Open Space–Parkland areas. The plan allows support commercial uses within Business Park areas, as well as flexibility in allocating square footage, provided total buildout does not exceed the maximum allowable square footage and floor area ratio.

The plan incorporates internal circulation, access points, and design transitions to integrate with the surrounding transportation network and adjacent development.

Buildout of the Specific Plan is anticipated to support approximately 1,590 employees within the project site.
(c) Zone Changes (File No. PZC25-002): In addition to changes to TOP 2050, the proposed project includes a Zoning Map Amendment to implement the proposed PPA. 510
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002
April 28, 2026

Page 9 of 13 ends

These updates include changes to the zoning map to ensure consistency with the revised land use framework. There are no separate environmental impacts associated with the zoning updates, as these changes reflect and implement the PPA analyzed in the SEIR.

PUBLIC OUTREACH: The PPA has been informed by several fact-gathering processes that gathered information and insights from a broad range of persons, professions, and the public. The fact-gathering and public participation process was broad and inclusive and included the following elements:
• July 9, 2025, to August 8, 2025 — A community survey was launched and gathered 125 responses regarding policy topics such as extreme heat, flooding, open space, and conflicts related to truck routes. Respondents expressed strong support for completing Grand Park and other planned parks. There were concerns about flooding and extreme heat, with many calls for the addition of shade trees and cooling infrastructure. Participants also advocated for better enforcement of truck routes and the implementation of noise buffers. Additionally, there was an emphasis on equitable resource allocation across neighborhoods. • August 19, 2025 — In compliance with SB18 and AB 52 notification requirements (Tribal Consultation), the City mailed a separate project notice to 16 local tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). No consultation requests were received during the requisite 90-day response period. • November 20, 2025 — The City hosted a public scoping meeting, along with a concurrent open house, at the De Anza Teen and Community Center, which was attended by approximately 50 participants. The purpose of the meeting was to gather input from responsible and trustee agencies, as well as the community, prior to preparation of the SEIR. Key concerns identified during the scoping process included truck routes and warehousing-related impacts, including air quality, noise, and vibration; the loss of agricultural resources; and increased housing density.
• March 5, 2026 — The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft SEIR for the PPA and the EBPSP (State Clearing House No. 2025110102) was posted to the City website.

The NOA indicated that the DSEIR was available for review and that the City would be accepting comments through April 20, 2026.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: The subject application was advertised as a hearing in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario (the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper).

CORRESPONDENCE: As of the preparation of this Agenda Report, Planning Department staff received written or verbal communications from the owners or occupants of properties surrounding the Project site or from the public in general, regarding the subject application.
511
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002
April 28, 2026

Page 10 of 13 ends

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (ALUCP) COMPLIANCE: The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670, et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan 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 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the ONT ALUCP, 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 recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission 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 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 recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission 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 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the Chino ALUCP.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A SEIR has been prepared for The Ontario Plan amendment and evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, including the PPA and the EBPSP. The SEIR analyzes a range of environmental topics, including:
512
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002
April 28, 2026

Page 11 of 13 ends

• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
Through the SEIR process, potential impacts were analyzed, and revisions to the proposed project and mitigation measures were identified to reduce environmental effects. As a result, the majority of impacts were reduced to a less-than-significant level. However, 5 impact areas remain significant and unavoidable, even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. These impacts are attributable to the PPA and EBPSP, as applicable.

The significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the SEIR include:
• Air Quality — Impacts related to consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan (PPA and EBPSP), regional construction emissions (PPA), regional operational emissions (PPA and EBPSP), localized construction emissions (PPA), and cumulative health risk (PPA), which would contribute to regional nonattainment conditions within the South Coast Air Basin and expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations.
• Cultural Resources — Although protective regulations and preservation policies are included in The Ontario Plan (PPA), implementation of the proposed PPA may result in impacts to historic resources. Future development could involve the modification or demolition of historic resources, including Tier III resources, resulting in the destruction or material impairment of their significance. While regulatory protections and project-level review would reduce impacts, such impacts cannot be fully avoided or mitigated in all cases.
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions — Impacts associated with increased greenhouse gas emissions (PPA and EBPSP) and potential inconsistency with the City’s Community Climate Action Plan.
• Noise — Impacts related to construction noise (PPA), traffic noise (PPA and EBPSP), construction vibration (PPA), heavy truck vibration (PPA), and airport-related noise exposure (PPA), which would increase noise levels in proximity to sensitive receptors.
513
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002
April 28, 2026

Page 12 of 13 ends

• Transportation — Impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (PPA and EBPSP), which would increase under buildout conditions and cannot be reduced to a lessthan-significant level.

The City of Ontario circulated the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) for public review from March 5, 2026, through April 20, 2026. At the conclusion of the public review period, 17 comment letters were received. Areas of concern raised in the comments include the loss of agricultural land, environmental impacts associated with warehouse development, and requests for a warehouse moratorium. Responses to all comments received will be provided in the Final SEIR, Section 2, Response to Comments.

While 5 significant and unavoidable Project impacts have been identified, Staff finds that the Project's benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The Project provides the following benefits:
 Supports implementation of TOP 2050 by advancing a coordinated land use framework that aligns policy direction with site-specific planning; facilitates employment-generating uses through the establishment of the EBPSP and targeted reallocation of land uses within Ontario Ranch;  Improves land use compatibility by directing business park and industrial uses to appropriate locations and incorporating updates to circulation patterns, including truck route modifications consistent with State requirements under AB 98;  Maintains compliance with State housing law, including SB 330 and SB 166, through adjustments to the City’s housing inventory and land use designations;  Supports the extension and coordination of infrastructure improvements necessary to accommodate planned growth, including circulation, utilities, and public services; and
 Provides economic benefits to the community through expanded employment opportunities and strengthening of the City’s economic base.

As a result, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant.

Furthermore, to ensure that mitigation measures are implemented, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be prepared for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15097. The MMRP identifies responsible agencies and departments, monitoring frequency, timing, methods of verification, and potential remedies for non-compliance. Environmental documentation for this Project is available for public review at the Planning Department public counter.
514
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002
April 28, 2026

Page 13 of 13 ends

Attachment A:

Resolutions for File Nos. PGPA25-002 & PZC25-002
(Document to follow this page)
515
RESOLUTION NO. PC26-022

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL

CERTIFY THE ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SEIR) (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2025110102), INCLUDING ADOPTION OF A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050

POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE EUCALYPTUS BUSINESS PARK

SPECIFIC PLAN AND CITYWIDE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FILE
NOS. PGPA25-002 AND PZC25-002 AND ADOPT ENVIRONMENTAL

FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
— APNs: 0113-282-15, 216-174-01, 216-174-02, 216-174-06, 216-174-07, 216-174-08, 216-174-16, 216-174-17, 216-211-01, 216-211-04, 216-211- 20, 216-211-24, 216-211-26, 216-214-01, 216-214-02, 216-214-03, 216- 214-04, 216-214-05, 216-214-06, 216-214-07 216-311-03, 216-311-04, 216-311-05, 216-311-08, 216-311-09, 216-312-02, 216-312-03 216-312- 04, 216-312-05, 216-312-06, 216-312-07, 216-312-08, 216-312-09, 216- 312-10, 216-313-01, 216-313-02, 216-313-03, 216-313-04, 216-313-05, 216-313-06, 216-313-07, 216-313-08, 216-313-09, 216-314-01, 216-314- 02, 216-314-03, 216-314-04, 216-314-05, 216-314-07, 216-314-08, 216- 314-09, 216-321-01, 216-321-02, 216-321-03, 216-321-06, 216-321-07, 216-322-01, 216-322-02, 216-322-10, 216-323-01, 216-323-02, 216-323- 08, 216-323-09, 218-102-10, 218-102-11, 218-111-06, 218-111-08, 218- 111-09, 218-111-11, 218-111-12, 218-111-49, 218-111-50, 218-121-01, 218-121-02, 218-121-03, 218-121-04, 218-121-05, 218-121-06, 218-121- 07, 218-121-08, 218-122-01, 218-122-02, 218-122-03, 218-122-04, 218- 122-06, 218-122-08, 218-122-09, 218-131-35, 218-161-13, 218-161-14, 218-181-01, 218-181-02, 218-181-11, 218-181-12, 218-181-15, 218-181- 16, 218-181-21, 218-181-23, 218-181-24, 218-181-25, 218-181-26, 218- 191-19, 218-191-24, 218-241-43, 218-241-45, 218-402-32, 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, 516
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002
April 28, 2026

Page 2 ends

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.

WHEREAS, the City of Ontario (hereinafter referred to as Applicant) has filed an application for the approval of a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment, File Nos. PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002, for which The Ontario Plan (TOP) Policy Plan Amendment Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2025110102) has been prepared, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as the Application or Project); and WHEREAS, the Application applies to approximately 1,300 acres of land located within the City of Ontario, including areas within the Ontario Ranch area (south of Riverside Drive) and portions of the northern part of the City along East Holt Boulevard and South Grove Avenue, within various zoning districts, and is presently improved with a mix of residential, agricultural, vacant, open space, and developed urban uses. The Project proposes to amend TOP 2050 Policy Plan, establish the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (EBPSP), and amend the Zoning Map to implement the proposed land use changes; and
WHEREAS, the Plan Policy Amendment SEIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the EBPSP, including sitespecific development, land use organization, circulation, and infrastructure within the Specific Plan area; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR also evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Zoning Map Amendment (File No. PZC25-002), which is intended to implement the approved land use framework, and does not result in separate environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in the SEIR; and WHEREAS, the project areas are located throughout the City of Ontario and are generally surrounded by a mix of existing and planned residential, commercial, industrial, and open space uses, as well as major transportation corridors and supporting infrastructure consistent with the City’s adopted land use framework; and 517
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002
April 28, 2026

Page 3 ends

WHEREAS, the SEIR for TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment and the EBPSP, in which the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Project were analyzed; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for TOP and associated Statement of Overriding Considerations, and issued Resolution No. 2010-003; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario adopted the Policy Plan (General Plan) as part of the component framework for TOP on January 27, 2010, and issued Resolution No. 2010- 004; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario certified the SEIR, for the General Plan Amendment for TOP 2050 Update on August 16, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations for File Nos. PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002, the TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment, have been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Guidelines for implementation of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR has been prepared to address the environmental effects of the proposed Project described above; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft SEIR was originally issued November 4, 2025. The public review period extended from March 5, 2026, to April 20, 2026. The NOP was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and was posted at the San Bernardino County Clerk's office on November 4, 2025. Copies of the NOP were made available for public review at the City of Ontario Planning Department and the City's website; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR for File Nos. PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002 was circulated for a 45-day public review period on March 5, 2026, based on the State and Local CEQA Guidelines, and a Notice of Availability (NOA) was published in a local newspaper, submitted to the State Clearinghouse, and posted in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County; and
WHEREAS, copies of the SEIR were made available for review at City Hall, the Ovitt Family Community Library, as well as on the City's website; and WHEREAS, copies of the SEIR were distributed to the Planning Commission, City departments, and federal, state, regional, local, and other agencies and individuals; and 518
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002
April 28, 2026

Page 4 ends

WHEREAS, on April 28, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the SEIR at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the SEIR was fully studied; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the SEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2025110102) and supporting documentation. Based upon the facts and information contained in the SEIR and supporting documentation, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council make the following findings:
(1) The SEIR contains complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; and
(2) The SEIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and (3) The SEIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission.

SECTION 2: Planning Commission Action. Based on the entire record before the Planning Commission and all written and oral evidence presented, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find the SEIR complies with CEQA for the following reasons:
(a) The SEIR analyzes the environmental effects of the Project and finds that, if the Project is adopted as proposed, and with the implementation of proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts will remain significant and unavoidable: air quality (inconsistency with the Air Quality Management Plan and construction and operational emissions exceeding applicable thresholds), cultural resources (potential destruction or material impairment of the significance of historic resources), greenhouse gas emissions (inconsistency with applicable reduction targets and plans), noise (construction noise, traffic noise, and vibration impacts), and transportation (increase in vehicle miles traveled); and
(b) The Planning Commission further finds that the Statement of Overriding Considerations demonstrate that the Project’s benefits outweigh its significant and unavoidable impacts, and therefore the City would be justified in approving the Project notwithstanding said significant and unavoidable impacts. 519
520
521
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002
April 28, 2026

Page 7 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2025110102)
is located on the City of Ontario Website.
https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/communitydevelopment/planning/environmental-documents 522
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA25-002 and PZC25-002
April 28, 2026

Page 8 ends

ATTACHMENT B:

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
523
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment
Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2025110102 | March 2026
524
March 2026 | Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Ontario Policy Plan Amendment
Draft Supplemental EIR
Prepared for:

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

PlaceWorks
Contact: Nicole Vermilion, Principal
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
for the City of Ontario
State Clearinghouse No. 2025110102
2·0·5·0

THE ONTARIO PLAN
~ PLACEWORKS
525
M ARCH 2 026 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................................................ ES-1 ES.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ES-1 ES.2 Environmental Procedures..................................................................................ES-3 ES.3 Project Location ..................................................................................................ES-9 ES.4 Summary of the Proposed Project....................................................................ES-10 ES.5 Summary of Project Alternatives ......................................................................ES-21 ES.6 Issues to be Resolved........................................................................................ES-27 ES.7 Areas of Controversy.........................................................................................ES-28 ES.8 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................ES-29

1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Purpose of the EIR................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Environmental Review Process ............................................................................ 1-2

1.3 Mitigation Monitoring ........................................................................................ 1-11

1.4 Incorporation by Reference ............................................................................... 1-12

2. Project Description ......................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Location ................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Project Background.............................................................................................. 2-2

2.3 Statement of Project Objectives ........................................................................ 2-15

2.4 Project Characteristics ....................................................................................... 2-17

2.5 Intended Uses of the SEIR.................................................................................. 2-78

2.6 References.......................................................................................................... 2-81

3. Environmental Analysis .................................................................................. 3-1 Organization of Environmental Analysis .......................................................................... 3-1 Levels of Significance ....................................................................................................... 3-2 Evaluation Methodology.................................................................................................. 3-2

3.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................... 3.1-1

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................. 3.2-1

3.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................... 3.3-1

3.4 Biological Resources .......................................................................................... 3.4-1

3.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................ 3.5-1

3.6 Energy ............................................................................................................... 3.6-1

3.7 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................. 3.7-1

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................... 3.8-1

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials..................................................................... 3.9-1

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................... 3.10-1 526

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

TABLE OF CONT ENTS
i i

3.11 Land Use and Planning.................................................................................... 3.11-1

3.12 Mineral Resources........................................................................................... 3.12-1

3.13 Noise ............................................................................................................... 3.13-1

3.14 Population and Housing.................................................................................. 3.14-1

3.15 Public Services................................................................................................. 3.15-1

3.16 Recreation ....................................................................................................... 3.16-1

3.17 Transportation................................................................................................. 3.17-1

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources................................................................................. 3.18-1

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................... 3.19-1

3.20 Wildfire............................................................................................................ 3.20-1

4. Alternatives to the Proposed Project .............................................................. 4-1

4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Factors Considered when Developing Alternatives ............................................. 4-2

4.3 Alternatives Considered but Rejected ................................................................. 4-4

4.4 Alternatives Selected for Analysis ........................................................................ 4-6

4.5 No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 ........................................................... 4-7

4.6 Truck Route Scenario 3 Alternative .................................................................... 4-20

4.7 Reduced Intensity Alternative ............................................................................ 4-29

4.8 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................................ 4-39

5. Other CEQA Considerations ............................................................................ 5-1

5.1 Effects Not Found to Be Significant ...................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.......................................................................... 5-1

5.3 Significant Irreversible Changes........................................................................... 5-3

5.4 Growth-Inducing Effects....................................................................................... 5-4

6. Report Preparers and Organizations Consulted ...............................................6-1 Lead Agency ..................................................................................................................... 6-1 Report Preparers.............................................................................................................. 6-1 Organizations Consulted .................................................................................................. 6-3 527

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

TABLE OF CONT ENTS
M ARCH 2 026 iii
List of Figures
Figure ES-1 Regional Location........................................................................................ES-11 Figure ES-2 Citywide Aerial Map ....................................................................................ES-13 Figure ES-3 EBPSP Aerial Map ........................................................................................ES-15 Figure ES-4 Policy Plan Amendment Areas of Change ...................................................ES-17 Figure ES-5 Conceptual EBPSP Land Use Plan ...............................................................ES-23 Figure 2-1 Regional Location ........................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-2 Citywide Aerial Map ....................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-3 EBPSP Aerial Map ........................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2-4 Current TOP Land Use Plan .......................................................................... 2-13 Figure 2-5 Proposed Land Use Plan............................................................................... 2-21 Figure 2-6 Policy Plan Amendment Areas of Change .................................................... 2-35 Figure 2-7 Policy Plan Amendment Affordability Sites Inventory Changes................... 2-39 Figure 2-8 Current Truck Routes ................................................................................... 2-41 Figure 2-9 Proposed Truck Routes ................................................................................ 2-43 Figure 2-10 Proposed Zoning Map .................................................................................. 2-47 Figure 2-11 Conceptual EBPSP Land Use Plan ................................................................ 2-51 Figure 2-12 Conceptual EBPSP Site Plan ......................................................................... 2-55 Figure 2-13 Conceptual EBPSP Vehicular Circulation and Access Plan ........................... 2-57 Figure 2-14 Conceptual EBPSP Non-vehicular Circulation and Mobility Plan ................. 2-61 Figure 2-15 EBPSP Grading Plan ...................................................................................... 2-65 Figure 2-16a EBPSP Tentative Tract Map .......................................................................... 2-67 Figure 2-16b EBPSP Tentative Tract Map .......................................................................... 2-69 Figure 2-16c EBPSP Tentative Tract Map .......................................................................... 2-71 Figure 2-17 EBPSP Limits of Disturbance ........................................................................ 2-73 Figure 2-18 EBPSP Conceptual Phasing Plan ................................................................... 2-79 Figure 3.1-1 EBPSP Site Photos ....................................................................................... 3.1-5 Figure 3.1-2 EBPSP Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................... 3.1-9 Figure 3.2-1 Important Farmland .................................................................................... 3.2-7 Figure 3.2-2 Williamson Act Lands................................................................................ 3.2-11 Figure 3.2-3 EBPSP Farmland Map................................................................................ 3.2-13 Figure 3.3-1 South Coast AQMD MATES V Cancer Risk................................................. 3.3-23 Figure 3.3-2 South Coast AQMD Permitted Facilities ................................................... 3.3-27 Figure 3.3-3 Environmental Justice Communities......................................................... 3.3-31 Figure 3.3-4 CES4 Indicator: Pollution Burden .............................................................. 3.3-33 Figure 3.3-5 CES4 Indicator: Asthma Percentile............................................................ 3.3-35 Figure 3.3-6 EBPSP Sensitive Receptor Locations ......................................................... 3.3-77 Figure 3.3-7 Truck Route Net Increase in DPM Concentrations: Coarse Results .......... 3.3-89 Figure 3.3-8 Truck Route Net Increase in Cancer Risk per Million: Coarse Results ...... 3.3-91 528

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

TABLE OF CONT ENTS
i v
Figure 3.3-9 Truck Route Net Increase in DPM Concentrations: Refined Results......... 3.3-93 Figure 3.3-10 Truck Route Net Increase in Cancer Risk per Million: Refined Results ..... 3.3-95 Figure 3.3-11 Truck Route Changes Net Decrease in Cancer Risk per Million: Coarse Results....................................................................................................... 3.3-99 Figure 3.4-1 Areas of Potential Occurrence of Sensitive Species .................................. 3.4-21 Figure 3.4-2 Vegetation and Land Cover ....................................................................... 3.4-37 Figure 3.4-3 EBPSP Vegetation Communities................................................................ 3.4-41 Figure 3.5-1 Historic Districts ........................................................................................ 3.5-15 Figure 3.5-2 EBPSP Historic-Age Resource Location Map ............................................. 3.5-31 Figure 3.7-1 Geologic Map .............................................................................................. 3.7-7 Figure 3.7-2 Regional Faults and Fault Zones ................................................................ 3.7-11 Figure 3.9-1 Hazardous Materials Cleanup Sites in Ontario (Open Cases) ................... 3.9-23 Figure 3.9-2 Airport Safety Zones .................................................................................. 3.9-27 Figure 3.9-3 Properties within the EBPSP Area ............................................................. 3.9-35 Figure 3.9-4 EBPSP Soil Sample Locations ..................................................................... 3.9-39 Figure 3.10-1 Subwatersheds ........................................................................................ 3.10-13 Figure 3.10-2 Flood Hazard Zones ................................................................................. 3.10-17 Figure 3.10-3 Dam Inundation Zones ............................................................................ 3.10-21 Figure 3.12-1 Areas of Mineral Resource Significance .................................................... 3.12-5 Figure 3.13-1 Existing Traffic Noise Contours ................................................................ 3.13-15 Figure 3.13-2 Airport Noise Contours ........................................................................... 3.13-17 Figure 3.13-3 EBPSP Noise Receiver Locations ............................................................. 3.13-29 Figure 3.13-4 EBPSP Construction Noise Source Locations .......................................... 3.13-37 Figure 3.13-5 Project-Related Traffic Noise Contours ................................................... 3.13-49 Figure 3.13-6 EBPSP Operational Noise Source Locations ............................................ 3.13-51 Figure 3.15-1 School Facilities and Districts .................................................................... 3.15-9 Figure 3.16-1 Existing and Proposed Park Facilities ........................................................ 3.16-9 Figure 3.17-1 Roadway Classifications ............................................................................ 3.17-9 Figure 3.17-2 Public Transit Plan ................................................................................... 3.17-13 Figure 3.17-3 Multipurpose Trails & Bikeway Corridor Plan ......................................... 3.17-25 Figure 3.19-1 Existing Storm Drain System ................................................................... 3.19-29 Figure 3.19-2 EBPSP Potable Water Infrastructure Plan ............................................... 3.19-43 Figure 3.19-3 EBPSP Recycled Water Infrastructure Plan ............................................. 3.19-45 Figure 3.19-4 EBPSP Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Plan .............................................. 3.19-53 Figure 3.19-5 EBPSP Storm Drainage Infrastructure Plan ............................................. 3.19-57 Figure 3.19-6 EBPSP Dry Utilities Infrastructure Plan ................................................... 3.19-63 Figure 3.19-7 EBPSP Fiber Optics Plan .......................................................................... 3.19-65 Figure 4-1 Truck Route Scenario 3 Alternative.............................................................. 4-23 529

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

TABLE OF CONT ENTS
M ARCH 2 026 v
List of Tables
Table ES-1 Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment................ES-20 Table ES-2 EBPSP Land Use Statistical Summary ..........................................................ES-21 Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................ES-30 Table 1-1 NOP Comment Summary ............................................................................... 1-2 Table 2-1 Approved TOP 2050 Land Use Designations .................................................. 2-9 Table 2-2 Land Use Designations in the City of Ontario .............................................. 2-24 Table 2-3 TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Proposed Land Use Summary .............. 2-31 Table 2-4 Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment ................. 2-34 Table 2-5 Ontario’s 2021-2029 RHNA Requirements .................................................. 2-38 Table 2-6 EBPSP Proposed Policy Plan Land Use Designations ................................... 2-46 Table 2-7 EBPSP Land Use Statistical Summary ........................................................... 2-49 Table 2-8 EBPSP Current TOP 2050 Land Uses ............................................................ 2-50 Table 2-9 Construction Duration.................................................................................. 2-75 Table 2-10 EBPSP Anticipated Construction Equipment................................................ 2-75 Table 2-11 Project Approvals Needed ........................................................................... 2-78 Table 3.2-1 San Bernardino County 2016–2018 Farmland Conversion ......................... 3.2-5 Table 3.2-2 Existing Farmland in Ontario ....................................................................... 3.2-6 Table 3.2-3 Remaining Agricultural Preserves in Ontario ............................................ 3.2-10 Table 3.3-1 Criteria Air Pollutant Health Effects Summary ............................................ 3.3-6 Table 3.3-2 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants ................................ 3.3-8 Table 3.3-3 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin ..... 3.3-20 Table 3.3-4 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary ............................................... 3.3-22 Table 3.3-5 CARB Recommendations for Siting New Sensitive Land Uses .................. 3.3-26 Table 3.3-6 South Coast AQMD Regional Significance Thresholds .............................. 3.3-30 Table 3.3-7 South Coast AQMD Localized Significance Thresholds ............................. 3.3-39 Table 3.3-8 South Coast AQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds ................................................................................................. 3.3-41 Table 3.3-9 Current TOP Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Inventory ............................ 3.3-43 Table 3.3-10 Comparison of Population and Employment Forecast ............................. 3.3-50 Table 3.3-11 EBPSP Construction Emissions Summary: Phase 1 ................................... 3.3-55 Table 3.3-12 EBPSP Construction Emissions Summary: Phase 2 ................................... 3.3-56 Table 3.3-13 EBPSP Construction Emissions Summary: Phase 3 ................................... 3.3-56 Table 3.3-14 City of Ontario Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast ........... 3.3-60 Table 3.3-15 EBPSP Peak Operational Emissions Summary: Phase 1 ............................ 3.3-64 Table 3.3-16 EBPSP Peak Operational Emissions Summary: Phases 1 and 2 ................ 3.3-65 Table 3.3-17 EBPSP Peak Operational Emissions Summary: Phases 1, 2, and 3............ 3.3-65 Table 3.3-18 EBPSP Construction-Source LST Summary: Phase 1 ................................. 3.3-79 Table 3.3-19 EBPSP Construction-Source LST Summary: Phase 2 ................................. 3.3-80 530

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

TABLE OF CONT ENTS
v i
Table 3.3-20 EBPSP Construction-Source LST Summary: Buildout................................ 3.3-80 Table 3.3-21 Summary of EBPSP Construction Health Risks ......................................... 3.3-81 Table 3.3-22 Ontario Ranch Truck Route Changes Operational Health Risk Summary . 3.3-88 Table 3.3-23 Unmitigated Cancer Burden Summary ..................................................... 3.3-97 Table 3.3-24 EBPSP Operational-Source LST Summary: Phase 1 ................................. 3.3-102 Table 3.3-25 EBPSP Operational-Source LST Summary: Phases 1 and 2 ..................... 3.3-102 Table 3.3-26 EBPSP Operational-Source LST Summary: Phases 1, 2, and 3 ................ 3.3-102 Table 3.3-27 Summary of EBPSP Operational Health Risks ......................................... 3.3-103 Table 3.3-28 Summary of EBPSP Construction and Operational Health Risks Combined ................................................................................................ 3.3-105 Table 3.4-1 Sensitive Plant Species Known or With Potential to Exist in the City of Ontario ...................................................................................................... 3.4-19 Table 3.4-2 Sensitive Wildlife Species Known or With Potential to Exist in the City of Ontario .................................................................................................. 3.4-23 Table 3.5-1 Designated Historic Landmarks in the City of Ontario .............................. 3.5-17 Table 3.5-2 Previously Surveyed Properties Determined Eligible by the City ............. 3.5-23 Table 3.5-3 Properties with Potentially Historic Resources and Tier II Historic Resources in Ontario Ranch ...................................................................... 3.5-24 Table 3.5-4 EBPSP Historic-Age Sites ........................................................................... 3.5-28 Table 3.6-1 State Energy Efficiency Regulations ............................................................ 3.6-8 Table 3.6-2 Year 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Forecast Electricity Consumption ..... 3.6-23 Table 3.6-3 Year 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Forecast Natural Gas Consumption .. 3.6-24 Table 3.6-4 Policy Plan Amendment Operation-Related Annual Fuel Usage .............. 3.6-25 Table 3.6-5 Policy Plan Amendment CCAP Consistency Analysis ................................ 3.6-32 Table 3.7-1 Selected Historical Earthquakes in and near the Upper Santa Ana River Valley ......................................................................................................... 3.7-14 Table 3.8-1 GHG Emissions and Their Relative Global Warming Potential .................... 3.8-3 Table 3.8-2 Summary of GHG Emissions Risks to California .......................................... 3.8-5 Table 3.8-3 Priority Strategies for Local Government Climate Action Plans ............... 3.8-11 Table 3.8-4 GHG Sector-Specific Regulations .............................................................. 3.8-14 Table 3.8-5 City of Ontario GHG Emissions Forecast ................................................... 3.8-25 Table 3.8-6 Amortized Annual EBPSP Construction Emissions – Phase I .................... 3.8-29 Table 3.8-7 Amortized Annual EBPSP Construction Emissions – Phase 2 ................... 3.8-29 Table 3.8-8 Amortized Annual EBPSP Construction Emissions – Phase 3 ................... 3.8-30 Table 3.8-9 EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phase 1 (Unmitigated) ....................................... 3.8-31 Table 3.8-10 EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phases 1 and 2 (Unmitigated)............................ 3.8-31 Table 3.8-11 EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phases 1, 2, and 3 (Unmitigated)....................... 3.8-32 Table 3.8-12 EBPSP CCAP Screening Table..................................................................... 3.8-36 Table 3.8-13 EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phase 1 (Mitigated)............................................ 3.8-38 531

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

TABLE OF CONT ENTS
M ARCH 2 026 v ii
Table 3.8-14 EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phases 1 and 2 (Mitigated) ................................ 3.8-38 Table 3.8-15 EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phases 1, 2, and 3 (Mitigated) ........................... 3.8-39 Table 3.8-16 Policy Plan Amendment CCAP Consistency Analysis ................................ 3.8-40 Table 3.9-1 Hazardous Materials Sites in the City of Ontario ...................................... 3.9-19 Table 3.9-2 CNO Compatibility Criteria Matrix ............................................................ 3.9-57 Table 3.10-1 Listed Impaired Water Bodies ................................................................. 3.10-15 Table 3.10-2 Flow Rates for MDP Facilities to be Constructed by the Specific Plan ... 3.10-37 Table 3.11-1 Policy Plan Amendment Consistency with SCAG Connect SoCal ............ 3.11-11 Table 3.11-2 Land Use Designation: Affected Acreage ................................................ 3.11-14 Table 3.11-3 EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis .................................................. 3.11-15 Table 3.11-4 EBPSP Consistency with Connect SoCal .................................................. 3.11-35 Table 3.11-5 CNO Compatibility Criteria Matrix .......................................................... 3.11-37 Table 3.13-1 Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels ............................................. 3.13-5 Table 3.13-2 FTA Detailed Analysis Construction Noise Criteria .................................... 3.13-7 Table 3.13-3 FTA Construction Vibration Damage Criteria ............................................ 3.13-8 Table 3.13-4 Ontario Noise Level Exposure and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines .. 3.13-10 Table 3.13-5 Ontario Exterior Noise Standards ........................................................... 3.13-12 Table 3.13-6 Existing Railroad Noise Levels ................................................................. 3.13-19 Table 3.13-7 EBPSP Ambient Noise Levels ................................................................... 3.13-20 Table 3.13-8 Groundborne Vibration Damage Criteria ................................................ 3.13-23 Table 3.13-9 Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration and Noise ....................................................................................................... 3.13-23 Table 3.13-10 Construction Reference Noise Levels ...................................................... 3.13-25 Table 3.13-11 Operational Reference Noise Levels ....................................................... 3.13-26 Table 3.13-12 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ............................. 3.13-27 Table 3.13-13 Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels ..................................... 3.13-33 Table 3.13-14 Typical Construction Noise Levels at Receptors ...................................... 3.13-34 Table 3.13-15 EBPSP Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary .......................... 3.13-36 Table 3.13-16 EBPSP Construction Noise Compliance................................................... 3.13-36 Table 3.13-17 EBPSP Daytime Construction Noise Increases ........................................ 3.13-39 Table 3.13-18 EBPSP Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Compliance ............................... 3.13-40 Table 3.13-19 EBPSP Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Increases ................................... 3.13-40 Table 3.13-20 Off-site Improvements Noise Levels ....................................................... 3.13-41 Table 3.13-21 Project-Related Increase in Traffic Noise ................................................ 3.13-46 Table 3.13-22 EBPSP Daytime Operational Noise Levels............................................... 3.13-53 Table 3.13-23 EBPSP Nighttime Operational Noise Levels ............................................ 3.13-54 Table 3.13-24 EBPSP Operational Noise Level Compliance ........................................... 3.13-54 Table 3.13-25 EBPSP Daytime Operational Noise Increases.......................................... 3.13-55 Table 3.13-26 EBPSP Nighttime Operational Noise Increases ....................................... 3.13-55 532

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

TABLE OF CONT ENTS
v i i i
Table 3.13-27 Existing with EBPSP (Phase I) Traffic Noise Increases ............................. 3.13-57 Table 3.13-28 Existing with EBPSP (Phase 2) Traffic Noise Increase.............................. 3.13-58 Table 3.13-29 Existing with EBPSP (Buildout) Traffic Noise Increases ........................... 3.13-60 Table 3.13-30 Opening Year (2031) with EBPSP Traffic Noise Increases ....................... 3.13-61 Table 3.13-31 Horizon Year (2050) with EBPSP Traffic Noise Increases......................... 3.13-62 Table 3.13-32 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ......................................... 3.13-66 Table 3.13-33 EBPSP Construction Vibration Levels ...................................................... 3.13-67 Table 3.14-1 Population Trends in the City of Ontario and San Bernardino County ..... 3.14-4 Table 3.14-2 Historical Housing Growth Trends in the City of Ontario and San Bernardino County .................................................................................... 3.14-4 Table 3.14-3 Housing Units by Type in the City of Ontario and County of San Bernardino ................................................................................................ 3.14-5 Table 3.14-4 City of Ontario and San Bernardino County Employment Trends ............ 3.14-5 Table 3.14-5 SCAG Projections, City of Ontario and County of San Bernardino............ 3.14-7 Table 3.14-6 City of Ontario 2021–2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment ............ 3.14-7 Table 3.14-7 Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 and Proposed Project to SCAG Forecasts ................................................................................................. 3.14-10 Table 3.15-1 Public Service Providers ............................................................................ 3.15-1 Table 3.15-2 Public Schools Serving the City of Ontario ................................................ 3.15-7 Table 3.15-3 School District (K-12) Enrollment .............................................................. 3.15-8 Table 3.15-4 Student Generation Rates ......................................................................... 3.15-8 Table 3.15-5 Proposed Project Student Generation .................................................... 3.15-20 Table 3.16-1 Recreational Facility Development Impact Fees ....................................... 3.16-3 Table 3.16-2 Park/Recreational Facilities in Ontario ...................................................... 3.16-5 Table 3.16-3 Proposed Project Parkland Demand ....................................................... 3.16-17 Table 3.17-1 Approved TOP 2050 VMT ........................................................................ 3.17-17 Table 3.17-2 Proposed Project VMT ............................................................................ 3.17-18 Table 3.17-3 EBPSP VMT .............................................................................................. 3.17-21 Table 3.17-4 VMT Comparison of Policy Plan Amendment to the TOP 2050 .............. 3.17-30 Table 3.17-5 VMT Comparison of EBPSP to TOP 2050 ................................................ 3.17-34 Table 3.19-1 Utility Providers......................................................................................... 3.19-1 Table 3.19-2 UWMP Existing and Projected Supply and Demand: Normal Year......... 3.19-25 Table 3.19-3 Recycled Water Demands ....................................................................... 3.19-26 Table 3.19-4 Landfills Serving the City of Ontario ....................................................... 3.19-33 Table 3.19-5 Projected Water Demand Rates .............................................................. 3.19-38 Table 3.19-6 EBPSP Water Demand ............................................................................. 3.19-41 Table 3.19-7 Projected Wastewater Flow Rates .......................................................... 3.19-48 Table 3.19-8 IEUA WWTP Flow Rates and Capacities .................................................. 3.19-49 Table 3.19-9 Projected Wastewater Flow Rates for Specific Plan Area ....................... 3.19-51 533

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

TABLE OF CONT ENTS
M ARCH 2 026 ix
Table 3.19-10 Year 2050 Forecast Electricity Consumption .......................................... 3.19-59 Table 3.19-11 Year 2050 Forecast Natural Gas Consumption ....................................... 3.19-60 Table 3.19-12 Additional Solid Waste Generated by Policy Plan Amendment .............. 3.19-71 Table 3.20-1 Historic Wildfires in and Surrounding Ontario .......................................... 3.20-9 Table 4-1 No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 vs. Growth Projections at Buildout .......................................................................................................... 4-7 Table 4-2 EBPSP No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 Air Pollutant Emissions ...................................................................................................... 4-10 Table 4-3 EBPSP No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 GHG Emissions ............... 4-13 Table 4-4 EBPSP No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 Trip Generation ............. 4-18 Table 4-5 Reduced Intensity Alternative ...................................................................... 4-29 Table 4-6 Reduced Intensity Alternative Operational Emissions Comparison at Buildout ........................................................................................................ 4-31 Table 4-7 Comparison of Project Alternative Impacts ................................................. 4-40 Table 4-8 Ability to Meet Proposed Project Objectives ............................................... 4-42 534

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

TABLE OF CONT ENTS
x
This page intentionally left blank.
535
M ARCH 2 026 ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 INTRODUCTION
This executive summary has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15123. This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) addresses the environmental effects associated with the implementation of the proposed Policy Plan Amendment and the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (EBPSP or Specific Plan). CEQA requires that local government agencies consider the environmental consequences before acting on projects over which they have discretionary approval authority.

An SEIR analyzes potential environmental consequences to inform the public and support informed decisions by local and State governmental agency decision makers.

This SEIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and the City of Ontario’s CEQA procedures. The City of Ontario, as the lead agency, has reviewed and revised all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports as necessary to reflect its own independent judgment, including reliance on City of Ontario technical personnel from other departments and review of all technical subconsultant reports.

ES.1.1 TOP Certified EIR
The proposed project is an update to the approved project; therefore, this SEIR relies on the findings of the 2022 Draft SEIR and 2022 Final SEIR and, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, contains all the information necessary to ensure that the 2022 Certified EIR fully evaluates the proposed project. These documents, though discussed separately here, are collectively referred to in this SEIR as the 2022 Certified EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15148 and 15150, this SEIR incorporates the 2022 Certified EIR (and its constituent parts) by reference. A summary of the 2022 Certified EIR follows. All documents incorporated by reference are available for review at the City of Ontario Community Development Department at 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764.
2022 DRAFT SEIR AND FINAL EIR FOR THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 The City of Ontario circulated the 2022 Draft SEIR for a 45-day public review period beginning May 9, 2022, and ending June 23, 2022, and 20 topics were evaluated in detail in the 2022 SEIR.

The following impacts were considered less than significant without mitigation in the 2022 SEIR:
536

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-2
Aesthetics
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Biological Resources
Energy
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildlife
The following impacts were identified as having potentially significant impacts that could be mitigated, avoided, or substantially lessened.

Cultural Resources (Archeological Resources)
Geology and Soils (Paleontological Resources)
Tribal Cultural Resources
The 2022 SEIR identified the following environmental categories as having significant and unavoidable impacts that could not be avoided by incorporating mitigation.

Air Quality (AQMP Consistency, Regional Construction Emissions, Regional Operation Emissions, and Cumulative Health Risk)
Cultural Resources (Historic Resources)
Noise (Construction Noise, Construction Vibration, and Airport Land Use Compatibility) Transportation (Vehicle Miles Traveled)
The City of Ontario approved The Ontario Plan 2050 and certified the TOP 2050 SEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) on August 16, 2022.
2009 DEIR AND RECIRCULATED DEIR
The 2022 SEIR tiered off the findings for TOP Final EIR certified in January 2010. The City of Ontario circulated the 2009 Draft EIR for public review in April 2009. Six environmental categories (agricultural resources, air quality, cultural resources, global climate change, noise, and traffic and transportation) had significant and unavoidable impacts that could not be avoided with mitigation. A Recirculated Draft EIR for The Ontario Plan was released in November 2009 to update and provide additional analysis concerning GHG emissions impacts associated with buildout of the Policy Plan. This analysis was based on verbal comments made by the California Attorney General’s Office after the end of the public review period and on ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
537

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-3
recent rules and regulations about lowering GHG emissions. Only the following topic areas were analyzed in the 2009 Recirculated Draft EIR: Global Climate Change and Additional Project Alternative: 15 percent GHG Reduction Alternative. Remaining topics previously analyzed in the 2009 Draft EIR were determined to be adequately addressed. Analysis in the 2009 Recirculated Draft EIR found that significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the 2009 Draft EIR would remain significant and unavoidable. These determinations were reiterated in the 2010 Final EIR when it was certified on January 27, 2010.

ES.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
This SEIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines to assess the environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed project as well as anticipated future discretionary actions and approvals. CEQA established 6 main objectives for an EIR:

1. Disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed activities.

2. Identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage.

3. Prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures.

4. Disclose to the public reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental effects.

5. Foster interagency coordination in the review of projects.

6. Enhance public participation in the planning process.

An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; it is intended to provide an objective, factually supported analysis, and full disclosure of the environmental consequences of a proposed project with the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts.

An EIR is one of various decision-making tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Before approving a proposed project, the lead agency must consider the information in the EIR, determine whether the EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, determine that it reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency, adopt findings concerning the project’s significant environmental impacts and alternatives, and adopt a statement of overriding considerations if significant impacts cannot be avoided. 538

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-4
ES.2.1 Draft EIR Organization
Executive Summary. Summarizes the background and description of the proposed project, the format of this SEIR, project alternatives, any critical issues that need to be resolved, and the potential environmental impacts and recommended mitigation measures identified for the project.

Chapter 1: Introduction. Describes the purpose of this SEIR, background on the project, the notice of preparation, the use of incorporation by reference, and Final SEIR certification.

Chapter 2: Project Description. Provides a detailed description of the project, including its objectives, its area and location, approvals anticipated to be required as part of the project, necessary environmental clearances, and the intended uses of this SEIR.

Chapter 3: Environmental Analysis. Each environmental topic is analyzed in a separate section that discusses: the applicable regulatory framework; existing conditions; the significance criteria used to determine if a significant impact would occur; the methodology to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of the project; the potential adverse and beneficial effects of the project; the level of impact significance with and without mitigation; and the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project and other existing, approved, and proposed projects in the area.

Chapter 4: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Describes the alternatives and compares their impacts to the impacts of the proposed project. Alternatives include the No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050, Truck Route Scenario 3 Alternative, and Reduced Intensity Alternative.

Chapter 5: Other CEQA Considerations. Provides a discussion of effects found not to be significant, significant and unavoidable impacts, significant irreversible changes to the environment, and growth-inducing effects.

Chapter 6: Report Preparers and Organizations Consulted. Includes a list of people and organizations that prepared or were contacted during the preparation of this Draft SEIR.

Appendices. The appendices for this document include the following supporting documents:

Appendix A: Notice of Preparation
Appendix B: TOP 2050 Policy Matrix
Appendix C1: TOP AQ, Energy, and GHG Modeling
Appendix C2: TOP Truck Route HRA
Appendix C3: EBPSP AQ Study
Appendix C4: EBPSP HRA
■
■
■
■
■
■
539

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-5
Appendix C5: EBPSP Energy Study
Appendix C6: EBPSP GHG Study
Appendix D: EBPSP Biological Resources Report
Appendix E1: SCICC Records Search
Appendix E2: Ontario Ranch Historic Surveys
Appendix E3: EBPSP Cultural Resources
Appendix F1: EBPSP Geotechnical Study – NWC
Appendix F2: EBPSP Geotechnical Study – NEC
Appendix F3: EBPSP Paleontological Resources
Appendix G1: EBPSP Phase I
Appendix G2: EBPSP Phase II (1A)
Appendix G3: EBPSP Phase II (1B)
Appendix G4: EBPSP Phase II (2A)
Appendix G5: EBPSP Phase II (2B)
Appendix G6: ALUCP Consistency Determination
Appendix H1: EBPSP Preliminary Hydrology
Appendix H2: EBPSP WQMP
Appendix I1: TOP Noise
Appendix I2: EBPSP Noise
Appendix J: Public Service Responses
Appendix K1: TOP VMT Memo
Appendix K2: EBPSP VMT Memo
Appendix K3: EBPSP LOS Study
Appendix L1: TOP Water Supply Evaluation
Appendix L2: EBPSP Water Supply Assessment
Appendix L3: EBPSP Sewer and Water Infrastructure
Appendix M1: NAHC Records Request
Appendix M2: Tribal Consultation Letters
Appendix N: EBPSP Alternatives Analysis
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
540

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-6
ES.2.2 Type and Purpose of this Draft SEIR

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CEQA dictates when a supplemental or subsequent EIR is required for changes to a project that was previously analyzed under CEQA. Once a project has been approved based on a CEQA analysis in an EIR or negative declaration, and the EIR or negative declaration is no longer subject to challenge, CEQA Section 21166 provides that “no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or any responsible agency” unless one of three circumstances apply: 1) substantial changes to the approved project will require major revisions to the certified EIR, 2) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the approved project is being undertaken will require major revisions to the certified EIR, or 3) new information, that was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR for the approved project was certified becomes available (CEQA Section 21166).

In this case, in-depth review has already occurred and the time for challenging the sufficiency of the 2022 TOP EIR has expired (CEQA Section 21167, subd. (c)). Moreover, as discussed below, no circumstances have changed enough to justify repeating a substantial portion of the process.

The factors used to evaluate whether a Subsequent or a Supplemental EIR should be prepared are in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, and relate to whether "major changes" to the EIR are required. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 clarifies what constitute major changes to the EIR. According to that section, major changes to the EIR are those that are required either:
"Due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a)(1), (a)(2); see also subd. (a)(3)(A), (a)(3)(B)) Where "[m]itigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or" (subd. (a)(3)(C))
Where "[m]itigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative." (subd. (a)(3)(D))
As disclosed in this Executive Summary, the analysis prepared for this SEIR substantiates that the Policy Plan Amendment would result in one or more new significant environmental effects in comparison to the Current TOP 2050 as adopted.
■
■
■
541

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-7
This Draft SEIR is a program-level document that supplements the analyses in the Certified 2022 EIR. Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that:
(a) The lead or responsible agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if:
1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and
2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. (b) The supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. (c) A supplement to an EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and public review as is given to a draft EIR under Section 15087.
(d) A supplement to an EIR may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous draft or final EIR.
(e) When the agency decides whether to approve the project, the decisionmaking body shall consider the previous EIR as revised by the supplemental EIR.

A finding under Section 15091 shall be made for each significant effect shown in the previous EIR as revised.

In accordance with Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines, this document:

Incorporates the 2022 Certified EIR by reference, as discussed in Section 2.2, Project Background. Contains information necessary to make the 2022 Certified EIR adequate for the proposed project.

Evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the changes to the Current TOP 2050 that are a result of changed circumstances and new information.

Evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed changes to the Current TOP 2050, i.e., the proposed land use designation and development capacity changes.

Updates where necessary the discussion of cumulative impacts, growth-inducing impacts, and other required sections of this Draft SEIR.
■
■
■
■
■
542

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-8
The proposed project is summarized in Section ES.4, Summary of the Proposed Project, and more fully described in Chapter 2 of this Draft SEIR. The analysis in this SEIR confirms that the 2022 Certified EIR is adequate for the proposed project with the updated information contained herein.

Approach/Definition of Baseline
As described above, a Supplement to an EIR need only contain the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the proposed project, as revised. The 2022 Certified EIR therefore serves as the logical “baseline” to assess potential impacts associated with the proposed project. The environmental impacts associated with the proposed project for this SEIR are defined as the incremental impacts between the Current TOP 2050 and the proposed project. To accurately assess the incremental impact, this SEIR analyzes the difference between the buildout of the Current TOP 2050 to buildout of the Policy Plan Amendment (i.e., compares “buildout” to “buildout”). Impacts are assessed for the net land use changes under the proposed project, as described in Section 1.4.3.1, Areas of Change. The environmental setting of each topical section provides an update of existing conditions and changes in circumstances since certification of the 2022 Certified EIR.

PROGRAM EIR
This SEIR fulfills the requirements for a Program EIR. Although the legally required contents of a Program EIR are the same as for a Project EIR, Program EIRs are typically more conceptual than Project EIRs, with a more general discussion of impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures.

According to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. Use of a Program EIR gives the lead agency an opportunity to consider broad policy alternatives and programwide mitigation measures, with greater flexibility to address project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts on a comprehensive scale.

Agencies prepare Program EIRs for programs or a series of related actions that are linked geographically; logical parts of a chain of contemplated events, rules, regulations, or plans that govern the conduct of a continuing program; or individual activities carried out under the same authority and having generally similar environmental effects that can be mitigated in similar ways.

Once a Program EIR has been prepared, subsequent activities within the program must be evaluated to determine whether an additional CEQA document is necessary. If the Program EIR addresses the program’s effects as specifically and comprehensively as possible, many subsequent activities may be within the Program SEIR’s scope, and additional environmental documents may not be required (CEQA Guidelines sec. 15168[c]). When a lead agency relies on a Program EIR for a subsequent activity, it must incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives from the Program EIR into the subsequent activities (CEQA Guidelines 543

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-9
sec. 15168[c][3]). If a subsequent activity would have effects outside the scope of the Program EIR, the lead agency must prepare a new Initial Study leading to a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR. Even in this case, the Program SEIR still serves a valuable purpose as the first-tier environmental analysis. The CEQA Guidelines encourage the use of Program EIRs, citing five advantages:

Provide a more exhaustive consideration of impacts and alternatives than would be practical in an individual EIR;
Focus on cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis; Avoid continual reconsideration of recurring policy issues; Consider broad policy alternatives and programmatic mitigation measures at an early stage when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with them; Reduce paperwork by encouraging the reuse of data (through tiering). (CEQA Guidelines sec. 15168[h])
This EBPSP portion of the Draft SEIR has been prepared as a “Project SEIR,” defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15161 (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3). This type of EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project and should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The SEIR shall examine all phases of the project, including planning, construction, and operation.

ES.3 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Ontario is in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County and is surrounded by the cities of Chino and Montclair and unincorporated San Bernardino County to the west; the cities of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga to the north; the city of Fontana and unincorporated San Bernardino County to the east; and the cities of Eastvale and Jurupa Valley to the south (see Figures ES-1, Regional Location, and ES-2, Citywide Aerial Map). The City is in the central part of the Upper Santa Ana River Valley. The primary tributary that flows through Ontario is the Cucamonga Creek, which originates, together with subtributaries, in the San Gabriel Mountains and flows into the Prado Dam, where it joins the Santa Ana River, eventually terminating in the Pacific Ocean.

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-10
San Bernardino County/Riverside County boundary on the south (see Figure ES-1). Regional circulation to and through the City is provided by I-10 and State Route (SR) 60, east to west, and by I-15 and SR-83 (Euclid Avenue), north to south. The City is also home to the Ontario International Airport (ONT) and proximate to Chino Airport.

Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan
The 189-acre Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (EBPSP or Specific Plan) project site is bounded to the south by Eucalyptus Avenue, the east by Walker Avenue, and the west by Campus Avenue. Figure ES-3, EBPSP Aerial Map, illustrates the general location of the EBPSP.

The project site includes the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 0216-322-01, 0216-322-02, 0216-321-06, 0216-321-07, 0126-322-10, 0216-321-01, 0216-321-02, 1053-551-01, 1053-541- 02, 1053-541-01, 1053-571-01, 1053-571-02, 1053-531-01, 1053-531-02, 1053-531-03, 1053- 531-04, 1053-581-04, and 1053-581-03.

ES.4 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT
Policy Plan Amendment
The Policy Plan Amendment project component primarily involves modifying the currently permitted and planned TOP land use pattern across more than 1,300 acres in southern Ontario.

The proposed land use changes necessitate updates and modifications across the Land Use Element and various other elements of TOP 2050 Policy Plan.

Land Use Element. Proposed changes to the TOP Land Use Plan are shown on Figure ES-4, Policy Plan Amendment Areas of Change. Additional figures in the Land Use Element will be updated to maintain consistency, including TOP Figures LU-02, LU-03, and LU-04. Land Use Plan changes are primarily located within the Ontario Ranch (south of Riverside Drive), with a handful of changes in the northern part of the city along East Holt Avenue and South Grove Avenue, as further discussed below..

Housing Element. To comply with state law, the Housing Element requires updates to TOP housing sites inventory to reflect changes in the list of sites suitable to fulfill the City’s RHNA requirement.
■
■
545
Q ....
,¼,.

KERN

LOS ANGELES
.. .
r

NGELES COUNTY
.,_I FU
,-
-

SAN BERNARDINO

RIVERSIDE

SAN DIEGO
Covina
• bLERTON •
- !~~:~---:_.:--------il..._~1~ -------'
lr.
.
d
[a Verne
®

BRACKETT
IEtRT
.
_ UPLAND II f •
\
,,I.

Clf,fOF
RANCHO

CUCAMONGA
CABLE AIRPORT . I
I
I
~ I
•
' \ ·

ONTARIO
I [TJBNATIONAL
,;:======~ ~h:==:C:-::ITY==n_ ~,~r:om: so

OF ONTARIO
..J. I ----
l !

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

RIVERSIDE COUNTY
.,.

CITY OF

FONTANA
•

JURUPA VALLEY

CITY OF
CHINO
HILLS
241
I

UNINCORPORATED
c::::::::::::::
~
© • '
CORONA
MIJNlGPAt

AIRPORT
CORONA
~ ~
•
;
,. ~
-
•
,:;\_
"
_I ,. c,;,,, - fl '- ..
r
✓

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-1
Regional Location
D EBPSP Boundary
(±) Airports
~ J Ontario City Limit
Parks and Open Space
L City Boundary
c::::J County Boundary
Unincorporated County
2·0·5·0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
@ 0 10,000 20,000
Feet
40,000
Dale: 2/10/2026
546

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-12
This page intentionally left blank.
547

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-2
Citywide Aerial Map
83J Airport
I.. "I Ontario City Boundary
! i Adjacent City Boundary
I.. "l County Boundary
Unincorporated County
c::::J EBPSP Boundary
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 0 2,500 5,000
Source: The City of Ontario 2025
FT
10,000
Date: 2/19/2026
548

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-14
This page intentionally left blank.
549

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-3
EBPSP Aerial Map
D EBPSP Boundary
2·0·5·0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
~ ~ Ft
,..,. 0 275 550
Source: T&B 2026. Date: 03/03/2026
550

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-16
This page intentionally left blank.
551
=+ 1 .. :-. , , , , , . , , , , , , , . , , ½--,.._ I ~ ............ -+-+---+----+-+--+-+-+-+--+---+--+-+--+--+-~--+-+ l I Afi:f==M-;;;;;;;;;;m,,i;iiiiiiiiiiili'l'l==---i-~r_A~-6-~~-----J•--;-.. E-e<G•T-a->T"7•~\ ''' ''' '' ''' '' '' ''' •Gl~~::;~~~Q• '' '' ~~ ~ •• J _ l
> 1
z CITY OF ~ z MONTCLAIR ~ J
z ' I~
~
w
> <(
Q
z
0 w ~
~ <(
z z iw G ST:;;
z z =>
~ W DST
·· J W MISSION BLVQ
I 7 1
_ .. r.L-- i-
~ 11.l
.. J f ■
W PH
. ·r ,I

CITY OF CHINO
z
<(
V')
\ w I l
L . -,.-,£-fOW .. -•-··-----·--·L ·---.. ,
I
z
Cl
....,
u . ~
UJ
~
<(
z
<(
t::;
::>
V"l
z
<(
z
<(
b
::>
V')
UJ
~
V,
::>
Q.
~
<(
u
z
L..;' q,;,::::......:::;;:::;;;;;;;;
I
I

I- -------
I ......_,___
w
>
0 0::
l:J
E RI ... SIOE o~
-<:: "'
I..)
"'
w
> <(
"1 Cl C: ....,
Cl <(
E: c::,
"' ::c
""""!I::= ~ +>~ ~ ~
"'
IF L---t ' t ========~ L_ • E• lfllJe'/ll~Y·P'l'l9S-AV[D l L---··-·••ME"'ll'-AV ... ••---··1
L .. --·
L
0::

UJ
z
0::
::,
f--
V"l
D
I
~
~ ll ' ~ ~ 0
g E 1Nej~PIRE BLVD I _
~'---.7 .......... ·F ·~.~'.-, __ ~--~~-..._,...-
- ! +--!-----l--1-----+-+---+--+--t---+-<1 r RPORT o, • 11 \
1 .

L E SANTA ANA ST -
~ CITY OF
..

UJ
~
z
w
::.:
::i
=-•JI
z
~
.t:
:i;:

I
'1'
I
.. J
,~ EASTVALE
~ FONTANA <{
~ w ~
~ a.,
UJ "'
~ i I
~ ~ l~ounty of : San Bernardino ··-•1------.A, ___ ___. · · - ·· County of Riverside

JURUPA VALLEY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-4
Policy Plan Amendment
Areas of Change
c::J EBPSP Boundary
[::::::J Proposed TOP Areas of Change
c::J Ontario City Boundary
c::J County Boundary
~ Rail Network
Overlay Zones
Y°'h Business Park
Y°'h Industrial
Landfill Impact Area
Residential
RR Rural Residential
LDR Low Density Residential
LMDR Low Medium Density Residential
- MDR Medium Density Residential
- HDR High Density Residential
Mixed-Use
- MU Mixed Use
Commercial
- NC Neighborhood Commercial
- GC General Commercial
- OC Office Commercial
HOS Hospitality
Employment
BP Business Park
- IND Industrial
Other
OS-NR Open Space - Non-Rec
- OS-R Open Space - Recreation
:/\.\:( OS-W Open Space - Water
PF Public Facility
ROW; ROW-bp
- PS Public School
ARPT Airport
LF Landfill
~ Rail
*Areas where no land use
change is proposed are
shown at 40% opacity
2·0·5·0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
@ I
0 2,500 5,000
Source: The City of Ontario 2026
FT
10,000
Date: 2/26/2026
552

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-18
This page intentionally left blank.
553

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-19
Mobility Element. The City’s network of truck routes will be updated in compliance with AB 98, and consistent with proposed land use changes. Minor updates to the City’s Roadway System (M-01), and multipurpose trails and bikeways, identified on TOP Figure M-02, are also proposed to reflect the City’s long term plan for roadways, and align future bike improvements with the proposed changes in the land use pattern and truck routes in southwestern Ontario. New Mobility policies and implementation actions addressing priority safety corridors consistent with Senate Bill 932 are proposed, as well as a new policy promoting lower speed limits for trucks in areas adjacent to noise-and-vibration-sensitive land uses. Finaly, Policies M-3.1 and M-4.1 will be updated. Policy M-3.1 will be expanded to note that the city will prioritize coordinating access to transit in areas near sites identified in the housing element as suitable for lower-income (in addition to EJ areas), while Policy M4.1 will clarify that noise-sensitive land uses is intended to include both noise and vibration sensitive land uses.

Community Design Element. Mixed-use place types, identified in the Community Design Element, will be updated to reflect proposed land use changes. Revisions include changes to existing mixed-use areas, and the establishment of new mixed-use areas, including creating a new district-level place type for the Ontario Sports Empire, revising the South Euclid District place type, and removing the South Employment District place type. TOP Figures CD01, CD-02, CD-06, CD-07, CD-08, and CD-09.2 are to be updated. The approved TOP Figure CD-07 will be removed and replaced with a new TOP Figure CD-07, establishing the Ontario Sports Empire as “District Place Type.”
Parks and Recreation. Revisions to the location of planned park facilities in TOP Figure PR-01 to maintain consistency with approved projects and the proposed land use plan.

Safety. Revisions to the Traffic Noise Contours Map (S-06a) will be updated consistent with proposed changes in land use and circulation. In addition minor changes to the base maps used in the map of Critical Facilities (S-08), Evacuation Constrained Properties (S-09), and Evacuation Routes (S-10) will be processed to show updates to the city’s park network or remove parks from the base maps, as the location of parks in no way alters the intent of the map.

Environmental Resources. Policy ER-5.4 will be updated to state that the City does not require replacement farmland or require the dedication or preservation of agricultural land outside of the City if a property owner elects to transition from agricultural to urban uses.

Finally, the City’s Development Code will be updated to maintain consistency with the proposed Land Use Plan.

Development Code Consistency. The zoning map and Development Code will be updated to implement the Policy Plan Amendment.
■
■
■
■
■
■
554

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-20
Table ES-1, Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment, provides a statistical summary of the buildout potential of TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment compared to the buildout potential under the currently approved TOP 2050. As shown in this table, the Policy Plan Amendment would increase population, dwelling units, nonresidential building square footage, and employment compared to the approved TOP 2050.

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

EUCALYPTUS BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
The Specific Plan would function as the regulatory document for implementing zoning for the entire site, ensuring the orderly and systematic implementation of the City’s Policy Plan. The Specific Plan establishes the necessary land use plan, development standards, design guidelines, infrastructure systems, and implementation strategies on which subsequent, related development activities would be founded. Upon adoption of the Specific Plan, subsequent subdivision maps, plot plans, conditional use permits, grading and building permits, or any other actions requiring either ministerial or discretionary approvals would be required to demonstrate consistency with the Specific Plan.

As illustrated in Figure ES-5, Conceptual EBPSP Land Use Plan, the EBPSP would establish 9 planning areas that would provide for development of the site with approximately 2,939,000 SF of Business Park uses on 137.9 acres and 36.15 acres of Open Space–Parkland. The remaining

14.97 acres would be utilized for roadway improvements. Table ES-2, EBPSP Land Use Statistical 555

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-21
Summary, provides a breakdown of acreages by planning area. The EBPSP would result in estimated 1,590 employees within the project site.

Table ES-2 EBPSP Land Use Statistical Summary
Planning Area
(PA) Land Use Designation Acres Target Buildout SF
1 Business Park 7.70 162,600
2 Business Park 18.33 273,700
3 Business Park 18.21 340,700
4 Business Park 18.19 423,200
5 Business Park 37.76 859,300
6 Business Park 37.71 879,500
7 Open Space – Parkland 8.05 —
8 Open Space – Parkland 14.10 — 9 Open Space – Parkland 14.00 — - Roadway 14.97 —
TOTAL 189.0 2,939,000
Notes: SF = square feet

1. A maximum of 10,000 SF of Commercial uses may be provided within Business Park planning areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. This square footage is included within the total listed above.

2. A publicly operated animal resource center may be provided within any of the Business Park planning areas. The animal resource center shall not exceed 35,000 SF.

3. The EBPSP allows the transfer of development square footage (15 percent or less) within the same land use designation, provided that the shift in square footage would not exceed the maximum allowable overall square footage (2,939,000) and the maximum building FAR (0.55).

4. Total acreage of 189.0 is rounded to the nearest one-tenth of an acre.

ES.5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) states that an EIR must address “a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” The alternatives in this Draft SEIR were based, in part, on their potential to reduce or eliminate the impacts determined to be potentially significant for implementation of the proposed project (see Table ES-1, Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures). The project alternatives were not reviewed for financial feasibility. Project alternatives are assessed in further detail in Chapter 4, Alternatives to the Proposed Project. 556

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-22
ES.5.1 No Project Alternative/ Current TOP 2050

POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
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 within the EBPSP project site.

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. The No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would not meet some of the objectives of the proposed project.

SPECIFIC PLAN
The current TOP 2050 designates the Specific Plan area for Medium Density Residential (MDR), Mixed-Use (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 non-residential land uses within the Specific Plan area. As discussed in Chapter 4, Alternatives, the no project alternative would result in an increase in population, units, and employment but a decrease in non-residential square feet.

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 air quality, GHG, off-site trafficrelated 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 operation, 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.
557
PA 1
*
PA2

BUSINESS PARK BUSINESS PARK

7.70AC. ~ 18.33 AC.
!!: I ~ < < I .,, <
i• PA4 ~ PAS
~· BUSINESS PARK s BUSINESS PARK I 18.19AC. ~ 37.76AC. Ill '----------------------------------------- - EUCALYPTUS AVE PA Land Use Acres Target Buildout (S.F.)
1 Business Park 7.70 162,600
2 Business Park 18.33 273,700
3 Business Park 18.21 340,700
4 Business Park 18.19 423,200
5 Business Park 37.76 859,300

37.71 879,500
e - Parkland 8.05
e - Parkland 14.10

14.00 * Potential Publicly Operated Animal Resource Center Notes:

1. A maximum of 10,000 s.t tatal of Commercial uses may be provided within the Business Park Planning Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, S, and 6.

2. A publicly operated animal resource center may be provided within the Business Pork and Open Space - Parkland Planning Areas. The animal resource center shall not exceed 35,000 s.f

3. Depending on market conditions, bui/dout square footage within the Business Park Planning Areas is transferrable, as long os the totol buildout square footage within the Business Pork Planning Areas does not exceed 2,939,000 sJ
PA3

BUSINESS PARK

18.21 AC.

I
~
PA6 ~
BUSINESS PARK :1

37.71 AC.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-5
Conceptual EBPSP Land Use Plan
··-·· L .. J EBPSP Boundary
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPP L EMENTAL EIR
·8 0 ~ 27 5 550 Feet
Source: T&B 2025 Date: 02/17/2026
558

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-24
This page intentionally left blank.
559

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-25
As compared with the EBPSP, this alternative would not meet the following objectives to the same extent due to the change in the proposed land uses from business park to residential and mixed-use:

To provide a land use plan that implements The Ontario Plan’s vision and appropriately positions business park and public parkland uses north of Eucalyptus Avenue, between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue.

To facilitate the development of a variety of employment-generating uses in a business park setting.

To provide business park uses that are compatible with surrounding land uses.

ES.5.2 Truck Route Scenario 3 Alternative
In summer 2025, the City conducted outreach and initiated an evaluation of its existing truck routes, which resulted in changes to truck routes in northern Ontario, including within the Original Model Colony (OMC). The purpose of the proposed project is to remove trucks from residential areas, such as Ontario Ranch Road. 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. These additional routes would disperse truck traffic throughout the Ontario Ranch area to a greater extent. While the total number of trucks within 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.

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

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

This alternative would meet all the objectives of the Policy Plan Amendment with the exception of objectives on truck routes and circulation changes. As compared with the proposed project, this alternative would not meet the following objectives:
■
■
■
560

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-26
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.

ES.5.3 Reduced Intensity Alternative

POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
The proposed land use plan would result in a net increase of 6,370,304 square feet of industrial land use compared to the Current TOP 2050. The EBPSP represents 2,939,000 square feet of the growth in industrial land uses under the proposed project (46 percent); therefore, this alternative considers a reduced intensity alternative for the EBPSP area.

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
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.

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-27
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 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.

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. 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.

ES.6 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. For the proposed project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the lead agency as to:

1. Whether this EIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the project.

2. Whether the benefits of the project override those environmental impacts which cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance.

3. Whether the proposed land use changes are compatible with the character of the existing area.

4. Whether the identified goals, policies, or mitigation measures should be adopted or modified.
■
■
■
562

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-28

5. Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the project besides the mitigation measures identified in the EIR.

6. Whether there are any alternatives to the project that would substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed project and achieve most of the basic project objectives.

ES.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
In accordance with Section 15123(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR summary must identify areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public. Prior to preparation of the Draft SEIR, the City of Ontario issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on November 4, 2025. The CEQA-mandated public period for this SEIR was between November 4 to December 5, 2025, during which interested agencies and the public could submit comments about the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. A scoping meeting was held on November 20, 2025. During this time, the City of Ontario received comment letters from a variety of State and local agencies as well as several organizations and members of the public. Appendix A, Notice of Preparation, of this Draft SEIR contains the NOP as well as the comments received by the City of Ontario in response to the NOP. In addition, NOP comment letters received during the review period are summarized in Chapter 2, Introduction (see Table 1-1, NOP Comment Summary).

The following list includes issues that are likely to be of particular concern to agencies and interested members of the public during the environmental review process. Though every concern applicable to the CEQA process is addressed in this Draft SEIR, this list is not necessarily exhaustive; rather, it attempts to capture concerns that are likely to generate the greatest interest based on the input received during the scoping process.

Agricultural Resources
Air Quality and GHG
Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Transportation
■
■
■
■
■
563

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-29
ES.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND

MITIGATION MEASURES
Table ES-3, Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analysis in this SEIR.

Impacts are identified as potentially significant, less than significant or no impact, and mitigation measures are identified for all significant impacts. The level of significance after imposing the mitigation measures is also presented.

Table Terminology:

PPA: Policy Plan Amendment
EBPSP: Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan
PS: Potentially Significant
SU: Significant and Unavoidable
LTS: Less than Significant
NI: No Impact
564

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-30
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation

AESTHETICS
Impact AES-1: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
substantially alter scenic vistas in
Ontario.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact AES-2: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
alter scenic resources within a
State scenic highway.

PPA: NI
EBPSP: NI
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: NI
EBPSP: NI
Impact AES-3: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
conflict with zoning or other
regulations governing scenic
quality.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact AES-4: Buildout of the
proposed project would generate
additional light and glare, which
would be minimized through
adherence to the City of Ontario
Development Code.

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

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Impact AGF-1: The proposed
project would not convert Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance in Ontario to
nonagricultural use.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
The City of Ontario’s land use plan no longer designates agricultural land uses in the City. No mitigation measures are required.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
565

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-31
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Impact AGF-2: The proposed
project would not result in
conflicts with existing zoning for
agricultural use or a Williamson
Act contract.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
The City of Ontario’s land use plan no longer designates agricultural land uses in the City. No mitigation measures are required.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact AGF-3: The proposed
project would not conflict with
existing zoning for forest land,
timberland, or timberland zoned
Timberland Production.

PPA: NI
EBPSP: NI
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: NI
EBPSP: NI
Impact AGF-4: No forest land
would be affected by the
proposed project.

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

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

PPA: PS
EBPSP: PS
Mitigation measures applied to the operational phases would reduce air quality impacts. However, no additional mitigation measures have been identified.

PPA: SU
EBPSP: SU
Impact AQ-2: Construction
activities associated with future
development that would be
accommodated under the Policy
Plan Amendment could generate
short-term emissions in
PPA: PS
EBPSP: LTS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure AIR-1-PPA [Former MM 3-1]: Prior to
discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating
potential project construction-related air quality impacts to PPA: SU
EBPSP: LTS
566

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-32
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
exceedance of the South Coast
AQMD’s threshold criteria.
the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and
approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts.

If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–
adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Building Department shall require feasible mitigation
measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include:

Require fugitive dust control measures that exceed
South Coast Air Quality Management District’s
Rule 403, such as:
o Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to
reduce wind erosion.
o Applying water every four 4 hours to active
soil disturbing activities.
o Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of
24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt,
sand, soil, or other loose materials.

Using construction equipment rated by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency as having
Tier 4 interim or higher exhaust emission limits.

Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced
and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.

Limiting nonessential idling of construction
equipment to no more than five 5 consecutive
minutes.
■
■
■
■
567

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-33
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of
architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of
Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures
can be found on the South Coast Air Quality
Management District’s website at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/SuperCompliant_AIM.pdf. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rulescompliance/compliance/vocs/architecturalcoatings/super-compliant-coatings.

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

Specific Plan
No mitigation measures are required.

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

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

Mitigation Measure AIR-3-PPA [Former MM AQ-1]: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating
potential project operation-phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance PPA: SU
EBPSP: SU
■
568

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-34
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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).
■
■
■
■
569

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-35
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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 A5.106.8.2 A4.106.8 of
CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures;
Residential Voluntary Measures).

Applicant-provided appliances shall be Energy Star–
certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes
washers, and dryers). Installation of Energy Star–certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City
during plan check.

Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure AIR-1-SP: To facilitate the future installation of infrastructure that would charge the batteries that power the motors of electric-powered trucks, the following shall be installed: 1) prior to the shell building permit approval, an electrical room(s) and/or exterior area(s) of the site shall be designated where future electrical panels would be located for the purpose of supplying power to on-site charging
facilities for electric powered trucks. Conduit shall be installed from this designated area where the panel would be located to the onsite location where the charging facilities would be located and where electric-powered trucks would park and connect to charging facilities to charge the batteries that power the motors of the electric-powered trucks; 2) prior to ■
■
■
■
570

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-36
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
issuance of a building permit for tenant improvements,
tenants that plan to operate electric trucks would be required to construct electrical charging infrastructure in addition to the required conduits.

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

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

Mitigation Measure AIR-3-SP: Idling Regulations. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be installed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas that identify applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) anti-idling regulations. At a
minimum, each sign shall include the following instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use.
a) Instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than 5 minutes once the vehicle is stopped, the 571

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-37
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
transmission is set to “neutral” or “park” and the parking brake is engaged.
b) Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report violations.

Mitigation Measure AIR-4-SP: All future operations shall adhere to the following:
a) Sites shall clearly mark entry and exit points for trucks and service vehicles.
b) Facility operators shall maintain records of their fleet equipment owned by the facility and ensure that all
diesel-fueled Medium-Heavy Duty Trucks (MHDT) and
Heavy-Heavy Duty Trucks (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.
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
572

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-38
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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.

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

Installation shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
a) For use by employees and visitors conducting business at the building, install automobile electric vehicle (EV)
charging stations at the minimum number required by
the California Code of Regulations Title 24. All charging stations shall be equipped with Level 2 or faster chargers.

Signs shall be posted indicating that the charging stations are for exclusive use by the building’s employees and by visitors conducting business at the building.
b) Install appropriate electrical infrastructure sufficiently sized to accommodate the potential installation of
additional auto and truck EV charging stations in the
future.
573

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-39
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
c) Install raceways for conduit to tractor trailer parking areas in logical, gated locations determined by the Applicant during construction document plan check, for the
purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV
truck charging stations at such time this technology
becomes commercially available. The charging station
location(s) are to be located inside the gated and secured truck courts.

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

Mitigation Measure AIR-7-SP: City Review of Construction Documents. Prior to issuance of building permits, the
following features shall be demonstrated on building and landscape plans to the extent feasible. Installation shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
a) Install Energy Star-rated heating, cooling, lighting, and appliances
b) Structures shall be equipped with outdoor electric outlets in the front and rear to facilitate use of electrical lawn and garden equipment.
c) Install rooftop solar energy systems which generate
enough electricity to meet 45% of the annual warehouse
electricity demand.

Mitigation Measure AIR-8-SP: Tenant Lease Agreement. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the following language shall be included within tenant lease agreements in order to 574

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-40
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
reduce operational air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible:
a) Information about energy efficiency, energy-efficient lighting and lighting control systems, energy
management, and existing energy incentive programs.
b) Information about funding opportunities, such as the Carl Moyer Program, that provide incentives for using cleanerthan-required engines and equipment. c) Requirements to use the cleanest technologies available and to provide the necessary infrastructure to support
zero-emission vehicles, equipment, and appliances that
would be operating on site at such time this technology becomes commercially available. This requirement shall
apply to equipment such as forklifts, handheld
landscaping equipment, yard trucks, office appliances,
etc.
d) Requirements to exclusively use zero-emission light and medium-duty delivery trucks and vans, when
economically feasible.
e) Requirements to operate in compliance with, and to
monitor compliance with, all current and applicable air quality regulations for on-road trucks including the
California Air Resources Board’s Heavy-Duty (TractorTrailer) Greenhouse Gas Regulation, Periodic Smoke Inspection Program, and the Statewide Truck and Bus
Regulation.
f) Requirements and identification of the responsible party to maintain, replace, and upgrade rooftop solar panels
per the manufacturer’s recommendations for the life of
the lease. The EBPSP would comply with existing solar
575

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-41
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
requirements per the California Energy Code in effect
during permitting (at the time of Construction Drawing
Plan Check Submittal). In the case that the tenant
requires additional solar capacity, this shall be addressed during the tenant improvement process. The EBPSP
would be required to meet the CCR Title 24 energy
efficiency standards in effect at the time building permit applications are submitted.
g) Requirements and identification of the responsible party to maintain, replace, and repair the legible, durable,
weather-proof signs that were installed at initial building occupancy placed at truck access gates, loading docks,
and truck parking areas that identify applicable CARB
anti-idling regulations.
h) The tenant agreement shall include notification that the tenant shall comply with CARB Truck and Bus regulation, including requirements that only haul trucks meeting
model year 2010 engine emission standards shall be used 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.

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

PPA: PS
EBPSP: LTS
Policy Plan Amendment
No additional mitigation measures have been identified.

Specific Plan
No mitigation measures are required.

PPA: SU
EBPSP: LTS
576

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-42
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Impact AQ-5: Operation of
industrial and warehousing land
uses accommodated under the
Policy Plan Amendment would
cumulative contribute to elevated
levels of toxic air contaminants in
the South Coast AQMD region.

PPA: PS
EBPSP: LTS
Policy Plan Amendment
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 to reduce individual projects to less than significant. However, no additional mitigation measures were identified to reduce cumulative impacts.

Policy ER-4.9: New Localized Air Pollution Sources Near Existing Sensitive Receptors. We require new developments to
conduct a Health Risk Assessment for land uses that generate more than 100 trucks per day or 40 trucks per day by trucks operating transportation refrigeration units (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 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.

PPA: SU (cumulative)
EBPSP: LTS
577

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-43
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Specific Plan
No mitigation measures are required.

Impact AQ-6: Operation of land
uses accommodated under the
proposed project would not result
in other emissions, such as those
leading to odors, that would
adversely affect a substantial
number of people.

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

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

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

Mitigation Measure BIO-2-PPA: Biological Reconnaissance-Level Survey. The biological reconnaissance-level survey shall include, but not be limited to:

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
578

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-44
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
An analysis of available literature and biological
databases including but not limited to: California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); California
Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB); California Native
Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered
Plants of California, National Wetland Inventory Database (NWI); USGS National Hydrographic Dataset (NHD);
EcoAtlas; and database searches of the US Fish and
Wildlife Service Critical Habitat, Environmental
Conservation Online System (ECOS), and Information,
Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC). The literature review shall be performed prior to the field survey to
identify sensitive biological resources 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).
■
■
■
579

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-45
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
An evaluation of the proposed development project’s
potential to support special status plant and wildlife
species.

An evaluation of nesting habitat for migratory and special status bird species.

An evaluation of potential impacts to bats and roosts
from ground-disturbing activities.

A general assessment of potential jurisdictional areas, including wetlands and riparian habitats.

An evaluation of potential local and regional wildlife
movement corridors.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3-PPA: Focused Species Surveys. If one or more special status plant or animal species has the potential to occur within the proposed development project area
(including but not limited to project footprint, proposed access roads, staging and laydown areas, and a suitable buffer), a qualified biologist shall conduct additional focused surveys for said species using the most recently updated protocols recommended by natural resource agencies or, if not available, standards accepted in the professional
biological community to survey that taxonomic group,
community, or species. If an established protocol is not available for a special status species, the qualified biologist will consult with the City and CDFW or USFWS to determine the appropriate survey protocol. The focused species
survey(s) will be at a level to determine the
presence/absence of these species and to adequately
evaluate potential direct and/or indirect impacts to these species. Adjoining properties shall also be surveyed (as access permits) where direct or indirect project effects, such as ■
■
■
■
■
580

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-46
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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 focused species surveys shall be summarized in the proposed
development project’s Biological Technical Report.

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

Mitigation Measure BIO-5-PPA: Special-Status Species, Sensitive Habitats, Wetlands, Other Non-wetland Waters, Native
Wildlife Nursery Sites, and Wildlife Corridors. If a sensitive 581

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-47
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
biological resource is identified during field surveys (see Mitigation Measures BIO-2-PPA and BIO-3-PPA), the City shall require implementation of mitigation measures at the project level that fully account for the adversely affected resource.

Mitigation measures shall adhere to the following order of priority to reduce adverse impacts of a proposed project to the resource: avoid impacts, minimize impacts, and
compensate for impacts. Mitigation measures shall be used on a project-level basis and be tailored to on-site conditions and sensitive biological resources present.

Priority 1, Avoidance of Impacts. Proposed development
shall avoid impacts to the maximum extent feasible, as
determined by a qualified biologist, by not taking certain actions or parts of an action. Projects shall be sited to avoid direct or indirect impacts on the resource and
include measures such as implementing no-disturbance
buffers (e.g., nesting bird buffer areas during
construction, siting staging areas outside buffer area) or implementing project-specific design features (e.g.,
wildlife-friendly fencing and lighting in a wildlife corridor), such that indirect adverse effects of project development are avoided. This shall include flagging all plants and/or perimeter of populations; stop-work buffers around
plants and/or populations (e.g., flagged perimeter plus 50 feet); restrictions on ground-disturbing activities within protected areas; relocation of staging and other material piling areas away from protected areas; restrictions on herbicide use and/or type of herbicide and/or application method within 100 feet of sensitive plants; and worker
education and training.
■
582

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-48
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Priority 2, Minimize Impacts. Proposed development
shall be conditioned to minimize adverse impacts by
limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation to less than significant. Other mitigation measures may include reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations
during the life of the action.

Measures to mitigate the spread of invasive plant species and invasive wildlife species (e.g., New Zealand mudsnail) shall include but will not be limited to: cleaning of
equipment, footwear, and clothing before entering a
construction site and the identification and treatment of significant infestations of invasive plant species within a project site.

Priority 3, Offset Impacts. Offsetting impacts can be done by replacing or providing substitute resources or by
rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or
restoring the impacted environment.

Offset mitigation ratios for protected sensitive resources will be established based on the rarity of the resource, quality of affected habitat associated with the resource, temporary and permanent losses to habitat function, the type of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement,
preservation, establishment), and other requirements
associated with state or federal permits. Mitigation ratios will be determined at the project level in consultation with the City, the qualified biologist, and, where
applicable, federal or state agencies with jurisdiction over the resource (e.g., CDFW, USACE, USFWS).
■
■
583

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-49
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
If impacts on a protected sensitive biological resource are unavoidable, then the project proponent shall mitigate for the type of resource as follows:

Endangered, Rare, Threatened, or Candidate Species. The applicant shall obtain incidental take authorization from USFWS (16 US Code Section 1531 et seq.) or CDFW
(California Fish and Game Code Sections 2050–2115.5)
prior to commencing development of the project site;
apply minimization measures or other conditions
required under the incidental take authorization; and
provide equivalent compensation for the unavoidable
losses of these resources. Compensation may include
purchasing credits from a USFWS- or CDFW-approved
mitigation bank or restoring or enhancing habitat within the project site or outside of the project site.

Special Status Species (not listed). The applicant shall provide equivalent compensation for impacts on special
status species by restoring or significantly enhancing
existing habitat where the species occurs or by acquiring or protecting land that provides habitat function for
affected species and is at least equivalent to the habitat function removed or degraded as a result of project
implementation.

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 ■
■
■
584

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-50
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
water quality certification from the Regional Water
Quality Control Board, a Streambed Alteration Agreement for impacts on aquatic or riparian habitats within CDFW jurisdiction under Fish and Game Code Section 1600),
and provide equivalent compensation for the
unavoidable losses of the above-mentioned resources
such that there is no net loss.

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

Mitigation Measure BIO-7-PPA: Preconstruction Special Status Species Surveys. If sensitive biological resources are
identified as having potential to occur within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development project area, a
preconstruction special status species survey shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to ground disturbing activities to ensure unsubstantiated impacts are avoided or minimized. In addition, for species with potential to occur within or adjacent to the proposed 585

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-51
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
development project area and having species-specific
preconstruction or take avoidance survey guidelines (e.g. burrowing owl), surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the most recent survey guidelines by a qualified biologist for that species.

Mitigation Measure BIO-8-PPA: Pre-disturbance Nesting Bird Surveys. The City of Ontario shall require applicants for future development projects with suitable natural habitat, to
contract with a qualified biologist with experience in
conducting breeding bird surveys to conduct a
preconstruction general nesting bird survey within all suitable nesting habitats that may be directly (active nest destruction, direct mortality) or indirectly (nest abandonment, exposure) impacted by active construction during the general avian breeding season (February 1 through August 31). The 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 predisturbance nesting bird surveys are typically valid for a period of 3 to 5 days. Additional pre-disturbance nesting bird surveys and/or nest monitoring may be required at the
discretion of the qualified biologist based on observations of breeding behavior, phased removal of breeding bird habitat during the breeding season, establishment of nest buffers, delays in construction activities that could allow for breeding birds to establish a nest, or if the project is
cleared/demolished/constructed over the course of multiple breeding seasons. Results will be summarized in a pre586

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-52
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
disturbance survey report that describes the dates of the surveys, methods, results of the surveys, and any nest
protection measures that will need to be employed. The predisturbance nesting bird survey report will be submitted to the City within 30 days of completion of the initial predisturbance nesting bird survey.

Mitigation Measure BIO-9-PPA: Active Nest Avoidance and No-Work Buffers. If active nests of avian species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code are
detected within the proposed development project area or within a 300-foot buffer (500-foot buffer for raptors and listed species) of the proposed development project area, a nowork buffer will be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors and listed species) and construction shall be restricted in the area until the young have fledged; there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting if the nest attempt has failed, as determined by the qualified biologist; or until appropriate protection measures (installation of noise and/or visual barriers, intermittent halting or rerouting of high noise-producing construction activities to other portions of the project area, biological monitoring, and/or noise monitoring to ensure effectiveness of no-work buffers and/or noise reduction measures, etc.) that respond to the specific situation have been developed and implemented in consultation with the City and regulatory agencies. A figure showing the locations of no work buffers established during the preclearance nesting survey shall be included in the predisturbance survey report (see Mitigation Measure BIO-8-PPA)
587

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-53
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Mitigation Measure BIO-10-PPA: Nest Monitoring. Periodic nest monitoring will be conducted at the discretion of the
qualified biologist to ensure compliance with established nowork 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 588

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-54
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
submitted to the City in a brief memo at the completion of each breeding season.

Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure BIO-1-SP: Pre-disturbance Nesting Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Monitoring. If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds shall be conducted within 3 days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the preconstruction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside of a no-disturbance buffer, which is typically 50 to 100 feet for songbird nests and 100 to 300 feet for raptors; however, the ultimate size of the no-disturbance buffer will be determined by the wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of construction noise and/or surrounding
anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between the nest and the construction activity, type and duration of
construction activity, species habituation, and topographical barriers. These factors will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis when developing buffer distances. Limits of
construction to avoid an active nest will be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel will be instructed about the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor shall be present to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not
589

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-55
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction activities within the buffer area can occur.

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

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.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3-SP: Pre-disturbance Roosting Site Survey and Bat Management Plan. If on-site clearing or grading will take place between late spring and late summer and/or in the fall (generally mid-March through late October), a qualified biologist shall be retained to determine whether potential roosting sites for bats may be affected. For large ornamental trees and palms suitable for bat roosting/nursery, exit counts and acoustic surveys shall be performed prior to initial ground disturbance or vegetation or structure removal to 590

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-56
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
determine whether the Specific Plan area (and a 300-foot buffer) supports a nursery or roost. Any bat species present shall also be identified.

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

The plan shall be reviewed and approved by CDFW prior to disturbance of the roosts.

Impact BIO-2: Compliance with
existing regulations would ensure
that implementation of the
proposed project would not have
an adverse impact on riparian or
sensitive habitats.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact BIO-3: Compliance with
existing regulations would ensure
that implementation of the
proposed project would not have
an adverse impact on
jurisdictional waters.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
591

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-57
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Impact BIO-4: Implementation of
the proposed project could affect
wildlife movement.

PPA: PS
EBPSP: PS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure BIO-11-PPA: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO8-PPA (Pre-disturbance Nesting Bird Surveys).

Mitigation Measure BIO-12-PPA: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO9-PPA (Active Nest Avoidance and No-Work Buffers).

Mitigation Measure BIO-13-PPA: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO10-PPA (Nest Monitoring).

Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure BIO-4-SP: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1- SP (Pre-disturbance Nesting Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Monitoring).

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

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact BIO-5: Compliance with
the City’s Biological Resources
Habitat Mitigation Fee would
ensure that implementation of
the proposed project would not
conflict with local policies and
ordinances protecting biological
resources in the city.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact BIO-6: The proposed
project would not conflict with a
Habitat Conservation Plan or
Natural Communities
Conservation Plan.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
592

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-58
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation

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

PPA: PS
EBPSP: LTS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure CUL-1-PPA [Former MM 5-1]: Historic or potentially historic resources in the City shall be evaluated for historic significance through the City’s tier system prior to the issuance of plan or development approvals. Pursuant to the City’s Development Code (Chapter 4, Permits, Actions, and Decisions, and Chapter 7, Historic Preservation), mitigation measures for all Tier III Historic Resources citywide, Tier II historic resources in Ontario Ranch, or potentially significant historic resources in Ontario Ranch shall include the
following:
a) Each historic resource shall be fully documented and cataloged pursuant to Historic American Building
Survey/Historic American Engineering Record
(HABS/HAER) standards, to provide a record of the
resource, including, but not limited to: [i] the preparation of site plans, floor plans, exterior and interior elevations, and detail drawings of character defining features (such as moldings, stairs, etc.); and [ii] photographs of the resource, including the exterior, interior, and interior and exterior character defining features (such as moldings, light fixtures, trim patterns, etc.).
b) A mitigation fee established pursuant to Section 7.01.030 (Historic Preservation Mitigation Fee) shall be paid to the City and deposited into the Historic Preservation Trust Fund prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for Tier III historic resources, Tier II Historic Resources located in Ontario Ranch, or a potentially significant historic
resource in Ontario Ranch. Fees for Tier III Historic
PPA: SU
EBPSP: LTS
593

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-59
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Resources citywide shall be 10 percent and fees for Tier II historic resources in Ontario Ranch and potentially
significant historic properties in Ontario Ranch shall be 30 percent of the price per square foot construction cost, as established in the most current ICC Building Valuation
Data. Fees for Tier I citywide and II historic resources outside of Ontario Ranch shall be determined during the Environmental Impact Report process. The fees
established for Tier III will be used as a reference point for establishing fees for Tier I and II historic resources
c) Issuance of a A Certificate of Appropriateness shall be required not be issued for the demolition of an Tier III historic resource citywide or a Tier II historic resource in Ontario Ranch, either in whole or in part, However, it
shall not be issued until such time that a demolition
permit application and a replacement structure has been approved by the City, and appropriate permits have been issued for its construction, unless: [i] a waiver is granted pursuant to Subsection H (Replacement Structure Waiver
for Historic Resources Located within Industrial Zoning Districts) of Section 4.02.050; [ii] a deferral of the
replacement structure requirement is granted pursuant
to Subsection G (Replacement Structure Deferral) of
Section 4.02.050; or [iii] demolition is required pursuant to Section 7.01.050 (Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions) of this Development Code.
d) In an effort to preserve features and artifacts from historic resources, a determination whether items within or on the resource should be salvaged must be made by
the Planning Department and may include the local
594

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-60
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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:
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
■
595

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-61
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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.
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
■
■
■
596

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-62
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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
footage, photographs) and contact information
597

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-63
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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.

Specific Plan
No mitigation measures are required.

Impact CUL-2: Implementation of
the proposed project could
impact archeological resources in
the City.

PPA: PS
EBPSP: PS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure CUL-3-PPA [Former MM 5-2]: In areas of documented or inferred from evident archaeological and/or 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:

Archaeologists and/or paleontologist shall be retained for the project and will be on call during grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
■
598

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-64
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Should any archaeological resources 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.

Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure CUL-1-SP: An archaeological monitor shall be present full-time during all soil-disturbing and
grading/excavation/trenching activities. In the event that cultural resources are discovered by the archaeological (or Native American monitor), all work shall be suspended 50 feet around the resource(s) and a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (principal investigator (PI)) shall assess the discovery. Work on the overall project may continue during this period if the
following activities are initiated:

If the discovery is a prehistoric resource, initiate
consultation between the qualified archaeologist, the
appropriate Native American tribal entity, and the
City/Applicant;
■
■
■
599

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-65
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Include the appropriate Native American entity (as
determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards) in the cultural
resources investigations as soon as possible; and
If the qualified archaeologist determines the resource(s) to be a “unique archaeological resource” consistent with PRC Section 21083.2 or a “tribal cultural resource”
consistent with PRC Section 21074, a Cultural Resources Management Plan shall be prepared by the project
archaeologist and submitted to the City Planning Division for approval and subsequent implementation.

During Construction
A. Monitor(s) Shall be Present During
Grading/Excavation/Trenching
The archaeological monitor shall be present full-time
during all soil-disturbing and
grading/excavation/trenching activities of native soil
that could result in impacts to archaeological
resources.

The PI may submit a detailed letter to the lead agency
during construction requesting a modification to the
monitoring program when a field condition such as
modern disturbance post-dating the previous
grading/trenching activities, presence of fossil
formations, or when native soils are encountered that
may reduce or increase the potential for resources to
be present.

B. Discovery Notification Process
■
■
■
■
600

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-66
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
In the event of an archaeological discovery, either
historic or prehistoric, the archaeological monitor
shall direct the contractor to temporarily divert all
soil-disturbing activities, including but not limited to, digging, trenching, excavating, or grading activities in the area of discovery and in the area reasonably
suspected to overlay adjacent resources and
immediately notify the Native American monitor and
client, as appropriate.

The monitor shall immediately notify the PI (unless
the monitor is the PI) of the discovery.

C. Determination of Significance
The PI shall evaluate the significance of the resource.

If human remains are involved, the protocol provided
in Section D, below, shall be followed.
o The PI shall immediately notify the City of
Ontario to discuss the significance
determination and shall also submit a letter
indicating whether additional mitigation is
required.
o If the resource is significant, the PI shall
submit an Archaeological Data Recovery
Program (ADRP) and obtain written approval
from the City of Ontario to implement that
program. In the event that prehistoric
deposits are discovered, the ADRP should
also be reviewed by the Native American
consultant/monitor. Impacts to significant
resources must be mitigated before ground-
■
■
■
601

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-67
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
disturbing activities in the area of discovery
will be allowed to resume.
o If the resource is not significant, the PI shall
submit a letter to the City of Ontario
indicating that artifacts will be collected,
curated, and documented in the final
monitoring report. The letter shall also
indicate that that no further work is required.

D. Discovery of Human Remains
If human remains are discovered, work shall halt in
that area until a determination can be made
regarding the provenance of the human remains; and
the following procedures as set forth in CEQA Section
15064.5(e), the California PRC (Section 5097.98), and
the State Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5)
shall be undertaken:

Notification
o The archaeological monitor shall notify the PI
if the monitor is not qualified as a PI.
o The PI shall notify the Coroner’s Division of
the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s
Department after consultation with the City
of Ontario, either in person or via telephone.

Isolate discovery site
o Work shall be directed away from the
location of the discovery and any nearby area
reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent
human remains until a determination can be
made by the sheriff-coroner in consultation
■
■
■
602

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-68
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
with the PI concerning the provenance of the
remains.
o The sheriff-coroner, in consultation with the
PI, will determine the need for a field
examination to determine the provenance.
o If a field examination is not warranted, the
sheriff-coroner will determine, with input
from the PI, if the remains are or are most
likely to be of Native American origin.

If Human Remains are determined to be Native
American
o The medical examiner will notify the NAHC
within 24 hours. By law, only the medical
examiner can make this call.
o The NAHC will immediately identify the
person or persons determined to be the Most
Likely Descendent (MLD) and provide contact
information.
o The MLD will contact the PI within 24 hours
or sooner after the sheriff/coroner has
completed coordination to begin the
consultation process in accordance with
CEQA Section 15064.5(e), the California PRC,
and the State Health and Safety Code.
o The MLD will have 48 hours to make
recommendations to the property owner or
representative for the treatment or
disposition with proper dignity of the human
remains and associated grave goods.
■
603

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-69
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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,
■
■
■
■
604

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-70
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
the human remains and grave goods
buried with the Native American
human remains shall be reinterred
with appropriate dignity.

If Human Remains are not Native American
o The PI shall contact the sheriff-coroner and
notify them of the historic era context of the
burial.
o The sheriff-coroner will determine the
appropriate course of action with the PI and
City staff (PRC 5097.98).
o If the remains are of historic origin, they shall
be appropriately removed and conveyed to
the City of Ontario. The decision for
internment of the human remains shall be
made in consultation with City, the
applicant/landowner, and any known
descendant group.

Post-Construction
A. Preparation and Submittal of Draft Monitoring Report The PI shall submit to the City of Ontario a draft
monitoring report (even if negative) prepared in
accordance with the agency guidelines, which
describes the results, analysis, and conclusions of all phases of the archaeological monitoring program
(with appropriate graphics).
o For significant archaeological resources
encountered during monitoring, the ADRP
■
■
605

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-71
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
shall be included in the draft monitoring
report.
o Recording sites with the State of California
DPR shall be the responsibility of the PI,
including the recording (on the appropriate
forms-DPR 523 A/B) any significant or
potentially significant resources encountered
during the archaeological monitoring
program.

The PI shall submit a revised draft monitoring report
to the City of Ontario for approval, including any
changes or clarifications requested by the City.

B. Handling of Artifacts
The PI shall be responsible for ensuring that all
cultural remains collected are cleaned and cataloged.

The PI shall be responsible for ensuring that all
artifacts are analyzed to identify function and
chronology as they relate to the history of the area;
that faunal material is identified as to species; and
that specialty studies are completed, as appropriate.

The cost for curation is the responsibility of the
property owner.

C. Curation of Artifacts
Cultural materials shall be offered to a local museum
for permanent curation. If the local museum chooses
not to curate the item, it shall be offered to another
curation facility that meets the California State
Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation
Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological
Resources, as chosen by the City. The PI shall provide
■
■
■
■
■
606

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-72
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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.

Impact CUL-3: The proposed
project could result in the
discovery of human remains;
however, compliance with
existing law would ensure that
significant impacts to human
remains would not occur.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
ENERGY
Impact ENE-1: The proposed
project would not result in
significant impacts due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during
construction.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact ENE-2: The proposed
project would not result in
significant impacts due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during
operation.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
■
607

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-73
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Impact ENE-3: The proposed
project would not conflict with or
obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency.

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

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact GEO-1: Development of
proposed project would adhere to
the California Building Code to
ensure residents, employees, or
visitors in Ontario would not be
adversely affected by potential
seismic-related hazards.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact GEO-2: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact GEO-3 The City of Ontario
would not exacerbate geologic
hazards in the City, such as on- or
off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact GEO-4: Development
associated with proposed project
would not be located on
expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1B of the Uniform building
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
608

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-74
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or
property.

Impact GEO-5: Implementation of
proposed project would not result
in use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems that would not be
supported by soils in the City.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: NI
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: NI
Impact GEO-6: Implementation of
TOP 2050 could directly or
indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource.

PPA: PS
EBPSP: PS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure GEO-1-PPA [Former MM 5-2]: In areas of documented or inferred from evident archaeological and/or 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:

Archaeologists and/or pPaleontologist shall be retained for the project and will be on call during grading and
other significant ground-disturbing activities.

Should any cultural resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director or designee is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources.

PP: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
■
■
609

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-75
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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.

Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure GEO-1-SP: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation
Program (PRIMP) shall be approved by the City of Ontario Planning department, as follows

1. All mitigation programs shall be performed by a qualified professional paleontologist, defined as an individual
with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who
has proven experience and who is knowledgeable in
professional paleontological procedures and techniques.

Fieldwork may be conducted by a qualified
paleontological monitor, defined as an individual who
has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil
materials. The paleontological monitor shall always work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist.

2. Monitoring of mass grading and excavation activities shall be performed by a qualified paleontologist or
paleontological monitor. Starting at a depth of four feet below existing grade, monitoring will be conducted fulltime in areas of grading or excavation in undisturbed sediments. Monitoring of artificial fill is not required. ■
610

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-76
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation

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 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
611

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-77
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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 concentrated sample may consist of one or
two buckets of material.

8. In accordance with the “Microfossil Salvage” section of the SVP guidelines (2010:7), bulk sampling and
screening of fine-grained sedimentary deposits
(including carbonate-rich paleosols) must be performed
if the deposits are identified to possess indications of 612

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-78
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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 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 613

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-79
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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
Impact GHG-1: 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.

PPA: PS
EBPSP: PS
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 PPA: SU
EBPSP: SU
614

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-80
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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 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.
■
■
615

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-81
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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
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 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
■
■
■
■
616

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-82
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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.

Impact GHG-2: 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.

PPA: PS
EBPSP: PS
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.

PPA: SU
EBPSP: SU

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact HAZ-1: Compliance with
existing regulations and policies
would ensure that
implementation of the proposed
project would not adversely affect
the environment through
transport, use, and/or disposal of
hazardous materials
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
617

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-83
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Impact HAZ-2: Existing
regulations and policies of TOP
2050 would ensure that
development associated with
Policy Plan Amendment would
not exacerbate the potential
release of hazardous materials
into the environment. However,
development of the EBPSP, as
well as existing site conditions,
may reveal unknown soil or soil
vapor contamination or unknown
subsurface structures.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: PS
Policy Plan Amendment
No mitigation measures are required.

Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1-SP: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to address potentially unknown soil/soil vapor
contamination or unknown subsurface structures (e.g.,
clarifiers, underground storage tanks [USTs], asbestos
containing pipelines [ACPs], etc.) that may be encountered during redevelopment activities. The SMP shall include
explicit instructions for the appropriate handling, storage, and disposal of any known or potentially impacted soil during soil moving activities. The general contractor shall follow the requirements of the SMP and stop work to make notification to the environmental team if any potential impacts are
observed at any time the environmental team is not already on-site. The SMP shall also require air monitoring activities to monitor the air downwind of the Specific Plan area and
appropriate Health and Safety Plans that will be employed by site workers. The SMP shall identify specific requirements intended to protect human health when soil in certain areas of known or suspected impacts are disturbed for any reason, including, without limitation, as a result of demolition, utility installation/repair, soil excavation, drilling, grading/filling activities, stockpile generation, soil management, loading, and transportation.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact HAZ-3: Existing
regulations and policies identified
in the Policy Plan Amendment
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
618

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-84
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
would ensure that the proposed
project would have no adverse
impacts to schools from facilities
that handle hazardous materials.

Impact HAZ-4: Existing
regulations and policies of the
Policy Plan Amendment would
ensure that development
associated with the proposed
project would not exacerbate
existing hazards.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact HAZ-5: The proposed
project is within the airport
influence area of the Ontario
International Airport and Chino
Airport; however, land uses are
consistent with the airport safety
zones.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact HAZ-6: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact HAZ-7: The proposed
project would not exacerbate
wildfire risks in Ontario.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
619

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-85
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact HYD-1: Compliance with
existing regulations, City policies,
and RWQCB standards would
prevent violations of water
quality objectives or substantial
degradation of water resources
associated with the proposed
project.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact HYD-2: Buildout of the
proposed project would not
interfere with sustainable
management of the groundwater
basin.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact HYD-3: Implementation of
BMPs outlined in project SWPPPs,
erosion and sediment control
plans, WQMPs, and adherence to
TOP policies would address
hydrology and water quality
impacts related to erosion and
flooding.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact HYD-4: With continued
implementation of applicable City
policies, FEMA regulations, and
emergency management
procedures, impacts related to
the release of pollutants due to
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PP: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
620

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-86
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
project inundation would be less
than significant.

Impact HYD-5: Compliance with
applicable regulatory
requirements and TOP 2050
policies would ensure that the
proposed project would not
conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the Basin Plan
or any groundwater management
plan.

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

LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impact LUP-1: Project
implementation would not divide
an established community.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact LUP-2: Project
implementation would not
conflict with applicable plans
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.

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

MINERAL RESOURCES
Impact MIN-1: The proposed
project would not result in the
loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the
residents of the state.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: NI
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: NI
621

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-87
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Impact MIN-2: The proposed
project would not result in the
loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource area.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: NI
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: NI
NOISE
Impact NOI-1: Construction
activities associated with buildout
of the Policy Plan Amendment
would result in intermittent,
temporary increases in noise
levels at sensitive receptors due
to construction activities.

PPA: PS
EBPSP: LTS
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
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.

PPA: SU
EBPSP: LTS
■
■
622

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-88
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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.

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,
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
623

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-89
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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.

Specific Plan
No mitigation measures are required.

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

PPA: PS
EBPSP: PS
No mitigation measures are available. PPA: SU
EBPSP: SU
Impact NOI-3: Construction
activities associated with buildout
of the Policy Plan Amendment
may expose sensitive uses to
excessive levels of groundborne
PPA: PS
EBPSP: LTS
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 PPA: SU
EBPSP: LTS
■
624

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-90
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
vibration. Construction of the
EBPSP would not exceed
applicable thresholds or
significantly increase ambient
noise levels.
receptors shall be evaluated for potential vibration impacts.

Construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, 100 feet of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for 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.

Specific Plan
No mitigation measures are required.

Impact NOI-4: Heavy truck traffic
annoyance along City haul routes
associated with buildout of the
Policy Plan Amendment may
expose sensitive uses to excessive
levels of groundborne vibration
annoyance.

PPA: PS
EBPSP: LTS
Policy Plan Amendment
TOP 2050 policies would reduce potential impacts. However, no additional mitigation measures are available.

Specific Plan
No mitigation measures are required.

PPA: SU
EBPSP: LTS
625

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-91
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Impact NOI-5: Implementation of
the Policy Plan Amendment could
expose noise sensitive uses to
excessive noise levels from the
Ontario International Airport
(ONT).

PPA: PS
EBPSP: LTS
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).

Specific Plan
No mitigation measures are required.

PPA: SU
EBPSP: LTS

POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impact POP-1: The Policy Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan
would directly result in
population growth in the City of
Ontario. [Threshold P-1]
PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact POP-2: Buildout of Policy
Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan would not displace people or
housing and would not
necessitate the construction of
replacement housing. [Threshold
P-2].

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
626

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-92
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation

PUBLIC SERVICES
Impact PUB-1: The proposed
project would not result in
significant environmental impacts
due to the provision of new or
expanded fire protection services.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact PUB-2: The proposed
project would not result in
significant environmental impacts
due to the provision of new or
expanded police facilities.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact PUB-3: Payment of Senate
Bill 50 fees would result in full
and complete mitigation of
impacts for the provision or
expansion of school facilities.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact PUB-4: The proposed
project would not result in
significant impacts associated
with the provision or expansion of
parks and recreation facilities.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact PUB-5: The proposed
project would not result in
significant environmental impacts
due to the provision of new or
expanded library services.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
627

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-93
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation

RECREATION
Impact REC-1: The proposed
project would not result in
substantial physical deterioration
of recreational facilities.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact REC-2: The proposed
project would not result in
adverse impacts associated with
new or expanded recreational
facilities within the City.

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

TRANSPORTATION
Impact TRA-1: The proposed
project would not conflict with a
program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact TRA-2: The proposed
project would generate a
substantial increase in VMT per
service population and total VMT
compared to the approved
project resulting in significant
project-level and cumulative VMT
impacts.

PPA: PS
EBPSP: PS
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
VMT-reduction methodology consistent with the California PPA: SU
EBPSP: SU
628

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-94
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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 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.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
629

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-95
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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 ridematching 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
■
■
■
■
■
■
630

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-96
Specific Plan
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.
■
■
631

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-97
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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.

Impact TRA-3: The proposed
project adequately addresses
potentially hazardous conditions
(sharp curves, etc.) and potential
conflicting uses.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact TRA-4: The proposed
project adequately addresses
potentially inadequate emergency
access.

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

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

PPA: PS
EBPSP: PS
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure TCR-1-PPA [Former MM 5-3]: Upon receipt of an application for a proposed project subject to CEQA and is within the City’s jurisdiction, the City’s representative shall consult with the relevant tribe(s)’ representative(s) to determine if the proposed project is within a culturally PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
■
■
632

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-98
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
sensitive area to the tribe. If sufficient evidence is provided to reasonably ascertain that the site is within a [tribal] culturally sensitive area, an archaeologist shall prepare a cultural resources assessment. The findings of the cultural resources assessment shall be incorporated into the CEQA
documentation. A copy of the report shall be forwarded to the tribe(s). If mitigation is recommended in the CEQA
document, the procedure described in Mitigation Measure 5- 4 TCR-2-PPA shall be followed.

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

Mitigation Measure TCR-3-PPA [Former MM TCR-1]: Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring. The project archaeologist, in
consultation with interested tribes, the developer, and the City of Ontario, shall develop an archaeological monitoring plan (AMP) to address the details, timing, and responsibility 633

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-99
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
of archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. Details in the AMP shall include:

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

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

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

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 ground634

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-100
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources.

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

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

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

2. Treatment and Final Disposition: The landowner(s)
shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources,
including sacred items, burial goods, and all
archaeological artifacts and nonhuman remains as
part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and
provide the City of Ontario with evidence of same:
635

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-101
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
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
636

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-102
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
materials, materials shall be curated at the
San Bernardino County Museum by default;
d. At the completion of grading, excavation, and
ground-disturbing activities on the site, a
Phase IV Monitoring Report shall be
submitted to the City documenting
monitoring activities conducted by the
project archaeologist and Native Tribal
Monitors within 60 days of completion of
grading. This report shall document the
impacts to the known resources on the
property; describe how each mitigation
measure was fulfilled; document the type of
cultural resources recovered and the
disposition of such resources; provide
evidence of the required cultural sensitivity
training for the construction staff held during
the required pregrade meeting; and, in a
confidential appendix, include the
daily/weekly monitoring notes from the
archaeologist. All reports produced will be
submitted to the City, County Museum, and
consulting tribes.

Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure TCR-1-SP: The EBPSP shall implement MM TCR2-PPA, MM TCR-3-PPA, MM TCR-4-PPA. 637

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-103
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Impact USS-1: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water facilities which would cause
a significant impact.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact USS-2: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
wastewater facilities which would
cause a significant impact.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact USS-3: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
storm drainage facilities which
would cause a significant impact.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact USS-4: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
electric power or natural gas
facilities which would cause a
significant impact.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
638

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-104
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Impact USS-5: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
telecommunication facilities
which would cause a significant
impact.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact USS-6: The City has
sufficient water supplies to serve
the proposed project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry,
and multiple dry years.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact USS-7: The wastewater
treatment provider has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact USS-8: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
generate solid waste in excess of
state or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, and would not
impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
639

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
M ARCH 2 026 ES-105
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Impact USS-9: The proposed
project would comply with
federal, state, and local
management and reduction
statutes and regulations related
to solid waste.

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

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

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact WIL-2: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
exacerbate wildfire risk, require
infrastructure that could increase
fire hazards, or expose people or
structures to secondary post-fire
hazards such as flooding,
landslides, or drainage changes.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
Impact WIL-3: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environments.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
640

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
ES-106
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
with Mitigation
Impact WIL-4: Implementation of
the proposed project would not
expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result
of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes.

PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
No mitigation measures are required. PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS
PPA = Policy Plan Amendment;
EBPSP = Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan
PS = Potentially Significant
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
LTS = Less than Significant
NI = No Impact
641
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 1- 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE EIR
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on those projects. This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been prepared to satisfy CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, as set forth in the Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et seq. The environmental impact report (EIR) is the public document designed to provide decision makers and the public with an analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid environmental damage and to identify alternatives to the project. The EIR must also disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided; growth inducing impacts; effects not found to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.

As discussed in Section 2.2, Project Background, of this SEIR, on August 16, 2022, the Ontario City Council adopted a comprehensive update of the City’s general plan, The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050, and certified SEIR No. 2021070364 as the environmental documentation for the approved project. TOP is a guiding document that reflects the City’s view of its future and is a blueprint for the City’s growth and development. The City Council and the Planning Commission use TOP to help guide their land use decisions. The 2022 Certified EIR is incorporated by reference in this SEIR. A summary of 2022 Certified SEIR is provided in Section 2.2.2, TOP Certified EIR, of this SEIR. This SEIR contains information necessary to make the previous 2022 Certified EIR adequate for Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP (proposed project).

The proposed project requires discretionary actions by one or more public agencies. The lead agency means “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment” (CEQA Section 21067). The City of Ontario has the principal responsibility for approval of project. For this reason, the City of Ontario is the CEQA lead agency for this project.

The intent of the SEIR is to provide sufficient information on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project to allow the City of Ontario to make an informed decision regarding approval of the proposed project. Specific discretionary actions to be reviewed by the City are described in Section 2.5, Intended Uses of the EIR. 642

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
1 . INT RO DUCTI O N
1 -2
This SEIR has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the:

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.)
State Guidelines for the Implementation of the CEQA of 1970 (CEQA Guidelines), as amended (California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et seq.) The overall purpose of this SEIR is to inform the lead agency, responsible agencies, decision makers, and the general public about the environmental effects of the development and operation of the proposed project. This SEIR addresses effects that may be significant and adverse; evaluates alternatives to the proposed project; and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid adverse effects.

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

1.2.1 Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting
The City of Ontario has determined that a Supplemental EIR would be required for this project and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on November 4, 2025. The NOP and comments received during the NOP’s public review period, from November 4 to December 5, 2025, are in Appendix A, Notice of Preparation. The NOP process is used to help determine the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft SEIR. Thirty agencies/interested parties responded to the NOP. This SEIR has taken those responses into consideration. Table 1-1, NOP Comment Summary, summarizes the issues identified by the commenting agencies, along with a reference to the section(s) of this SEIR where the issues are addressed.

Table 1-1 NOP Comment Summary
Commenting Agency
/ Person Date Comment Summary Issue Addressed In:

Agua Caliente Band
of Cahuilla Indians
11/4/2025 Not located in the Tribe’s
Traditional Use Area and
they defer to other tribes.

Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural
Resources
Endangered Habitats
League
11/4/2025 Requests that the project
incorporate mitigation
fees applicable to the
Annexation Area 163 via
the Settlement and
General Use Agreement.

Requests for advancement
of Livable Communities
Policies as set forth under
Section 3.4, Biological
Resources, and Section 3.11,
Land Use and Planning
■
■
■
■
■
643

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
1 . INT RO DUCTI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 1- 3
Table 1-1 NOP Comment Summary
Commenting Agency
/ Person Date Comment Summary Issue Addressed In:
the Settlement and
General Use Agreement.

NAHC 11/4/2025 Requests that the EIR
evaluate whether there
are historic resources that
could be impacted by the
project.

Recommend tribal
consultation under
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52)
and Senate Bill 18 (SB 18)
pursuant to NAHC’s
recommendation for
conducting cultural
resources assessments.

Section 3.5, Cultural
Resources, and Section 3.18,
Tribal Cultural Resources
Yuma Quechan Tribe 11/4/2025 The Tribe does not wish to comment on the project
and defers to other local
Tribes.

Section 3.18, Tribal, Cultural
Resources SoCalGas 11/6/2025 Identified numerous
medium- and highpressure facilities in the
project area and requests
that 811 be contacted
prior to any demolition
and/or excavation
activities.

Request to review any
available plans to review
for possible conflicts with
existing facilities.

Section 3.9, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials Micaella Mosley 11/6/2025 Identified constant flow of large trucks traveling
along Ontario Ranch Road
and which results in
“significant vibration”
Requests that the City
review the Truck Route
along Ontario Ranch Road
and consider possible
solutions to reduce
Section 3.13, Noise, and
Section 3.17, Transportation
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
644

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
1 . INT RO DUCTI O N
1 -4
Table 1-1 NOP Comment Summary
Commenting Agency
/ Person Date Comment Summary Issue Addressed In:
vibrations to nearby
homes.

Tiffany Johnson 11/13/2025 Requests no more
warehouse in the City
Request development of
more parks, stores,
improved schools, and
family homes.

Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning, Section 3.14,
Population and Housing, Section 3.15, Public Services, and Section 3.16, Recreation Jason Alonzo 11/17/2025 Identifies their “strong
dissatisfaction” with the
land use changes of the
Ontario Ranch land from
Mixed-Use to Business
Park.

Requests more
thoughtfully planned
spaces that align with the
identity and culture of the
community.

Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning
Southern California
Agricultural Land
Foundation (SCALF)
11/20/2025 Concerned about loss of
Farmland to development
within the City, specifically
the proposed EBPSP.

Concerned for Prop 70
lands.

Requests consolidation of
the EBPSP.

Section 3.2, Agricultural and
Forestry Resources, and
Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning Raymond Smith 11/20/2025 Identifies opposition to Warehouses within the
City as it increases air
pollution and traffic
within the City.

Request consolidation of
EBPSP to provide a buffer
between Grand Park and
Warehousing to the
south.

Request clarification on
how Edison Avenue as a
Section 3.3, Air Quality, Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Section 3.11, Land
Use and Planning, Section

3.14, Population and
Housing, and Section 3.17,
Transportation
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
645

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
1 . INT RO DUCTI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 1- 5
Table 1-1 NOP Comment Summary
Commenting Agency
/ Person Date Comment Summary Issue Addressed In:
truck route meets AB 98
requirements.

Requests clarification on
how job estimates are
derived.

Requests clarification on
mitigation measure for Air
Quality and Greenhouse
Gas Emission impacts.

San Bernardino
County Public Works
11/20/2025 Identifies a parcel owned
in fee by San Bernardino
County Flood Control
District and that
development cannot
proceed at this parcel.

Requests to be included
on the mailing list.

Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning
Aida Cuamari 11/20/2025 Requests concerns with
Land Use Plan on impacts
to chemicals and
population.

Raised concerns about
traffic, pollution, safety,
population, hazards, and
noise.

Section 3.3, Air Quality, Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Section 3.11, Land
Use and Planning, Section

3.14, Population and
Housing, and Section 3.17,
Transportation
Paul Hammes 11/20/2025 Supports removal of Truck
Route on Archibald
Avenue
Requests for improvement
of bicycle infrastructure.

Section 3.17, Transportation
Ran Cheng 11/21/2025 Concerned regarding
increased density and no
increase in schools and
public parks in the City.

Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning, Section 3.14,
Population and Housing, and
Section 3.16, Recreation
SCAG 11/21/2025 Requests review of the
goals and policies of the
project with the
applicable policies of the
Regional Transportation
Plan/ Sustainable
Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning, and Section 3.14,
Population and Housing
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
646

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
1 . INT RO DUCTI O N
1 -6
Table 1-1 NOP Comment Summary
Commenting Agency
/ Person Date Comment Summary Issue Addressed In:

Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS) or Connect
SoCal.

Catherine Cho 11/24/2025 Concerned regarding
rezoning of parkland/open
space on Haven and Chino
in Ontario Ranch.

Requests to leave as
parkland/open space.

Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning, and Section 3.16,
Recreation
Paul Cho 11/25/2025 Concerned regarding
rezoning of parkland/open
space on Haven and Chino
in Ontario Ranch.

Requests leaving as
parkland/open space.

Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning, and Section 3.16,
Recreation
Philip Guevara 11/25/2025 Concerned regarding
rezoning of parkland/open
space on Haven and Chino
in Ontario Ranch to
medium density.

Requests leaving as
parkland/open space.

Concerned with impacts
on traffic on Haven
Avenue and strain on
schools as a result of
rezoning to medium
density
Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning, Section 3.15, Public
Services, Section 3.16,
Recreation, and Section 3.17,
Transportation
John Anker 12/1/2025 Request less housing
density in the City.

Requests improved truck
routes in the City.

Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning, Section 3.14,
Population and Housing, and
Section 3.17, Transportation
Asa Lu 12/2/2025 Concerned regarding
rezoning of parkland/open
space on Haven and Chino
in Ontario Ranch.

Section 3.16, Recreation
City of Chino Hills 12/2/2025 Requests the SEIR
examines potential
increase in vehicular
traffic, particularly truck
Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning, and Section 3.17,
Transportation
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
647

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
1 . INT RO DUCTI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 1- 7
Table 1-1 NOP Comment Summary
Commenting Agency
/ Person Date Comment Summary Issue Addressed In:
traffic, that may have
cumulative impacts on
City of Chino Hills.

Henry Kim 12/2/2025 Requests that the
property owner’s parcels
are rezoned from
industrial park back to
multiuse zoning.

Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning
Jodi Ruiz 12/2/2025 Requests that the OS-R on
Haven Avenue and Chino
Avenue not be rezoned.

Section 3.16, Recreation
Zuleika Wang 12/2/2025 Requests that the OS-R on
Haven Avenue and Chino
Avenue not be rezoned.

Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning, and Section 3.16,
Recreation
Tina Silva 12/4/2025 EBPSP impacts from
increased truck activity
and resultant air quality,
roadway safety, and
neighborhood viability
impacts.

Section 3.3, Air Quality, Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Section 3.11, Land
Use and Planning, Section

3.14, Population and
Housing, and Section 3.17,
Transportation
Craig Cristina 12/4/2025 Concerned that the
minimum density
requirements will deter
projects and slow down
housing development
within the City.

Recommends retaining
high density residential
designations but remove
minimum density
requirements or include a
high-density residential
overlay.

Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning, and Section 3.14,
Population and Housing
Center for
Community Action
and Environmental
Justice (CCAEJ)
12/5/2025 Concerned about
agricultural impacts,
specifically Prop 70 lands
in Ontario Ranch.

Requests cumulative
impacts of warehouses
Section 3.1, Agricultural and
Forestry Resources, Section

3.3, Air Quality, Section 3.8,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning, Section 3.14,
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
648

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
1 . INT RO DUCTI O N
1 -8
Table 1-1 NOP Comment Summary
Commenting Agency
/ Person Date Comment Summary Issue Addressed In:
are evaluated for health
studies, GHG, and air
quality.

Requests zero-emission
equipment for
construction.

Requests that high-injury
streets and intersections
be identified in the
mobility element pursuant
to SB 932.

Population and Housing, and
Section 3.17, Transportation
Sierra Club 12/5/2025 Requests that the project
fully disclose GHG and
VMT impacts.

Requests that the project
evaluate consistency with
regional planning
documents, including
SCAG’s RTP/SCS.

Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Section 3.11, Land
Use and Planning, and
Section 3.17, Transportation
Edison Ranch 12/5/2025 Recommend fiscal and
infrastructure justification
for increased industrial
and commercial uses.

Recommends evaluation
of truck traffic and goods
movement circulation.

Recommends phased
transition plan for
agricultural resources.

Requests an evaluation of
air quality, health risk, and
hydrology and water
quality impacts of the
EBPSP.

Section 3.1, Agricultural and
Forestry Resources, Section

3.3, Air Quality, Section 3.8,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 3.10, Hydrology and
Water Quality, Section 3.11,
Land Use and Planning, Section 3.14, Population and
Housing, Section 3.17,
Transportation, and Section

3.19, Utilities and Service
Systems
Parveena Mendes 12/5/2025 Requests that the OS-R on
Haven Avenue and Chino
Avenue not be rezoned.

Section 3.11, Land Use and
Planning, and Section 3.16,
Recreation
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
649

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
1 . INT RO DUCTI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 1- 9

SCOPING MEETING
Prior to preparation of the SEIR, the City of Ontario hosted a public scoping meeting on November 20, 2025, to determine the concerns of responsible and trustee agencies and the community regarding the proposed project. The scoping meeting identified concerns related to truck routes, warehousing, and associated air quality, noise, and vibration impacts; loss of agricultural resources; and increased housing density.

1.2.2 Scope of this Draft SEIR
The scope of the Draft SEIR was determined based on the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist and comments received in response to the NOP and Scoping Meeting. Pursuant to Sections 15126.2 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft SEIR should identify any potentially significant adverse impacts and recommend mitigation that would reduce or eliminate these impacts to levels of insignificance.

The information in Chapter 2, Project Description, establishes the basis for analyzing future, project-related environmental impacts. However, further environmental review by the City may be required as more detailed information and plans are submitted on a project-by-project basis.

IMPACTS CONSIDERED LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The SEIR identified the following impacts as less than significant or no impact.

Aesthetics (PPA + EBPSP)
Agricultural and Forestry Resources (PPA + EBPSP)
Cultural Resources (Historic Resources: EBPSP)
Energy (PPA + EBPSP)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (PPA)
Hydrology and Water Quality (PPA + EBPSP)
Land Use and Planning (PPA + EBPSP)
Mineral Resources (PPA + EBPSP)
Noise (Construction Noise and Vibration, EBPSP)
Population and Housing (PPA + EBPSP)
Public Services (PPA + EBPSP)
Recreation (PPA + EBPSP)
Utilities and Service Systems (PPA + EBPSP)
Wildfire (PPA + EBPSP)
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
650

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
1 . INT RO DUCTI O N
1 -1 0

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS
The SEIR determined that the following environmental factors have potentially significant impacts if the proposed project is implemented but would be reduce to less than significant levels with mitigation.

Biological Resources (PPA + EBPSP)
Cultural Resources (Archeological Resources: PPA + EBPSP) Geology and Soils (Paleontological Resources: PPA + EBPSP) Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Soils Management Plan: EBPSP) Tribal Cultural Resources (PPA + EBPSP)

UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS
This SEIR identifies 5 significant and unavoidable adverse impacts, as defined by CEQA, that would result from implementation of the proposed project. Unavoidable adverse impacts may be considered significant on a project-specific basis, cumulatively significant, and/or potentially significant. The City must prepare a “statement of overriding considerations” before it can approve the project, attesting that the decision-making body has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable significant environmental effects and has determined that the benefits outweigh the adverse effects, and therefore the adverse effects are considered acceptable.

The impacts that were found in the SEIR to be significant and unavoidable are:

Air Quality AQMP Consistency (PPA + EBPSP), Regional Construction Emissions (PPA), Regional Operation Emissions (PPA + EBPSP), Localized Construction Emissions (PPA), and Cumulative Health Risk (PPA);
Cultural Resources Historic Resources (PPA);
Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG emissions (PPA + EBPSP) Consistency with the City’s Community Climate Action Plan (PPA + EBPSP);
Noise Construction Noise (PPA), Traffic Noise (PPA + EBPSP), Construction Vibration Annoyance (PPA), Heavy Truck Vibration Annoyance (PPA) and Exterior Airport Noise Exposure (PPA); and
Transportation Vehicle Miles Traveled (PPA + EBPSP).
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
651

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
1 . INT RO DUCTI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 1 - 11

1.2.3 Final EIR Certification
This SEIR is being circulated for public review for 45 days. Interested agencies and members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the SEIR to the City address shown on the title page of this document. Upon completion of the 45-day review period, the City of Ontario will review all written comments received and prepare written responses for each. A Final Supplemental EIR (Final SEIR) will incorporate the received comments, responses to the comments, and any changes to the SEIR that result from comments. The Final SEIR will be presented to the City of Ontario for potential certification as the environmental document for the project. All persons who comment on the SEIR will be notified of the availability of the Final SEIR and the date of the public hearing before the City.

The SEIR is available to the general public for review at various locations:

City of Ontario, City Hall, Planning Department, 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764 Ovitt Family Community Library, 215 East C Street, Ontario, CA 91764 Lewis Family Branch, 3850 East Riverside Drive, Ontario, CA 91761 Online at: https://www.ontarioca.gov/Planning/Reports/EnvironmentalImpact All comments received from agencies and individuals on the SEIR will be accepted during the 45-day public review period. All comments on the SEIR should be sent to:

Thomas Grahn, Principal Planner
City of Ontario
City Hall, Planning Department
303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764
Or emailed to [email protected]
Public agencies that submit comments during the 45-day public review period on the SEIR will receive written responses to their comments at least 10 days prior to final action on the proposed project. If the City Council decides to certify the Final SEIR, it will make the necessary findings required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines regarding the extent and nature of the impacts presented in the Final SEIR. The Final SEIR must be certified by the City prior to making a decision to approve the proposed project. Public input is encouraged at all public hearings and meetings before the Planning Commission and City Council concerning the proposed project.

1.3 MITIGATION MONITORING
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires that agencies adopt a monitoring or reporting program for any project for which it has made findings pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 or adopted a Negative Declaration pursuant to 21080(c). Such a program is ■
■
■
■
652

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
1 . INT RO DUCTI O N
1 -1 2
intended to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the preparation of an EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration.

The Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for Policy Plan Amendment and Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan will be completed prior to consideration of the project by the City of Ontario City Council.

1.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
Some documents are incorporated by reference into this Draft EIR, consistent with section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, and they are available for review at the City of Ontario.

City of Ontario Municipal Code
The Ontario Plan 2050 prepared by City of Ontario
The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) The Ontario Plan Recirculated Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140) The Ontario Plan Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140) Ontario Municipal Water District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan In each instance where a document is incorporated by reference for purposes of this report, the SEIR will briefly summarize the incorporated document or briefly summarize the incorporated data if the document cannot be summarized. In addition, the SEIR will explain the relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the SEIR.

This SEIR also relies on previously adopted regional and statewide plans and programs, agency standards, and background studies in its analyses, such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (South Coast AQMD) Air Quality Management Plan. Each section provides a complete list of references utilized in preparing the SEIR. Documents that are not published that are incorporated by reference are available for review at:

City of Ontario
City Hall, Planning Department
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
■
■
■
■
■
■
653
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2- 1

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Ontario is in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County and is surrounded by the cities of Chino and Montclair and unincorporated San Bernardino County to the west; the cities of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga to the north; the city of Fontana and unincorporated San Bernardino County to the east; and the cities of Eastvale and Jurupa Valley to the south (see Figures 2-1, Regional Location, and 2-2, Citywide Aerial Map). The City is in the central part of the Upper Santa Ana River Valley. The primary tributary that flows through Ontario is the Cucamonga Creek, which originates, together with sub tributaries, in the San Gabriel Mountains and flows into the Prado Dam, where it joins the Santa Ana River, eventually terminating in the Pacific Ocean.

The City comprises approximately 50 square miles (32,022 acres), including the 8,200-acre Ontario Ranch in the southern part of the City—formerly known as the New Model Colony (NMC) and formerly the City’s sphere of influence (SOI). The northern, more urbanized part of the City is known as the Original Model Colony (OMC) in reference to the City’s founding as a model colony for cities in terms of layout and infrastructure. Generally, the City is bounded by Benson Avenue and Euclid Avenue on the west; Interstate 10 (I-10), 8th Street, and 4th Street on the north; Etiwanda Avenue and Hamner Avenue on the east; and Merrill Avenue and the San Bernardino County/Riverside County boundary on the south (see Figure 2-1). Regional circulation to and through the City is provided by I-10 and State Route (SR) 60, east to west, and by I-15 and SR-83 (Euclid Avenue), north to south. The City is also home to the Ontario International Airport (ONT) and proximate to Chino Airport.

2.1.1 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan
The 189-acre Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (EBPSP or Specific Plan) project site is bounded to the south by Eucalyptus Avenue, the east by Walker Avenue, and the west by Campus Avenue. Figure 2-3, EBPSP Aerial Map, illustrates the general location of the EBPSP. The project site includes the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 0216-322-01, 0216-322-02, 0216- 321-06, 0216-321-07, 0126-322-10, 0216-321-01, 0216-321-02, 1053-551-01, 1053-541-02, 1053-541-01, 1053-571-01, 1053-571-02, 1053-531-01, 1053-531-02, 1053-531-03, 1053-531- 04, 1053-581-04, and 1053-581-03.

The Specific Plan area is within the City’s Ontario Ranch area, which comprises a portion of the former San Bernardino County Agricultural Preserve annexed by the City of Ontario in 1999. The 654

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -2
majority of the Specific Plan area is currently utilized by active dairy facilities, including dry lots, milking parlors, feed storage facilities, and associated residential uses. Other land uses include storage and minor maintenance of semitrailer trucks, storage and distribution of krill oil and soy sauce, tire storage, and small animal keeping.

2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND

2.2.1 The Ontario Plan 2050 (Approved Project)
The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050 or approved project) is the City’s policy and implementation framework that guides the long-term growth and improvement of the Ontario community through six interrelated components of city governance:

A Vision that provides a sense of purpose and mission for city governance and sets the tone for the other components of TOP. The Vision’s central theme is a sustained, community-wide prosperity that continuously adds value and yields benefits.

A Governance Manual that establishes a set of goals and policies to promote consistent City leadership based on the principles of regional leadership, transparency, long-term value, accountability, and inclusivity.

A Policy Plan that serves as the City’s legally required general plan and that states long-term goals, principles, and policies to achieve Ontario’s Vision through 9 elements: land use, housing, mobility, safety, environmental resources, parks and recreation, community economics, community design, and social resources.

A list of City Council Priorities that shape the City’s ongoing annual budgeting process, with a focus on a variety of short- and long-term goals and objectives.

An Implementation Plan that identifies the actions needed to carry out TOP’s policies. This includes initiatives by the City such establishing consistent land use zoning and creating objective development and design standards, as well as decisions on public and private development projects and City activity programs.

A Tracking and Feedback system that charts the City’s progress toward achieving the Policy Plan goals, providing data and analysis that enable decision makers to make strategic course corrections in response to changing circumstances and monitor ongoing operational effectiveness.
655
Q ....
,¼,.

KERN

LOS ANGELES
.. .
r

NGELES COUNTY
J.. 1 FU
,-
- • bLERTON •
- l:JNIGU¾
AIRPOR

SAN BERNARDINO

RIVERSIDE

SAN DIEGO
Covina
d
[a Verne
•
Clf,fOF
RANCHO

CUCAMONGA
..J. I --

ONTARIO
I [ TJBNATIONAL
:::::========~ ~3)::::=:C:-::ITY ~-~,~r:om: so
l !

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

OF ONTARIO
.,.

CITY OF

FONTANA
•

JURUPA VALLEY

CITY OF
CHINO
HILLS
241
. UNINCORPORATED
~ -I , ChmQM,p«t fl -----""....__ ___ _L__
~ ,¼,. • '
R Nl __ _
IRP
CORONA
"
..

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-1
Regional Location
D EBPSP Boundary
(±) Airports
~ J Ontario City Limit
Parks and Open Space
L City Boundary
c::::J County Boundary
Unincorporated County
2·0·5·0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
@ 0 10,000 20,000
Feet
40,000
Dale: 2/10/2026
656

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -4
This page intentionally left blank.
657

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-2
Citywide Aerial Map
83J Airport
I.. "I Ontario City Boundary
! i Adjacent City Boundary
I.. "l County Boundary
Unincorporated County
c::::J EBPSP Boundary
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 0 2,500 5,000
Source: The City of Ontario 2025
FT
10,000
Date: 2/19/2026
658

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -6
This page intentionally left blank.
659

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-3
EBPSP Aerial Map
D EBPSP Boundary
2·0·5·0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
~ ~ Ft
,..,. 0 275 550
Source: T&B 2026. Date: 03/03/2026
660

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -8
This page intentionally left blank.
661

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2- 9
Figure 2-4, Current TOP Land Use Plan, shows the existing land use designations. Table 2-1, Approved TOP 2050 Land Use Designations, presents a breakdown of the land use buildout in the City under the approved project.

Table 2-1 Approved TOP 2050 Land Use Designations
TOP 2050 Land Use Acres
Housing
Capacity
(DU)
Households (HH)
Population
(Pop)
Nonresident
Bldg.

Capacity
(Sq. Ft.) Jobs
Residential
Rural Residential (RR) 528.7 1,057 1,015 3,863
Low Density Residential (LDR) 6,273.9 34,848 33,454 127,326 Low-Medium Density
Residential (MLDR)
888.7 7,518 7,218 26,471
Medium Density Residential
(MDR)1
2,299.1 47,206 45,317 152,855
High Density Residential (HDR) 198.0 5,089 4,885 13,038 Subtotal 10,188.4 95,718 91,889 323,553
Mixed-Use (MU) Subareas
Downtown2
131.5 2,762 2,651 7,077 1,833,291 4,097
Ontario Center
(not including Piemonte Area)
186.4 3,729 3,579 9,553 3,329,507 7,327
Ontario Center Arena
(Piemonte Area only)
169.2 5,076 4,873 13,006 1,621,435 3,417
Ontario Mills 249.4 3,990 3,830 10,223 3,394,666 3,971
Guasti 86.3 777 746 1,991 2,012,077 3,848
Multimodal 72.6 653 627 1,673 2,449,557 5,993
Grand Park2
299.7 7,342 7,049 18,813 2,741,373 4,846
Eucalyptus/Chino Airport2100.9 1,471 1,412 3,769 2,059,760 4,008 East Holt275.2 1,692 1,625 4,336 655,222 546
Meredith 90.8 1,815 1,743 4,651 691,939 577
Inland Empire 36.6 300 288 769 100,455 84
Mountain & 6th St 7.8 137 131 350 136,070 340
Mountain & West Holt 1.5 33 31 84 12,678 11
Euclid & Francis 12.7 190 183 487 220,912 552
Euclid & Walnut 16.4 369 354 945 142,840 357
662

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -1 0
Table 2-1 Approved TOP 2050 Land Use Designations
TOP 2050 Land Use Acres
Housing
Capacity
(DU)
Households (HH)
Population
(Pop)
Nonresident
Bldg.

Capacity
(Sq. Ft.) Jobs
Mountain & 4th St 7.2 251 241 643 75,008 188
Rich-Haven 153.7 2,380 2,285 6,097 287,946 371
Grove & Chino2 36.1 821 788 2,104 385,285 630
Euclid & Riverside2

15.0 394 378 1,009 130,662 327
Parkside 3.0 52 50 132 51,440 129
Subtotal 1,752 34,234 32,864 87,712 22,332,123 41,619
Retail / Service
Neighborhood Commercial 245.8 3,212,553 8,762
General Commercial 385.2 5,033,395 5,605
Office / Commercial 309.2 10,101,733 28,239
Hospitality 194.2 8,458,978 11,412
Subtotal 1,134.4 26,806,659 54,018
Employment
Business Park 1,056.3 23,373,049 39,732
Business Park Overlay Areas 89.6 1,951,398 3,814
Industrial 7,591.3 181,873,225 147,096
Industrial Overlay Areas 60.2 1,441,256 1,197
Subtotal 8,797.4 208,638,928 191,839
Other
Open Space Non-Recreation 1,200.2 285,160 242
Open Space Parkland 1,041.3 193,455 82
Open Space - Water 17.3 1
Public Facility 89.7 495,688 1,806
Public School 603.4 2,666,341 3,102
Ontario International Airport 1,422.7 2,401,641 6,400
Landfill 136.6 6,528 34
Railroad 249.6 1,956 62
663

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 11
Table 2-1 Approved TOP 2050 Land Use Designations
TOP 2050 Land Use Acres
Housing
Capacity
(DU)
Households (HH)
Population
(Pop)
Nonresident
Bldg.

Capacity
(Sq. Ft.) Jobs
Roadways 5,389.3
Subtotal 10,150.1 6,050,769 11,729
Total 32,022 129,951 124,753 411,268 263,828,479 299,204 Notes: Totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

1. Lower-Income Housing in Medium Density Residential (MDR). The MDR category will allow up to 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) (rather than 25 du/ac) if the site is within the Affordable Housing zoning overlay. Sites within the overlay may also be exempted from specific plan requirements if there is no existing specific plan or PUD, and the minimum density allowed on any site within the Affordable Housing overlay zone shall be 20 du/ac.

2. Lower-Income Housing in a Mixed-Use (MU) area. Mixed use sites within the affordable housing overlay may be exempted from specific plan and PUD requirements if there is no existing specific plan, and the minimum density allowed on any site within the Affordable Housing overlay zone shall be 20 du/ac.

2.2.2 TOP Certified EIR
The proposed project is an update to the approved project; therefore, this SEIR relies on the findings of the 2022 Draft SEIR and 2022 Final SEIR and, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, contains all the information necessary to ensure that the 2022 Certified EIR fully evaluates the proposed project. These documents, though discussed separately here, are collectively referred to in this SEIR as the 2022 Certified EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15148 and 15150, this SEIR incorporates the 2022 Certified EIR (and its constituent parts) by reference. A summary of the 2022 Certified EIR follows. All documents incorporated by reference are available for review at the City of Ontario Community Development Department at 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764.
2022 DRAFT SEIR AND FINAL EIR FOR THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 The City of Ontario circulated the 2022 Draft SEIR for a 45-day public review period beginning May 9, 2022, and ending June 23, 2022, and 20 topics were evaluated in detail in the 2022 SEIR.

The following impacts were considered less than significant without mitigation in the 2022 SEIR:

Aesthetics
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Biological Resources
Energy
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
■
■
■
■
■
664

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -1 2
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildlife
The following impacts were identified as having potentially significant impacts that could be mitigated, avoided, or substantially lessened.

I CITY OF

I MONTCLAIR
<(
W I~+.-·-- ~
V'l
z
LJ.J 1~ t
_:

I====={ 60 \=-====-=&~ ~~::=---&.~ ::t!:~rt:=-
I
I
I
I
I
I

CITY OF CHINO
~ _J_____.... ~·
~ ~------------
CUCAMONGA ........,...J

JURUPA VALLEY
STVALE

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-4
Current TOP Land Use Plan
I I Ontario City Boundary
I I County Boundary
--+-+-+- Rail Network
Overlay Zones
~ Commercial
~ Business Park
~ Industrial
,, Landfill Impact Area
Current Land Use
Residential
RR Rural Residential
LDR Low Density Residential
LMDR Low Medium Density Residential
1111 MDR Medium Density Residential
1111 HDR High Density Residential
Mixed-Use
1111 MU Mixed Use
Commercial
1111 NC Neighborhood Commercial
1111 GC General Commercial
1111 OC Office Commercial
HOS Hospitality
Employment
BP Business Park
1111 IND Industrial
Other
1111 OS-NR Open Space - Non-Rec
1111 OS-R Open Space - Recreation
)?-:\\) OS-W Open Space - Water
1111 PF Public Facility
1111 PS Public School
ARPT Airport
LF Landfill
Rail
2 · 0 · 5·0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
~
• .. 0 2,500 5,000
Source: The City of Ontario 2025
FT
10,000
Date: 10/15/2025
666

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -1 4
This page intentionally left blank.
667

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 15
2009 DEIR AND RECIRCULATED DEIR
The 2022 SEIR tiered off the findings for TOP Final EIR certified in January 2010. The City of Ontario circulated the 2009 Draft EIR for public review in April 2009. Six environmental categories (agricultural resources, air quality, cultural resources, global climate change, noise, and traffic and transportation) had significant and unavoidable impacts that could not be avoided with mitigation. A Recirculated Draft EIR for The Ontario Plan was released in November 2009 to update and provide additional analysis concerning GHG emissions impacts associated with buildout of the Policy Plan. This analysis was based on verbal comments made by the California Attorney General’s Office after the end of the public review period and on recent rules and regulations about lowering GHG emissions. Only the following topic areas were analyzed in the 2009 Recirculated Draft EIR: Global Climate Change and Additional Project Alternative: 15 percent GHG Reduction Alternative. Remaining topics previously analyzed in the 2009 Draft EIR were determined to be adequately addressed. Analysis in the 2009 Recirculated Draft EIR found that significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the 2009 Draft EIR would remain significant and unavoidable. These determinations were reiterated in the 2010 Final EIR when it was certified on January 27, 2010.

2.3 STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Objectives for the Policy Plan Amendment and the EBPSP will aid decision makers in their review of the project and associated environmental impacts.

2.3.1 Policy Plan Amendment
Comprehensively plan for and assess land use changes requested by property owners while ensuring compliance with state laws and maintaining the vision and objectives of current TOP 2050.

Reposition the planned employment center in southwest Ontario from a mix of office, retail, and residential uses to a concentration of business park uses.

Ensure there is no net loss in overall housing capacity within the City, consistent with the requirements of state law.

Plan for adequate housing capacity to ensure the City continues to meet the requirements of the City’s sixth-cycle RHNA obligation.

Update the City’s truck routes based on proposed land use changes to ensure the City continues to comply with state law and ensures a safe and efficient goods movement network while minimizing the exposure of existing and future sensitive receptors to noise, vibration, and air pollution generated by heavy trucks. ■
■
■
■
■
668

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -1 6
Update the Policy Plan component of TOP 2050 for internal consistency with proposed land use and circulation changes.

2.3.2 Specific Plan
To provide a land use plan that implements The Ontario Plan’s vision and appropriately positions business park and public parkland uses north of Eucalyptus Avenue, between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue.

To facilitate the development of a variety of employment-generating uses in a business park setting.

To provide business park uses that are compatible with surrounding land uses.

To provide opportunities for positive economic benefit to the City, including new net revenues to the General Fund that can be used for vital City services.

To provide opportunities for the development of passive use parks consistent with the City of Ontario’s Grand Park Master Plan.

To provide landscaped open space within the Specific Plan area, including pedestrian trails adjacent to public arterial and collector streets.

To improve connectivity in the area by providing pedestrian paths, bicycle routes, and comfort amenities such as bike racks that encourage circulation by means not dependent on a motorized vehicle.

To identify and construct capital improvements for water, recycled water, sewer, storm drain, and circulation facilities that serve planned land uses within and adjacent to the Specific Plan area.

To set forth a development phasing sequence that allows for logical development and aligns with installation of on-site and off-site infrastructure.

To define guidelines and standards that provide a cohesive design for architecture, landscaping, streetscapes, entry monuments, corner treatments, walls and fencing, lighting, and signage within the Specific Plan area.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
669

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 17

2.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
“Project,” as defined by the CEQA Guidelines, means:
... the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that is any of the following: (1)…enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100–65700. (14 Cal. Code of Reg. sec. 15378[a])

2.4.1 Policy Plan Amendment Project

POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
The Policy Plan Amendment project component primarily involves modifying the currently permitted and planned TOP land use pattern across more than 1,300 acres in southern Ontario.

These proposed changes to TOP are driven by requests from property owners and developers who seek to alter the allowable type or intensity of land use on their properties as well as land use changes required to improve land use compatibility, maintain compliance with state laws, uphold long-term planning goals, and plan for a cohesive land use pattern that repositions the southwest portion of the City as a regional employment and logistics center. A critical aspect of these proposed Policy Plan Amendments is to ensure compliance with state laws, including requirements enacted by the following Senate and Assembly Bills (SB/AB).

No-Net-Loss Provisions (SB 330): If any proposed rezonings convert land from uses that allow housing to uses that do not allow housing, the City must offset this by concurrently upzoning another property elsewhere to prevent a net loss of housing capacity. Since some of the requested changes would reduce potential housing buildout, the overall amendments include additional land use changes specifically for this offset.

SB 166 (Affordable Housing Sites): The City must maintain enough appropriately zoned sites to accommodate its fair share of lower- and moderate-income units according to the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA). If properties currently used to meet the City’s lower-income RHNA requirement are rezoned, new suitable sites must be identified on the land use plan. These changes would only be to the Policy Plan; no individual housing projects are being proposed through this process.

SB 1000 (Environmental Justice): The City is required to evaluate its environmental justice policies to comply with SB 1000, which is triggered when 2 or more elements of the General Plan (such as Land Use, Housing, Mobility, Community Design) are updated. The City ■
■
■
670

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -1 8
reviewed its environmental justice goals, policies, and actions as part of the proposed changes to multiple elements of the Policy Plan. Beyond incremental additions of residential and commercial capacity along Holt Avenue and Riverside Avenue, no land use changes are proposed within or adjacent to areas mapped in TOP 2050 Figure ER-01 as Environmental Justice Areas. All of the proposed Business Park land use changes are nearly 2 miles south of the nearest mapped Environmental Justice Area. Accordingly, no changes to the City's environmental justice goals, policies, or actions were deemed necessary. Therefore, the review found the current policies and objectives adequate to meet the requirements of state law and no changes are proposed as part of the project.

AB 98 (Truck Routes). The City’s network of truck routes that would be impacted by the proposed land use changes would be evaluated for opportunities to minimize impacts to sensitive receptors and ensure direct access and compliance with AB 98.

Assessor Parcels Numbers
The following Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) would be affected by the Policy Plan Amendment:
0113-282-15
216-174-01
216-174-02
216-174-06
216-174-07
216-174-08
216-174-16
216-174-17
216-211-01
216-211-04
216-211-20
216-211-24
216-211-26
216-214-01
216-214-02
216-214-03
216-214-04
216-214-05
216-214-06
216-214-07
216-311-03
216-311-04
216-311-05
216-311-08
216-311-09
216-312-02
216-312-03
216-312-04
216-312-05
216-312-06
216-312-07
216-312-08
216-312-09
216-312-10
216-313-01
216-313-02
216-313-03
216-313-04
216-313-05
216-313-06
216-313-07
216-313-08
216-313-09
216-314-01
216-314-02
216-314-03
216-314-04
216-314-05
216-314-07
216-314-08
216-314-09
216-321-01
216-321-02
216-321-03
216-321-06
216-321-07
216-322-01
216-322-02
216-322-10
216-323-01
216-323-02
216-323-08
216-323-09
218-102-10
218-102-11
218-111-06
218-111-08
218-111-09
218-111-11
218-111-12
218-111-49
218-111-50
218-121-01
218-121-02
218-121-03
218-121-04
■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
671

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 19
218-121-05
218-121-06
218-121-07
218-121-08
218-122-01
218-122-02
218-122-03
218-122-04
218-122-06
218-122-08
218-122-09
218-122-10
218-131-35
218-161-13
218-161-14
218-181-01
218-181-02
218-181-11
218-181-12
218-181-15
218-181-16
218-181-21
218-181-22
218-181-23
218-181-24
218-181-25
218-181-26
218-191-19
218-191-24
218-241-43
218-241-45
218-402-32
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
1049-101-40
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
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
672

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -2 0
1053-571-02
1053-581-03
1053-581-04
1053-591-01
1053-591-02
1053-601-01
1053-601-02
1053-601-03
1053-601-04.

Policy Plan Elements
The proposed land use changes necessitate updates and modifications across the Land Use Element and various other elements of TOP 2050 Policy Plan.

Land Use Element. The City’s current TOP Land Use Plan is shown on Figure 2-4. Proposed changes to the TOP Land Use Plan are shown on Figure 2-5, Proposed Land Use Plan. Additional figures in the Land Use Element would be updated to maintain consistency, including TOP Figures LU-02, LU-03, and LU-04. Land Use Plan changes are primarily located within the Ontario Ranch (south of Riverside Drive), with a handful of changes in the northern part of the City along East Holt Avenue and South Grove Avenue, as further discussed below.

Mobility Element. The City’s network of truck routes would be updated in compliance with AB 98, and consistent with proposed land use changes. Minor updates to the City’s Roadway System (M-01), and multipurpose trails and bikeways, identified on TOP Figure M-02, are also proposed to reflect the City’s long term plan for roadways, and align future bike improvements with the proposed changes in the land use pattern and truck routes in southwestern Ontario. New Mobility policies and implementation actions addressing priority safety corridors consistent with Senate Bill 932 are proposed, as well as a new policy promoting lower speed limits for trucks in areas adjacent to noise-and-vibration-sensitive land uses. Finaly Policies M-3.1 and M-4.1 would be updated. Policy M-3.1 would be expanded to note that the City would prioritize coordinating access to transit in areas near sites identified in the housing element as suitable for lower-income (in addition to Environmental Justice areas), while policy M-4.1 would clarify that noise-sensitive land uses is intended to include both noise and vibration sensitive land uses. ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
673
I
r<

I CITY OF

I MONTCLAIR
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

CITY OF CHINO
~ ~ ~------------_J__........

County of Riverside

JURUPA VALLEY
STVALE

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-5
Proposed Land Use Plan
I I Ontario City Boundary
I I County Boundary
-+-+-+- Rail Network
Overlay Zones
~ Business Park
~ Industrial
,,. Landfill Impact Area
Land Use Designations
Residential
RR Rural Residential
LDR Low Density Residential
LMDR Low Medium Density Residential
1111 MDR Medium Density Residential
1111 HDR High Density Residential
Mixed-Use
1111 MU Mixed Use
Commercial
1111 NC Neighborhood Commercial
1111 GC General Commercial
1111 OC Office Commercial
HOS Hospitality
Employment
BP Business Park
1111 IND Industrial
Other
1111 OS-NR Open Space - Non-Rec
1111 OS-R Open Space - Recreation
/:·-:\-!::-./; OS-W Open Space - Water
1111 PF Public Facility
ROW; ROW-bp
1111 PS Public School
ARPT Airport
LF Landfill
~ Rail 2 · 0 · 5·0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 0 2,500
Source: The City of Ontario 2025
5,000
FT
10,000
Date: 10/15/2025
674

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -2 2
This page intentionally left blank.
675

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 23
Community Design Element. Mixed-use place types, identified in the Community Design Element, would be updated to reflect proposed land use changes. Revisions include changes to existing mixed-use areas, and the establishment of new mixed-use areas, including creating a new district-level place type for the Ontario Sports Empire, revising the South Euclid District place type, and removing the South Employment District place type. TOP Figures CD-01, CD-02, CD-06, CD-07, CD-08, and CD-09.2 are anticipated to be updated. The approved TOP Figure CD-07 would be removed and replaced with a new TOP Figure CD-07, establishing the Ontario Sports Empire as “District Place Type.” Parks and Recreation. Revisions to the location of planned park facilities in TOP Figure PR-01 to maintain consistency with approved projects and the proposed land use plan.

Safety. Revisions to the Traffic Noise Contours Map (S-06a) would be updated consistent with proposed changes in land use and circulation. In addition, minor changes to the base maps used in the map of Critical Facilities (S-08), Evacuation Constrained Properties (S-09), and Evacuation Routes (S-10) would be processed to show updates to the City’s park network or remove parks from the base maps, as the location of parks in no way alters the intent of the map.

Environmental Resources. Policy ER-5.4 would be updated to state that the City does not require replacement farmland or require the dedication or preservation of agricultural land outside of the City if a property owner elects to transition from agricultural to urban uses.

Finally, the City’s Development Code would be updated to maintain consistency with the proposed Land Use Plan.

Development Code Consistency. The zoning map and Development Code would be updated to implement the Policy Plan Amendment.

Land Use Designations and Zoning
The land use designations for the proposed project are the same as those in the approved project with the exception of the addition of a new Sport Park (MU-SP) land use designation, the removal of the Mixed Use-Eucalyptus / Chino Airport Overlay, changing the Great Park mixed use designation to the Grand Park Mixed Use designation, raising the minimum allowable density for the Meredith Mixed Use designation, and the addition of footnotes to clarify that the minimum density shall be 20 du/ac on all sites identified as suitable for lower-income housing in the Sites Inventory of the Housing Element and subject to rezoning to accommodate that housing since 2021. Table 2-2, Land Use Designations in the City of Ontario, includes the existing land use designations, their density or intensity, and intention. ■
■
■
■
■
676

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -2 4
Table 2-2 Land Use Designations in the City of Ontario
General Plan Land
Use Designations
Residential Density
and Nonresidential
Intensity Permitted Uses (General Description)
Residential
Rural 0 to 2.0 du/ac Single-family detached residences, typically in an estate setting.

Low Density 2.1 to 5.0 du/ac Single-family detached residences.

Low-Medium
Density

5.1 to 11.0 du/ac Single/multifamily attached and detached residences, including small lot subdivisions, townhouses, and
courtyard homes.

Medium Density 11.1 to 25.0
du/ac1,2,3
Single/multifamily attached and detached residences,
including townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard homes,
stacked flats, and small-lot single-family subdivisions.

High Density 25.1 to 45.0 du/ac Multifamily dwellings, including stacked flats and midrise and high-rise residential complexes.

Retail/Service
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.

Hospitality 1.00 FAR Regional serving tourist-serving, retail, entertainment, and service uses such as convention centers, hotels/motels, and restaurants.

Employment
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.

I I
I I
I I
677

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 25
Table 2-2 Land Use Designations in the City of Ontario
General Plan Land
Use Designations
Residential Density
and Nonresidential
Intensity Permitted Uses (General Description)
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.

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 – NonrecreationNot 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 –
Parkland
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 Facility Not applicable Public facilities including civic centers, governmental institutions, police and fire stations, transportation
facilities, museums, and public libraries.

Public School 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 consider a host of uses including a transit station and multimodal transfer station.

Rail road Not applicable —
Roadways Not applicable —
Mixed Use1 Mixed UseDowntown
(MU-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, 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.

I I
678

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -2 6
Table 2-2 Land Use Designations in the City of Ontario
General Plan Land
Use Designations
Residential Density
and Nonresidential
Intensity Permitted Uses (General Description)
Mixed UseHolt Blvd
(MU-Holt)

14.0 to 40.0
dwelling units per
acre2

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.

Mixed UseMeredith
(MU-Meredith)

25.0 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 UseMultimodal
(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 multi-modal 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.

Mixed UseInland Empire
Corridor
(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. The small amount of remaining vacant land is envisioned for retail uses that relate to the regional park.

Mixed UseGuasti
(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.
679

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 27
Table 2-2 Land Use Designations in the City of Ontario
General Plan Land
Use Designations
Residential Density
and Nonresidential
Intensity Permitted Uses (General Description)
Mixed UseOntario Center
(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 Toyota 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 UseOntario Mills
(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 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.

Mixed UseRich 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.
680

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -2 8
Table 2-2 Land Use Designations in the City of Ontario
General Plan Land
Use Designations
Residential Density
and Nonresidential
Intensity Permitted Uses (General Description)
Mixed UseGrand Park
(MU-Grand Park)

14.02 to 65.0
dwelling units per
acre

1.5 FAR for office
uses

1.0 FAR for retail
uses
Subject to Specific
Plan3
The 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 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 Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road.

Mixed UseGrove
(MU-Grove)

14.02 to 65.0
dwelling units per
acre

1.5 FAR for office
uses

1.0 FAR for retail
uses
Subject to Specific
Plan3
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
(MU-PS)

25.0-45.0 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
Sports Park
(MU-SP)

25.0 to 65.0
dwelling units per
acre

1.00 FAR for
hospitality and/or
retail uses

1.5 FAR for office
uses
Subject to PUD or
Specific Plan3
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.
681

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 29
Table 2-2 Land Use Designations in the City of Ontario
General Plan Land
Use Designations
Residential Density
and Nonresidential
Intensity Permitted Uses (General Description)
Mixed Use
Neighborhood
Activity Hubs
(MU-NH)
6th and Mountain
4th and Mountain
Francis and Euclid
Walnut and Euclid
Riverside and
Euclid

20.0 to 75.0
dwelling units per
acre

1.0 FAR for retail
and office
Subject to Specific
Plan3
Projects located
outside of Ontario
Ranch will be
subject to PUD at
City’s Discretion
Envisioned as a low-rise (3 to 5 stories), mixture of retail and residential uses that will create identity and place along the corridor and serve the surrounding residents.

Overlays
Business Park
Transitional Areas
Per the
underlying
designation
unless a nonresidential 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 LA/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 LA/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 nonresidential block. In these cases, the City shall be responsible for the necessary amendments to the Policy
Plan Map and Development Code.
682

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -3 0
Table 2-2 Land Use Designations in the City of Ontario
General Plan Land
Use Designations
Residential Density
and Nonresidential
Intensity Permitted Uses (General Description)
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 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 present other landfill-related hazards that could limit allowable uses and site design.

Development in this area requires the submission of a
detailed environmental analysis.

Plan Required Overlays
Ontario Airport
Metro Center
Per approved
individual specific
plans3
Envisioned as the most intensive area outside of
downtown Los Angeles with a vertical and horizontal
mixture of regional-serving retail, office, restaurant, entertainment, cultural, and residential uses in low
to mid-rise buildings (3-10 stories). See the Ontario
Airport Metro Center Area Plan or 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)
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 “Grand 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.

I
683

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 31
Table 2-2 Land Use Designations in the City of Ontario
General Plan Land
Use Designations
Residential Density
and Nonresidential
Intensity Permitted Uses (General Description)
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, 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. See the Downtown Area Plan for more
detail.

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.

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.

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.

Land Use Summary
Table 2-3, TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Proposed Land Use Summary, details the projected population, employment, dwelling units, acreage, assumed density/intensity, and nonresidential square footage of development by land use in the City planned for under TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment. Figure 2-5, Proposed Land Use Plan, shows the proposed project land use map for the City.

Table 2-3 TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Proposed Land Use Summary TOP 2050 Land Use Acres
Housing
Capacity
(DU)
Househol
ds (HH)
Populatio
n (Pop)
Nonresident
Bldg.

Capacity
(Sq. Ft.) Jobs
Residential
Rural Residential (RR) 528.7 1,057 1,015 3,863
Low Density Residential (LDR) 5,809.6 32,753 31,443 119,671 Low-Medium Density
Residential (LMDR)
929.5 7,865 7,550 27,737
684

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -3 2
Table 2-3 TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Proposed Land Use Summary TOP 2050 Land Use Acres
Housing
Capacity
(DU)
Househol
ds (HH)
Populatio
n (Pop)
Nonresident
Bldg.

Capacity
(Sq. Ft.) Jobs
Medium Density Residential
(MDR)1
2,292.3 47,010 45,130 152,223
High Density Residential (HDR) 535.7 16,902 16,226 43,308 Subtotal 10,095.8 105,587 101,364 346,802
Mixed-Use (MU) Subareas
Downtown1
131.5 2,783 2,672 7,131 1,833,291 4,097
Ontario Center (not including
Piemonte Area)
186.4 3,729 3,579 9,553 3,329,507 7,327
Ontario Center Arena
(Piemonte Area only)
169.2 5,076 4,873 13,006 1,621,435 3,417
Ontario Mills 249.4 3,990 3,830 10,223 3,394,666 3,971
Guasti 86.3 777 746 1,991 2,012,077 3,848
Multimodal 72.6 653 627 1,673 2,449,557 5,993
Grand Park1187.5 4,595 4,411 11,772 1,715,486 3,032
East Holt192.2 2,074 1,991 5,313 802,882 669
Meredith 90.8 1,815 1,743 4,651 691,939 577
Inland Empire 36.6 300 288 769 100,455 84
Mountain & 6th St 7.8 137 131 350 136,070 340
Mountain & West Holt 1.5 33 31 84 12,678 11
Euclid & Francis 12.7 190 183 487 220,912 552
Euclid & Walnut 16.4 369 354 945 142,840 357
Mountain & 4th St 7.2 251 241 643 75,008 188
Rich-Haven 153.7 2,380 2,285 6,097 287,946 371
Grove & Chino1 45.1 1,025 984 2,627 481,025 786
Euclid & Riverside1 15.0 394 378 1,009 130,662 327
Parkside 3.0 52 50 132 51,440 129
Vineyard & Riverside136.7 331 317 847 856,025 1,368
Sports Park1

70.8 637 612 1,632 1,649,650 2,637
Subtotal 1,672.4 31,591 30,326 80,935 21,995,551 40,081 Retail / Service
Neighborhood Commercial 237.3 3,100,519 8,456
General Commercial 356.7 4,661,303 5,191
Office / Commercial 309.2 10,101,733 28,239
685

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 33
Table 2-3 TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Proposed Land Use Summary TOP 2050 Land Use Acres
Housing
Capacity
(DU)
Househol
ds (HH)
Populatio
n (Pop)
Nonresident
Bldg.

Capacity
(Sq. Ft.) Jobs
Hospitality 167.0 7,273,232 9,812
Subtotal 1,070.2 25,136,787 51,698
Employment
Business Park (not including
EBPSP)
1,197.5 26,449,295 43,550
Business Park (EBPSP only) 138.0 2,939,000 1,583
Business Park Overlay Areas 89.6 1,951,398 3,814
Industrial 7,606.2 182,228,282 147,391
Industrial Overlay Areas 60.2 1,441,256 1,197
Subtotal 9,091.5 215,009,231 197,535
Other
Open Space Non-Recreation 1,200.2 285,160 242
Open Space Parkland (not
including EBPSP)
961.8 164,012 69
Open Space Parkland (EBPSP
only)

36.4 7
Open Space – Water 17.3 1
Public Facility 89.7 495,688 1,806
Public School 603.7 2,666,341 3,102
Ontario International Airport 1,407.9 2,401,641 6,400
Landfill 136.6 6,528 34
Rail road 249.6 1,956 62
Roadways 5,389.3
Subtotal 10,092.5 6,021,326 11,723
Total 32,022 137,177 131,690 427,741 268,162,895 301,035 Notes: Totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

1. Affordable Housing Overlay. As part of this project, the affordable housing overlay will be applied to all sites where rezoning was required by Program 13 of the Housing Element to accommodate the City’s lower-income 6th cycle RHNA where the assigned TOP category includes either 1) a minimum density less than 20 du/ac, and/or 2) the site would otherwise require a specific plan or PUD. The affordable housing overlay requires all development projects on the site to have a minimum density of 20 du/ac regardless of affordability level and superseding requirements of the base zone (if any). The overlay also exempts projects meeting Tier 1 or Tier 2 requirements (those containing at least 20 (Tier 1) or 25 (Tier 2) percent of units for lower-Income households) from the specific plan or PUD requirement. In these cases, the traditional zoning category consistent with TOP land use designation, or a comparable existing zoning implementation tool that aligns with the density and intensity of the proposed 686

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -3 4
project, would regulate development. Finally, the affordable housing overlay increases the maximum density for any Tier 2 project to 30 du/ac on lots designates at Medium Density Residential (MDR) in TOP, increasing the base density allowed from 25 to 30 du/ac.

Buildout Summary
Table 2-4, Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment, provides a statistical summary of the buildout potential of TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment compared to the buildout potential under the currently approved TOP 2050. As shown in this table, the Policy Plan Amendment would increase population, dwelling units, nonresidential building square footage, and employment compared to the approved TOP 2050.

Table 2-4 Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment Scenario Units Population
Nonresidential
Square Feet Employment
Approved TOP 2050 129,951 411,268 263,828,479 299,204
Policy Plan Amendment 137,177 427,741 268,162,895 301,035 Net Difference
(Proposed Project –
Approved Project)
7,225 16,473 4,334,416 1,831
Summary of Changes to the Approved Project
The proposed changes to TOP are driven by requests from property owners and developers who seek to alter the allowable type or intensity of land use on their properties as well as land use changes required to maintain land use compatibility with requested changes, maintain compliance with state laws, uphold long-term planning goals, and plan for a cohesive land use pattern that continues to position the southwest portion of the City as a regional employment and logistics center. A critical aspect of these proposed Policy Plan Amendments is to ensure compliance with state laws (SB 330, SB 166, SB 1000, and AB 98).

Land Use Changes
Figure 2-6, Policy Plan Amendment Areas of Change, shows the changes in land use between the Current TOP and proposed project that will be evaluated in this SEIR. The proposed project has approximately 1,300 acres of land use changes that affect the buildout projections throughout the City; however, the majority of changes are concentrated in Ontario Ranch. 687
- ,J
J ,
-rL- i 0 "' z
w
j f
J
I
■
-, ,_,

CITY OF CHINO
w w w > > <( < ~
0 <( V)
z ::> :::; g 0..
u ::i: ::> ::> <( w
"' u
z z z
. •
E G ST
E D ST

E HOLT AVE
E P.HILADELPHIA ST
w
>
0 a::
\.!I
w
~
0 ""
~ w
z
5 V)
' ...
.. _1 E RIME.RSIOE D
E CHIN • A
lp=x=t===:~~
1 '----=-----E• HH:'~l:YP.Pl!JS• A>;IE- -..J
L .. _,,_,,.MERRl<L-AVl-••-··-"l
L ..
--
w
>
<
0 ..J
<(
~
:r:
• u
a:;
<(
"'
w
~.
a::
w
z "' ::>
I-
"'
- -
D

CITY OF RANCHO

CUCAMONGA
□
2 w
~
z
w "" :::;
::-.. ~
1 w
~
w
.....
...,
> w
z
3 V,
I
_,,J
I
,,_, __ ,,,
w

E SANTA ANA ST
w
~
w
C)
~ z
>
.,,
~
~ e
z
<(
:::_ I
~ I
z
r
I
l
~ CITY OF
i FONTANA z
<(
3 ~
~
I I County of = San Bernardino ,,_,, ___ ,,___..,
County ol Riverside
~
60~--------

JURUPA VALLEY

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-6
Policy Plan Amendment
Areas of Change
t::l EBPSP Boundary
Cl Proposed TOP Areas of Change
~ Ontario City Boundary
c::J County Boundary
Rail Network
Overlay Zones
Business Park
W ./4 Industrial
Landfill Impact Area
Residential
RR Rural Residential
LOR Low Density Residential
LMDR Low Medium Density Residential
MOR Medium Density Residential
- HOR High Density Residential
Mixed-Use
- MU Mixed Use
Commercial
- NC Neighborhood Commercial
- GC General Commercial
OC Office Commercial
HOS Hospitality
Employment
BP Business Park
IND Industrial
Other
OS-NR Open Space - Non-Rec
- OS-R Open Space - Recreation
(:f·_·.-· , OS-W Open Space - Water
PF Public Facility
ROW; ROW-bp
- PS Public School
ARPT Airport
LF Landfill
2 Rail
* Areas where no land use
change is proposed are
shown al 40% opacity
2·0·5·0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
fi 0 2,500 5,000
Source: The City of Ontario 2026
FT
10,000
Date: 2/26/2026
688

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -3 6
This page intentionally left blank.
689

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 37
Senate Bill 330 Compliance. Because the changes to the land use plan would replace areas planned for residential use with nonresidential uses, the loss in residential capacity must be offset by increasing the residential capacity by an equal amount elsewhere in the City to comply with SB 330, which mandates no net loss of residential capacity citywide. The proposed land use changes result in a net gain in housing capacity, increasing the estimated number of allowed units from 129,951 units under TOP 2050, to 137,177 units under the proposed project, an increase of 5.6 percent, meeting the requirements of SB 330. The reason the City must plan for an increase in housing units rather than net replacement of units is due to more stringent requirements related to Senate Bill 166, as described below.

Senate Bill 166 Compliance. SB 166 mandates that a jurisdiction maintain an inventory of sites suitable to fulfill its low and very low Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)1 obligation at all times. To comply with State Housing Law, codified as SB 166, the City must remove sites identified in its inventory as suitable for low and very-low income households when land use or zoning changes render them no longer suitable for affordable housing, and the City must identify additional adequate sites to meet its RHNA requirements. California housing law establishes general criteria for sites to be considered suitable for low and very low income RHNA:

Minimum Density. 30 dwelling units per acre or more.

Infrastructure and Realistic Development Potential by 2029. Sites must have available or planned infrastructure and demonstrate realistic development potential within the planning period. Where infrastructure is planned jurisdictions must account for development time and uncertainty by counting only a percentage of the total units that could develop towards its low and very-low (lower) income requirements.

Vacant or Underutilized Property. All properties identified in the inventory must be vacant or underutilized.

Lot Size. Properties smaller than 0.5 acre or larger than 10 acres must provide additional documentation to show that development of lower-income units is feasible.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). Sites for lower-income households must not be concentrated in lower resource areas but dispersed throughout the community, including in areas with access to greater resources, amenities, and opportunities. 1 RHNA is California’s process for determining how much housing each jurisdiction must plan for during an 8-year cycle. The state allocates housing needs to regional agencies, which then distribute specific unit targets to each city and county across four income categories: lower (including very low and low), moderate, and above moderate income.
■
■
■
■
■
690

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -3 8
Several properties identified as suitable for lower-income housing must be removed from the current sites inventory due to changes that are part of the proposed project as well changes to zoning or entitlement status that are outside the scope of the proposed project but render sites no longer suitable for lower-income units. Because the loss of sites cannot be absorbed within the current inventory and there are not enough sites that meet the criteria above to offset the loss of sites, the proposed project includes upzoning several sites to meet the City’s RHNA obligation (see Figure 2-7, Policy Plan Amendment Affordability Sites Inventory Changes).

Table 2-5, Ontario’s 2021-2029 RHNA Requirements, identifies the City’s current RHNA requirements for the 2021-2029 Housing Element cycle.

Table 2-5 Ontario’s 2021-2029 RHNA Requirements
Income Category Units
Lower Income 8,926
Moderate Income 3,329
Above Moderate Income 8,599
Total 20,854
Transportation Updates
The proposed project would also result in changes to the truck routes map to address the requirements of AB 98. 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 (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).

In summer 2025, the City conducted outreach and initiated evaluation of its existing truck routes, which resulted in changes to the truck routes in northern Ontario, in the Original Model Colony (OMC). Figure 2-8, Current Truck Routes, shows the current truck routes map. Changes in southern Ontario are being 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. 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. 691
~ I (.._ __ ,•• 1...-+-~--+-+';+-+-+-+---+-+---;;; C,'n'ITY'j""r'iO.=-' F ~~-:--'_,__, / ' =
~
I
~-
I
z CITY OF ~ z
MONTCLAIR f
z
!
===9 60
·I l;J I l I h..+ + +-

CITY OF CHINO
UPLAND
w
>
tl
0 ::;
u . =>
w
~
~ ... - w
>
0 c::
\!)
□
CJ ~f rnff tvµ ILJ
ffi=nEFlTrrl
+-+-+---.---+_._...-,..-,--,.

E RIVERSIDE DR
l l .. _.,_,,_M, RRICL-AVS-••-·•-"l
L ..
w
> <(
0 ...J
<(
a:,
:I:
u
c::
<(
I
"'
l
> <(
c::
w
z
c::
=> I-
"'

E EUCALYPTUS AVE
z
LiJ
> <(
:I:
"'
~~,
I,
L,i:,
I
::,
j
"" z
:?:

ONTARIO RANCH= RD- ~
I
l l
.. J
-~"
~ .. ~ EASTVALE

JURUPA VALLEY
...
1 CITY OF

FONTANA

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-7
Policy Plan Amendment
Affordability Sites Inventory Changes
c::::J EBPSP Boundary
I.. "I Ontario City Boundary
I., "I County Boundary
-+ Rail Network
Proposed Changes to the Housing Element Sites Inventory i. Retain with no Changes
Retain: Affordable Project Entitled
1111 Retain with no Changes/ zoning not in place
Upzone existing site (MOR to HOR or Mixed Use)
New Site (add to Housing Sites inventory)
~ Remove Site
2·0·5·0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 0 2,500
Source: City of Ontario, 2026
5,000
FT
10,000
Dale: 3/2/2026
692

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -4 0
This page intentionally left blank.
693

W FOURTH ST
w
> <t
w
> <t
0 z
0 1-
z
<t
z ~ =~=---~ W G ST v,
z
=>
~ W DST
z
u.J
>
z
j T z W PHILLIPS 5
- ._ __ _J _, __ IIIIIIIIR:_ - - ......... ._~ ~
I f
: CITY OF CHINO
I I ·---r---------J-------
'
... r-----1
w
> <t
Cl
:::;
u
::)
w
z
w
~
<t
z
~ ....I
::,
V>
z
w
~
<t
z
~ ::,
V,
V>
w
> <t
V>
::,
Cl..
~
<t
u
z
V,
•

E EIGH'TH ST
w
> <t
w
>
0 l a:; > (.:, <t
z Cl
a::
<t
>,-
w
z
~
z
E G ST
'•\
'\
\ w
~
Cl
.a,
<t
co
€1TY OF RANCHO

CUCAMONGA
I
I
E D ST ----=::=:::::::;:,; .. ~---=====---~w~ -----===- -==~~ilf!ll!Sii•----= E HOL<r AVE
E Pf.ll~Al:>E'l!PHIA SiP
..,
> 0
a:;
(.:,
• ' V: E RIVERSIO.E;:DR
E= CHINO AV~- ~
<t ~
z z
w
> <t
::c
2 z

E SANTA ANA ST
~ CITY OF I
1£ FONTANA ,_ _____ -f__,===....c~====---,i;;---6-JW.R, P.A-s;r,------- z , - - - ----i---
LU
~
a:; I~ I.LI
z
a:;
:::::)
IVl
w
> <t
Cl
.;;.J
<{
a:,
::c
<!)
w
> <{
z
> ""
<t
::c
"'
w
;:,
1 w
w
...I
~ z
3:

V>
L.L.J ~
~ .:U
LU
(.:,
j;E
z
>
V>
--------
County of
San Bernardino
I County of Riverside
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r=-=-------==~- E=SCHAEFER AVE a:;
<{
a:;
vi ~ , ' - - - -JURUPAVALLEY
0Nf ARl0 RANGH RD- ~ p - - - J.,
,...._-■----8 E0150N AVE
-~·· ......

MERRl!il.! AV~-,==-=toiiiiiiiiipiiio..,...~---------~~~~--- ,,,,,, •• ..,,,, EASTVALE I I : I ~ ~- :,
I I I : ~
~ - .. - J. - L-.-7"'
I : _,.., ~----------------L--- 1 I
I

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-8
Current Truck Routes
[-] Ontario City Boundary
[ ] County Boundary
Truck Route
Adjacent Agency Truck Route
- State DOT Network
2·0·5·0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
8 0 2,500
Source: City of Ontario, 2022
5,000
FT
10,000
Dale: 12/8/2025
694

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -4 2
This page intentionally left blank.
695
I
CITY Of ii
MONTCLAIR !I
~ I -
-
1:---u.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
- --
I
. -
.a CITY OF

I UPLAND
I w
~
Q
z
0 Iz
<
z < Ill
z
... 1
~ . W PHILLIPS 5T ~z
, z
51 !1
W FRt CIS ST
w PHILAl ELPHIA ST ;
VI
---- -

CITY OF CHINO
-
w
> <
0 3
u
:,
w
z
w
> <
I
I
I
w w
> < ~
< Ill
z :,
< 11.
~ ::E :, ct
"' u
z z

E EIGHTH ST
I

GITY OF RANCHO

CUCAMONGA
I
-
--- -- --.- -
I I
: ~\. ~I .\
~1 '
--~~-. --L E FOURTH ST ,_.,..,.,______ - ~I

I E GI ST
----
I I
_,.J
-- --- ~I I ~I

E INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
-
--
-
\
E D 51 I
_,,
~I I §/
---===:::::::::~ i !!:: I ====--==~-- ---1----=~:'=====!!!9~~-----==~t=• ,=.:i:=Sii;iiiali: ~ I zl L E HOLT AVE .L _ ,' 1 ---- z "'>L -t f. AIRPORT DR - • ---- < ~ --- ----- ii '(- I z
f ~I I I
I I I
I I I

E SANTA ANA ST
w
> < CITY OF
< 0 .L J E IURUPA ST r---- - --~-~~~~---......

I ~
FONTANA z < 3
w
> <
w
> 0
a:
\!l
V't

E CHINO AVE

E SCHAEFER AVE

E RIVERSIDE DR
0 ...,
< c::,
:i:
u a::
<
..,,
w
~
a:
w
z
a:
2 ..,,
E [DISON AVE ,'
.----------
I
I
~ <
z
uJ
~ J:
..,,
J
;1
ONTARIO RANCH RO ~ ---------:i; ,, .,,
w
_,
....J > w
z
3 j:::
w
Vl
--- Ill County ol
San Bernardino
County of R1vers1de

JURUPA VALLEY
__ L ..1 .lliflll:l'~m:!1 ____ _ I
I /
I I
I I
....

I
.L
.. /"''
_.,,,,,,,..,. •• _...,,.,-, EASlV ALE
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-9
Proposed Truck Routes
D County Boundary
c:J Ontario City Boundary
Railroad
Truck Routes
- State DOT Network
- Truck Route
Adjacent Agency Truck Route
c:J EBPSP Boundary
2·0·5·0

THE ONTARIO PLAN
0 0 2,500 5,000
Source: The City of Ontario 2025
FT
10,000
Dale: 12/20/25
696

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -4 4
This page intentionally left blank.
697

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 45
Recommended changes to the truck routes map in TOP 2050 identified in Figure 2-9 include:

Removal of Archibald Avenue between SR-60 and Merrill Avenue.

Removal of Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road between Euclid Avenue and Walker Avenue.

Add Eucalyptus Avenue between Euclid Avenue and South Hellman Avenue.

Add Walker Avenue between Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road and Merrill Avenue.

Add South Hellman Avenue between Eucalyptus Avenue and Merrill Avenue.

As described above, the changes to the truck route map are to minimize the number of existing and proposed sensitive receptors adjacent to the truck routes. Factors that were considered included:

Direct access to a freeway interchange.

Connection to truck routes in other jurisdictions.

Direct service to Industrial and Business Park land uses.

Larger roads (generally 4-6 lanes).

The presence of soundwalls and vegetation.

The proximity of a parallel truck route.

Existing and future estimated truck volumes.

Fewer gaps in truck routes.

Presence of existing and planned sensitive uses (e.g., residential areas, Grand Park, and schools).

Roadway operations.

In addition to the truck routes update, the proposed project also includes updates to multipurpose trails and bikeways within the City as a result of the proposed land use and truck route changes described above.

EBPSP Land Use Changes
As part of the Policy Plan Amendment being processed in conjunction with the EBPSP, the land use designations for the site would be changed as shown in Table 2-6, EBPSP Proposed Land Use Designations, and Figure 2-6. The City of Ontario’s Zoning Map designates the Specific Plan area’s zoning as Specific Plan (SP) with an Agricultural Overlay and an Affordable Housing Overlay. Upon approval of the Specific Plan, the site’s zoning would become Specific Plan– EBPSP.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
698

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -4 6
Table 2-6 EBPSP Proposed Policy Plan Land Use Designations Current Land Use Designation New Land Use Designation Acreage Affected Medium Density Residential
(with Affordable Housing Overlay) Business Park 47.74
Mixed-Use
(with Chino Airport Overlay and
Affordable Housing Overlay)
Business Park 81.70
Open Space – Parkland Business Park 19.18
Total 148.62

1. The remaining Specific Plan acreage is either designated as Open Space–Parkland or being utilized for within the EBPSP for the roadway and would be unaffected by the Policy Plan Amendment.

ZONING
In addition to changes to TOP 2050, the proposed project includes amendments to the City’s development code to implement the land-use changes, including updates to the zoning map and the affordable housing overlay, see Figure 2-10, Proposed Zoning Map. There are no separate environmental impacts associated with the Zoning update since these changes reflect the changes to the Policy Plan associated with the proposed Policy Plan Amendment.

2.4.2 Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan Project
The Specific Plan would function as the regulatory document for implementing zoning for the entire site, ensuring the orderly and systematic implementation of the City’s Policy Plan. The Specific Plan establishes the necessary land use plan, development standards, design guidelines, infrastructure systems, and implementation strategies on which subsequent, related development activities would be founded. Upon adoption of the Specific Plan, subsequent subdivision maps, plot plans, conditional use permits, grading and building permits, or any other actions requiring either ministerial or discretionary approvals would be required to demonstrate consistency with the Specific Plan.
699
3000S
3200S
3400S
3600S
3800S
4000S
4200S
4400S
4600S
2600S
2400S
4700E
5100E
5500E
5800E
2400S
3900E
4100E
3700E
3500E
2900E
2700E
2500E
4300E
900N
700N
400N
100N
400S
800S
1100S
1500N
1100N
900N
700N
400N
100N
400S
800S
1100S
1600S
1600W
1100W
3000S
3200S
3400S
3600S
3800S
4000S
4200S
4400S
4600S
5000S
4800S
1100E
1200E
1400E
1500E
1700E
900E
500E
700E
1900E
5200S
5400S
2100E
2300E
2500E
2700E
2900E
1600W
3500E
3700E
3900E
4100E
4300E
5800E
4700E
5100E
5500E
1100N
2200S
700W
2400S
2600S
1600S
400W
1100E
900E
500E
700E
1200E
1400E
1900E
1700E
1500E
2300E
2100E
1100W
700W
400W

COUNTRYSIDE
(PSP04-001)
THE EXCHANGE (PSP02-002)

MILLIKEN INDUSTRIAL
PARK (3273-SP)
GUASTI (4413-SP) PACIFIC GATE / EASTGATE (3937-SP) PACIFIC GATE / EASTGATE (3937-SP)

MEREDITH
INTERNATIONAL CENTER (2265-SP)
SUBAREA 29 (PSP03-003)
S MILLIKEN PSP03-004
ONTARIO CENTER (2254-SP)

KAISER PERMANENTE
(4550-SP)
PARKSIDE ( PSP03-002)
CROSSROADS (4043-SP)
BORBA

VILLAGE
(PSP03-001)
RANCON CENTER (3986-SP) CORSAIRE (4009-SP)
MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTER (2265-SP) ONTARIO MILLS
(CALIFORNIA COMMERCE N.)
(4513-SP) PACIFIC GATE / EASTGATE (3937-SP) EDENGLEN (PSP03-005) ONTARIO FESTIVAL (PSPA03-004)
ESPERANZA (PSP05-002)

CENTERLAKE BUSINESS
PARK (2550-SP) CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER (2591-SP)

MOUNTAIN VILLAGE
(5104-SP)
BRIDGESTONE / FIRESTONE (5084-SP) TOYOTA
(4621-SP) GROVE AVENUE (4388-SP)

CALIFORNIA

COMMERCE CENTER
(2591-SP) CREEKSIDE (1811-SP)
ONTARIO GATEWAY (PSP05-005) CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SOUTH (3859-SP) ENTRATTER INDUSTRIAL (5173-SP) WEST HAVEN (PSP03-006)
SHEA BUSINESS CENTER (4362-SP) UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
(3742-SP)

TRANSPARK
(2271-SP)
THE AVENUE (PSP05-003)
WAGNER (2299-SP)
HAVEN GATEWAY CENTER (4127-SP) ARCHIBALD BUSINESS CENTER (3933-SP) HOFER RANCH AIRPORT BUS. PARK (PSPA04-001) ONTARIO CENTER (2254-SP) WAGNER (2299-SP)

ARCHIBALD
CENTER
(4296-SP) RICH-HAVEN (PSP05-004) GRAND PARK (PSP12-001) WEST ONTARIO

COMMERCE CENTER
(PSP16-002) COLONY COMMERCE CENTER WEST
(PSP15-001) COLONY COMMERCE CENTER
EAST
(PSP16-003) MERRILL COMMERCE CENTER
(PSP18-001) ONTARIO RANCH

BUSINESS PARK
(PSP18-002) SOUTH ONTARIO LOGISTIC CENTER
(PSP19-001) EUCLID MIXED USE
(PSP22-001)

CHARDONNAY CT

J ST PINYON CT C O N E

LOWER LN

B ST ALPINE CT PARK ST

CT D STBRIAR PRIVADO

BOULDER PR VI CALIFOR NIA PRIVADO

GRAN TI E PRIV CARLT O N P R IVADO MAITLAND
PRIVADO COPPER. ... ...PRIVADO

PINE AVE

SONOMA CT DE ANZA
SPRUCE

ST SULTANA AVE CONTEMPO
CT PHILLIPS ST GREENWOOD AVE (private drainage road)

SKYLARK ST

OLIVE ST PLACER

CT CAROLINE

SAN DIEGO

AV HARVARD PL CT

NDRIFTWOOD PL ORTHSHORES PL SEAGULL AVE

FAIRFIELD ST CRYSTALSPGS PL ROCK SPGS PLOAK SPRINGS PL FOX GLEN LP

ACORNGLEN PL GLENN

PL BADGER

FOX LEN LP

LYT E CREEK LP

LYT LE CREEK LOOP H O EYGLENN WY
ALISO
CREEK

MALCOLM ST

O K HILL DR

PONY DR

PINTO PL C YSTAL

LK CT PAR KGLENN WY CT COLD CK WY

OAK HILL ST

TAM O' SHANT ER

CT BON VIEW AVE GOLDCREST AVE GARFIELD AVE HOPE AVE

TAYLOR PL CALDWELL P
P

LHOENIX PL BANYAN ST CALDWELL PL GOLD

CREST PBLANYAN ST MALCOLM AVE GARFIELD PL RAYMOND PL CHERRY HILL ST HAZELTINE CT HAZELTINE CT GREEN WOOD PL C AV RA PL TAM O SHANTER

PARKSIDE DR

VIRGIN AI W

MAR OLD WAY

ST ANDREWS ST DEERFIELD ST VIRG NI IA PL MERION ST DORAL CT MERION CT AMADOR

CALDWELL AVE

PHOENIX AVE MERION ST DORAL CT MILDRED PL COTTONWOOD ST COTTONWOO D ST MERION CT DORAL CT SANDPIPER AV DEEERFIELD ST DEL NORTE A EMAIDSTONE ST ST ANDREWS ST IMPE RIAL

LASSEN VE

BERMUDA DUNES

ST WALKER AVE

BERMUDA DUNES STHARBOUR AVE CASTLE MAIDSTONE

ST COTTONWOOD ST CA RNOUSTIE CT PALM AVE FERN AV MONTI- CELLO

ST GREVILLEA ST BOXWOOD CT BIRCH CT PLUM AVE CONCORDAVE CHERRY AVE

SPWRUCE ST

I TERIA CT MONTEREY AVE PHOENIX PL CALDWELL PL WISTERIA ST

TAYLOR PL SPRUCE ST BOXWOOD CT WISTERIA CT SANDERLING ST MIRAMONTE PLSANDERLING ST HOPE PL SANDERLING ST MO NT ICELL O

ST CEDAR ST MO NT ICELL O

GREENWOOD

SKYLARK ST SKYLARK ST MPHOENIX AVE CALDWELL AVE ALCOLM AVE GOLDCREST AVE MONTICEL LO STBON VIEW SHEA RW ATER

ST PHOENIX PL GOLDCREST PL GREENWOOD PL GARFIELD PL HOLMES PL MARIGOLD HOLMES PL

L BANYAN

D L NORTE AVEOAK HILL OAK HILL SANDPIPER PL

IMPE RIAL PL BANYAN ST

LAKE AVE

BERMUDA DUNES ST

TAM O SHANTER

LASS N AVE

SPYGLASS CT DOR AL CT NICOSTA CTVE RNE SS CT MERION DR CASTLE HARBOUR PL EADOW BROOK PL CASCADES CASCADES TR

P NI EHURST CT DORAL ST MERION ST RIVERSIDE DR

IRA ONT VE OAKHILL ST BANYAN

CT MA OLM AV SULTANA AVE

FAIRFIELD ST

TAM O'SHANTER ST MON TEREY PL TAM O'SHANTER ST BERMUDA D UNES ST MONTERECHERRY HILL Y

ST DORAL ST DUNES CTMERION ST MALCOLM AVE

FAIRFIELD ST OAK HILL CT BANYAN ST CHERRY HILL ST OAK HILL CT EH RST PL BANYAN CT

TAM O SHANTER

HAZELTINE ST AUGUSTA AVE

BROOKSIDE STST ANDREWS PL BANYANQUAKER RIDGE PLOAK HILL CT CHERRY HILL ST PRARIE DUNES PLBANYAN ST HILL ST BOCA RATON CT

T AI RA V BALBOA AVE VALENCIA AVECHERRY

SAN DIE O PL SACRAMENTO PL WHISPERING BALBOA PEBBLE BEACH CT LAKES INVERNESS

BROOKSIDE DR

STANDREWS DR BAKER AVE DIVERSA DR

TAMA RASK DR W HISPERING LAKES LN

SANDPIP R

HAZELTINE ST DEL NORTE PL ST ANDREWS C MILDRED PL AMADOR PL OAKH I LL DR

CA AV E

PL DEL N ORTE PL

FIRECREST CTWOODLA RK DR

ARCADIAN SHORES RD WALNUT ST HAZELTINE ST DPEACHTREE PL R

BROOKSIDE CT COTTONWOOD TR

COT TONWOOD CT STANDREWS DR PEACHTREE PL DUNES ST MERION STPLAINFIELD

DR PEACHTREE
P N
L ORTH

SHORES DR NOR TH SHORES

SHORES RD

ARCADIANTURNER AVE

PLAINFIELD DR

COLON AI COG H ILL CT COG HILL CT DUNES ST CYPRESS POINT PL CYPRESS POINT PL PINE VALLEY AVE

ARCADIAN SHORES RD

SURREY WY GREENBRIAR DR

BRONCO DR

NORTH SHORE D

LONGHORN ST R

PEACH TREE PL NORTH SH ORE DR PLAINFIELD
DR

BLACK HORSE DR TURNER AVE

PONY DR STA L LION WY COLT WY WRA NGLER PL BLACK HORSE DR

CHAPARRAL ST ROCKY PL C R Y PEACHTREE LN OLD ARCHIBALD RANCH RDGR EY FOX LN

LEMON AVE

PLUM AVE CHERRY PL CHERRY AVECHERRY HILL CT WY DOR AL ST PLU M LN

COT TONWOOD ST CHERRY

PLUM LN

BANYAN ST CHERRY PL OAKHILL ST FERN AV
E R

CT ERM UDA DUNES CT CORMORANT DR

BLUE JAY WAY

LAUREL ST BERMUDA D UNES ST BERMUDA D UNES ST BERMUDA D UNES ST VINEYARD AVE

BERMUDA DUNES CT HARBO R T WN TR

CANTERBURY CO AI L AVE CANTERBURY RICHMOND ST BROOKSIDE ST O AK ILL DR

PINE VALLEY WALNUT ST WI LM I G

COLONIA AV

SEA ISLAND PL DOVER PL LEXINGTO N PL TAM O' SHANTER

HAZELTINE ST COGHILL ST DUNES ST PINE VALLEY AVE CEDAR R DI GE DUNES ST DESERT FOREST AVE CEDAR R DI GE ST. ANDREWS ST OAKMONT ST
TURN

TAM O SHANTER WALN UT ST DUNLIN WY

BIG RANGE RD WRANGLER PL WRANGLER PLPALOMINO PL MUSTANG DR

BLACK HORSE DR

CEN TUR OI N WY

LAGO ST WOOD OAKLEAF CTRDWOOD CT MOR NING
ST. TROPEZ DR

BISON WY

FAWN CT BLUE X DRWY

ANTELOPE RE NI DEER LN

PL DE CRYST ER CREEK LOOP AL LK RD WY

PIN ECONE REDPINE PL RIPPL NI G BROOK PL C ARIB O U PL CLEAR L A KE RD

ELSINORE WY

ANT LER RD GINGER GLEN RD
CEDAR
SHADOW
WARM
SODA

SPRINGS CT CK WY

SPGS CT ASHG ATE WYMI L ANO ST GENOA

ASHGATE PL ASHGATE CT S U MMER ISLAND

APPLEWOOD DR
NECTAR

CREEKSIDE DR

A DER CR OAK CR E K DR O A K C REEK OA K CRE K

STRAWBERRY CREEK PL ADLER CK CT C EDARGLEN

LAURELTREE DR GINGERWOOD RD OAKLEAF RD MORNING- WOOD CT SCOU T CT PEACHTRE PL BURN I G TREE DR USTANG

PALOMINO PL PINTO PLTUMBLEWEED ST CHAPAR RAL ST SPR WAY RUSH CREEK

SAN LORENZO RVR RD

YUBA RVR RD

B GI RE K

STRAWBERRY CR EEK
S NOW

GRAEAGLE

TUOLUMNE PL COUNTRY OAK

SLOOPMILL C EEK M A D R VR RD

KI NGS RVR LN

AMERICAN RIVER RD

SAN LORENZO RVR RD GREYSTONE DR

BRENTSTONE ST MO

HARTFORD ST NO CK

SHERW N CK PL WY

SALMO N RI VER DR OWENS
LN McGE CK LN

YUBA RIVER

DR WY CK PL

LIVEOAK CK CT SANTIAG O CRK WAY
EL R VER PL B RU S H CK P L SALT CK WY McCLOUD RVR LN

RUS IAN RV

YUBA RIV DR

BOISE CK PL WHITE S TAG RD

ANTL ER RD

EV ER GREEN D R MO SE DE R D R

ANTLER RD

AL ER DR

CANARY CT CAPRI ST DAY CREEK DR

HO EYBROOK WY DEER CRE K L O OP

LEAR LAKE RD

BUFFALO RD

BLAC KP NI E PL CT SU GAR MAPLE ON EGO AVE TURNER AVE DOUBLEDAY AVE GINGERWOOD RD

COUNTRY OAKS OAK CRE EK DR

EAGLE C PL MOOSE CK LN

CARIBOU CK CT GRIZ ZLEY CK CT ONDO CK LN BEAVER CK LN

EL K CREEK DR

BIG CREEK RD

YUBA RIVER DR MER CED RIVER R D

UC K E RV MILLIKEN AVE DUPONT AVE EXCISE AVE

P NTE AVE

SPRUCE ST CEDAR ST STERL NI G ST P NTE AVE TURNER AVE

OAKLAND AVE

BON TI A AVE

SPRUCE CT HOLL AVE HOLLY PL REDWOOD PL TIFFANY PL HICKORY PL MONTICELLO ST HICKO Y AVE

E D WOOD AVE DAMSON
CT

LARODA CT SPRUCE ST CEDAR ST MANZANITA CT GREVILLEA ST

LARODA CT CYPRESS AVE DEL RANCHO CT PALMETTO AVE

FRANCIS ST
LARODA CT POMONA FWY (SR-60) TE AVE

BU INES PARKWAY CEDAR ST

FRANCIS ST PROFORMA AVE DE SOTO PL SPRUCE CT DEL RIO WYCEDAR STHELLMAN AVE CARLOS AVE LYNX PL CEDAR ST GREVILLEA CT VINEYARD AVE MONTICELLO CT CASTLE HARBOUR PL SHEARWATER ST

FREMONT CT CEDAR ST AUGUSTA CT WALKER AVE PINEHURST AVE

SPRUCE ST CEDAR ST PA AVE WALKER AVE AUGUSTA PL SKYLARK ST

FRANCIS ST MONTIC ELLO ST

FRANCIS ST CUCAMONGA AVE TAYLOR PL CAMPUS AVE LOCUST ST MIRAMONTE AVE MONTEREY AV CEDAR ST SPRUCE ST

LEMON AVE SULTANA AVE FERN AV

LARODA CT DAMSON CT CEDAR

ST FERN AV MANZANITA ST SAN ANTONIO AVE GREVILLEA ST BONITA AVE

COLORADO RVR RBD
UT TE CK PL McCLOUD RIVER RD

STONE CK

SILVERADO

C REEK PL KLAM AT RIVER DR OX CK LN

A NTE L O PE CREEK DR

ELM ST CHESTNUT ST CT COPPER GOLD CT CONTEMPO CT TIFFANY PLMAPLE STSIERRA DAWN NOCTURNE CT MEDALLION CT REDWOOD AVECADENZA CT AQUARIUS CT

ZENIA CT

LOCUST ST BUCCANEER CT CAMELOT CTYUCCA ST VALENTINE CT

TROPICANA CT QUINCE CT

LANTANA AVEMONTEZUMA CT MISTY CT CONTEMPO ST PLATI UM CT MAPLE ST

LOCUST ST ELM ST BONITA AVE

SONOMA CT BEVERLY ND PL BONITA PL VINE P FERN AV

BUDD ST

LOCUST PALM AVE MAPLE ST AMBER PL MONTEZUMA ST

LAUREL AVE ST AVE

ACACIA AVE

BUDD ST DE AN A CIRCLE

LOCUST ST MAPLE ST

FRANCIS ST

LOCUST ST

IN CTSPRUCE CT MAGNOLIA AVE TR EETOPS LN
SMOKE
TR EE

LN LO GGERS LN

PINE WOOD LN WHITTLERS LN

ELDERBERRY CT MONTICELLO ST

FUCHSIA AVE OAKS AVE CEDAR ST HELEN AVE ALMOND AV
SPRUCE
ST

FRANCIS ST

JUNIPER ST HELEN AVE OAKS AVE MAPLE CT EUCALYPTUS CT

TROPICANA ST MAGNOLIA AVE

LOCUST ST

JACARANDA ST AZALEA AVEDAHLIA AVE

TROPICANA CT QUINCE CT

TROPICANA ST

TRO ICANA CT EUCALYPTUS QUINCE

ST QUINCE CT PALMETTO AVE

EUC ALYPTUS ST BRI VE

BOULDER AVE MAPLE CT PINE PL BRIAR AV MAPLE ST E

BOULDER AVE ASHLAND ST MAPLE
ST

LINDEN AVE

JUNIPER STMAPLE

ST AN E AVE

JACARANDA ST

LOCUST ST BOULDER AVE GRAN TI E AVE MARIGOLD PL

LOCUST ST ACACIA CT WOODLAWN ST PARKSIDE PL ACACIA ST MILDRED AVE

LOCUST STELM ST ACACIA ST SACRAMENTO AVE VINEYARD AVEVALENCIA ST BALBOA AVE ELM ST

LOCUST CT MAPLE PRIVADO CARLOS AVE BALBOA AVE

FRANCIS ST AVION PL TOWER DR

JURUPA ST

LINDSAY PRIVADO

JURUPA ST TURNER AVE DOUBLEDAY A E CARNEGIE AVE

LA SALLE ST VINEYARD AV

AIRPORT DR WALKER ST AIRPORT DR

KERN ST PEACH AVE ONTARIO BLVD GROVE PLMAIN ST CUCAMONGA AVE MAITLAND ST CALIFORNIA ST CUCAMONGA AVE JEF FERSON ST WASHINGTON ST STATE ST HBON VIEW AVE OPE AVE

BELMONT ST

TAYLOR AVE ONTARIO BLVD CALDWELL AVE PARK ST SUNKIST ST CALDWELL AVE CAMPUS AVE RALSTON ST MONTEREY AVE MONTEREY AVE NEVADA ST CALIFORNIA ST SULTANA AVE LEMON AVE PLUM AVE CHERRY AVE

FRANCIS S M ET O WAY

JURUPA ST JURUPA ST

ZINFANDEL CT VANDERBILT ST

FRANCIS ST FRANCIS ST CHAMPAGNE AVE FRANCIS ST H SI AVE CLARK ST

JURUPA ST VINTAGE AVE

SANTA ANA ST MALAGA PL SARAH PL SARAH PL
JURUPA ST UTO CE TER McNAMARA ST WINEVILLE AVE

AUTO ENTER DR

ROCHESTER AVE WAN MAKER

AVE WALL ST WO RU FF AY ROCKEFELLER AVE

LOWELL ST SANTA ANA ST DUPONT AVE DOU E AY VE

SANTA ANA ST PLEASANT AVE MONTEREY AV

PLEASANT AVE

ACACIAAVE

ELM ST DE ANZA AVE MAPLE ST BON VIEW AVE WOODLAWN ST ACACIA ST CUCAMONGA AVE

PLEASA T AVE MELROSE AVE MALCOLM AVE N E AVE NOCTA ST

LYNN HAVEN

D ST CHERRY AVE SIERRA CT EMPORIA ST WILLOW ST NOCTA ST ELMA ST MUSCATELAVE MAIN ST EMPORIA ST IMPERIAL AVE ELMA CT

LASSEN PL ELMA CT CORONA AVE SACRAMENTO AVE

VINEYARD AVE CONVENTION CENTER WAY DEARBORN CT GUASTI RD

AIRPORT DR

PEPPER TREE LN

SYCAMORE RD

TURNER AVEGUASTI RD

CENTRELAKE DR

EBONYST SEQUO AI AVE

PONDEROSA AVE

AIRPORT DR

CLEVELAND AVE HOLT BL BRICKELL ST AIRPORT DR

BRICKELL ST BRICKELL PRIVADO WANAMAKER AVE ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY GIBRALTAR ST AIRPORT DR ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

VINTAGE AVE

FRANKLIN

AVEONTARIO MILLS DR MILLS CIRCLE

BELMONT ST STATE ST MAIN ST CARLTON ST PALM AVE LAUREL AVE VINE AVE FERN AVE

SIL SAN ANTONIO AVE CARLTON ST CALIFORNIA ST NEVADA ST CYPRESS AVE PALMET TO AVE RALSTON ST SUNSONG CT SEASHELL CT ECLIPSE CT PINE AVE WOODLAWN ST BAHIA CTAZALEA AVE

SUNKIST ST PHILLIPS ST RAL TON ST MAGNOLIA AVE

ELDERBERRY AVE OAKS AVE

ALMONDAVE CLAIR ST STATE ST OAKS AVE BROOKS ST VESTA ST EL ERBERRY AVE CAMELLIA ST PALMETTO AVEHOLLOWELL ST VESTA STB ST GRAN TI E AVE

BROOKS ST CYPRESS AVE

SAN ANTONIO AVE

EMPORIA ST MAIN ST BROOKS ST BEVERLY CT BONITA CT VINE AVE

TRANSIT ST EMPORIA ST
LAUR

TRANSIT ST B ST B ST C ST

FERN AVE

PALM AVE LAUREL AVE

PLUM AVE

EMPORIA ST MAR NI AVE MADERA AVE MADERA AVH ST E BAKER AVE GRANADA CT PLAZA SERENA ORANGE PLACER AVE

SAN DIEGO AVE ROSEWOOD CT N

JAY ST APAAV MERCED AVEROSEWOOD CT MARIPOSA AVE GRANADA CT

LASSEN AVE HUMBOLDT PL

J ST SULTANA AVE CHERRY AVE

EL MORADO CT

F ST G ST E ST V NI E AVE

BONITA CT
F ST

FLORA ST D ST EL MORADO ST GRANADA CT BERKELEY CT

I ST VINE AVE E

LAUREL AVE GRANITE ST FLORA ST E ST BOULDER AVE G ST EL MORADO CT H ST GRANADA CT BERKELEY CT BOULDER AVE GRANITE AVE CYPRES AVE

F ST E ST PALMETTO AVE PALMETTO AVE PALMET TO AVE

GLENN PL D ST

FLORA ST HUMBOLDT CT F ST EL DORADO CT EL MORADO CT

LAKE AVE

EGLENN AVE HUMBOLDT CT IMPERIAL AVE L DORADO AVE DEL NORTE AVE CALAVERAS AVE CALAVERAS AVE I ST
LASSEN
AVE

LAKE AVE

FRESNO ST HUMBOLT GLENN AVE EL DORADO AVEROSEWOOD
CT

FLORA ST AMADOR AVE

ALAMEDA AVE

ALAMEDAAVE PARKSIDE AVE V RI G NI AI AVE G ST VIRGINIA AVE FLORA ST PARKS DI E AVE

E ST HOLMES AVE CUCAMONGA AVE

LACUCAMONGA AVE PALOMA AVE HOLMES AVE

LA PALOMA AVE
J S T

I ST H ST EL MORADO CT GREENWOOD AVE FLORENCE CTGRANADA CT F ST

FLORA STFLORENCE AVE

F ST E ST D ST BERLYN AVE ORCHARD LN

J ST PLAZA SERENA

J ST CAMPUS AVE MONTEREY AVE E STG ST EL MORADO CT H ST GRANADA CT

I ST PLAZA SERENA MONTEREY AVE ROSE WOOD CT ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD

FERRA I L N

POR SCH WY

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD LOTUS A E

SHELBY ST

TRIUMPH LN CORVETTE DRJAGUAR WY

TURNER AVE

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD G ST MARIPOSA AVE

LAKE AVEHAWTHORNE ST EL DORADO AVE HAWTHORNE ST BONNIE BRAE CT YALE ST PRINCETON ST MANDALAY ST PRINCETON ST YALE ST

FIFTH ST ORANGE AVE PLACER AV HAWTHORNE ST VINEYARD AVE

FIFTH ST BRAE CT MULBERRY CT BALBOA WAY

BONNIE HAWTHORNE CT CARLOS PL A WA HACIENDA DR LAM NCHA WYDEL RIO WY

LA DENEY ST HELLMAN AVE DEL RIO PL YALE ST CENTER

AVE MALL DR MILLS CIRCLE GURNEE AVE F ANK N AVE ONTARIO M IL DR ROCHESTER AVEWINEVILLE AVE CORONA AVE

LA DENEY CT SIXTH ST ALONDRA AVE C R OS

SOLANO PL ALONDRA CT DEODAR ST SA DIEGO

PL SACRAM NTO

PL RANGE PL

BERKELEY CT
J ST

F ST AZALEA AVE

BEGONIA A E CAMELL AI AVE DAHL AI AVE G ST GARDENIA CT
F ST

FLORA ST

FAWN ST ELDERBERRY AVE FUCHSIA AVE D ST HOLLOWELL ST E ST OAKS AVE HYACINTH CT

IRIS CT H ST GRANADA CT

I ST GFUCHSA AVE ELDERBERRY AVE ARDENIA AVE OAKS AVE

BERKELEY CT ASMIN CT

JASM NI E AVE

J ST BEGONIA AVE HARVARD PL PRINCETON ST YALE ST

FIFTH ST ROSEWOOD CT

J ST HARVARD PL PALM AVE BO NIE B RAE CT BONNIE BRAE CT PRINCETON ST SULTANA AVE PLEASANT AVE

FIFTH ST YALE ST CAMPUS AVE HARVARD PL BERLYN AVE

PRINCETON ST COUNCIL AVE

YALE ST ROSEWOOD CT ORCHARD LN

ALLYN AVE ORCHARD LANE UNCI AVE HOLMES CT

LA PALOMA CT HARVARD PL V RI G NI AI AVE

BONNIE BRAE CT

FIFTH ST C ROLINE ST VIRGINIA AVE CAROLINE CT VIRGINIA AVE HOLMES CT SIXTH ST DEODAR ST HAWTHORNE ST HOPE LA DENEY CT MARCELLA CT HAWTHORNE ST M RI AMONTE AVE MONTEREY AVE

PLEASANT AVE

LA DENEY

SIXTH ST COLUMBIA AVE ORANGE

PLACER AVE

SACRAMENTO AVE

SAN DIEGO AVE
T R NI

ITY LOOP

ALVARADO

LA PAZAVE

SEVENTH ST HIGHLAND CT OLIVE ST SYCAMORE ST CAROLINE CT HACIENDA

SYC AMORE CT HACIENDA DR

CARO LINE DR

DEODAR ST SOLANOAVE

HAWTHORNE DR

LA DEN EY CT ALVARADO ST CHARMORE HAWTHORNE ST

LA DENEY DR OAKLAND

ARMSLEY SQ

BONITA CHAFFEY

AMBER CT BEVERLY CT OAKL AND AVE CAROLINE CT RICHLAND ST ALVARADO CT SYCAMORE CT SEVENTH ST VIRGINIA AVE HIGHLAND CT OLIVE CT RAYMOND ST RAYMOND CT PARKSIDE

EIGHTH ST AMADOR E CALAVERAS AVE RAYMOND ST HIGHLAND

CT DEL NORTE AVE EL DORADO AVE OLIVE CTEL DORADO AVE GLENN AVE HUMBOLT AVE EL DORADO AV

SYCAMORE ST SYCAMORE HUMBOLDT AVE LAKE AVMADERA AV CORONA E

SEVENTH ST MADERAMAR NI AVE ORANGE CT PLACER PL CARLOS AV

LA DENEY DR LASSEN AVE DEL NORTE CT CALAVERAS CT

LA DENEY DR

AMADOR AVE

ALVARADO ST MOUNTAIN AVE
POMONA FWY (SR-60) PHILADELPHIA ST PHILADELPHIA ST EUCLID AVE RIVERSIDE DR

PHILADELPHIA ST EUCLID AVE

BELMONT ST RALSTON ST MAITLAND ST OAKLAND AVE

BONITA CT VINE AVE PALM AVE CYPRESS AVE MAITLAND ST EUCLID AVE EUCLID AVE HOLT BLVD EUCLID AVE GROVE AVE BAKER AV

FOURTH ST FOURTH ST FOURTH ST FOURTH ST HOLT BLVD GROVE AVE GROVE AVE MISSION BLVD GROVE AVE GROVE AVE RIVERSIDE DR

PHILADELPHIA ST

FOURTH ST ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE

PHILADELPHIA ST ARCHIBALD AVE OAK HILL DR

FAIRFIELD ST TURNSTONE ARCHIBALD AVE RIVERSIDE DR MISSION BLVD HAVEN AVE MISSION BLVD

DUPONT AVE HAVEN AVE

FOURTH ST HAVEN AVE
LLIKEN
A E ONTARIO FWY (I-15) MILLIKEN AVE MILLIKEN AVE ONTARIO FWY (I-15) PHILADELPHIA ST WINEVILLE AVE BU GUN

PHILADELPHIA ST ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE

FOURTH ST BARRINGTON AVE LEMON PL EXCISE AVE

CHINO AVE CHINO AVE CHINO AVE CHINOAVE CHINO AVE ONTARIO RANCH RD

EUCALYPTUS AVE MERRILL AVE MERRILL AVE BON VIEW AVE CUCAMONGA AVE

ROSEWOOD CT ROSEWOOD CT

JASMINE CT PALMETTO AVE

YALE ST

FIFTH ST YALE ST HELEN AVE IRIS CT PRINCETON ST HELEN CT OAKS CT DEODAR ST GARDENIA CT FUCHSIA AVE ELDERBERRY AVE

SIXTH STHELEN AVE GARDENIA AVE

ARMSLEY SQ

LA DENEY DR

ELDERBERRY CT BONNIE BRAE CT HAWTHORNE ST

LA DENEY DR

PALMETTO
AVE

BOULDER AVE

SIXTH ST GRANITE AVE CYPRESS AVE CYPRESS AVE

BOULDER AVE GRANITE AVE HARVARD PL SAN ANTONIO AVE OAKS AVE HARVARD PL PRINCETON ST HAWTHORNE ST

JASMINE AVE
BONNIE

BRAE CT KENMO R
E AVE

KENMORE VINE AVE DEODAR ST DEODAR ST BONNIE BRAE BONNIE BRAE CT CTHAWTHORNE ST

LA DENEY DR

YALE ST COLUMBIA AVE

LA DENEY DR

DEODAR ST HOPE HIGHLAND CT LEEDS AVE BAKER AVE

L KE AVE

LAKE MADERA AVMARIN AVCORONA AVE

SOLANO AVE OLIVE CT MERCEDES LN MISSION BLVD

B MOUNTAIN AVE ENSON AVE
SAN BERNARDINO FWY (I-10) BMOUNTAIN AVE ENSON AVE HOLT BLVD HOLT BLVD MISSION BLVD MISSION BLVD

BMOUNTAIN AVE ENSON AVE CONTEM O CT

CHINO AVE CHINO AVE CHINO AVE BAKER AVE CHINO AVE GROVE AVE GROVE AVE GROVE AVE GROVE AVE BON VIEW AVE

EDISON AVE BON VIEW AVE BON VIEW AVE CAMPUS AVE BON VIEW AVE

EDISON AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE EUCLID AVE EUCLID AVE EUCLID AVE EUCLID AVE EUCLID AVE DEERFIELD ST CHE R AVE ONTAR OI FWY (I-15) SAN BERNARDINO FWY (I-10) SHEA DR PONDEROSA AV SEQUOIAAV

FRANCIS ST PACIFIC

PRIVADO SLATER CIR

GOLDEN TRAILS

SILVER SADDLE ST PALOMINO CT CENTURION PL PLAINFIELD PL OLD ARCHIBALD RANCH RD STALLION WY ROAN ST SHORES RD

ARCADIAN

JOSHUA TREE R D

CENTU RION PL

JOSHUA T REE ST AUTUMN

RIDGE RD

ROCKY LN GREENBRIAR
DR

PONY WY CLOVER PL STALLION ST SWEETWATER

DR ROC KY WY CLOVER LN

DUNES ST

LAUREL VLY LN

SEA ISLAND TR

CEDAR CT

EIGHTH ST

LOCUST CT GUASTI RD

CARRILLO PRIVADO MOORE WY

JOHN BANGS DR MANZANITA CT PALM L

LAUREL PL

MOTOR LN

EAR LSTONE DR
CON CORD AVE MER ION ST PLUM LNDEERFIELD CT ST. ANDREWS ST DOR AL ST MON TEREY AVE DEERFIELD ST TAM O'SHANTER ST ST.AND REWS ST PLEA ANT AVE HAZELT INE ST BLUE JAY WAY HAZELTINE ST WINDSOR ST CON CORD AVE CHERRY AVE COTTONWOOD ST DORAL CT DEERFIELD ST HOLMES AV HOLMES PL GARF ELD AVE DUNES ST HOPE AVE DEERFIELD ST CUCAMONGA AVE GREENWOOD ST

TA LOR AVE CAMELLIA AVE

FOURTH ST

ARA B IAN PL CLYDESDALE ST ARCADIAN SHORES AV BURNING TREE DR THOROU GHBRED ST G RANGE RD O TH SHORES DR

CHINO AV TURNER AV GROVE AVE WALKER AVE ARCHIBALD AVE CARPENTER AVE CLEVELAND AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE HAVEN AVE HAVEN AVE

EDISON AVE ARCHIBALD AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE HAVEN AVE ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE MERRILL AVE CARPENTER AVE ONTARIO RANCH RD

EUCALYPTUS AVE MERRILL AVE

EDISON AVE WALKER AVE WALKER AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

EDISON AVE VINEYARD AVE WALKER AVE ONTARIO AVE ONTARIO AVE

SMID ERL E LP

CHINO AV

CEDAR ST GREEN PRIVADO

PRIVADO
CHIEF

VIA ASTI V AI ALBA

V AI PIEMONTE
VIA VILLAGIO VIA TURIN ON ARIO C NTER PARKWAY GO LD EN OAK RD HOFER RANCH RD.

KET E ING DR

OLD GUASTI RD GREVILLEA CT

GUASTI RD

COMM RCE PARKWAY COMMERCE PARKWAY

AIRPORT DR

TOYOTA WY CONCOURS ST CONCOURS ST CONCOURS ST CONCOURS ST AVION ST AVION ST

JASMINE CT ALMOND AV BENSON AVE

BAKER PRIVADO MARIPOSA PRIVADO ELMA PRIVADO

D ST NOCTA PRIVADOMAR NI PR VI ADO

NOCTA ST MADERA PRIVADO

MONTEZUMA ST CON TEMPO CT BRIAR WY

COTTONWOOD CT PARKSIDE AV VIRGINIA PL COTTONWOOD CT

STONERIDGE CT

TA H OE DR
ASH

AT WAY LAKE PL LAKE PL DEODAR ST MARIPOSA AV MARIN AV MADERA AV HIGHLAND CT OLIVE ST RAYMOND ST MARIN AVMAR PI OSA AV ST. ANDREWS ST

FLORA ST SEDONA CT DUESE N BERG DR

O RANGE PRIVA DO

PL AC ER PRIVA DO SOLANO PRIVADO HARVARD PR IVADO

PLACER PRIVADO

EDE NGL EN AV E

A UBURN W Y DNI L CALLAWAY D R

NWOO D DR

HER ITAGE L N G ROV E LA ND D R

COTTA GE WY

EDE NGL EN AV E QU IN CY WY

EDENGLEN AVE HAMPSH RI E DR BE TH ANY WY

EMO RY LNOA KWOOD D R

EDE NGLEN AV E

TU LAN E WYHAMPT ON WY

BR ADLEY LN

C LAR EMON T DR WES TMON T LN

HAMILTON WY CAM BRI DGE D R RAYMOND PL

LOCUST ST ELM CT WALNUT ST WALNUT ST WALNUT ST ELEVENTH AVE

ELDERBERRY CT EUCALYPTUS CT LEMON AVE

SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE HAMNER AVE HAMNER AVE

VIA RUA RIO

VIA RUA FLORES

VIA TERRANO VIA CORVINA

VIA FIANO VIA MOLINARA VIA DOLCETTO VIA BAROLO

ARBOR LN ARBOR LN MERRIL AVE MERRIL AVE KENSINGTON AVE ROSE PETAL WY WICKFORD ST OXFO D LN

CC L VE WY WEST MC CLE E W YEA T CE NT NNIAL I WEST CE N ENNIA L CI E T VICTORY LN

HE RIT AG E PASEO
CROWN

CT PRIMROSE PL AL SI BURY WY D EVONSHIRE L N

DISCOVERY ST AT OI N AVERKPLACE AVE

PARKVIEW ST

HOPKINS ST GROWER AVE GREEN AVE HYCHE AVE DUL SI SE AVE WING ST KLASSEN ST CEL BRAT OI N PARKPLACE AVE TURNER AV NEW HAVEN DR ONTARIO RANCH RD ONTARIO RANCH RD ONTARIO RANCH RD

SCHAEFER AVE RUTHERFORD DR

LA AVENIDA DR

ALEXANDERAVE

YOUNTVILLE DR OAK V ILLE AVE

EDISON AVE

LA AVENIDA DR

SCHAEFER AVE CHIP SMITH WY

ALBRIGHT LN

VIC TORIA ST COT AGE GARDEN WY

PINE RIDGE LP

SOMERSTON WY MONDAVI WY MERRYVALE WY

TRINITAS WY MAYACAMA WY SILVER OAK WY

STERLING

ST ARTESSA WY CLOVERDALE WY INGLENOOK WY CARNEROS AV

JAY ST QVC WY PLYMOUTH AVE NEWTON AVE COLONIAL AVE

SALEM ST NORWICH ST DANBURY ST COLCHESTER ST BENNINGTON ST

LEWISTON ST DARIEN ST BELLEGRAVE AVE BOUNTIFUL TR GRAPEVINE TR ROSEMARYWY THOMPSON ST MT. RAINIER DRIVE GLACIER TRAIL BISCAYNE ST

ZION TRAIL DENALI DRIVE ACADIA AVE YELLOWSTONE DRIVE

YOSEMITE DRIVE GRAND PARK ST ACADIA AVE ARCHES TRAILROCKY MOUNTAIN ST TURNER AVE OLYMPIC DRIVE DERBY LN WILLIAMSBURG LN BARNVELDER WYANDOTTE ORP NI GTON TANGERINE WAY APRICO T W A

AGRARIAN ST Y

PAI NTED CR ES CENT ST PERENN IAL DR MASTER PIECE ST OPHELIA LN PASTEL LN SWALLOWTAIL LN MON ARC H PL BU TTERFLY LN

LAVE ND ER DR LIL AC L N OR CHA RD S T SA GE WOOD L N

KI NGS DRCA ST LE L N GARDE N GAT E N MO N TE P RIVA DO

BEL LA PR IVA DO

SA L ID A PR IV AD O EST RE LLA PRIVAD O PE R D I DO PR IVAD O

A F TO N P RI V A DO

C IE LO P R VI A D O
SO N

R ISA P R

I VAD O LUN A PRIVA DO AM HERST P RI VA DO

BORDEAUX DR BOWERY PL WILSHIRE RD

PENNY LN

BOURBON ST ABBEY RD GRAFTON ST BROADWAY AV BEALE WY OCEAN WY CANAL WY

AM IGO S PR IVA DO T ES OR O PR IVADO PE RD IDO P RIVAD O

PLAYA P RIVA DO

AM A NECE R P R IV AD O

COL IB R I P R IV A D O

CORA Z ON P R I VA D O MIL L CREEK AV ALM E ND A RE Z P RIVA D O MO NET A PR IVA DO ARVAD A P RIVADOMO NT RO SE PR IVA DO SC OT T W Y RO GERS WY WA YNE AV KE NT WY DIA NA WY BA NN ER ST MURDOCK L N

PARK ER L N

HO WLETT LN DRYDEN AV KINGSTON AV MANITOBA PL OTTAWA AV CORNWALL ST EDMONTON ST ALBERTA ST SARNIA ST CALGARY ST WINNIPEG AV WELLAND AV

SI LVE R SKY DR

CO PP ERH IL L STFL AG STONE AV REFLECTION L N

SU SS EX P RI VA DO

JASM INE

LN BA NTAM PASE O BR ES SE PASE O BR AH MA PASE O JAVA PASE O

CLEMENTINE DR AVOCADO TR

STARK LN
EC HO

CT BODEGA WY KENDALL LN TRELLIS WYCELLARS WY MIDSUMMER

PRIVADO WILD HORSE PRIVADO

PARADUXX

PRIVADO

QUINTESSA

PRIVADO HAVEN AVE

HELLMAN AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE OL IVIA W Y BLA IR E W Y CH ARL OT TE AV STE LL A AV LO L A A V ELL IE AV CO RA W Y

SCA RL ET T L N SCA RL ET T L N MA BEL L N MA BEL L N

CLA RA LN CLA RA LN

HAR PER ST HAR PER ST PEN EL O PE L N PEN EL O PE L N

PAR KV IEW ST REE SE W YANS LEY A V AVE RY AV

TAT UM LN

HAR LO W LN MA E W Y

EM BRY L N IVY AV IVY AV PIP ER W Y HAZ EL ST VIO LE T L N SUNRISE AV DAYLIGHT AVMOONLIGHT ST ROSY PKWY

SUNSET DR

CHEERFUL PASEO MIL CRE K AV

TREE BLOSSOM ST ASPEN ST HEARTWOOD ST SUMAC ST C ALE R A S T AT TALA S T

F IN CAST L E ST CAL IS T OG A AV M E N DO C I N O AV

AM H E R ST AV

AN I S TON AV N EL SO N D R

PO LLO CK ST EAM ES ST WR IGH T AVE T WINK LE AV E GARRICK ST PRINC E WY GRAYSON WY AN DERSON AV WILSON AV JORDAN AV

KANE DR

AU STIN

CURRY ST

JA C OB SO N

LA UT NE R ALL ST ON PA SE O

PHEASANT CRANE

KIWI WREN MEADOWLARK

TANAGER

CALIFORNIA ST

AL M O ND BL OS SO M ST CR IS ANT A PR IVA D O PEO NY PASEO

SAG E PAS EO CLIF T O N AV HOL L YH O CK PAS EO HISB ISCU S PAS EO MIL L C REEK AV HEAT HER P R IVA DO CRIS AN T A PR IVA DO

BR IGHT PASEO

DE LI GHT PASE O

HA PP Y PA SEO

SU NNY PA SEO

LANT ERN PASEO OASIS PASEO SPAR KL E PASE O JOLL Y PASE O

RA DIANT DR

AM H E R ST AV

VE N TUR A AV

SU NS ET ST

LA JOL L A ST C ATA L INA S T C AM B RI A

P RI VA D O

EN CIN IT AS AVE
AVILA

PR IVA D O

HALTON PRIVADO

BASAN TI EAV

SHALE AV DOLOMITE ST BROCKRAM DR KINGLET AV

MAD ELEINE PRIVADO
JOSEPH

PRIVADO
LENA

PRIVADO SCHMIDT PRIVADO

C H AT H AM S T CLIF T ON S T CANTONA PASEO

FERGUSON PRIVADO

KANE DR

SU NS TONE ST

LO YALTY PL PA RK V ISTA D R

E E E E

E E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E

E E E E

E E E E E

E E E E

E E E E E

E E E E

E E E E E

E E E E

E E E E E

E E E E E
E E
E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E

E E E E E

E E E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E

E E E E E

E E E E

E E E E
E E E
E E E

E E E E E E E E

E E E E

E E E E E

E E E E E
E E
E E
E E E
E E E
E E E

E E E E E E E

E E E E E

E E E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E

E E E E E

E E E E

E E E E E

E E E E

E E E E E E E E

E E E E

E E E E E

E E E E

E E E E E

E E E E E
E E E

E E E E E

E E E E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E

E E E E E

E E E E E E E E E

E E E E

E E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E

E E E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E E E
E E E
E
E
E

E E E E

E E E E E

E E E E

E E E E E

E E E E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E

E E E E

E E E E
E E E
E E E

E E E E

E E E E E

E E E E

E E E E E

E E E E

E E E E E

E E E E

E E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E

E E E E E E E E E

E E E E

E E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E
E
E
E
E E
E E
E E
E E

E E E E

E E E E E

E E E E

E E E E E

E E E E

E E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E
E
E
E
E
E

E E E E

E E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E

E E E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E

E E E E

E E E E
E E E
E E E
E
E

E E E E E

E E E E

E E E E E E E

E E E E E E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E E E E E 1 6
8c
3 8b
Approved by City Council on December 1, 2015
Effective Date January 1, 2016
0 1 2Miles
Proposed Zoning Map
Revisions Case No. Ord. No. Date Rev.By PZC15-003 3044 02/16/2016 CVL PZC16-001 3050 05/17/2016 RDC PZC16-005 3069 03/07/2017 RDC PZC16-004 3070 03/21/2017 CVL PSP15-001 3080 10/03/2017 CVL PSP15-002 3084 12/05/2017 CVL PSPA16-005 RESO 2018- 018 02/20/2018 CVL PZC16-003 3092 03/20/2018 CVL PZC17-001 3093 03/20/2018 CVL PZC18-001 3100 05/01/2018 CVL PSP16-003 3097 06/01/2018 CVL PSP16-002 3108 07/03/2018 CVL PZC18-002 3122 12/18/2018 CVL PZC18-003 3138 08/20/2019 CVL PSP18-002 RESO 2020- 160 9/15/2020 RM PZC19-003 3169 10/27/2020 RM PSP18-001 3178 2/2/2021 RM PZC21-001 3203 2/1/2022 RM PZC21-002 3204 3/15/2022 RM PSP19-001 3206 3/15/2022 RM PZC22-001 3245 5/2/2023 RM PSPA22-008 RESO 2023- 037 5/16/2023 RM PZC23-001 3250 06/6/2023 RM PSPA21-005 RESO 2023- 156 11/21/2023 RM PZC23-003 3263 12/5/2023 RM PZC23-002 3268 1/16/2024 RM PZC23-004 3281 8/6/2024 RM PSP22-001 3283 9/3/2024 RM 8d
8e Employment
BP, Business Park
IP, Industrial Park
IL, Light Industrial
IG, General Industrial
IH, Heavy Industrial
OS-R, Open Space-Recreation
OS-C, Open Space-Cemetery
Other
PUD, Planned Unit Development
MHP, Mobile Home Park
ONT, Ontario International Airport
CIV, Civic
UC, Utilities Corridor
RC, Rail Corridor
SP, Specific Plan
Residential
MDR-11, Low-Medium Density Residential
MDR-18, Medium Density Residential
MDR-25, Medium-High Density Residential
HDR-45, High Density Residential
RE-2, Rural Estate
RE-4, Residential Estate
LDR-5, Low Density Residential
AR-2, Residential-Agricultural
Mixed Use
Mixed Use

1. Downtown

3. Centrelake West 6. East Holt 8b. Mountain and Fourth 8c. West Holt 8d. Euclid and Francis 8e. Euclid and Walnut CS, Corner Store CN, Neighborhood Commercial
CC, Community Commercial
CR, Regional Commercial
CCS, Convention Center Support Commercial
OL, Low Intensity Office
OH, High Intensity Office
Retail/Service
Overlays
AG, Agricultural
EA, Euclid Avenue
MTC, Multimodal Transit Center
ICC, Interim Community Commercial
ES, Emergency Shelter û û û û û û
û û û û û û
û û û û û û AH - Affordable Housing
CNO (Chino Airport) Overlay
EBPSP Boundary
•
ii
ll i :

L . , l • ~ E] s i i • • - . ~
.. ...
,-•
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-~
-
-
D
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-10
Proposed Zoning Map
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
. ' I• ■••
2·0·5·0

THEO TARIQ PLAN
2,500
Source: The City of Ontario 2026
5,000
FT
10,000
Date: 2/10/2026
700

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -4 8
This page intentionally left blank.
701

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 49

EBPSP LAND USE PLAN
As illustrated in Figure 2-11, Conceptual EBPSP Land Use Plan, the EBPSP would establish 9 planning areas that would provide for development of the site with approximately 2,939,000 SF of Business Park uses on 137.9 acres and 36.15 acres of Open Space–Parkland. The remaining

14.97 acres would be utilized for roadway improvements. Table 2-7, EBPSP Land Use Statistical Summary, provides a breakdown of acreages by planning area. The EBPSP would result in 1,590 employees within the project site.

Table 2-7 EBPSP Land Use Statistical Summary
Planning Area
(PA) Land Use Designation Acres Target Buildout SF
1 Business Park 7.70 162,600
2 Business Park 18.33 273,700
3 Business Park 18.21 340,700
4 Business Park 18.19 423,200
5 Business Park 37.76 859,300
6 Business Park 37.71 879,500
7 Open Space – Parkland 8.05 —
8 Open Space – Parkland 14.10 —
9 Open Space – Parkland 14.00 —
- Roadway 14.97 —
TOTAL 189.0 2,939,000
Notes: SF = square feet
A maximum of 10,000 SF of Commercial uses may be provided within Business Park planning areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or

6. This square footage is included within the total listed above.

A publicly operated animal resource center may be provided within any of the Business Park planning areas. The animal resource center shall not exceed 35,000 SF.

The EBPSP allows the transfer of development square footage (15 percent or less) within the same land use designation, provided that the shift in square footage would not exceed the maximum allowable overall square footage (2,939,000) and the maximum building FAR (0.55).

Total acreage of 189.0 is rounded to the nearest one-tenth of an acre.

EBPSP CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The approved TOP 2050 designates the EBPSP project site for Medium Density Residential (MDR), Mixed-Use (Eucalyptus/Chino Airport) (MU-BC); and Open Space Parkland (OS-R).

Buildout of the approved TOP 2050 for the EBPSP site would allow for up to 2,195 residential units and 1,632,143 square feet (SF) of non-residential land uses within the 189-acre project site (see Table 2-8, EBPSP Current TOP 2050 Land Uses).
702

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -5 0
Table 2-8 EBPSP Current TOP 2050 Land Uses
Land Use
Designation
TOP 2050 Approved Land Uses
Acres
Dwelling
Units Population
Nonresidential SF Employment
MDR 47.74 1,051 3,403 — — MU-BC 81.70 1,144 2,931 1,601,747 3,117 OS-R 58.22 — — 30,396 10
Roadways 1.75 - - - - TOTAL 189.41 2,195 6,335 1,632,143 3,126 Notes: SF = square feet; MDR = Medium Density Residential; MU-BC = Mixed-Use (Eucalyptus/ Chino Airport); OS-R = Open Space Parkland

BUSINESS PARK
Encompassing 137.9 acres in the southerly portion of the Specific Plan area along its frontage with Eucalyptus Avenue, Planning Areas 1 through 6 would be designated for Business Park uses. Up to 2,939,000 SF of building space are permitted across Planning Areas 1 through 6.

The Business Park land use designation is intended to provide for uses such as employeeintensive office spaces, technology centers, research and development facilities, warehouse and distribution, and light manufacturing. No cold storage would be permitted. The Specific Plan would also allow a maximum of 10,000 SF of commercial uses within the Business Park planning areas to support the Business Park operations and a 35,000 SF publicly operated animal resource center if the City of Ontario decides to locate an animal resource center in the Specific Plan.
703
PA 1 * PA2

BUSINESS PARK BUSINESS PARK

7.70AC. ~ 18.33 AC.
!!: I ~ < < I .,, <
i• PA4 ~ PAS ~· BUSINESS PARK s BUSINESS PARK I 18.19AC. ~ 37.76AC. Ill '---------------------------------------- - EUCALYPTUS AVE PA Land Use Acres Target Buildout (S.F.)
1 Business Park 7.70 162,600
2 Business Park 18.33 273,700
3 Business Park 18.21 340,700
4 Business Park 18.19 423,200
5 Business Park 37.76 859,300

37.71 879,500
e - Parkland 8.05
e - Parkland 14.10

14.00 * Potential Publicly Operated Animal Resource Center Notes:

1. A maximum of 10,000 s.t tatal of Commercial uses may be provided within the Business Park Planning Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, S, and 6.

2. A publicly operated animal resource center may be provided within the Business Pork and Open Space - Parkland Planning Areas. The animal resource center shall not exceed 35,000 s.f

3. Depending on market conditions, bui/dout square footage within the Business Park Planning Areas is tronsferroble, as long os the tatol buildout square footage within the Business Pork Planning Areas does not exceed 2,939,000 sJ
PA3

BUSINESS PARK

18.21 AC.

I
~
PA6 ~
BUSINESS PARK :1

37.71 AC.

I
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-11
Conceptual EBPSP Land Use Plan
··-·· L .. J EBPSP Boundary
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPP L EMENTAL EIR
·8 0 ~ 27 5 550 Feet
Source: T&B 2026 Date: 02/03/2026
704

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -5 2
This page intentionally left blank.
705

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 53
OPEN SPACE–PARKLAND
Situated between the northern boundary of the Specific Plan and new Public Street ‘A’, Planning Areas 7, 8, and 9 would be designated Open Space–Parkland. This 36.15-acre area would implement a segment of the City’s public “Grand Park.” Grand Park is planned as a 3.7-mile, 340-acre greenbelt between Haven Avenue and Campus Avenue. The Specific Plan would implement the southern half of a 1.25-mile stretch of the park. The northern half of this segment of Grand Park would be installed by the Center Park Specific Plan, which is currently proposed to the north of the EBPSP.2 Passive recreational opportunities for future employees, visitors, and City residents would be provided through features such as pedestrian paths, gathering areas, turf areas, and botanical gardens. The park would be landscaped, including forested areas, meadow areas, and open space lawn areas, consistent with the City’s Grand Park Landscape Master Plan. It is noted that the previously referenced 35,000 SF publicly operated animal resource center is also an allowed use within these planning areas, should the City of Ontario elect to locate the facility in the park.

CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
A conceptual site plan for the EBPSP is presented as Figure 2-12, Conceptual EBPSP Site Plan. As illustrated, the Specific Plan intends to provide a range of building sizes in an effort to house a diverse range of businesses. The larger buildings would be along the Eucalyptus Avenue frontage as a transition from the larger industrial buildings to the south across Eucalyptus Avenue. Buildings in excess of 560,000 square feet would not be permitted. Smaller buildings would be along Street ‘A’ to the north, further transitioning the size and scale of the buildings to the Open Space–Parkland along the northern frontage of the EBPSP.

It is noted that the plan illustrated in Figure 2-12 is preliminary and conceptual. The EBPSP allows the transfer of development square footage (15 percent or less) within the same land use designation, provided that the shift in square footage would not exceed the maximum allowable overall square footage (2,939,000) and the maximum FAR (0.55).

The precise location and layout of the potential commercial uses and public animal shelter have not yet been developed. If necessary, the arrangement of the business park uses would be revised to accommodate these uses. 2
It is noted that although only the southern half of the Grand Park is included in the EBPSP, development of the entire park area has been assumed and analyzed within the EBPSP’s technical studies in case the northern development does not occur.
706

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -5 4

ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Regional Access
State Route 60 (SR-60) is approximately 2.2 miles north of the Specific Plan area and is accessible via the Grove Avenue ramps. State Route 83 (SR-83) is approximately 0.5 mile west of the Specific Plan area and is accessible via Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road and Eucalyptus Avenue. Interstate 15 (I-15) is approximately 4.5 miles east of the Specific Plan area and is accessible via the Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road ramps or the Limonite Avenue ramps.

Local Access
As illustrated in Figure 2-13, Conceptual EBPSP Vehicular Circulation and Access Plan, direct access to the EBPSP area is provided by Campus Avenue to the west, Eucalyptus Avenue to the south, and Walker Avenue to the east. Additionally, Bon View Avenue and Grove Avenue provide north-south access through the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan would provide an internal east-west Public Street ‘A’ to connect Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue. Public Street ‘A’ would separate Business Park and Open Space–Parkland uses. The developer(s) of the Specific Plan would be responsible for the construction of certain roadway improvements, including segments of Campus Avenue, Bon View Avenue, Grove Avenue, Walker Avenue, and Eucalyptus Avenue and the full width of Street ‘A’. Please refer to Chapter 4, Infrastructure Plan, of the EBPSP for detailed descriptions of all circulation improvements to be implemented by the Specific Plan.

Truck Routes
As part of the Policy Plan Amendment being processed in conjunction with the Specific Plan, truck routes within the City would be modified. The Policy Plan Amendment would remove the following roadway segments from the City’s officially designated truck routes:

Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road between Euclid Avenue and Walker Avenue.

Archibald Avenue from the SR-60 Freeway to Merrill Avenue.

The following roadway segments would be added to the City’s officially designated truck routes:

Eucalyptus Avenue between Euclid Avenue and South Hellman Avenue.

South Hellman Avenue from Eucalyptus Avenue to Merrill Avenue.

Walker Avenue from Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road to Merrill Avenue.

Truck traffic generated by the land uses implemented pursuant to the EBPSP would be required to utilize officially designated truck routes.
■
■
■
■
■
707
BUILDING 10A
39,640 SF BUILDING 6
65,209 SF BUILDING 7
60,585 SF BUILDING 9
300,313 SF BUILDING 12
55,142 SF BUILDING 3
104,812 SF BUILDING 13
90,800 SF BUILDING 15
58,784 SF BUILDING 16
50,521 SF BUILDING 17
53,295 SF BUILDING 14
423,200 SF BUILDING 8
513,987 SF BUILDING 2
552,634 SF BUILDING 1
326,866 SF OPEN SPACE CONNECTION

TO EAST STREET OPEN SPACE CONNECTION
TO WEST STREET PHASE 1 E U C A L Y P T U S A V E N U E

EL EC TR ICA L VEH IC LE O NLY E U C A L Y P T U S A V E N U E E U C A L Y P T U S A V E N U E

P U B L I C S T R E E T 'A' S T O P S T O P

S T O P S T O P

S T O P S T O P
P U B L I C S T R E E T 'A' P U B L I C S T R E E T 'A' PHASE 3 PHASE 2 OPEN SPACE - PARKLAND

P AR KI NG
N O

EL EC TR ICA L VEH IC LE O NLYP AR KI NG
N O
VA N

P AR KI NG
N O

EL EC TR ICA L VEH IC LE O NLYP AR KI NG
N O

P AR KI NG
N O

EL EC TR ICA L VEH IC LE O NLY
VA N

P AR KI NG
N O
BUILDING 5
65,209 SF BUILDING 4 BUILDING 10 44,885 SF
67,685 SF BUILDING 11
60,073 SF OPEN SPACE - PARKLAND OPEN SPACE - PARKLAND

NOT A PART NOT A PART NOT A PART
26' POTENTIAL 10,000 SF COMMERCIAL AREA

OPEN SPACE

CONNECTION

TO WEST STREET
u.J
:::::,
z
LLJ
~ (/)
:::::,
a...
~
<C

NOT A PART

OPEN SPACE - PARKLAND
BUILDING 14
423,200 SF
:::::,
z
LLJ
~
~ NITTAMITT LLJ
>
z
cc

OPEN SPACE - PARKLAND
BUILDING 8
513,987 SF
BUILDING 2
552,634 SF

NOT A PART

OPEN SPACE - PARKLAND
i
i
i
i
i

OPEN SPACE

CONNECTION

TO EAST STREET
t
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-12
Conceptual EBPSP Site Plan
[_-:-:_ J EBPSP Boundary
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
G
0 ~ 350 700 Feet
Source: T&B 2026 Date: 02/03/2026
708

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -5 6
This page intentionally left blank.
709
r ................. .. .. - .. ---·- PA7
OPiENSPACE
S.15AC.

PAS
10:PENSPACE
1·4.1U.(.

Ml M2 M3
BU~fHESS ~IRK BUS NBS PARK Bd1S NIESS PARK
- ------='=·10=- A=.C.::.... - -----1:1:1---~- -----....;:.;:l:8.:::: J.:.: I ll:.:=..-----------1 ~ 18.21 AC, PA4

BUSINESS PARI

1.8,19A(.

PAS
B!USINESS PA'-IK
37~76AC.

I 2 PA6
t!> BIIJSINiESS PARK
37,11 A(~

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-13
Conceptual EBPSP Vehicular
Circulation and Access Plan
[__~J
a
l-J
EBPSP Boundary
Traffic Signal
Potential Signal Location
Grove Avenue
(124' ROW - Principal Arterial)
Eucalyptus Avenue
( l 08' ROW - Collector)
Campus Avenue
(108' ROW - Minor Arterial)
Walker Avenue
(88' ROW - Collector)
Bon View Avenue
(66' ROW - Collector)
Public Street 'A'
(64' ROW - Collector)
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPP L EMENTAL EIR
·8 0 ~ 27 5 550 Feet
Source: T&B 2026 Date: 03/03/2026
710

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -5 8
This page intentionally left blank.
711

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 59
Non-vehicular Circulation
Pedestrian and bicycle circulation would be accommodated within the Specific Plan area through a network of sidewalks, multipurpose trails, and bike lanes, as illustrated on Figure 2- 14, Conceptual EBPSP Non-vehicular Circulation and Mobility Plan. Additional pedestrian and bicycle facilities would be designed on individual business park building sites at the time buildings are designed and positioned in each planning area as part of implementing development projects. Provisions for sidewalks, bicycle storage facilities, and employee and visitor gathering areas interior to the planning areas are described in Chapter 6, Design Guidelines, of the EBPSP. Additional pedestrian and bicycle facilities in Planning Areas 7, 8, and 9 would be designed consistent with the City of Ontario Grand Park Master Plan.

Transit Service
Transit services are currently provided to the Specific Plan area by Omnitrans. The following bus and transit facilities are near the Specific Plan area.

Omnitrans Bus Route 83, about 0.6 mile to the west along Euclid Avenue.

Omnitrans Bus Route 87, about 1.8 miles to the north along Riverside Drive.

In addition, the EBPSP would construct a bus turnout near the intersection of Grove Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue in anticipation of future Omnitrans service.

INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure is summarized in this section. Infrastructure plans are shown and analyzed in SEIR Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems. Potable Water The City of Ontario provides water service to the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan area lies within the 925 Pressure Zone (PZ). Existing potable water lines include a 16-inch potable water line within Eucalyptus Avenue between Campus Avenue and Grove Avenue; a 24-inch potable water line within Eucalyptus Avenue between Grove Avenue and Walker Avenue; and a 30-inch potable water line within Grove Avenue between Eucalyptus Avenue and Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road.

Potable water system improvements necessary to serve the Specific Plan area include: potable water lines along Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue from Eucalyptus Avenue to the northern boundary of the Specific Plan area; and a potable water line along Bon View Avenue from Eucalyptus Avenue to the northern boundary of the Specific Plan area and Public Street ‘A’ between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue. Final sizing of utility mains shall be dependent on hydraulic studies done at the time of development.
■
■
■
712

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -6 0
Additional City of Ontario Water Master Plan improvements would be necessary to serve the Ontario Ranch area. These improvements are detailed in SEIR Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems.

Recycled Water
The City of Ontario/Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) and the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) supply recycled water to the Specific Plan area. Recycled water supplied by OMUC is produced by the IEUA from its 5 wastewater reclamation plants (IEUA 2026). Existing recycled water lines include an IEUA recycled water line within Eucalyptus Avenue between Campus Avenue and Bon View Avenue; and an IEUA recycled water line within Bon View Avenue between Eucalyptus Avenue and Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road.

Recycled water system improvements necessary to serve the Specific Plan area include recycled water lines within Grove Avenue and Walker Avenue. An additional recycled water line would be installed within Campus Avenue Walker Avenue, at the City’s discretion. Final sizing of utility mains shall be dependent on hydraulic studies done at the time of development.

Sewer
Sanitary sewer/wastewater collection for the Specific Plan area is provided by the City of Ontario/OMUC, which conveys wastewater to the IEUA for transmission and treatment. There is currently no sanitary sewer infrastructure within the Specific Plan area.

Sanitary sewer infrastructure improvements necessary to serve the Specific Plan area include new sewer lines in Campus Avenue, Bon View Avenue, Grove Avenue, Walker Avenue, and Public Street A between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue. Additional sewer improvements may also be required along Eucalyptus Avenue and ‘A’ Street within the EBPSP frontage where future development would not front an existing public master-planned main. Final sizing of utility mains shall be dependent on hydraulic studies done at the time of development.

Drainage and Water Quality
Existing storm drain infrastructure includes a storm drain line within Eucalyptus Avenue just east and west of Grove Avenue and a storm drain line within Eucalyptus Avenue west of Walker Avenue.
713
r-----PA 7 ______ ,_ ----
: OPEN SPACE
--~------------1••-"'·---7 PA9
10PE:N SPACE Q 8.0SAC. 14.00AC .
. PA 1 PA2, PA3
~: BUSINESS PARK BUSINESS PARK BUSlNESS PARI<,
- 7.7'0 AC. L_ _ ______ ...:;. 18=3=3.:.:. A(==- . - - ---------1 1.1;1 18.:21 AC. ~t----~c_c___---~.~ ~ ----------------------
1·:
0 1
I
I
PA4

BUSINESS PARK

18.19AC.
i)-----·- __ ,_
PAS

BUSINESS PARK
37,76AC.

PA6

BUSINESS, PARK

37.71 AC
,----·-------------------~

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-14
Conceptual EBPSP Non-Vehicular
Circulation and Mobility Plan
[_ ~] EBPSP Boundary
~ Pedestrian Crosswalk
~ Potential Pedestrian Crosswalk
Sidewalk Only
-- Sidewalk Only and Multi-Purpose Trail
-- Sidewalk, Class II Bikeway,
and Multi-Purpose Trail
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPP L EMENTAL EIR
,8
0 ~
27 5 550 Feet
Source: T&B 2026 Date: 03/03/2026
714

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -6 2
This page intentionally left blank.
715

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 63
Storm drain infrastructure improvements necessary to serve the Specific Plan area include: a 60-inch storm drain line within Campus Avenue between Eucalyptus Avenue and the northern boundary of the Specific Plan area; a 96-inch storm drain line within Bon View Avenue between Eucalyptus Avenue and the northern boundary of the Specific Plan area; a 108-inch storm drain line within Grove Avenue and Walker Avenue between Eucalyptus Avenue and the northern boundary of the Specific Plan area; 24-inch storm drain lines within Public Street ‘A’ between Campus Avenue and Bon View Avenue; and 36-inch storm drain lines within Public Street ‘A’ between Bon View Avenue and Walker Avenue.

During construction of future land uses implemented pursuant to the EBPSP, water quality would be managed through the preparation and implementation of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(s). Post-construction water quality would be managed through implementation of site-specific Water Quality Management Plan(s).

Dry Utilities
The Specific Plan area would also require electrical and telecommunications services. The following service providers are available to the Specific Plan area.

Electrical service is provided by Southern California Edison. Additional points of connection to existing facilities would be provided consistent with purveyor requirements.

Telecommunications services are available in the area from various private services, including OntarioNet Fiber and Frontier Communications.

Dry utilities internal to the Specific Plan area would be installed underground in conjunction with the development in accordance with applicable public utility standards and specifications.

GRADING PLAN
As part of site grading activities, the majority of the Specific Plan area would be subject to grading and disturbance. Specifically, grading activities on-site would require approximately 1,000,000 cubic yards (CY) of cut and approximately 1,150,000 CY of fill. Net fill (import) would be 150,000 CY. Within this earthwork operation, the site needs to export approximately 51,000 CY of organic materials. Maximum depth of ground disturbance is expected to be approximately 15 feet for grading, 15 feet for the building foundation, 10 feet for landscaping, 35 feet for utilities, and 25 feet for the storm water detention chamber. Disturbances would also occur in association with the off-site roadway improvements. See Figure 2-15, EBPSP Grading Plan. ■
■
716

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -6 4

DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
The EBPSP establishes development standards and design guidelines to guide development of the physical components of the area. The development standards provided in the Specific Plan are intended to work in concert with the architecture and landscape design guidelines.

Development regulations for each land use category are imposed for new development and provide the permitted, conditionally permitted, and ancillary uses for each land use category.

Additionally, the development regulations address lot size, floor area ratio, height, setbacks, landscaping, parking, and other requirements.

Future development accommodated by the Specific Plan would be required to comply with the Specific Plan’s design guidelines, which establish the desired quality and character of future land uses. While the design guidelines provide direction, they are meant to provide a certain level of flexibility to allow creative expression during the design of implementing development projects.

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
As shown on Figure 2-16a, b, and c, EBPSP Tentative Tract Map, the Specific Plan would create the appropriate lots to facilitate the implementation of the proposed uses, as described above.

Additional subdivision maps (parcel and/or tract maps, including vesting maps) could be processed in conjunction with this Specific Plan to subdivide the site into smaller parcels and to regulate development of the physical components of the Specific Plan.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
A development agreement would be executed between the Applicant, Ontario Ranch Venture, LLC and Ontario Ranch Venture II, LLC, and the City of Ontario strictly in relation to the EBPSP.

California Government Code Sections 65864 to 65869.5 authorize the use of development agreements between any city, county, or city and county, with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of the property. The Development Agreement would detail the off-site improvements to be constructed as part of the EBPSP, as described within this section and analyzed throughout this SEIR.

CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Construction Characteristics
Proposed physical disturbances necessary to implement the EBPSP are depicted on Figure 2-17, EBPSP Limits of Disturbance. As shown on this figure, proposed ground-disturbing activities would result in impacts to approximately 189 acres on-site, as well as off-site areas associated with roadway improvements to Campus Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue, Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road, and Walker Avenue.
717
I I
'I ,- - - - -==-::;.,~,~ - - - __r=,..-~-:~ - --::- ~ - - --::-~- - - -::-,EX. It=-- - - --::-~- - - --::- - i so~ I ______ .,, " I
i 6 -...__ - .... ~ ~ - 6-r;i ..: 5;,s I
I '-"=cc-~-- I 878
--- -
FF=6 7 .80
I
I
BUILDING 14
;_____ -----
FG 1.97
I
FF=675. 70
N~ BUILDING 9 N~ - - - - - - - - - _I_ - -
BUILDING2
FF=678. 00
I
I
I
- ----~-----

FL-LP FL -
- - - - - - - -671.60 GB-
! ~~ BUILDING 1
X.R/

BUILDINGS
FF=676.20
I
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTIO
Figure 2-15
EBPSP Grading Plan
Construction Notes
(D PROPOSED 6" CURB .
(D PROPOSED 6" CURB 8c GUTTER .
(}) PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE .
8) PROPOSED RETAINING WALL.
@ PROPOSED 8" CURB 8c GUTTER .
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
~ ~ Feet
'1111111111'" 0 165 330
Source: Michael Baker 2026 Date: 2/11/2026
718

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -6 6
This page intentionally left blank.
719
~ Ii i~(i :_1 - °T"/K 1: i
[ I I
~ c4lkr£ - l~m -~~
PROP. R/W < 1-
'6>~ 1 1 ~~,):, tr ~~tF~~~~ . o!o-~· ~ R/w & / ~ I -, - ,--~ - ++++-1-"'i'g~• ---, '1,1,$-11,,(-_ ~- - -(683) ~~~n-"'"'nc,._,_
~\(
PARCEL9

5.78 ACRES ~
iJ ~ ~ 1\ ~ ~:.

PARCEL2

23.21 ACRES
- ~
---~-- "EX. PO
POLE ------>---+-----
i
y
(681) 11 J,'.-' -
I: I J
I
£
/ PARCEL1 - j 14.50 ACRES
~r-1,. \. ~ , I I\ " -
1 , , I I -
(679)
(678)'
I
ti 1- ◊& --1
'1' .=--ZPROP R/W
C
I I ~
i ~PROP R/W
I ~1, 1---'----+----o;--~I ;~. -
________ __, .... ( ~ ~
- - ---- --- - --- - ~ - - :,c. - - ~ - - --- -
"" - ~ -- ' A r ,... r -----~ l ~ L "rf -~ _; D ' 7 I ~ • ~r ~; / / 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-16a
EBPSP Tentative Tract Map
Phase 1

PARCEL MAP BOUNDARY

PROPOSED R/W LINE

EXISTING R/W LINE

PROPOSED PROPERTY LI NE
------- EX I ST! NG PROPERTY LI NE

PROPOSED PARCEL BOUNDARY

CENTERLINE

EASEMENT LI NE

FLOOD ZONE LI NE
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
~ ~ Feet
~.,. 0 125 250
Source: Michael Baker 2026 Date: 2/11/2026
720

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -6 8
This page intentionally left blank.
721
EX . POWER POLE
LIGHT
PARCEL3

2.64 ACRES '.(680)
~-~ ~-'--'~T"-----tt-1t-1~e•:_~,_Y-_,.~--,,--c1 "'"" llft•' ~=~-===='---J '9
"\ 'fly_i 6) 1' gY' 's;;~· Zw '
~ <o- ;i 111 ~1 -" , \ , -\\;
/ j L ,::;: 1 ::! 1 (- (' PARCEL2 ~ '+ · .. - ..., -J L , r: \o l <( I ( 'v 14.59 ACRES I - 1 _H _i . ~_-: -J 00z J -I - ·~ • 1: ..- t~ - ' , I - ~ I 1 •] .- I ~ I '(675)
16,.,, (~~ I x-L.. J. ~ r ~ I O I / ~ \}""~>:: -t.,· ::, (673)

PARCELS

5.82 ACRES
;:,
-r
\ -
j
i -i,- / ~~~~"l I • r U,,,.,c='l! ~ :C..S~ ~--ce,,,>- ...;.µ_'i,-r-=i!= EX. CUCAMONGA AVENUE

EX PO~ER ~~ ~~~~~~~;;::~~~~ - - ---
__POLE EX POWER - EXPOWER - - - - ~OWEi~ - EX. POWE_R __ - EX, POW~EU AVENUE 64L_54 ~ PO~°'
,. POLE POLE POLE POLE POLE ( PUBLIC) POLE w
7 r I'~- EX R/~ -- ---<- ----~ -~- - :;- .:- +:~- J'(';')j~--- ~ ~ 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-16b
EBPSP Tentative Tract Map
Phase 2

PARCEL MAP BOUNDARY

PROPOSED R/W LI NE

EXJSTING R/W LINE

PROPOSED PROPERTY LI NE
------- EX l ST! NG PROPERTY LI NE

PROPOSED PARCEL BOUNDARY

CENTERLINE

EASEMENT LI NE

FLOOD ZONE LI NE
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
~ ~ Feet
~Ill" 0 125 250
Source: Michael Baker 2026 Date: 2/11/2026
722

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -7 0
This page intentionally left blank.
723
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-16c
EBPSP Tentative Tract Map
Phase 3
-------

PARCEL MAP BOUNDARY

PROPOSED R/W LI NE

EX I ST! NG R/W LI NE

PROPOSED PROPERTY LI NE

EX I ST! NG PROPERTY LI NE

PROPOSED PARCEL BOUNDARY

CENTERLINE

EASEMENT LI NE
THE" ()NTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
~ ~ Feet
•• 0 125 250
Source: Michael Baker 2026 Date: 2/11/2026
724

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -7 2
This page intentionally left blank.
725
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-17
EBPSP Limits of Disturbance
EBPSP Boundary- 190 AC
Overall Limits of Disturbance Boundary - 300 AC
Excluded from Overall Limits of Disturbance
Boundary
~ Business Park (within project limits)
~ "'~ Open Space (within project limits)
Open Space (north of project limits)
~ Excluded from Overall Limits of Disturbance
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
G
0 ~ 315 630 Feet
Source: T&B 2025 Date: 12/13/2025
726

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -7 4
This page intentionally left blank.
727

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 75
For purposes of analysis in this EIR, construction is assumed to commence in January 2027 and would last through June 2031 (see Table 2-9, EBPSP Construction Duration). The construction schedule used in the analysis is a conservative analysis scenario because if construction occurs any time after the respective dates emission factors for construction would decrease as time passes due to emission regulations becoming more stringent. The construction equipment (see Table 2-10, EBPSP Anticipated Construction Equipment) is a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required by the CEQA Guidelines.

Table 2-9 Construction Duration
Phase Construction Activity Start Date End Date Days
1 Demolition 1/1/2027 2/18/2027 35
Site Preparation 2/19/2027 3/18/2027 20
Grading 3/19/2027 6/3/2027 55
Building Construction 6/4/2027 6/30/2028 281
Paving 1/8/2028 6/30/2028 125
Architectural Coating 1/8/2028 6/30/2028 125
2 Demolition 7/1/2028 8/18/2028 35
Site Preparation 8/19/2028 9/15/2028 20
Grading 9/16/2028 12/1/2028 55
Building Construction 12/2/2028 12/31/2029 281
Paving 7/10/2029 12/31/2029 125
Architectural Coating 7/10/2029 12/31/2029 125
3 Demolition 1/1/2030 2/18/2030 35
Site Preparation 2/19/2030 3/18/2030 20
Grading 3/19/2030 6/3/2030 55
Building Construction 6/4/2030 6/30/2031 280
Paving 2/11/2031 6/30/2031 100
Architectural Coating 2/11/2031 6/30/2031 100
Table 2-10 EBPSP Anticipated Construction Equipment
Construction Activity Equipment Quantity Hours
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 6 8
Excavators 2 8
Other Material Handling Equipment 2 8
Off-Highway Trucks 2 8
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8
Crawler Tractors 4 8
Grading Graders 4 8
Excavators 2 8
728

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -7 6
Table 2-10 EBPSP Anticipated Construction Equipment
Construction Activity Equipment Quantity Hours
Rubber Tired Dozers 4 8
Off-Highway Trucks 2 8
Crawler Tractors 2 8
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8
Generator Sets 2 8
Cranes 2 8
Welders 2 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8
Paving Pavers 2 8
Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 2 8
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 3 8
Operational Characteristics
Land Uses
The future occupants of the EBPSP land uses are currently unknown; however, the Specific Plan would provide a business park development positioned to attract a variety of business types and sizes with varying uses. Examples of uses envisioned for the area include employeeintensive office spaces, technology centers, research and development facilities, warehouse and distribution, and light manufacturing, as well as supporting commercial opportunities. Please refer to Table 5-1 of the EBPSP for a full list of permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited uses.

The open space areas of the EBPSP would provide public passive recreational opportunities for future employees and visitors through features such as pedestrian paths, gathering areas, turf areas, and botanical gardens. The park would be heavily landscaped, including forested areas, meadow areas, and open space lawn areas, consistent with the City’s Grand Park Landscape Master Plan.

Estimated Traffic Generation, Water, and Energy Demand
Traffic Generation
During operations, employees, visitors, and vehicles hauling goods would travel to and from the Specific plan area on a daily basis. The EBPSP is anticipated to generate a net total of 9,596 twoway vehicle trip-ends per day with 848 AM peak hour trips and 1,096 PM peak hour trips (actual 729

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 77
vehicles) at buildout. The EBPSP is anticipated to generate a total of 11,458 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) trip ends per day with 945 AM PCE peak vehicle hour trips and 1,198 PM PCE peak hour vehicle trips (see Appendix K3).3
Water Demand
Total water demand of the EBPSP would be 573.8 acre feet per year (AFY). Of that total, 286.3 AFY would be potable water demand and 287.6 AFY would be recycled water demand (see Appendix L2).

Energy Demand
Throughout construction, total electricity usage from EBPSP construction-related activities is estimated to be approximately 886,886 kWh; construction equipment would consume an estimated total of 311,914 gallons of diesel fuel; approximately 269,810 gallons of fuel would be consumed related to construction worker trips; and approximately 214,130 gallons of fuel would be consumed related to construction vendor and hauling trips (see Appendix C5).

EBPSP facility operational energy demands are estimated to be 15,807,558 kWh per year; annual vehicular trips and related VMT generated by the operation of the EBPSP would result in a fuel demand of 4,213,944 gallons; emergency engine operation for maintenance and testing purposes would consume an estimated 2,070 gallons of diesel fuel per year; and on-site operational cargo handling equipment is estimated to consume approximately 51,071 gallons of fuel per year (see Appendix C5).

As discussed further in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the EBPSP would implement various energy efficiency measures including a rooftop solar energy system which would generate enough electricity to meet 45 percent of annual electricity needs, EV charging stations, installation of non-vehicular circulation facilities, water conservation measures, and the use of zero emission cargo handling equipment for a minimum of 50 percent of all operations. Please refer to Section 3.8, Energy, for a complete listing of all energy conserving measures to be implemented by the EBPSP.

PHASING
Specific Plan development would occur in phases, as shown on Figure 2-18, EBPSP Conceptual Phasing Plan. Phase A would develop business park uses in Planning Areas 3 and 6. Phase B would develop Planning Areas 2 and 5. Phase C would include Planning Areas 1 and 4. Phases D, 3 PCE factors are applied to trip generation rates for heavy trucks (large 2-axles, 3-axles, 4+-axles). PCEs allow the typical “real-world” mix of vehicle types to be represented as a single, standardized unit, such as the passenger car, to be used for the purposes of capacity and level of service analyses. 730

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -7 8
E, and F would include the open space areas located north of new Public Street ‘A’ (Planning Areas 7, 8, and 9).

2.5 INTENDED USES OF THE SEIR
This Draft SEIR examines the program-level environmental impacts of the proposed project. This Draft SEIR also addresses various actions by the City of Ontario to approve and implement the proposed project. The proposed project will require adoption by the Ontario City Council. The Planning Commission and other decision-making bodies will review the proposed project and make recommendations to City Council. Though other agencies may be consulted during the project process, their approval is not required for adoption of TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP. Subsequent development under the proposed project may require approval of state or federal responsible or trustee agencies that rely on the programmatic/supplemental EIR for decisions in their areas of expertise. The anticipated discretionary actions required for this project are listed in Table 2-11, Project Approvals Needed. Table 2-11 Project Approvals Needed Lead Agency Action
City of Ontario City Council Certification of the SEIR
Adoption of the Policy Plan Amendment
Adoption of the EBPSP
Approval of the Cancelation of Williamson Act
Contracts
Approval of the EBPSP Development Agreement
Approval of the EBPSP Tentative Parcel Map
Adoption of the Findings of Fact and Statement of
Overriding Considerations
Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program
Adoption of any ordinances, guidelines, programs,
actions, or other mechanisms that implement the
Policy Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
Responsible Agencies Action
Ontario International Airport–Inter Agency
Collaborative (ONT-IAC) Technical Advisory
Group
For review of local airport-related policies
California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (CAL FIRE)
Review of the Safety Element for policies in state
responsibility areas and very high fire hazard severity zones
California Department of Housing and
Community Development
For certification of the Housing Element
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
731

BUSINESS PARK
Z.75 AC.

PHASE C
PA4

BUSINESS PARK

18.17 AC.

BUSINESS PARK

18.45_A~,,_• _______ _

PHASE B
PAS

BUSINESS PARK

37.68AC.
·~ - ---- ----- UCALYPTUS AVE

PHASE A
6 BUSINESS PARK

37.64AC.
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2-18
EBPSP Conceptual Phasing Plan
L J EBPSP Boundary
Phase A
Phase B
Phase C
Phase D
Phase E
Phase F
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPP L EMENTAL EIR
·8 0 ~ 27 5 550 Feet
Source: T&B 2025 Date: 12/13/2025
732

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -8 0
This page intentionally left blank.
733

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 2 - 81

2.5.1 Related Review and Consultation Requirements
AB 52/SB 18 Tribal Consultation
Senate Bill 18. Government Code Sections 65352.3 and 65352.4 require local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places when creating or amending general plans, specific plans, and community plans.

The formal notification is required to include a brief description of the proposed project and its location, lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 90 days to request consultation regarding potential impacts to tribal cultural resources.

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

The City of Ontario sent Tribal Consultation Request letters to the Native American contacts on August 19, 2025, in accordance with AB 52 and SB 18 (see Appendix M2).

2.6 REFERENCES
Ontario, City of. 2022, August. The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050) and Certified EIR. State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364.

Ontario, City of. 2010, January. The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140.

IEUA (Inland Empire Utilities Agency). 2026, January (accessed). Facilities. https://www.ieua.org/facilities/
734

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N A MEND M EN T D R AFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
2 . PROJ ECT D ES CRI P TION
2 -8 2
This page intentionally left blank.
735
MA RC H 2026 3- 1

3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This chapter examines the environmental setting of the proposed project, analyzes the effects of the proposed project and the significance of its impacts, and recommends mitigation measures to reduce or avoid impacts. This chapter has a separate section for each environmental topic.

The proposed project is analyzed for potential significant impacts in accordance with Appendix F, “Energy Conservation,” and Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Environmental topics and their corresponding sections and abbreviations are:

3.1 Aesthetics (AES)

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources (AGF)

3.3 Air Quality (AIR)

3.4 Biological Resources (BIO)

3.5 Cultural Resources (CUL)

3.6 Energy (ENE)

3.7 Geology and Soils (GEO)

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (HAZ)

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality (HYD)

3.11 Land Use and Planning (LUP)

3.12 Mineral Resources (MIN)

3.13 Noise (NOI)

3.14 Population and Housing (POP)

3.15 Public Services (PUB)

3.16 Recreation (REC)

3.17 Transportation (TRA)

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR)

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems (USS)

3.20 Wildfire (WIL)

ORGANIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
To assist the reader with comparing information between environmental issues, each section is organized under the same major headings.

Regulatory Framework offers an overview of applicable laws, regulations, plans, and policies relevant to each environmental topic.

Existing Conditions offers a description of the existing environmental conditions, providing a baseline against which the impacts of the proposed project can be compared.

Standards for Analysis refer to the quantitative or qualitative standards, performance levels, thresholds, or criteria used to evaluate whether an impact is significant. These standards are based primarily on the CEQA Guidelines unless otherwise noted. This section also provides an overview of key methods, assumptions, and considerations that inform the impact analysis.
■
■
■
736

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. E N V I RO N M EN TA L A N A LY S I S
3- 2
Project Impact Analysis provides a detailed discussion of the potential direct and indirect impacts of the proposed project. Mitigation measures are included as necessary.

Cumulative Impact Analysis provides an overview of the geographic setting and cumulative projects considered in the cumulative impact assessment. Significant cumulative impacts are identified and mitigation measures are included as necessary.

References are provided for information sources used in the development of the discussion.

LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The level of significance is identified for each impact in this Draft SEIR. Although the criteria for determining significance are different for each topic area, the environmental analysis applies a uniform classification of the impacts based on definitions consistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines:

No impact. The project would result in no adverse effect on the environment.

Less than significant. The project would not exceed the established significance criteria.

Significant. The project would exceed the established significance criteria. For each significant impact, the SEIR identifies mitigation measures to reduce, eliminate, or avoid the adverse effect. If one or more mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level successfully, this is stated in the SEIR.

Significant and unavoidable. The project would exceed the established significance criteria, and no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level.

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Under CEQA, the decision as to whether an environmental effect should be considered significant is reserved to the discretion of the lead agency, based on substantial evidence in the record as a whole, including views held by members of the public. An ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary based on the setting. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), the analysis in this Draft SEIR is based on scientific and factual data that has been reviewed by the lead agency and represents the lead agency’s independent judgment and conclusions. ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
737

O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N T A R I O

3. E N V I RO N M EN TA L A N A LY S I S
MA RC H 2026 3- 3
CEQA Baseline
This SEIR evaluates the impacts of the proposed project relative to the TOP 2050 for the Policy Plan Amendment and the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (EBPSP), as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and Section 15163.

PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project is the cumulative impacts of the Policy Plan Amendment, which also includes the Zoning amendments, and the EBPSP.

Policy Plan Amendment
The baseline for the proposed project is the current general plan, TOP 2050. Section 2.2.1, The Ontario Plan 2050 (Approved Project), and Figure 3-4, Current TOP Land Use Plan, show the existing land use designations for the City.

Specific Plan
The baseline for the EBPSP is the approved TOP 2050 land uses for the project site, which are Medium Density Residential (MDR), Mixed-Use (Eucalyptus/Chino Airport) (MU-BC),; and Open Space Parkland (OS-C). Buildout of the approved TOP 2050 for the EBPSP site would allow for up to 2,195 residential units and 1,632,143 square feet of non-residential land uses within the 189- acre project site (see Table 2-8, EBPSP Current TOP 2050 Land Uses).

Organization and Terminology
Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, provides an impact discussion for each significance criteria in Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the CEQA Guidelines. For each of these significance criteria, the impacts discussions have a separate headings for the Policy Plan Amendment and the Specific Plan. The following terminology in these impact discussions is used to refer to impacts of the individual project components:

Proposed Project: The terminology “proposed project” is used throughout this SEIR to refer to the project as a whole, and includes the Policy Plan Amendment, the concurrent Zoning changes, and the EBPSP. The Policy Plan Amendment impact discussion uses this terminology because 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.

Policy Plan Amendment: This term refers to the Policy Plan Amendment and the concurrent Zoning changes that implements the land use changes of the Policy Plan. The SEIR uses the term “Policy Plan Amendment” when referring specifically to the Policy Plan Amendments. ■
■
738

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. E N V I RO N M EN TA L A N A LY S I S
3- 4
There are no separate impacts of the Zoning update since they are implementing the Policy Plan Amendment.

EBPSP or Specific Plan: This term refers solely to components associated with the EBPSP.

Potential Effects of the Project on the Environment
The California Supreme Court concluded in California Building Industry Association vs. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 that “CEQA generally does not require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact a project’s future users or residents.” The CBIA vs. BAAQMD ruling provided for several exceptions to the general rule where an analysis is warranted:

1. If the project would exacerbate existing environmental hazards (such as exposing hazardous waste that is currently buried).

2. If the project qualifies for certain specified exemptions (certain housing projects and transportation priority projects pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 21159.21 (f),(h); 21159.22 (a),(b)(3); 21159.23 (a)(2)(A); 21159.24 (a)(1),(3); or 21155.1 (a)(4),(6)).

3. If the project is exposed to potential noise and safety impacts due to proximity to an airport (pursuant to PRC sec. 21096).

4. School projects require specific assessment of certain environmental hazards (pursuant to PRC sec. 21151.8).

Therefore, the evaluation of the significance of project impacts under CEQA focuses on the potential impacts of the proposed project on the environment, including whether the proposed project may exacerbate any existing environmental hazards. Existing environmental hazards in the City of Ontario include, but are not limited to, seismic hazards, hazardous materials, and wildfire. Therefore, while the effects of these hazards on the proposed project are generally not subject to CEQA review according to CBIA vs. BAAQMD, a discussion of the project’s potential to exacerbate these hazardous conditions is provided in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 3.20, Wildfire, of this Draft SEIR.

Assumptions Regarding Cumulative Impacts
A cumulative impact consists of an impact created as a result of the project evaluated in the SEIR combined with other reasonably foreseeable projects. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires an SEIR to discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is “cumulatively considerable.” Cumulative effects could occur when future development ■
739

O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N T A R I O

3. E N V I RO N M EN TA L A N A LY S I S
MA RC H 2026 3- 5
under the project is combined with development in the surrounding area or, in some instances, in the entire region.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(3), where a cumulative impact is significant compared to baseline conditions, the analysis must address whether the project’s contribution to the significant cumulative impact is “considerable.” If the contribution of the project is considerable, the EIR must identify potentially feasible measures that could avoid or reduce the magnitude of the project’s contribution to a less-than-considerable level. If the project’s contribution is not considerable, it is considered less than significant, and no mitigation for the project’s contribution is required.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1) states that the information used in the analysis of cumulative impacts should come from one or two sources:

A. A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or B. A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. Such plans may include: a general plan, regional transportation plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A summary of projections may also be contained in an adopted or certified prior environmental document for such a plan. Such projections may be supplemented with additional information such as a regional modeling program. Any such document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency.

The cumulative impact analysis in this SEIR uses method No. 2. Consistent with Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines, this SEIR analyzes the environmental impacts of development in accordance with proposed project land use plan and addresses the cumulative impacts of development in Ontario and the larger Inland Empire region, as appropriate. In most cases, the potential for cumulative impacts is contiguous with the City boundary, since the City is the service provider for various services and public utilities. The San Bernardino Traffic Analysis Model+ (SBTAM+) was utilized to estimate vehicle miles traveled for the proposed project. Therefore, potential cumulative impacts related to traffic, air quality, and noise, which have the potential for impacts beyond the City boundaries, have been addressed using the SBTAM+, which accounts for growth in the region. Please refer to subsections in this chapter for a discussion of the cumulative impacts associated with development and growth in the City and region.
740

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. E N V I RO N M EN TA L A N A LY S I S
3- 6
This page intentionally left blank.
741

O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
MA RC H 2026 3. 1- 1

3.1 AESTHETICS
This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) discusses the potential impacts to the visual character of the City of Ontario from implementation of TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment and the EBPSP (proposed project) compared to TOP 2050 (approved project) and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. This section includes a discussion of the qualitative aesthetic characteristics of the existing environment that would potentially be altered by the project’s implementation and the consistency of the project with established relevant policies. Cumulative impacts related to aesthetics would be contiguous with the city boundaries.

3.1.1 Regulatory Framework
STATE
Caltrans Scenic Highway Program
In 1963, California's Scenic Highway Program was created to preserve and protect the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through special conservation treatment. The state laws governing this program are in the Streets and Highways Code, Sections 260 to 2684, and Caltrans oversees the program. Caltrans defines a scenic highway as any freeway, highway, road, or other public right-of-way that traverses an area of exceptional scenic quality. Suitability for designation as a State Scenic Highway is based on the following criteria described in Caltrans’s Guidelines for Official Designation of Scenic Highways (Caltrans 2008):

The State or county highway consists of a scenic corridor that is comprised of a memorable landscape that showcases the natural scenic beauty or agriculture of California; “vividness” is used to assess visual quality, and is the extent to which the landscape is memorable. This is associated with the distinctiveness, diversity and contrast of visual elements. A vivid landscape makes an immediate and lasting impression on the viewer.

Existing visual intrusions do not significantly impact the scenic corridor; this is based on intactness (the integrity of visual order in the landscape and the extent to which the natural landscape is free from visual intrusions) and unity (the extent to which visual intrusions are sensitive to and in visual harmony with the natural landscape).

Demonstration of strong local support for the proposed scenic highway designation.

The length of the proposed scenic highway is not less than a mile and is not segmented. ■
■
■
■
742

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. 1 A E S T H ETI C S

3. 1- 2
LOCAL
City of Ontario Municipal Code
The Ontario Municipal Code contains regulations regarding historical preservation and general design guidelines that address the aesthetic aspects of residential, commercial, and industrial development:

Development Code, Chapter 5, Zoning and Land Use, contains general development requirements and exceptions, standards related to development density, screening and setback requirements, signage, street lighting and tree planting, landscape and design, conformity with district regulations, mixed-use requirements, fences and walls, grading, height limitations, and lighting.

Development Code, Chapter 6, Development and Subdivision Regulations, contains regulations for walls, fences, landscaping, public art, and property appearance. Generally, lighting shall be such as to provide general security while minimizing adverse impacts of light spillover.

Development Code, Chapter 7, Historic Preservation, contains standards to safeguard the character and history of the City reflected in its unique culturally, historically, and architecturally significant structures and heritage; encourage the adaptive reuse of historic resources and enhance, perpetuate, and preserve architecturally and historically significant structures; and recognize historic resources and protect areas of historic structures from encroachment of incompatible designs.

3.1.2 Existing Conditions

POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
Visual Character
From a regional perspective, Ontario is in a highly developed, urban/suburban area. Developed land uses (residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, public, institutional, airport, and utility and transportation easements) are located throughout the City. The northern half of the City (north of Riverside Drive) is known as the Original Model Colony (OMC) and is a developed urbanized area. Undeveloped areas in the OMC are scattered small vacant parcels.

The Ontario Ranch, south of Riverside Drive, has historically been flat and open, with dairies, poultry farms, and row crops; however, the Ontario Ranch is rapidly suburbanizing.

Visually, Ontario is a linear city with predominantly right-angle streets. The northern portion of the City is highly developed, urban/suburban, with a wide array of residential densities. The northwest portion of the City contains older, maturing residential developments, and the ■
■
■
743

O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N T A R I O

3. 1 A E S TH E TI C S
MA RC H 2026 3. 1- 3
northeast and eastern portion is dominated by planned industrial uses with commercial uses for support. The established neighborhoods are characterized by a mixture of traditional singlefamily residential uses with commercial land uses along major corridors and newer planned developments with subdivisions.

Bisecting the City from north to south is I-15, and I-10 and SR-60 traverse east to west. Also traversing the City from north to south is Ontario’s most visually important arterial, Euclid Avenue, which reflects the City’s historic past, extending to the historic homes and historically significant buildings in the downtown district of the City. Euclid Avenue between Philadelphia and I-10 is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historic Resources.

Landform
The City of Ontario is in the southwestern corner of San Bernardino County, south of the San Gabriel Mountains, in the upper Santa Ana Valley. The City is situated on a broad alluvial fan that extends from the southern flank of the San Gabriel Mountains and dips gradually southward to the confluence of San Antonio Channel, Cucamonga Channel/Mill Creek, and the Santa Ana River at the Prado Dam Flood Control Basin in Riverside County. Elevation ranges from 1,150 feet above mean sea level in the northwest portion to 650 feet above mean sea level in the south-central portion of the City.

Recent (quaternary) alluvium underlies the entire valley. The western portion of the City is underlain by young alluvial-fan deposits. The eastern portion is primarily underlain by young eolian (wind driven) deposits with small areas of young alluvial-fan deposits, artificial fill, and young alluvial-valley deposits. The City is bisected by very young alluvial fan and very young wash deposits associated with the Cucamonga Creek Channel.

Natural Features
Biological resources have been largely removed or modified throughout the City. The northern half of the City is developed and urbanized with a few vacant parcels. Native habitats and vegetation communities are virtually absent throughout the northern portion of Ontario. Turf, weeds, nonnative grasses, and nonnative trees and plants are present throughout developed areas of the City. The southern half of the City, known as the Ontario Ranch, has historically been agriculture and rural but is rapidly suburbanizing. The area had been extensively altered from natural conditions to primarily agricultural use. The area supports ruderal vegetation, including nonnative grasses and forbs.

The dominant scenic resource in Ontario is the San Gabriel Mountain range to the north, visible from the Upper Santa Ana River. Other prominent scenic resources are the Jurupa Mountains and the San Bernardino Mountains to the east, the Santa Ana Mountains to the south, and the Chino Hills to the southwest.
744

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. 1 A E S T H ETI C S

3. 1- 4
Scenic Vistas and Corridors
The City is served by three freeways: I-10, I-15, and SR-60. I-10 and SR-60 traverse the northern and central portion of the City, respectively, in an east-west direction. I-15 traverses the northeastern portion of the City in a north-south direction. These segments are not officially designated scenic highways by Caltrans, and there are no officially designated scenic highways in Ontario (Caltrans 2025); however, the Euclid Avenue corridor and the Mission Boulevard corridor are the primary scenic corridors in Ontario. Euclid Avenue is a grand boulevard with a wide landscaped median along its length. The median is used for public activities and civic events, such as festivals and music concerts. Visually, Euclid Avenue is the most defining corridor in the City and is designated on the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources. Mission Boulevard has a wide landscaped median and runs east-west immediately south of Ontario International Airport (ONT).

The City’s physical setting lends opportunities for many views of the community and surrounding natural features, including panoramic views of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains and stretches of open space and undeveloped land south of Riverside Drive. Scenic vistas can be viewed from an extensive system of formal and informal trails that afford recreational, commercial, and scenic opportunities for the community. The majority of planned trails are throughout the Ontario Ranch. Current trails in urbanized portions of the City are limited to flood control channels and other informal trails.

SPECIFIC PLAN
Site Character
The majority of the Specific Plan area is currently utilized as active dairy facilities including dry lots, milking parlors, feed storage facilities and associated residential uses. Other land uses include storage and minor maintenance of semi-trailer trucks, storage and distribution of krill oil and soy sauce, tire storage, and small animal keeping.

The site is relatively flat and generally slopes to the south with variable topography on-site in the form of berms, fill material stockpiles, and a water retention basin. The site has been subjected to roughly a century of anthropogenic disturbances associated with these historic and ongoing land uses (Appendix D). The natural vegetation and soil conditions that once occurred throughout the Specific Plan area have been significantly altered through agricultural uses, leaving little or no native vegetation. Figure 3.1-1, EBPSP Site Photos, provides representative visual depictions of the site’s visual characteristics. 745
1 3.1 AESTHETICS
Figure 3.1-1
EBPSP Site Photos
□ EBPSP Boundary
cf Photo Location and Direction (5)
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
Source: T&B 2025 Date: 12/12/2025
746

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. 1 A E S T H ETI C S

3. 1- 6
This page intentionally left blank.
747

O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N T A R I O

3. 1 A E S TH E TI C S
MA RC H 2026 3. 1- 7
Surrounding Land Uses
As illustrated in Figure 3.1-2, EBPSP Surrounding Land Uses, land uses surrounding the Specific Plan area include:

North: Dairy farms and residences, similar to existing land uses within the Specific Plan area, are located northerly adjacent to the site.

South: Eucalyptus Avenue borders the Specific Plan area to the south, beyond which are industrial/business park uses, a fire station, and a dairy farm/residence.

East: Dairy farms and residences are located to the east of the site, across Walker Avenue.

West: Additional dairy/agricultural uses are located to the west of the site, across Campus Avenue.

Scenic Resources
The Specific Plan area is located within a relatively flat valley floor surrounded by rugged hills and mountains. The site does not contain any scenic resources, such as buildings or landscaping of aesthetic value, or any landforms of visual interest.

Major scenic resources in Ontario that contribute to scenic vistas include the San Gabriel Mountains to the north of the City. The San Gabriel Mountains are located approximately 12 miles north of the Specific Plan area. The lower elevations of the San Gabriel Mountains are partially obscured from public viewing areas abutting the Project site by existing buildings and agricultural operations. Views of the upper elevations of the San Gabriel Mountains can also sometimes be obscured from the Specific Plan area and its surroundings during hazy conditions that are common to the Inland Empire Area. Other prominent scenic resources in Ontario are the Jurupa Mountains and the San Bernardino Mountains to the east, the Santa Ana Mountains to the south, and the Chino Hills to the southwest.

There are no officially designated or eligible State scenic highways in Ontario. The nearest officially designated/eligible State scenic highway is State Route 142 located approximately 5.2 miles west of the Specific Plan area (Caltrans 2025). The Euclid Avenue corridor (located approximately one-half mile to the west of the Specific Plan area) and the Mission Boulevard corridor (located approximately 4 miles to the north of the Specific Plan area) are the primary scenic corridors in Ontario. Mission Boulevard has a wide landscaped median and runs eastwest immediately south of Ontario International Airport. Euclid Avenue is a grand boulevard with a wide landscaped median along its length. The median is used for public activities and civic events, such as festivals and music concerts.
748

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. 1 A E S T H ETI C S

3. 1- 8
Light and Glare
Artificial light is associated with the evening and nighttime hours, and sources may include streetlights, illuminated signage, and vehicle headlights. Glare is primarily a daytime occurrence caused by the reflection of sunlight or artificial light from highly polished surfaces, such as window glass or reflective materials, and, to a lesser degree, from broad expanses of lightcolored surfaces. Glare can also be produced during evening and nighttime hours by artificial light directed toward a light-sensitive land use.

Under existing conditions, the Specific Plan area contains sources of artificial, exterior lighting including building-mounted fixtures, streetlights, vehicle headlights, and lighting from surrounding developed properties.

3.1.3 Standards for Analysis

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that, “except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099,” the proposed project would result in a significant aesthetic impact if it would:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) In an urbanized area, if the project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
d) Expose people on- or off-site to substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
749

3.1 AESTHETICS
Figure 3.1-2
EBPSP Surrounding Land Uses
□ EBPSP Boundary
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPP L EMENTAL EIR
·8 0 ~ 300 700 Feet
Source: T&B 2025 Date: 02/24/2026
750

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. 1 A E S T H ETI C S

3. 1- 10
This page intentionally left blank.
751

O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N T A R I O

3. 1 A E S TH E TI C S
MA RC H 2026 3. 1- 11

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

3.1.5 Environmental Impacts
2022 CERTIFIED EIR
The Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would not substantially obstruct views of the San Gabriel Mountains, the City’s most prominent scenic resource. Ontario does not contain or adjoin a State-designated scenic highway. The closest is State Route 142, 5 miles west of the city limits; therefore, the approved project would have no impact on State scenic highways. The Certified EIR found that future development would be subject to the City’s Development Code, which would ensure less than significant impacts for visual quality and scenic quality. New development would introduce additional light sources, particularly in Ontario Ranch; however, impacts would be less than significant with adherence to the City’s lighting standards. In summary, the Certified EIR concluded that aesthetic impacts were less than significant or no impact.

PROPOSED PROJECT
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Scenic vistas generally provide visual access or panoramic views to a large geographic area.

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

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

Policy Plan Amendment
The City of Ontario does not designate scenic vistas. The proposed project would increase the number of housing units, non-residential square feet, employment, and population in comparison to the approved project, as shown in Table 2-4, Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment, in Chapter 2, Project Description. 752

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. 1 A E S T H ETI C S

3. 1- 12
Increased development under the policy plan amendment would occur within the City limits and already urbanized areas of the City. The proposed project would alter the allowable type or intensity of land use on their properties as well as land use changes required to improve land use compatibility, maintain compliance with state laws, uphold long-term planning goals, and plan for a cohesive land use pattern that repositions the southwest portion of the City as a central business center. Additionally, the proposed project would include alterations to the mixed-use areas to create new district “District Place Type” that would define a vision for new mixed-use areas, primarily near the Ontario Field (ONT Field); however, these changes would improve land use compatibility near the Ontario Sports Empire and would not affect scenic quality within the City.

Accordingly, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to scenic corridors.

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

Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

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

Based on the preceding, the Specific Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and would be implemented consistent with Policy CD-1.5 of TOP 2050. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. 753

O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N T A R I O

3. 1 A E S TH E TI C S
MA RC H 2026 3. 1- 13
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact AES-1: Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially alter scenic vistas in Ontario.

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

New Mitigation Measures
Impacts are less than significant and mitigation measures are not required. b) Would the project substantially degrade the view from a scenic highway, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings? The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would have no impact on State scenic highways.

Policy Plan Amendment
The Euclid Avenue corridor and the Mission Boulevard corridor are the primary scenic corridors in Ontario; however, these are not identified as State-designated scenic highways, and Ontario does not have any State scenic highways through or in the vicinity of the City (Caltrans 2025).

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

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

Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: No impact. 754

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. 1 A E S T H ETI C S

3. 1- 14
Specific Plan
The City of Ontario is served by three freeways: I-10, I-15, and SR-60. I-10 and SR-60 traverse the northern and central portion of the City, respectively, in an east–west direction. I-15 traverses the northeastern portion of the City in a north–south direction. None of these segments are designated as scenic highways. The nearest officially designated State scenic highway is State Route 142 located approximately 5 miles west of the Specific Plan area (Caltrans 2025). The Specific Plan area is not visible from State Route 142 due to intervening topography and development. As such, the EBPSP would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. No impact would occur.

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

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: No impact.

Impact AES-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not alter scenic resources within a State scenic highway.

New Mitigation Measures
Impacts are less than significant and mitigation measures are not required. c) In nonurbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The Certified EIR concluded that while buildout in accordance with the approved project would alter the visual appearance of the City, it would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. An “urbanized area,” as defined by CEQA Section 21071, is an incorporated city that either has a population of at least 100,000 persons, 755

O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N T A R I O

3. 1 A E S TH E TI C S
MA RC H 2026 3. 1- 15
or if the population of that city and not more than 2 contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR, the population of Ontario was approximately 184,404 as of 2025 (see also Table 3.14-1).

Therefore, this impact analysis addresses whether, for an urbanized area, the proposed project would conflict with zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality.

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

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

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

The proposed project would alter the allowable type or intensity of land use on their properties as well as land use changes required to improve land use compatibility, maintain compliance with state laws, uphold long-term planning goals, and plan for a cohesive land use pattern that repositions the southwest portion of the City as a central business center. Additionally, the proposed project would include alterations to the mixed-use areas to create a new district— “District Place Type”—that would define a vision for new mixed-use areas, primarily near the ONT Field. These changes would improve land use compatibility near the Ontario Sports Empire and would not affect scenic quality within the City. Because the Policy Plan Amendment is an overriding planning document for the City, and because it is intended to improve consistency with existing regulations and conditions, the proposed project would not have a significant impact with respect to being inconsistent with policies or regulations governing scenic quality.

The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 756

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. 1 A E S T H ETI C S

3. 1- 16
Specific Plan
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15387, urban areas mean a central city or group of contiguous cities with a population of 50,000 or more, together with adjacent densely populated areas having a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile. The City encompasses 50 square miles and has a population of 184,404 (DOF 2025). As such, the potential impacts under this threshold are assessed based on whether the EBPSP would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

As part of the Policy Plan Amendment being processed in conjunction with the EBPSP, new designations would be processed for the Specific Plan area. The Policy Plan land use designation would be changed from Medium Density Residential (with an Affordable Housing Overlay) (MDR-AH), Mixed Use (with an Affordable Housing Overlay) (MU-BC-AH), and Open Space – Parkland (OS-R) to Business Park (BP) and Open Space – Parkland (OS-R). A Consistency Analysis of the Policy Plan’s Community Design Element policies was prepared and included as Table

3.11-3, EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis. As demonstrated, the Specific Plan would be consistent with the City’s policies governing scenic quality, including Policies CD1-4 and CD1-5 which require the enhancement of transportation and view corridors, Policies CD2-1, CD2-5, CD2-8, and CD2-9, which require safe and attractive architecture and design, and Policies CD5-1 and CD5-2 which address ongoing maintenance of facilities and infrastructure.

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

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

Conformance with EBPSP Development Regulations and Design Guidelines, as well as the City’s Development Code would minimize the potential for implementation of the Specific Plan to adversely affect scenic resources or result in development that would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is Less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 757

O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N T A R I O

3. 1 A E S TH E TI C S
MA RC H 2026 3. 1- 17
Impact AES-3: Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality.

New Mitigation Measures
Impacts are less than significant and mitigation measures are not required. d) Would the project expose people on- or off-site to substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The Certified EIR concluded that development the approved project would result in new sources of light or glare, but with adherence to the design standards of the City of Ontario Development Code impacts were less than significant.

Ontario City CouncilJune 16, 2026

Ontario City Council
June 16, 2026