Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, June 16, 2026 (part 8 of 28)

Class III Bikeways (Bike Routes). Class III Bikeways are streets providing for shared use by motor vehicles and bicyclists. While bicyclists have no exclusive use or priority, signage both by the side of the street and stenciled on the roadway surface alerts motorists to bicyclists sharing the roadway space and denotes that the street is an official bike route.

Class IV Bikeways (Cycle Tracks). Class IV bicycle facilities, sometimes called cycle tracks or separated bikeways, provide a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway and are protected from vehicular traffic via vertical separations (e.g., grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, on-street parking). California Assembly Bill 1193 (AB 1193) legalized and established design standards for Class IV bikeways in 2015. ■
■
■
■
1501
- --------c-1w_oF_- + ---~r-- I
I
1 ---111
E..f§i'G"j!fr,j!i:s~"'l'I"~ - - - - - - - - - - - @FrY·0F---RAN6HO -- UPLAND - w •• \ CUCAMONGA ii l--iiiiiiiiiiiiiii------ -;;;;;;;;;;a~~ .. _j ~

W FOURTH ST
w
~
2 w
> 1
w w > > < <
< V,
w
~
0 a:
~ w
z
\
--- ------ - - -=-.. J ,..

I
I

CITY OF

MONTCLAIR
z
0 1-
z
<
~ z ~ W G ST ;;!;
e z 3
<!J ~ ~
_,
'"' :::)
I V,
:::) > a.
~ z
< u I
'
'
··-··-··i
~ ~ ~- < ~ i z 9 ~ "' z z E G ST
z z :::)
~ W DST E D ST
[:1 z '-,....L----~-----"'!"'--+---------:---E.aH@l!oT- AV,E..., ---~------- ..
•· ,.J W M ISSION BLVD
I
I l <(
~ W PHILLIPS ST
,1j ::; E INIAND EMPIRE BLVD ~
:t: ::., ~~ -=:III!P:.~- --.::::=:s=:=.=a=<!i·===----------==~i=====-=eiii?ll-E------==--=~ @ f ~ ~ I I <1 • z 2
z • I 'ii:t::::1====•1·--·-·--··· I

E SANTA ANA ST I
w
> 'i!
~

CITY OF

FONTANA
'--·· z ~ -·r.. I ~ ~
_.,_J t_ ~ i ! i
w
~
E JURl'.JPA ST e
z
<(
~
~ UJ
~
~ :::i <(u J i ~ Vl ~ ~ W PHILADFI PH IA ST ~ E PHILADELPHIA ST 5 -.-1, .-•I~ V, =-=-=====i so\=---J~.!=..---~ r--1--~-------=-:===-=-=---;.;....=-...... ------==~--

CITY OF CHINO
w
> 0
a:

E SCHAEFER AVE

E RIVERSIDE DR
E CHINO AV[
w
> <
a:
w
z
a:
:::)
IV,
w
> < >
C
_,
<(
cc
:i:
u
a:
<
V,
·--------._ __________ / ONTARIO RA
0 NCH RD
t--.... ------E--E-©IS@N• AV,E- - .

E EUCALYPTUS AVE
I
w
I
> 1
a: "" z
~
..:
:E
I
1 .J
••-••-•••ME,R·Rli.,L-AV{-••-.. -••1
--~-
_.,,,.,. .. .,,,.,. EASTVALE
'\ .,
\.

L .. --··
w
_,
_,
> w
z
w
L?
~ z
>
I I County of c San Bernardino IJ._1,_,,.......,.._11~-•1-,1 County of Riverside

JURUPA VALLEY

3.17 TRAFFIC
Figure 3.1 7-2
Public Transit Plan
[. ') County Boundary
[. ') Ontario City Boundary
Railroad
Transit Centers
E] Existing Bus Transfer Center
@ Existing Metrolink Station
Amtrak Station/Proposed Metrolink Station
@ Future Multimodal Transportation Center
- BRT Corridor
- • Metro Goldline Extension
Metrolink Line
• • • Ontario Airport Loop
2·0·5·0

THE ONTARIO PLAN
2,500 5,000
Source: The City of Ontario 2020
FT
10,000
Date: 1/5/26
1502

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 14
This page intentionally left blank.
1503

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -15

SPECIFIC PLAN
The existing roadway system, truck routes, transit service, and pedestrian facilities in the EBPSP study area are described below.

Existing Circulation System
State Route 60 (SR-60) is located approximately 2.2 miles north of the Specific Plan area and is accessible via the Grove Avenue on- and off-ramps. State Route 83 (SR-83) is located approximately 0.5 miles west of the Specific Plan area and is accessible via Ontario Ranch Road and Eucalyptus Avenue. Interstate 15 (I-15) is located approximately 4.5 miles east of the Specific Plan area and is accessible via the Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road on- and offramps or the Limonite Avenue on- and off- ramps.

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 access through the Specific Plan area in the north-south orientation.

Existing Truck Routes
Current City-designated truck routes within the Specific Plan area include Ontario Ranch Road, and Merrill Avenue in an east/west orientation, and Euclid Avenue and Archibald Avenue in a north/south orientation.

Existing Transit Services
The City of Ontario is currently served by Omnitrans, a public transit agency serving various jurisdictions within San Bernardino County. The following bus and transit facilities are located near the Specific Plan area:

Omnitrans Bus Route 83, located approximately 0.6 miles to the west along Euclid Avenue.

Omnitrans Bus Route 87, located approximately 1.8 miles to the north along Riverside Drive.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
There are limited pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area. Field observations indicated light pedestrian and bicycle activity in the area. ■
■
1504

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 16

3.17.3 Standards for Analysis

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to transportation if it would:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
d) Result in inadequate emergency access.

THRESHOLD GUIDANCE
VMT Thresholds
“City of Ontario Resolution Adopting Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds” (June 2020) outlines the methodology for VMT assessment for land use projects and defines adopted thresholds of significance for impact assessment, as shown below. This transportation impact assessment compares VMT generated by the Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP (proposed project) to VMT generated by the current TOP 2050 (approved project), reviewing total VMT and per capita VMT to provide a comprehensive assessment.

The Ontario thresholds of significance for use as part of the environmental review process under CEQA, as defined in the City’s VMT Impact Thresholds, are defined for General Plans and Specific Plans. The thresholds of significance are:

Project Threshold: Origin Destination (OD) Method VMT/SP. Any increase in the citywide average VMT per service population (VMT/SP) of the proposed project compared to the current TOP 2050 (approved project) would be considered a significant impact.

Cumulative Impact: Boundary Method Total VMT. Any increase in the total citywide daily VMT of the proposed project calculated using the Boundary Method compared to the current TOP (approved project) would be considered a significant impact. ■
■
1505

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -17
Multimodal Facility Impacts
A significant impact would occur to transit, bicycle, and/or pedestrian facilities if the project would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

METHODOLOGY
Policy Plan Amendment
The San Bernardino Traffic Analysis Model Plus (SBTAM+) was utilized to estimate VMT for the proposed project. The model has an updated base year land use that reflects a 2019 base year and a 2050 future year, consistent with the 2024 SCAG RTP/SCS. The future year land use datasets and roadway network in Ontario were updated to be consistent with a 2050 future year that reflects the buildout of the current TOP 2050 (approved project) and the proposed project, which includes all land use changes associated with the Policy Plan Amendment, including the EBPSP. Table 3.17-1, Approved TOP 2050 VMT, and Table 3.17-2, Proposed Project VMT, show the VMT of the approved project and proposed project, respectively, using 3 VMT methodologies (described below)—Project/Attraction (PA) VMT for informational purposes; VMT using the Origin-Destination (O-D) methodology for the Transportation (VMT/SP), Air Quality, Energy, GHG, and Noise sections; and Boundary method VMT to identify total VMT impacts under the City of Ontario VMT methodology.

Table 3.17-1 Approved TOP 2050 VMT
Scenario
Total Daily
VMT
VMT/Resident or
VMT/Employee VMT/SP
Origin-Destination VMT (Trucks + Autos) 27,526,298 — 38.74 Home-Based Production VMT (Residents) 5,087,850 12.37 — Home-Based-Work Attraction VMT (Employees) 6,551,999 21.90 — City Boundary VMT 11,416,710 — 16.07 Source: Appendix K1 (based on SBTAM+).

Note: The approved project scenario is based on a service population of 710,472 people (411,268 residents + 299,204 employees).
1506

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 18
Table 3.17-2 Proposed Project VMT
Scenario
Total Daily
VMT
VMT/Resident or
VMT/Employee VMT/SP
Origin-Destination VMT (Trucks + Autos) 28,279,218 — 38.80 Home-Based Production VMT (Residents) 5,444,093 12.73 — Home-Based-Work Attraction VMT (Employees) 6,660,586 22.13 — City Boundary VMT 11,758,292 — 16.13
Source: Appendix K1 (based on SBTAM+).

Note: The proposed project scenario is based on a service population of 728,776 people (427,741 residents + 301,035 employees).

Production/Attraction VMT
The Production/Attraction (PA) method for calculating VMT sums all weekday VMT generated by trips with at least one trip end in the study area by trip purpose. The PA method tracks trips with at least one trip end in the analysis area to/from their ultimate destination unless that destination is outside of the model boundary area. Productions are land use types that generate trips (residences), and attractions are land use types that attract trips (employment).

Productions and attractions are converted from person trips to vehicle trips for the purposes of calculating VMT for transportation impacts.

The PA method allows project VMT to be evaluated based on trip purpose (e.g., commute VMT), which is consistent with the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation’s (LCI) recommendations in a Technical Advisory (LCI 2018). PA matrices do not include truck trips or external trips that have one trip end outside of the model boundary, and therefore do not include these trips in the VMT estimates. This is not consistent with the LCI’s recommendations, which suggest full accounting of VMT.

Origin-Destination VMT
The O-D method for calculating VMT sums all weekday VMT generated by trips with at least one trip end in the study area and tracks those trips to their estimated origins/destinations within the model boundary. The O-D method is completed after the final loops of assignment in the travel demand model (after person trips have been converted to total vehicle trips). Origins are all vehicle trips that start in a specific traffic analysis zone, and destinations are all vehicle trips that end in a specific traffic analysis zone. The O-D method accounts for external and truck trips and therefore provides a more complete estimate of all VMT in the study area. This 1507

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -19
methodology is used to estimate VMT for the Air Quality, Noise, and Energy sections of this SEIR (see Appendix K1 for the Policy Plan Amendment and Appendix K2 for the EBPSP).2 Boundary Method VMT
The boundary method is the sum of all weekday VMT on a roadway network within a designated boundary. Boundary method VMT estimates VMT by multiplying the number of trips on each roadway segment by the length of that segment. This approach uses all trips, including those that do not begin or end in the designated boundary, and is another way to summarize VMT. This is the only VMT method that captures the effect of cut-through and/or displaced traffic. The boundary used in the VMT assessment is the Ontario city limits.

Specific Plan
The traffic modeling and forecasting was performed following the City’s TIA Guidelines. SBTAM+ was utilized to estimate VMT for the analysis scenarios. The SBTAM+ roadway network and socio-economic data within the City of Ontario were updated to be consistent with TOP, for the horizon year 2050. Outside of the City of Ontario, this model assumes datasets consistent with the 2024 SCAG Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) with a base year of 2019 and future year of 2050.

Socio-Economic Assumptions
The EBPSP site spans the southern half of two separate Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) (53653201 and 53669101). Socio-Economic Data (SED) was isolated into one TAZ (53653201) to ensure the overlapping residential-based uses (isolated into the other TAZ [53669101]) would not influence the EBPSP-level VMT assessments. Furthermore, the Policy Plan Amendment land use changes were also coded in the model to represent the With EBPSP conditions. SBTAM+ SED inputs include total change in forecasted households, residents, and employment that represent the No EBPSP and With EBPSP conditions.

Truck Forecasting and Model Post-Processing
While SBTAM+ is identified as the preferred tool to forecast VMT for transportation impact analyses, there are some limitations of the model that were accounted for following the model runs to improve accuracy and best reflect the EBPSP. Specifically, the truck model within SBTAM+ was overwritten to best reflect the detailed truck trip generation, distribution and 2 The air quality, energy, and GHG analyses also account for the recommendations of CARB’s Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC). Under the RTAC methodology, 100 percent of internal-to-internal trips and 50 percent of internal-to-external or external-to-internal trips are accounted for. RTAC forecasts are included in Appendix K1 (see Table 7, RTAC VMT Forecasts).
1508

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 20
assignment forecast that was prepared as part of the EBPSP Traffic Study Scoping Agreement (2025), which was determined as the most appropriate representation of the EBPSP.

In addition to the truck assignment, EBPSP truck VMT from SBTAM+ was reviewed to ensure that truck trip lengths accurately reflect the heavy vehicle distribution origins and destinations.

EBPSP truck trip lengths estimated in SBTAM+ were compared against statewide averages and were found to be underrepresenting truck VMT. Therefore, truck trip lengths were overwritten with City average truck trip length data extracted from the California Statewide Freight model to best estimate truck VMT.

As the EBPSP truck assignment was applied during post-processing, so was the accounting of the new City-wide truck routes. The net change in VMT was adjusted for trucks and autos between the future year no EBPSP truck routes and future year plus EBPSP truck routes. Since the latter prohibits trucks from operating along segments (i.e. Archibald Avenue between Merrill Avenue and SR-60, and Ontario Ranch Road Avenue between Euclid Avenue and Walker Avenue) trucks were rerouted, adding mileage to their journey. To calculate the net truck VMT increase, the total net increase in truck trips was multiplied by the average route net mileage increase for each route that would be impacted by the truck route prohibition. The auto backfill effect was calculated assuming one truck represents three Passenger Car Equivalents (PCE) at a 50 percent elasticity. Thus, auto trips would backfill onto more direct routes, now not allowable to trucks.

VMT Forecasts
VMT for the EBPSP using SBTAM+ is shown in Table 5.17-3, EBPSP VMT. Baseline EBPSP (year 2025) VMT was estimated by interpolating between VMT forecasted between the SBTAM+ base year model (year 2019) and future year model (year 2050). The City’s project-level and cumulative impact thresholds were then applied to appropriate metrics to understand the EBPSP’s effect on VMT.
1509

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -21
Table 3.17-3 EBPSP VMT
Scenario
Total
Daily VMT
VMT /
Employee VMT/SP
Year 2025
Origin-Destination VMT (Trucks + Autos) 134,223 — 84.43 Home-Based-Work Attraction VMT (Employees) 34,606 21.77 — City Boundary VMT 8,686,543 — 21.90
Year 2050
Origin-Destination VMT (Trucks + Autos) 132,565 — 83.39 Home-Based-Work Attraction VMT (Employees) 32,603 20.51 — City Boundary VMT 11,758,292 — 16.13
Source: Appendix K2.

Note: The EBPSP scenario is based on a service population of 1,590 people (0 residents and 1,590 employees).

EBPSP Traffic Impact Analysis
While SB 743 eliminated auto delay, level of service, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the sole basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA, a Traffic Impact Analysis was conducted for the EBPSP and is included as Appendix K3 to this Draft SEIR.

The purpose of the traffic study is to evaluate the potential circulation system deficiencies that may result when the EBPSP is developed and where circulation system improvements are needed to maintain acceptable levels of service consistent with the City’s General Plan level of service goals and policies. The results of the level of service (LOS) assessments for both Opening Year (2031) and Horizon Year (2050) traffic conditions are also summarized in Table 1-4 of Appendix K3. The traffic study included transportation infrastructure improvements recommendations to maintain Consistency with TOP 2050 mobility policies (see Table 1-5 and Table 1-6 in Appendix K3) and on-site circulation recommendations to maintain site access and acceptable peak hour operations for the EBPSP, which will be included as Conditions of Approval for the Specific Plan (see also Exhibits 1-5, 1-6, and 1-7 in Appendix K3). 1510

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 22

3.17.4 Relevant New and Modified General Plan Policies
The proposed project includes modifications to the following TOP 2050 policies related to transportation.

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

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

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

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

3.17.5 Environmental Impacts
2022 CERTIFIED EIR
The Certified EIR identified that the approved project is consistent with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and the performance and safety of such facilities and would not combine with other area projects to result in significant impacts to such facilities. Impacts associated with alternative transportation policies were identified as a less-than-significant impact. The Certified EIR identified that the approved project’s impacts on emergency response and evacuation are less than significant. The Certified EIR identified that the Mobility Element adequately addresses potentially hazardous conditions (sharp curves, etc.), potential conflicting uses, and emergency access.

The Certified EIR identified that the approved project would result in a significant cumulative impact for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a result of a substantial increase in population in the City. The Certified EIR includes Mitigation Measure TRA-1-PP (former MM T-1), which requires ■
■
■
■
1511

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -23
discretionary projects in the City to demonstrate compliance with the City’s VMT Guidelines; however, cumulative impacts were identified as a significant and unavoidable impact of the approved project.

PROPOSED PROJECT
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? The Certified EIR found that the recommended circulation plan of the approved project would comply with adopted policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation. The proposed project includes additional goals and policies to address alternative transportation systems.

Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning, includes a consistency analysis with SCAG’s Connect SoCal.

Policy Plan Amendment
The Policy Plan Amendment includes an update to the City network of truck routes to comply with AB 98. In addition, the Policy Plan Amendment includes minor updates to the City’s multipurpose trails and bikeways, as shown on Figure 5.17-3, Multipurpose Trails & Bikeway Corridor Plan. Transit
The proposed project does not include any changes to the Public Transit Plan as included in TOP 2050 (see Figure 3.17-2, Public Transit). The Public Transit Plan would continue to focus on providing efficient connectivity and integration via coordinated bus transfer centers and multimodal terminals. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with or obstruct the implementation and usage of transit.

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

Connect SoCal
TOP 2050 is consistent with Connect SoCal, as shown in Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning. The goals of the RTP/SCS focus on transit, transportation and mobility, and protection of the environment and health of residents.
1512

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 24
The proposed project is broadly consistent with the spirit of this plan because it encourages denser growth and more housing opportunities within a planned urban area and near existing and proposed transit, which is essential to the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Key goals and policies of the plan related to transportation were reviewed to verify consistency:

Mobility goals and policies focus on system preservation and resilience, complete streets, transit and multimodal integration, transportation system management, transportation demand management, technology integration, safety, and funding the system/user fees. The land use changes associated with the Policy Plan Amendment do not propose any transportation policies or conditions that would conflict with any of these policies. There is no proposal to expand roadways or any element that would conflict with regional transportation investment strategies. Lastly, the proposed truck routes aim to remove truck routes nearest to sensitive receptors, which tend to be areas of higher pedestrian activity, therefore resulting in improved safety. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with SCAG’s mobility goals and policies.

Communities goals and policies focus on Priority Development Areas, housing in the region, 15-minute communities, and equitable engagement and decision-making. The proposed project increases housing density and results in an increase in housing in Ontario, which is in sync with these goals and objectives. The proposed project also promotes “15-minute communities” as places with a mix of complementary land uses and accessible mobility options that align with and support the diversity of places (or communities) across the region. The proposed project supports the previous goals of TOP 2050 that promote accessibility and affordability to vulnerable communities. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with SCAG’s community goals and policies.

Environment goals and policies focus on sustainable development, air quality, clean transportation, natural and agricultural lands preservation, and climate resilience. The proposed truck routes (see Figure 2-9 in Chapter 2, Project Description) minimizes the number of people exposed to emissions along the City’s truck routes, thereby promoting local and regional efforts to improve air quality for vulnerable populations and sensitive receptors (as defined by AB 98 and SB 415). The land use changes associated with the Policy Plan Amendment do not propose any change to the transportation system or planning that would conflict with environmental policies. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with SCAG’s environmental goals and policies. ■
■
■
1513

CITY OF

MONTCLAIR
r

CITY OF
UPLAND
L ---- ..,..,._ ,w ---
~ W FOURTH ST o ~ --•illlli..,z -T- <
----- -~ -,-- § - ... - liliilii '•~ -..J- l ~
_.. ___ z_._.._ia!:""'~-
z ---- · .!l,....;.;,~;;.;... ... ~i- --.:.,,
w
~
z
0 VI
z
w
cc
VI
I
I
rt
l z
I -,.- ---r - .....

W MISS-ION BLVD I
UJ
~ W PHIL
z
~z I ..., I ~ ~ I
~ o I
VI z I
w
'T" ST ! l
W PHILA0ELPHIA ST ~

CITY OF CHINO
E El~HTH ST
I
w _ __ ,
~ \
' \
I
r - .. - _,_ - - - - E- HOLT AVE
.J
I
I
wl UJ I
~ · ~ f < I .,, I ~z l ~ I
. ~ ~ . < VI U
.,,I VI
I
- -- E PHILADELPH li ST
_______ ,.
'

CITY OF RANCHO

CUCAMONGA

E FOURTH ST
-
w
~
2 w
~ :c:
z I
I
I I
I I
I I I
-------~~-~------~~-~
VI

EASTVALE
---

EMPIRE BLVD

E SANTA ANA ST

E JURUPA ST
----
VI

CITY OF

FONTANA
County of
San Bernardino
County ol Riverside

JURUPA VALLEY

3.17 TRAFFIC
Figure 3.17-3
Multipurpose Trails & Bikeway
Corridor Plan
I.. ·1 Ontario City Boundary
I.. "I County Boundary
Rail Network
Existing Trail & Bike Network
- Multipurpose Trail / Bike Path (Class I)
Bike Lane (Class 11)
Bike Route (Class 111)
Proposed Trail & Bike Network
- - • Multipurpose Trail / Bike Path (Class I)
Bike Lane (Class 11)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class II)
• Bike Lane (Class 11}/Bike Route (Class Ill)
- - - Bike Boulevard (Class 111)
Bike Route (Class 111)
• - - • Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)
Additional Studies Required
2·0·5·0

THE ONTARIO PLAN
0 0 2,500 5,000
Source: The City of Ontario 2026
FT
10,000
Date: 2/27/2026
1514

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 26
This page intentionally left blank.
1515

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -27
Economy goals and policies focus on goods movement, broadband, universal basic mobility, workforce development, and tourism. The proposed truck routes (see Figure 2-9) prioritize environmental justice concerns by limiting exposure of sensitive receptors. The focused higher density of the Policy Plan Amendment, specifically in Ontario Ranch, broadens safe and efficient access to a range of mobility services that improve connections to jobs, education, and basic services. The proposed land use changes associated with the Policy Plan Amendment do not propose any change to the transportation system or planning that would conflict with economic policies. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with SCAG’s economy goals and policies.

Summary
As described above, the proposed project supports Connect SoCal 2024’s VMT-reduction goals.

The proposed project would not result in a new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts related to consistency with transit, bicycle, and pedestrian plans compared to the approved project. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
Circulation system and mobility plans and policies applicable to the EBPSP include SCAG’s Connect SoCal, San Bernardino County CMP, and the City of Ontario Policy Plan Mobility Element. An analysis of the EBPSP’s potential to conflict with these plans is presented below.

SCAG 2024-2050 RTP/SCS
SCAG’s Connect SoCal seeks to improve mobility, promote sustainability, facilitate economic development, and preserve the quality of life for the residents in the region. Table 3.11-1, Policy Plan Amendment Consistency with SCAG Connect SoCal, presented in Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning, of this SEIR, addresses the Specific Plan’s consistency with SCAG’s Connect SoCal.

As shown, the EBPSP would not conflict with any applicable 2024-2050 Connect SoCal policies.

The Specific Plan would contribute to a safe, multimodal network and would include roadway improvements to accommodate site access. Consistency with Connect SoCal illustrates consistency with goals set forth for the region. As demonstrated, implementation of the EBPSP would not conflict with the goals and policies of SCAG’s regional planning program.

San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan
The intent of the CMP is to provide the analytical basis for transportation decisions. Although implementation of the CMP was made voluntary by the passage of AB 2419, the CMP requirement has been retained in all 5 urban counties within the SCAG region. The goals of the San Bernardino County CMP are to:
■
1516

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 28
Goal 1. Maintain or enhance the performance of the multimodal transportation system and minimize travel delay.

Goal 2. Assist in focusing available transportation funding on cost-effective responses to subregional and regional transportation needs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Ontario Policy Plan Mobility Element
Table 3.11-3, EBPSP Policy Plan Consistency Analysis, presented in Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning, of this SEIR, addresses the Specific Plan’s consistency with the City of Ontario Policy Plan Mobility Element. Consistency with the City’s Mobility Element illustrates consistency with transportation goals set forth for the City. As demonstrated, implementation of the EBPSP would not conflict with the goals and policies of City of Ontario Policy Plan Mobility Element.

The EBPSP would also be consistent with the City-wide Active Transportation Master Plan, aiding in the development of planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 1517

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -29
Summary
As demonstrated above, the Specific Plan would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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.

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

New Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts not already previously disclosed. No mitigation is required.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Policy Plan Amendment
Table 3.17-4, VMT Comparison of Policy Plan Amendment to the TOP 2050, shows the results of the VMT impact assessment for both the project-level and cumulative VMT analysis. A significant impact would occur if the project VMT/SP (for the land use plan) exceeds the citywide average for service population under general plan buildout conditions. The project increases Origin-Destination VMT/SP (OD VMT/SP) and therefore would result in a significant transportation impact. For the cumulative scenario, a significant impact would occur if the project caused total daily VMT in the City to be higher than the no-project alternative under cumulative conditions. Since there would be a net increase in total citywide VMT associated with the proposed project (i.e., cumulative: City boundary VMT), the proposed project is also anticipated to result in a significant cumulative VMT impact. 1518

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 30
Table 3.17-4 VMT Comparison of Policy Plan Amendment to the TOP 2050 Scenario
TOP 2050
(Approved
Project)
Proposed
Project Difference Significant
Project-Level: O-D Method (VMT/SP) 38.74 38.80 0.06 Yes Cumulative: City Boundary VMT 11,416,710 11,758,292 341,582 Yes Source: Appendix K1.

The following are relevant policies of TOP 2050 that may contribute to reducing potential transportation impacts as a result of implementation of the proposed project. They include VMT-reducing policies, such as land use planning policies that shorten trips between where people live, work, shop and recreate, and bicycle, pedestrian, and transit policies that increase mobility options and reduce dependency on automobiles.

LU-1.1 Strategic Growth. We concentrate growth in strategic locations that help create place and identify, maximize available and planned infrastructure, and foster the development of transit.

LU-1.2 Sustainable Community Strategy. We integrate state, regional and local Sustainable Community/Smart Growth principles into the development and entitlement process.

LU-1.4 Mobility. We require development and urban design, where appropriate, that reduces reliance on the automobile and capitalizes on multi-modal transportation opportunities. (Refer to Mobility Element Policy M3-3)
CD-2.5 Streetscapes. We design new and, when necessary, retrofit existing streets to improve walkability, bicycling, and transit integration, to strengthen connectivity, and enhance community identity through improvements to the public right of way such as sidewalks, street trees, parkways, curbs, street lighting, and street furniture.

CD-2.6 Connectivity. We promote development of street patterns and pedestrian networks that create and unify neighborhoods, rather than divide them, and create cohesive and continuous corridors, rather than independent “islands” through the following means (Link to Mobility): 1) Local street patterns that provide access between subdivisions, within a neighborhood and discourage through traffic; 2) A local street system that is logical and understandable for the user. A grid system is preferred to avoid circuitous and confusing travel paths between internal neighborhood areas and adjacent arterials; and 3) Neighborhoods, centers, public schools, and parks that are linked by pedestrian greenways/open space networks. These may also be used to establish clear boundaries between distinct neighborhoods and/or centers.
■
■
■
■
■
1519

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -31
CD-3.1 Design. We require that pedestrian, vehicular, bicycle, and equestrian circulation on both public and private property be coordinated and designed to maximize safety, comfort, and aesthetics.

CD-3.2 Connectivity Between Streets, Sidewalks, Walkways, and Plazas. We require landscaping and paving to be used to optimize visual connectivity between streets, sidewalks, walkways, and plazas for pedestrians.

CD-3.4 Ground Floor Usage of Commercial Buildings. We create lively pedestrian streetscapes by requiring the location of uses, such as shopping, galleries, restaurants, etc., on ground floors adjacent to sidewalks.

CD-3.7 Transit Stops. We require transit stops be well lit, safe, appealing to, and accessible by pedestrians.

CE-1.12 Circulation. We continuously plan and improve public transit and non-vehicular circulation for the mobility of all, including those with limited or no access to private automobiles. (Refer to Mobility Public Transit)
M-1.4 Complete Streets. We work to provide a balanced context sensitive, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods and users of public transportation. We prioritize implementation of complete streets improvements in environmental justice areas to facilitate opportunities for residents to use active transportation systems.

M-1.6 Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. We will strive to reduce VMT through a combination of land use, transportation projects, and travel demand management strategies in coordination with development projects and public capital improvement projects.

M-2.1 Active Transportation. We maintain our Active Transportation Master Plan to create a comprehensive system of on-and off-street bikeways and pedestrian facilities that is safe, comfortable, accessible, and connect residential areas, businesses, schools, parks, and other key destination points.

M-2.2 Bicycle System. We provide off-street multipurpose trails and Class II bikeways as our primary paths of travel and use the Class III for connectivity in constrained circumstances.

When truck routes and bicycle facilities share a right of way we prefer Class I or Class IV bicycle facilities. We require new development to include bicycle facilities, such as bicycle parking and secure storage areas.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
1520

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 32
M-2.3 Pedestrian Walkways. We require streets to include sidewalks and visible crosswalks to promote safe and comfortable mobility between residential areas, businesses, schools, parks, recreation areas, and other key destination points. (Link to Community Design CD3-1) M-2.4 Network Opportunities. We use public rights of way and easements such as, utility easements, levees, drainage corridors, road rights-of-way, medians, and other potential options to maintain and expand our bicycle and pedestrian network.

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

M-3.3 Transit-Oriented Development. We may provide additional development-related incentives to those inherent in the Land Use Plan for projects that promote transit use and reduce vehicle miles traveled.

M-3.4 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Corridors. We work with regional transit agencies to implement BRT service and reduce vehicle miles traveled by targeting destinations and corridors with the highest number of potential riders.

M-3.5 Light Rail. We support the extension of the Metro Rail Gold Line to Ontario and will work to secure station locations adjacent to the Meredith site and at the proposed multimodal transit center.

M-3.6 Metrolink Expansion. We advocate expansion of Metrolink service to include the Downtown and the multimodal transit center.

M-3.7 High-Speed Rail. We encourage the development of high-speed rail systems that would enhance regional mobility in southern California and serve the City of Ontario.

M-3.8 Feeder Systems. We work with regional transit agencies to secure convenient feeder service from the Metrolink station and the proposed multimodal transit center to employment centers in Ontario.

M-3.9 Ontario Airport Metro Center Circulator. We will explore the development of a convenient mobility system, including but not limited to shuttle service, people mover, and shared car system for the Ontario Airport Metro Center. ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
1521

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -33
M-3.10 Multimodal Transit Center. We intend to ensure the development of a multimodal transit center near ONT airport to serve as a transit hub with amenities for transit riders, pedestrians, and bicyclists transitioning to local buses, BRT, the Gold Line, high-speed rail, the proposed Ontario Airport Metro Center circulator, and other future transit modes. We support locations for the multimodal transportation center that are within the Ontario Airport Metro Center Growth Area.

M-3.11 Transit and Community Facilities. We require the future development of community-wide serving facilities to be sited in transit-ready areas that can be served and made accessible by public transit. Conversely, we plan (and coordinate with other transit agencies to plan) future transit routes to serve existing community facilities.

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

Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant.

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

As shown in the table, the EBPSP would exceed the Citywide average for Service Population under TOP 2050 buildout conditions. Additionally, the total daily Citywide boundary VMT increases with the EBPSP. The Specific Plan is dominated by land uses that would potentially draw employees, visitors, and deliveries from a wide regional area rather than from nearby neighborhoods. As a result, many trips to and from the site could begin and end far from the Specific Plan area, which increases the miles traveled per trip. In addition, the area’s current development pattern and limited non-auto travel options mean most travel occurs by vehicle, ■
■
1522

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 34
and truck routing considerations can further extend travel distances by directing trucks to indirect routes. Further, because the EBPSP is employment-focused, the amount of vehicle travel associated with the site is spread over a smaller “service population,” which can make the VMT efficiency metric appear especially high.

Table 3.17-5 VMT Comparison of EBPSP to TOP 2050
Scenario
Citywide
(Approved
Project)
Year 2025 Scenario Year 2050 Scenario
EBPSP Significant EBPSP Significant
Project-Level:

O-D Method (VMT/SP)

38.74 84.43 Yes 83.39 Yes
Cumulative:

City Boundary VMT
11,416,710 8,686,543 No 11,758,292 Yes
Source: Appendix K1.

It is also noted that many of the EBPSP design features act to implement the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA)-recommended measures to reduce VMT, including:

CAPCOA Measure T-33 – Locate Project near Bike Path/Bike Lane. The Specific Plan area is located within a planned grid of multipurpose trails and bikeways, including proposed Class II bike lanes along Eucalyptus Avenue and parallel east–west streets, and proposed Class I multipurpose trail corridors on multiple north–south streets adjacent to the site. This integration with the City’s bikeway system is consistent with the intent of CAPCOA Measure T-33 and is expected to reduce EBPSP-generated VMT when compared to a similar employment project without such bikeway access. The dense spacing of planned Class I and Class II facilities around the site shortens bicycle travel distances to nearby residential neighborhoods and services, supports mode shift away from single-occupant vehicles, and therefore contributes to a net reduction in VMT per employee. While CAPCOA does not provide a specific, empirically derived VMT reduction factor for T-33, the EBPSP’s location and design clearly implement this measure and are reasonably expected to result in incremental VMT reductions.

CAPCOA Measure T-18 – Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements. The EBPSP includes a non-vehicular circulation system with continuous sidewalks, marked crossings, and pedestrian connections linking each Planning Area to Eucalyptus Avenue, New Public Street “A” and connections to parks and open space areas. These facilities are designed to provide direct, comfortable, and safe walking routes between building entries, parking areas, park areas, and nearby streets, which improves the practicality of walk trips for employees and visitors. By making it easier to walk within the site and to connect to adjacent uses, the EBPSP supports the shift away from drive alone vehicle trips for short commute, lunch, and ■
■
1523

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -35
other discretionary trips. As a result, the proposed pedestrian network is expected to reduce EBPSP-generated VMT compared to a comparable industrial project without these pedestrian improvements. CAPCOA Measure T-18 includes an empirical formula for estimating VMT reductions from enhanced pedestrian infrastructure; however, to maintain a conservative analysis and avoid introducing additional uncertainty related to input assumptions, the analysis does not quantify a numerical T-18 reduction. Instead, the VMT benefits of the EBPSP pedestrian improvements are acknowledged qualitatively.

CAPCOA Measure T-19 – Construct or Improve Bike Facility. Consistent with the intent of T33, the EBPSP’s non-vehicular circulation (sidewalks, multi-purpose trails, and Class II bikeways) is designed to directly connect employees and visitors to the City’s planned bikeway network identified in the General Plan. By tying each Planning Area to Eucalyptus Avenue and New Public Street “A,” which in turn connect to the broader system of Class I and Class II facilities in the Ontario Ranch area, the EBPSP provides a continuous, safe, and attractive bicycle and pedestrian network between surrounding neighborhoods and employment uses. This integrated network shortens trip distances for nearby residents, makes bicycle and walking trips a viable substitute for drive alone trips (particularly for commute, lunch, and other short discretionary trips), and is therefore expected to reduce VMT relative to a comparable industrial project without such facilities. CAPCOA Measure T19-A does include an empirical formula for estimating VMT reductions; however, to maintain a conservative analysis and avoid introducing additional uncertainty regarding input assumptions, the analysis does not quantify a numerical T-19-A reduction. Instead, the VMT benefits of the EBPSP’s network and its connections to the City bikeway system are acknowledged qualitatively.

CAPCOA Measure T-25 – Extend Transit Network Coverage. This measure will expand the local transit network by either adding or modifying existing transit service or extending the operation hours to enhance the service near a project area. Starting services earlier in the morning and/or extending services to late-night hours can accommodate the commuting times of alternative-shift workers. The EBPSP would construct a new bus stop along Grove Avenue at Eucalyptus Avenue to accommodate a future Omnitrans route serving the site and surrounding area. By providing a ready to use transit stop with appropriate frontage improvements, the EBPSP reduces the barriers for Omnitrans to implement or adjust service and shortens walk distances between employment uses and future transit. If a bus line is ultimately operated at this location, the stop would support a shift from drive alone commute and mid-day trips to transit, which would reduce VMT relative to a similar project without transit supportive infrastructure. However, because the decision to serve this stop and the level of future service are solely under the control of the transit agency and cannot be guaranteed, the analysis does not claim a quantitative VMT reduction under T-25. The VMT benefit of the constructed bus stop is therefore acknowledged qualitatively. ■
■
1524

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 36
As discussed above, CAPCOA Measures T-33, T-18, T-19-A, and T-25 are design features proposed as part of the EBPSP. Although no quantitative VMT reductions have been taken in the analysis, these features would implement CAPCOA measures aimed at reducing VMT. Despite these project design features of the EBPSP, the EBPSP would result in potentially significant project-level and cumulative VMT impacts. The Certified EIR identified less than significant impacts under the OD method (project-level) and significant impacts under the Boundary method (cumulative). The EBPSP would result in a new project-level impact compared to the approved project. However, the EBPSP would not result in a new or a substantial increase in magnitude of cumulative VMT compared to that identified in the Certified EIR.

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant.

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 projectlevel and cumulative VMT impacts.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The following mitigation measure was taken directly from the 2022 Certified EIR. Any modifications to the mitigation measure from the Certified EIR are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and underline for new, inserted text. The numbering of the mitigation measures has been updated for clarity, with the original mitigation number in the Certified EIR identified in parenthesis [Former MM].

Mitigation Measure TRA-1-PPA [Former MM T-1]: Prior to approval of discretionary projects subject to VMT reduction analysis, applicants shall demonstrate compliance with the City’s VMT Guidelines for CEQA assessment of VMT impacts. For projects with VMT per Service Population exceeding the County’s significance threshold, a mitigation plan shall be developed and implemented. Mitigation should consist of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures analyzed under a VMT-reduction methodology consistent with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Final Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (2021) and approved by the City of 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.
■
1525

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -37
Construct or Improve Bike Facilities: constructing new or enhancing a single existing Class I, II or IV bike facility that connects to a larger bike network.

Construct or Improve Bike Boulevards: implementing a Class III bike boulevard on a local or collector street that is one travel lane in each direction, has a design speed of 25 mph or less and a design volume of 5,000 ADT or less.

Expand Bikeway Networks: constructing a network of interconnected new Class I, II, or IV bike facilities.

Provide End of Trip Bicycle Facilities: constructing facilities that support cyclists such as bike parking, lockers, and showers.

Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments: funding infrastructure improvements such as traffic signal modifications and roadway signing and striping that are dedicated to improving transit travel times and reliability.

Transit Passes: proving discounted or free transit fare to a specific geographic area, population group, or to the general public.

Vanpool Program: providing groups of 5 to 15 people with direct shuttle service between their workplace and residence.

Carshare Program (conventional or EV): providing access to a shared fleet of on-demand vehicles for short-term use/rental. Best practice is to discount carshare membership and provide priority parking for carshare vehicles to encourage use of the service.

Bikeshare Program (conventional or EV): providing access to a shared fleet of on-demand bicycles for short-term use/rental. Best practice is to discount bikeshare membership and dedicate bikeshare parking to encourage use of the service.

Rideshare Program: providing access to and encouraging the use of a ridesharing platform or service. This could be an app, website, or other service that provides ride-matching coordination services.

Community-Based Travel Planning (CBTP): CBTP is a residential based approach to outreach, performed by trained advisors, that provides households within a targeted geographic area with customized information, ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
1526

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 38
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
New Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
The proposed project would generate a substantial increase in VMT per service population and a substantial increase in total VMT compared to the approved project, resulting in significant project-level and cumulative VMT impacts. Mitigation Measure TRA-1-PPA [Former MM T-1] would be applied to the project to apply VMT reducing measures. Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would require that discretionary project provide a mitigation plans that identify TDM measures that would be required. The City requires pedestrian scale improvements at the time of project approval and maintains a Multipurpose Trails and Bikeway Corridor Plan as part of TOP 2050 to ensure a connected system of bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The City does not operate regional transit service. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are available to reduce project or cumulative VMT impacts of the proposed project.

Specific Plan
Consistent with Certified EIR measure MM TRA-1-PPA, a VMT Mitigation Strategy Assessment has been prepared for the EBPSP, and is provided as Appendix K2 of this SEIR. As presented therein, many potential measures are already incorporated into the design of the Specific Plan.

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

Mitigation Measure TRA-1-SP: Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each tenant, the operator or tenant shall: 1) prepare and submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to the City for review, detailing strategies for reducing the use of single occupant vehicles by employees; and 2) provide written documentation to the satisfaction of the City that the TDM Program requirement is incorporated into any lease agreement for the site to ensure enforceability. The TDM Program shall include the following transportation measures recommended by California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and analyzed in the VMT Mitigation ■
1527

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -39
Strategy Assessment (see SEIR Appendix K2) as calculated pursuant to the CAPCOA Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity or other substantial evidence:

T-5 Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program. Employers within the EBPSP shall develop CTR programs to discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT.

T-7 Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Marketing. Materials shall educate employees about their travel choices to the employment location beyond driving such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT, including:
o Onsite or online commuter information services.
o Employee transportation coordinators.
o Onsite or online transit pass sales.
o Guaranteed ride home service.

T-8 Ridesharing Program. o Designating a certain percentage of desirable parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles.
o Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles.
o Providing an app or website for coordinating rides.

T-10 End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities. EBPSP land uses shall install and maintain end-of-trip facilities for employee use. End-of-trip facilities may include bike parking, bike lockers, showers, and personal lockers.

Significance After Mitigation
Policy Plan Amendment
VMT/SP and total VMT would increase under the proposed project compared to the approved project. Mitigation Measure TRA-1-PPA would reduce potential impacts for future development projects to the extent feasible. Future development projects consistent with proposed project would need to consider transportation demand management (TDM) measures consistent with ■
■
■
■
1528

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 40
those identified in the Mobility Element. TDM techniques include incentives to use transit; incentives to form carpools rather than drive alone; and making home, work, and shopping closer together to shorten travel distances. Project-level and cumulative VMT impacts under the proposed project would remain. Therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Policy Plan Amendment Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.

Specific Plan
VMT/SP and total VMT would increase under the EPBSP. Mitigation Measure TRA-1-SP, above, would reduce commute-related VMT by 7.2 percent. However, the City’s significance standard considers all trip types and does not isolate commute-related trips. Therefore, the 7.2 percent reduction applies only to a portion of the EBPSP’s total VMT and is not sufficient to fully mitigate the overall impact. Project-level and cumulative VMT impacts under the EBPSP would remain. Therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Specific Plan Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The 2022 Certified EIR found that circulation improvements under the recommended circulation plan would be designed to adequately address potential hazardous conditions, and potential conflicting uses.

Policy Plan Amendment
The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

The City of Ontario has adopted engineering standards to ensure consistency in the geometric design of their mobility facilities. Additionally, all plans undergo an extensive review process at the City to ensure consistency with these adopted standards. Given that all future projects will be subject to these reviews, this impact is less than significant. The proposed project would not result in a new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts related to safety hazards compared to the approved project
Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
Efficient and safe access within, and access to, the EBPSP land uses would be provided by the design concept, site access improvements, and site adjacent roadway improvements included as 1529

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -41
components of the Specific Plan. Driveways, on-site traffic signing and striping would be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the site. Sight distance at each access point would be reviewed to ensure conformance with City sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans.

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

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

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

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

New Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts not already previously disclosed. No mitigation is required.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The Certified EIR found that circulation improvements under the recommended circulation plan would be designed to adequately address inadequate emergency access. 1530

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 42
Policy Plan Amendment
The majority of the population growth associated with the proposed project would occur in Ontario Ranch. As identified in the City’s Roadway Classification map (see Figure 3.17-1), there are substantial improvements in transportation infrastructure planned to accommodate the increase in population in the City in the event of an emergency. The City has roadway classification standards in Policy M-1.1 that include roadway design standards as part of TOP 2050, precluding the construction of any unsafe features.

M-1.1. Roadway Design and Maintenance. We require our roadways to: 1) Comply with federal, state, and local design and safety standards; 2) Meet the needs of multiple transportation modes and users; 3) Handle the capacity envisioned in the City of Ontario Master Plan of Streets and Highways; 4) Be maintained in accordance with best practices; 5) Be compatible with the streetscape and surrounding land uses; and 6) Promote the efficient flow of all modes of traffic through the implementation of intelligent transportation systems and travel demand implementation strategies.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. A review of emergency access is included as part of the City’s Design Review process. According to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2018), interstate highways would serve as major emergency response and evacuation routes. Additionally, the fire department reviews all development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance. Since all future projects will undergo such reviews and requirements, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

Construction
All construction materials and equipment would be stored/staged within the Specific Plan area and would not interfere with emergency vehicles traveling adjacent to the site. Any construction activities that would occur within the public right-of-way and require a partial or full closure of a sidewalk or vehicle travel lane would require a traffic control plan that complies with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and that must be approved by City to ensure that emergency response is not adversely affected. ■
1531

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .17 -43
Operation
The types of traffic generated during EBPSP operations (i.e., passenger cars and trucks) would be compatible with the type of traffic observed along surrounding roadways under existing conditions and would not interfere with the circulation of emergency vehicles along public streets adjacent to the site. As discussed above, development plans would be reviewed and approved by the fire and police departments to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided throughout the site.

Based on the preceding, the potential for the EBPSP to result in inadequate emergency access is considered less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact TRA-4: The proposed project adequately addresses potentially inadequate emergency access.

New Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts not already previously disclosed. No mitigation is required.

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

The proposed project is consistent with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and the performance and safety of such facilities and would not combine with other area projects to result in significant impacts to such facilities. 1532

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
3 .17 TRA NSPO RTA TI O N
3 .17 - 44
The City of Ontario has adopted standards related to emergency accessibility. Additionally, the fire department reviews all development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance. Review of emergency access is also included as part of the City’s Design Review process.

Overall, because the proposed project would result in significant project-level and cumulative VMT impacts, cumulative impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. Cumulative Impacts: Implementation of the proposed project would result in significant cumulative impacts to transportation.

3.17.7 References
Fehr & Peers. 2026a. TOP Vehicle Miles Traveled Memorandum. (Appendix K1) Fehr & Peers. 2026b. EBPSP Vehicle Miles Traveled Memorandum. (Appendix K2) Ontario, City of. 2018. 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan.

SBCTA (San Bernardino County Transportation Authority). 2010, April. San Bernardino County Long-Range Transit Plan Final Report. Volume I. https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/longrange-transit-plan-2010/#:~:text=San%20Bernardino%20Associated%20Governments '%20Long,programming%20set%20by%20SB%20375.

SBCTA. 2016a. San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program. https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/congestion-management-plan-2016.

SBCTA. 2016b, December 19. Short-Range Transportation Plan (SRTP). https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/short-range-transportation-plan-srtp.

SBCTA. 2018, June. San Bernardino County Non-motorized Transportation Plan. https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/non-motorized-transportation-plan-2018.

SBCTA. 2019, August. SBCTA Points of Interest Pedestrian Plan. https://www.gosbcta.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/08/SBCTA-POI-PedestrianPlan.pdf.

SBCTA. 2021. San Bernardino Countywide Transportation Plan: Interim 2021 Update (Draft).

Introduction and Executive Summary. https://www.gosbcta.com/wp-content/uploads/ 2019/10/SBCTA_CTP_2021Update_ExecutiveSumFinal.pdf.
1533

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO
M ARCH 2 026 3 .18 -1

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Tribal cultural resources (TCR) include landscapes, sacred places, or objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP (proposed project) to impact TCRs in the City of Ontario compared to TOP 2050 (approved project) and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Potential impacts to other cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric, historic, archeological, and disturbance of human remains) are evaluated in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources.

The analysis in this section is based on the results of the Native American consultation conducted by the City in compliance with State Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52); a search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF); and a search of the California Historic Resources Information System. A complete copy of the records search is included as Appendix M1 of this SEIR.

Due to their sensitive and confidential nature, the maps and records of the California Historic Resources Information System search are omitted from the Draft EIR appendices. A compilation of Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) tribal consultation letter correspondence received by the City from Native American tribes is provided in Appendix M2.

The analysis for the EBPSP is also based on the “Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan Project” prepared by BFSA Environmental Services and considers both on-site and off-site impacts associated with the EBPSP (see Appendix E3).

3.18.1 Regulatory Framework

FEDERAL
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 regulates the protection of archaeological resources and sites which are on federal lands and Indian lands.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is a federal law passed in 1990 that provides a process for museums and federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items, such as human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony, to lineal descendants and culturally affiliated Indian tribes. 1534

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
3 .18 -2
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 coordinates public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect the nation’s historic and archaeological resources. The act authorized the National Register of Historic Places, which lists districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture.

Section 106 (Protection of Historic Properties) of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties.

Section 106 Review ensures that historic properties are considered during federal project planning and implementation. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent federal agency, administers the review process with assistance from state historic preservation offices.

National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the nation's official list of buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts worthy of preservation because of their significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The NRHP recognizes resources of local, state, and national significance which have been documented and evaluated according to uniform standards and criteria.

Authorized under the NHPA, the NRHP is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect historic and archeological resources.

The NHRP is administered by the National Park Service, which is part of the U.S. Department of the Interior.

To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria:

Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history
Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory Archaeological Resources Protection Act
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 regulates the protection of archaeological resources and sites on federal and Indian lands.
■
■
■
■
1535

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
M ARCH 2 026 3 .18 -3
American Indian Religious Freedom Act and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act recognizes that Native American religious practices, sacred sites, and sacred objects have not been properly protected under other statutes. It establishes as national policy that traditional practices and beliefs, sites (including right of access), and the use of sacred objects shall be protected and preserved. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is a federal law passed in 1990 that mandates museums and federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items—such as human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony—to lineal descendants or culturally affiliated Indian tribes.

STATE
California Public Resources Code
Archaeological resources are protected pursuant to a wide variety of state policies and regulations enumerated under the California Public Resources Code. Cultural resources are recognized as a nonrenewable resource and therefore receive protection under the California Public Resources Code (PRC) and CEQA.

PRC Sections 5097.9 to 5097.991 provide protection to Native American historical and cultural resources and sacred sites; identify the powers and duties of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC); require that descendants be notified when Native American human remains are discovered; and provide for treatment and disposition of human remains and associated grave goods.

California Health and Safety Code
The discovery of human remains is regulated by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states that:

In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation…until the coroner…has determined…that the remains are not subject to…provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible…. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and…has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall 1536

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
3 .18 -4
contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.

California Register of Historical Resources
Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the CRHR is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (PRC Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1). Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP and California Historical Landmarks numbered 770 and higher, are automatically included in the CRHR. Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) program, identified as significant in historical resources surveys, or designated by local landmarks programs, may be nominated for inclusion in the CRHR.

Resources eligible for listing include buildings, sites, structures, objects, or historic districts that retain historical integrity and are historically significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria:

1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;

2. It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history.

Resources nominated to the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to convey the reasons for their significance. Resources whose historic integrity does not meet NRHP criteria may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR.

California Senate Bill 18
Existing law provides limited protection for Native American prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, and ceremonial places. These places may include sanctified cemeteries, religious, ceremonial sites, shrines, burial grounds, prehistoric ruins, archaeological or historic sites, Native American rock art inscriptions, or features of Native American historic, cultural, and sacred sites.
1537

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
M ARCH 2 026 3 .18 -5
SB 18 was signed into law in September 2004 and went into effect on March 1, 2005. It placed new requirements on local governments for developments within or near “traditional tribal cultural places” (TTCP). Per SB 18, the law requires local jurisdictions to provide opportunities for involvement of California Native Americans tribes in the land planning process for the purpose of preserving traditional tribal cultural places. The Final Tribal Guidelines recommends that the NAHC provide written information as soon as possible but no later than 30 days after receiving a request to inform the lead agency if the proposed project is determined to be in proximity to a TTCP. The Final Tribal Guidelines recommends another 90 days for tribes to respond to a local government if they want to consult to determine whether the project would have an adverse impact on the TTCP. There is no statutory limit on the consultation duration.

Forty-five days before the action is publicly considered by the local government council, the local government refers action to agencies, following the CEQA public review time frame. The CEQA public distribution list may include tribes listed by the NAHC who have requested consultation or it may not. If the NAHC, the tribe, and interested parties agree upon the mitigation measures necessary for the proposed project, they are included in the project’s EIR.

If the lead agency and the tribe both agree that adequate mitigation or preservation measures cannot be taken, neither party is obligated to take action.

Per SB 18, a city or county is required to consult with the NAHC and any appropriate Native American tribe prior to the adoption, revision, amendment, or update of a its general plan.

Although SB 18 does not specifically mention consultation or notice requirements for adoption or amendment of specific plans, the Final Tribal Guidelines advises that SB 18 requirements extend to specific plans as well, because state planning law requires local governments to use the same process for amendment or adoption of specific plans as general plans (defined in Government Code sec. 65453). In addition, SB 18 provides a new definition of TTCP, requiring a traditional association of the site with Native American traditional beliefs, cultural practices, or ceremonies or the site must be shown to actually have been used for activities related to traditional beliefs, cultural practices, or ceremonies. (Previously, the site was defined to require only an association with traditional beliefs, practices, lifeways, and ceremonial activities.) SB 18 amended Civil Code Section 815.3 and adds California Native American tribes to the list of entities that can acquire and hold conservation easements for the purpose of protecting their cultural places.

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

Consultation with Native Americans
AB 52 formalizes the lead agency–tribal consultation process, requiring the lead agency to initiate consultation with California Native American groups that are traditionally and culturally 1538

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

Section 1(a)(9) of AB 52 establishes that “a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource has a significant effect on the environment.” Effects on tribal cultural resources should be considered under CEQA. Section 6 of AB 52 adds Section 21080.3.2 to the PRC, which states that parties may propose mitigation measures “capable of avoiding or substantially lessening potential significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource or alternatives that would avoid significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource.” Further, if a California Native American tribe requests consultation regarding project alternatives, mitigation measures, or significant effects to tribal cultural resources, the consultation shall include those topics (PRC Section 21080.3.2[a]). The environmental document and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (where applicable) shall include any mitigation measures that are adopted (PRC Section 21082.3[a]).
1539

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
M ARCH 2 026 3 .18 -7

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

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

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

LATE PREHISTORIC PERIOD (LATE HOLOCENE: 1,300 YBP TO 1790) Approximately 1,350 YBP, a Shoshonean-speaking group from the Great Basin region moved into San Bernardino County, marking the transition to the Late Prehistoric Period. This period has been characterized by higher population densities and elaborations in social, political, and technological systems. Economic systems diversified and intensified during this period, with the continued elaboration of trade networks, the use of shell-bead currency, and the appearance of more labor-intensive, yet effective, technological innovations. Technological developments during this period included the introduction of the bow and arrow between A.D. 400 and 600 and the introduction of ceramics. Atlatl darts were replaced by smaller arrow darts, including the Cottonwood series points. Other hallmarks of the Late Prehistoric Period include extensive trade networks as far reaching as the Colorado River Basin and cremation of the dead. 1540

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

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

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

Several villages might be allied under a paramount chief. Chiefly positions were of an ascribed 1541

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
M ARCH 2 026 3 .18 -9
status, most often passed to the eldest son. Chiefly duties included providing village cohesion, leading warfare and peace negotiations with other groups, collecting tribute from the village(s) under his jurisdiction, and arbitrating disputes within the village(s). The status of the chief was legitimized by his safekeeping of the sacred bundle, which was a representation of the link between the material and spiritual realms and the embodiment of power.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Gabrielino had exclusive access to soapstone, or steatite, procured from Santa Catalina Island quarries. This highly prized material was used for making pipes, animal carvings, ritual objects, ornaments, and cooking utensils. The Gabrielino profited well from trading steatite, since it was highly valued by groups throughout southern California. 1542

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

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

The bow and arrow were used for large game, while smaller game and birds were killed with curved throwing sticks, traps, and snares. Occasionally, game was communally hunted, often during mourning ceremonies. Earth ovens were used to cook meat, bones were boiled to extract marrow, and blood was either drunk cold or cooked to a thicker consistency and then 1543

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
M ARCH 2 026 3 .18 -11
eaten. Some meat and vegetables were sun-dried and stored. Food acquisition and processing required the manufacture of additional items such as knives, stone or bone scrapers, pottery trays and bowls, bone or horn spoons, and stirrers. Mortars, made of either stone or wood, and metates were also manufactured.

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

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

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

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

Mexico gained independence in 1822 and desecularized the missions in 1832, signifying the end of the Mission Period. By this time, the missions owned some of the best and most fertile land 1544

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

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

On July 19, 2025, the NAHC responded with a negative SLF search, indicating no record for the presence of Native American resources within the City of Ontario. The NAHC also provided a list of 24 Native American tribes or individuals to contact for further information with traditional lands or cultural places in San Bernardino County (see Appendix M1). 1545

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
M ARCH 2 026 3 .18 -13
The City of Ontario sent letters to the Native American contacts on August 19, 2025. The letters requested any information related to cultural resources or heritage sites within the City (see Appendix M2). The following summarizes all tribal letters received in response to the City’s invitations for AB 52/SB 18 consultation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.18.3 Standards for Analysis

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

3.18.5 Environmental Impacts
2022 CERTIFIED EIR
The Certified EIR identified impacts to prehistoric archeological resources, which include TCRs, as a potentially significant impact of the approved project. As part of the Certified EIR, the City of Ontario conducted tribal consultation pursuant to SB 18 to identify resources that may be of cultural value to California Native American tribes. Mitigation Measures TCR-1-PPA (former MM 5-3), TCR-2-PPA (former MM 5-4), TCR-3-PPA (former MM TCR-1), and TCR-4-PPA (former MM TCR-2) were incorporated into the Certified EIR to reduce impacts to TCRs to less than significant levels.
1547

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
M ARCH 2 026 3 .18 -15

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

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

The Policy Plan Amendment is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growth and development in the City and does not result in development in and of itself; however, future development as a result of the implementation of proposed project could include grading in portions of the City with sensitivity to TCRs. Though the proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to TCRs compared to the approved project, there is potential to uncover tribal cultural resources during construction, 1548

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Cahuilla Band of Indians
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council
Gabrielino/Tongva Nation
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
Quechan Indian Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
1549

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
M ARCH 2 026 3 .18 -17
Serrano Nation of Mission Indians
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
The outreach letters provided formal notification of the EBPSP, elicited information on Native American cultural resources that may be in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area, and offered formal consultation pursuant to AB 52/SB18.

Outreach responses received by the City are summarized below.

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

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

Quechan Indian Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation declined consultation.

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

The consultation period ended on November 17, 2025, with no tribes requesting formal consultation. Regardless, the Cultural Resources Study concluded that there is a potential for previously undiscovered archeological resources to exist within the Specific Plan area; this is a potentially significant impact. However, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant Impact TCR-1: Tribal cultural resources could be adversely impacted by grading activities associated with the Proposed Project.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The following mitigation measures were taken directly from the 2022 Certified EIR. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the certified EIR are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and underline for new, inserted text. The numbering of the mitigation measures has been updated for clarity, with the original mitigation number in the Certified EIR identified in parenthesis [Former MM].

Mitigation Measure TCR-1-PPA [Former MM 5-3]: Upon receipt of an application for a proposed project subject to CEQA and is within the City’s jurisdiction, the City’s representative shall consult with the relevant tribe(s)’ representative(s) to determine if the proposed project is within a culturally sensitive area to the tribe. If sufficient ■
■
■
■
■
■
1550

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. The protocols and stipulations that the developer, City, Tribes, and project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.
1551

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
M ARCH 2 026 3 .18 -19
At least 30 days prior to application for a grading permit and before any brush clearance, grading, excavation, and/or ground disturbing activities on the site, the developer shall retain a tribal cultural monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources.

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

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

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

2. Treatment and Final Disposition: The landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and nonhuman remains as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City of Ontario with evidence of same:
a. Accommodate the process for on-site reburial of the discovered items with the consulting Native American tribes or bands. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloging, basic analysis, other analyses as recommended by the project archaeologist and approved by consulting tribes, and basic recordation have been completed; all documentation should be at a level of standard professional practice to allow the writing of a report of professional quality;
b. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository in San Bernardino County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79, and therefore the resource would be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, 1552

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

Policy Plan Amendment Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant. 1553

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
M ARCH 2 026 3 .18 -21
Specific Plan
Implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-2-PPA, TCR-3-PPA, and TCR-4-PPA would preclude significant impacts to any tribal cultural resources, in the event such resources are discovered within the Specific Plan area. Additionally, Mitigation Measure TCR-2-PPA would also ensure the notification requested by Kizh Nation is conducted.

Specific Plan Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

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

Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

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

3.18.7 References
BFSA (BFSA Environmental Services, Inc.). 2026, January. Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan Project. (Appendix E3) SCCIC (South Central Coastal Information Center). July 16, 2025. Record Search Results for The Ontario Plan 2050 Policy Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. 1554

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.18 TRIBAL CULT URAL RES OURCES
3 .18 -22
This page intentionally left blank.
1555

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

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

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

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

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

Riverside County Department of Waste Resources
Electricity Southern California Edison
Natural Gas Southern California Gas Company
Telecommunications OntarioNet, AT&T, Frontier, Spectrum, Earthlink Fiber
1556

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

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

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

3.19.1 Regulatory Framework

FEDERAL
Water
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act, the principal federal law intended to ensure safe drinking water to the public, was enacted in 1974 and has been amended several times since then. It authorizes the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set national standards for drinking water, called the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, to protect against both naturally occurring and human-made contaminants. These standards set enforceable maximum contaminant levels in drinking water and require all water providers in the United States to treat water to remove contaminants, except for private wells serving fewer than 25 people. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) conducts most enforcement ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
1557

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

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

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

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

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

Stormwater
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Under the NPDES program, all facilities that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States are required to obtain an NPDES permit. Requirements for stormwater discharges are also regulated under this program. The NPDES permit regulates municipal and industrial 1558

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

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

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

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

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

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014
On September 16, 2014, a three-bill legislative package was signed into law collectively known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The Governor’s signing message states “a central feature of these bills is the recognition that groundwater management in California is best accomplished locally.” Under the roadmap laid out by the legislation, local and regional authorities in medium and high priority groundwater basins must form groundwater sustainability agencies (GSA) that oversee the preparation and implementation of groundwater sustainability plans (GSP). The City of Ontario is part of the Chino Basin, an adjudicated basin which is exempt from many requirements of SGMA including the need to prepare a GSP. 1559

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

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

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

Residential developments consisting of more than 500 dwelling units.

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

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

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

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

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

Project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required for 500 dwelling units.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
1560

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

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

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

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

The outdoor residential and commercial water use standards are established as landscape efficiency factors (LEF) and become progressively more efficient over time, with an LEF for residential and commercial account of 0.80 until 2035, at which time it decreases to 0.63 until 2040, and then establishes a LEF for residential outdoor accounts of 0.55 and a LEF for commercial outdoor accounts of 0.45 after 2040. The water loss standard is the maximum allowable “real” water loss measured in gallons per connection per day for each water ■
■
■
■
1561

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 9 -7
purveyor’s service area. Real losses are defined as the volume of annual leakage from the water purveyor’s distribution system.

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

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

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

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

The City of Ontario complies with the State’s current MWELO and has implemented landscape development standards. Developers are required to submit landscape plans and complete water efficient landscape worksheets prepared by a certified landscape architect prior to the start of construction.
1562

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

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

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

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

Recycled Water Regulations
Planning and implementing water recycling projects entail numerous interactions with these regulatory agencies prior to project approval. The SWRCB, specifically the Division of Drinking Water, establishes the statewide effluent bacteriological and treatment reliability standards for recycled water uses in CCR, Title 22, Division 4, Environmental Health. Title 22 establishes standards for each general type of use based on the potential for human contact with recycled water. The SWRCB is responsible for establishing and enforcing requirements for the application and use of recycled water. Permits are required from the RWQCB for a water recycling operation. As part of the permit application process, applicants are required to demonstrate that the proposed recycled water operation will not exceed the ground and surface water quality objectives in the basin management plan and that the operation is compliant with Title 22 requirements.
1563

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 9 -9
California Health and Safety Code: California Safe Drinking Water Act The California Health and Safety Code (HSC) addresses water issues primarily through the California Safe Drinking Water Act. The Act establishes a regulatory program enforced by Division of Drinking Water to ensure the safety of public drinking water systems. The SWRCB adopts primary and secondary drinking water standards and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) develops public health goals (PHG). Public water systems are required to test their water for contaminants and notify customers if standards are exceeded or certain notification levels are met. The California HSC also establishes accreditation procedures for environmental laboratories, programs to certify operators of water treatment plants and water distribution systems, and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to assist small water systems serving disadvantaged communities.

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

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

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

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

0.25 inch of rainfall. In June of 2022, additional emergency water conservation regulations were enacted prohibiting the irrigation of nonfunctional turf at commercial, industrial, and institutional accounts, and the implementation of conservation actions under Level 2 of urban water suppliers’ WSCPs. As of June 5, 2024, the emergency regulations expired. 1564

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CEQA analysis cannot rely on “paper water.” The EIR must discuss why the identified water should reasonably be expected to be available. Future water supplies must be likely rather than speculative.
■
■
■
1565

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

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

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

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

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

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

The SWRCB has delegated authority to 9 RWQCBs to enforce these requirements within their regions. The Santa Ana RWQCB (Region 8) issues and enforces NPDES permits in the portion of San Bernardino County that includes Ontario. NPDES permits allow the RWQCB to regulate where and how waste is disposed, including the discharge volume and effluent limits of waste and the monitoring and reporting responsibilities of the discharge. The RWQCB is also charged with conducting inspections of permitted discharges and monitoring permit compliance. ■
■
■
1566

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

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

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

SWRCB General Industrial Permit
The Statewide General permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities, Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ and amended by 2015-0122-DWQ (2018) implements the federally required stormwater regulations in California for stormwater associated with industrial activities that discharge to Waters of the United States. This regulation covers facilities that are required by federal regulations or by the RWQCBs to obtain an NPDES permit. Dischargers are required to eliminate non-storm water discharges, develop SWPPPs that include BMPs, conduct monitoring of stormwater runoff, and submit all compliance documents via the SWRCB’s SMARTS program SWRCB Trash Amendment
On April 7, 2015, the SWRCB adopted an amendment to “Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California” to control trash. In addition, “Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California” added “Part 1, Trash Provisions.” Together, they are collectively referred to as the "Trash Amendments." The Trash Amendments provide statewide consistency for the RWQCBs in their regulatory approach to protect aquatic life and public health beneficial uses, reduce environmental issues associated with trash in State waters, and focus limited resources on high-trash-generating areas (SWRCB 2015). 1567

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

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

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

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

Mandatory Commercial and Multifamily Residential Recycling Requirements AB 341 (Chapter 476) set a statewide solid waste diversion goal of 75 percent by 2020. AB 341, which was passed in 2011 and took effect July 1, 2012, mandates recycling for businesses 1568

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identify construction methods employed to reduce the amount of waste generated. ■
■
■
■
1569

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

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

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

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

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

Stormwater
San Bernardino County Regional MS4 Permit
The Santa Ana RWQCB regulates stormwater discharges through separate MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) permits for each of the three counties in the Santa Ana River watershed (Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino) since the 1990s. The City is currently subject to the requirements of the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit (Order No. R8-2010-0036, NPDES Permit No. CAS618036). The RWQCB is in the process of revising the MS4 permit to include Orange County, Riverside County, and San Bernardino County under one regional permit covering all counties and cities in the watershed (Santa Ana RWQCB 2025). ■
1570

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

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

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

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

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

LOCAL
Water
City of Ontario Water Master Plan
The City of Ontario Water Master Plan (WMP) was prepared by AKM Consulting Engineers to document a multi-year capital improvement program to maintain the City’s water utility infrastructure in a sound operable condition and to meet the level of service expectations of the 1571

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

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

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

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

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

Recycled water system in the Ontario Ranch service area Recycled water to the Creekside conversion project areas Conversion of large irrigation meters/users to recycled water Conversion of parks and schools to recycled water
Conversion of current agricultural land to recycled water ■
■
■
■
■
1572

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Ontario Water Connection and Water Usage Fees
The City imposes water connection fees and water usage fees in order to maintain and expand the water supply infrastructure that supplies potable and recycled water to residential and nonresidential customers. The rate structure has 2 components: a Readiness-to-Serve charge, 1573

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Ontario Capital Improvements Program
The Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) regularly updates its CIP to prepare and budget for upcoming infrastructure improvements across a five-year planning horizon. The Engineering Department also prepares a budget for upcoming infrastructure improvements over a 5-year planning period.
1574

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Ontario Municipal Code
The City of Ontario Municipal Code includes various directives that pertain to utilities as codified in Title 6, Sanitation and Health:
■
■
■
■
■
■
1575

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 8C, Recycled Water Use. The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures, specifications, and limitations on the development and operation of recycled water facilities and ■
■
■
■
1576

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The City receives its water supply from:
■
1577

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

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

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

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

Groundwater purchased from San Antonio Water Company.

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

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

Overlying Non-agricultural Pool, representing area industries.

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

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

The City is also entitled to water rights due to groundwater recharge with stormwater and recycled water in the Chino Basin, and the City has rights to store water in the Chino Basin. As of ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
1578

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

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

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

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

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

Other Purchased Water
The City also purchases water from the San Antonio Water Company (SAWCo), which delivers domestic and irrigation water to a variety of shareholders. The City has an entitlement of 600 AF based on the active share entitlements. SAWCo’s water supply sources include surface water from San Antonio Canyon, water from the San Antonio tunnel, and groundwater sources from the Chino Basin, Six Basins, and Cucamonga Basin. Most of SAWCo’s water supplies are obtained from groundwater produced in the Cucamonga Basin. In 2024, the City purchased 496 AF of water from SAWCo, which is approximately 1.2 percent of its total water supply (OMUC 2025). 1579

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recycled Water
The City’s recycled water system is an important component of its total water supplies. In 2024, the City obtained 9,994 AF from IEUA, which is approximately 25 percent of the total water supply (OMUC 2025). Recycled water is received from IEUA’s water recycling plants RP-1 and RP--5, and then distributed through the City’s purple pipe system. The recycled water received from IEUA is used for industrial uses, landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, and golf course 1580

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

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

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

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

Potable Water Facilities
The OMUC provides water service to residents, businesses, and other users in the City, including the Specific Plan area. As previously stated above the City’s water supply sources include:
groundwater pumped from the Chino Basin; treated groundwater from the Chino Basin produced by the Chino Basin Desalter Authority; treated, imported water purchased from MWD 1581

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regional Water Recycling Plant #5 (RP-5). This WWTP is in Chino and serves Chino, Chino Hills, and Ontario. The plant has a current capacity of 16.3 MGD, which will increase to 22.5 MGD with its planned expansion project that is currently under construction. Wastewater treated by this facility is either discharged to Chino Creek, delivered to industrial users, or pumped to basins for groundwater recharge.
■
■
1582

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cucamonga Channel. This channel and a number of its tributary systems convey runoff from the central portion of the City. The regional SBCFCD storm drain systems that are tributary to Cucamonga Channel are:
■
■
1583

O HILLS
C
Y OF
TCLAIR
Y OF
OF
ND

CITY OF UPLAND

CITY OF

FONTANA

CITY OF CHINO

CITY OF RANCHO

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

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

CITY OF

EASTVALE

CITY OF

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

ONTARIO

INTERNATIONAL

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 0 2,500
Source: Fuscoe 2021
5,000
FT
10,000
Date: 3/3/2022
1584

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 30
This page intentionally left blank.
1585

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Plan
The existing topography within the Specific Plan area is relatively flat with a north-to-south sheet flow drainage pattern. The Specific Plan area is located within three City of Ontario Master Drainage Plan areas, including Area XII-1, Area XIII-1, Area XIV-1 and Area XIV-2. Existing storm drain infrastructure within the Specific Plan area includes portions of Eucalyptus Avenue (24-inch and 36-inch). Additional lines are located south of the Specific Plan area within Campus Avenue (60-inch), Bon View Avenue (102-inch), and Grove Avenue (120-inch). ■
■
■
■
•
•
•
•
•
1586

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 32

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

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

3.19-4, Landfills Serving the City of Ontario.
1587

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

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

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

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

Specific Plan
The City collects solid waste from residential, commercial, and industrial facilities, including the Specific Plan area. Based on data reported to CalRecycle, a large majority (approximately 76 percent in 2019) of the City’s solid waste disposed of at landfills is transported to the El Sobrante Sanitary Landfill in the City of Corona at 10919 Dawson Canyon Road (CalRecycle 2025a)
Solid waste generated during the operation of the Specific Plan is anticipated to be collected by the City of Ontario and is anticipated to be hauled to either Badlands Sanitary Landfill or El Sobrante Landfill. As shown in Table 3.19-4, the Badlands Sanitary Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 5,000 tons per day with a remaining capacity of 4,900,000 cubic yards and the El Sobrante Landfill is permitted to receive 16,054 tons of solid waste per day with a remaining capacity of 121,083,583.
1588

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 34

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

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

3.19.3 Standards for Analysis

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to public services if it would:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
1589

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Water Demand
The Certified EIR found that the approved project would increase water demand beyond projections in the City of Ontario’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for 2040– 1590

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stormwater
The Certified EIR determined that potential future development under the approved project would increase impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff, potentially causing higher peak 1591

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

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

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

Other Utilities
The Certified EIR determined that the approved project would expand electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure. Overall compliance with State laws, the City’s municipal code, and the approved project policies would reduce impacts due to the expansion of energy and telecommunications infrastructure. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.
1592

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 38

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

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

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

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

Water Infrastructure
To accommodate needed infrastructure expansion and improvements, the City has prepared a WMP and CIP. It also requires development impact fees and has construction requirements based on an evaluation of existing and projected water demands. The potable water demand 1593

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Increases in water service costs, which will provide an incentive for additional water-saving practices and the use of recycled water, which is less costly, for nonpotable uses. ■
■
■
■
1594

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy ER-1.3 Conservation and Sustainable Water Supply. We work with regional water providers and users to conserve water and ensure sustainable local water supplies as more frequent droughts reduce long term local and regional water availability Policy ER-1.4 Supply-Demand Balance. We require that available water supply and demands be balanced.

Policy ER-1.5 Water Resource Management. Environmental justice areas are prioritized as we coordinate with local agencies to protect water quality, prevent pollution, address existing contamination, and remediate contaminated surface water and groundwater.

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

The 2020 UWMP states that there are sufficient water supplies through 2045 to meet projected demands in normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry years through 2045. Although the proposed project at buildout is estimated to generate a 3 percent increase in water demand compared to the 2020 UWMP using conservative water demand factors, new State requirements as listed above and City policies and code requirements would result in enhanced water efficiency and conservation. Applying these measures to the proposed project water demand estimates would result in total water demand below the projections in the 2020 ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
1595

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

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

The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, impacts to water infrastructure and water demand are less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

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

Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Animal shelter water demand assumed to be 100 percent of wastewater generated from the proposed facility. Animal kennel wastewater generation rate from Los Angeles County Sanitation District (2025). 1596

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

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

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

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

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

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

As described in the City’s 2020 UWMP, the City has adequate supplies to serve 100 percent of its customers during normal, dry year, and multiple dry year demand through 2045 with projected population increases and future development projects. Also, the City has the flexibility to increase groundwater production from the Chino Basin and increase the amount of imported water in wet and normal years. Completion of a new ion exchange treatment facility in 2024 that treats groundwater from two existing City groundwater wells would help ensure that the City’s need for safe drinking water is met. The rest of the City’s water supplies are purchased from various sources. The OMUC Water Master Plan and Recycled Water Master Plan are currently being updated. The EBPSP water infrastructure would be consistent with the master plans at the time of project approval, with final sizing and design determined upon submittal of development plans.
1597
, - ----PA 7------
0PEN SPACE

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

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

OPEN SPACE l l" 14.00AC.

PA3

BUSINESS PARK

18.21 AC.

PA6

BUSINESS PARK

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

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

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPP L EMENTAL EIR
·8 0 ~ 27 5 550 Feet
Source: T&B 2025 Date: 02/24/2026
1598

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 44
This page intentionally left blank.
1599
PA 1 PA2
t: BUSINESS PARK BUSINESS PARK

7.70AC. 18.33 AC.
s:=
PA4 PAS

BUSINESS PARK BUSINESS PARK

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

14.00AC.

PA3

BUSINESS PARK

18.21 AC.
-
co
PA6

BUSINESS PARK

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

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

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
G
0 ~ 27 5 550 Feet
Source: T&B 2025 Date: 02/24/2026
1600

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 46
This page intentionally left blank.
1601

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -47
Although the EBPSP would result in new water connections, these connections would be part of the construction phase evaluated throughout this SEIR. The construction of the water lines necessary to serve the Specific Plan would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed throughout this SEIR. Impacts would be less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

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

New Mitigation Measures
No new mitigation measures are necessary.

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

The proposed project would result in an overall increase in the number of residential dwellings and nonresidential square footage compared to the approved project. The breakdown for the increases in wastewater flows is provided in Table 3.19-7, Projected Wastewater Flow Rates. 1602

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

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

Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

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

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

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

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

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

Policy ER-1.8 Wastewater Management. We require the management of wastewater discharge and collection consistent with waste discharge requirements adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
■
■
■
1603

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes: MGD = millions of gallons per day

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

2. The RP-5 Liquids Expansion to 30 MGD and Biosolids Facility will be substantially completed by June 30, 2026. RP1 Liquids Treatment Recovery is anticipated to start FY 28/29; the project will recover liquids treatment capacity to 40 MGD.
1604

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Plan
As part of the Policy Plan Amendment being processed in conjunction with the EBPSP, a Policy Plan designation would be processed for the Specific Plan area. The Policy Plan land use designation would be changed from Medium Density Residential (with an Affordable Housing Overlay) (MDR-AH), Mixed Use (with an Affordable Housing Overlay) (MU-BC-AH), and Open Space–Parkland (OS-R) to Business Park (BP) and Open Space–Parkland (OS-R). Using the wastewater demand factors provided in the City’s 2024 Water Demand and Sewer Flow Factors Technical Memorandum, the previous wastewater demand for the project and the new wastewater demand for the project were calculated, as shown in Table 3.19-9, Projected Wastewater Flow Rates for Specific Plan Area.
1605

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

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

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

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

Construction of sewer lines would occur within dedicated public easements/right-of-way or within the boundaries of the Specific Plan. Sewer system improvements would be designed and constructed consistent with City requirements. Final sizing of utility mains shall be dependent on hydraulic studies done at the time of development. Through the use of connection fees and agreements, the City maintains and expands its sanitary sewer system as necessary and ensures that new developments pay their fair-share costs. TOP 2050 policies will ensure that sewer 1606

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

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

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

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact USS-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities which would cause a significant impact.

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

New Mitigation Measures
No new mitigation measures are needed.

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

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

Therefore, in this area and other portions of the City that are not exempt, all future projects would be required to install stormwater treatment measures to ensure that post-project runoff does not exceed pre-project runoff for the two-year, 24-hour storm event. This would also minimize the potential for increases in peak runoff from newly developed sites. 1607
-----
PA7

PEN SPACE

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

M2 M3

BUSINESS PARK BUSINESS PARK
PA 1

BUSINESS PARK

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

BUSINESS PARK

18.19AC.

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

BUSINESS PARK

37.76AC.

I
(!)

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

BUSINESS PARK

37.71 AC.

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

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

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPP L EMENTAL EIR
·8 0 ~ 27 5 550 Feet
Source: T&B 2025 Date: 02/24/2026
1608

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 54
This page intentionally left blank.
1609

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

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

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

Policy ER-1.6 Urban Run-off Quantity. We encourage the use of low impact development strategies, including green infrastructure, to intercept run-off, slow the discharge rate, increase infiltration, and ultimately reduce discharge volumes to traditional storm drain systems.

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

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

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

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

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

Each future project in the OMC and Ontario Ranch would be required to comply with the City’s storm drain policies and the MS4 permit. This would require the preparation of hydrology reports and drainage plans for review and approval by the City to ensure that there are no adverse impacts to the City’s storm drain system with the addition of stormwater from the project sites. Also, the developers would need to prepare a WQMP that addresses stormwater runoff and requires the construction of stormwater treatment facilities for temporary on-site retention of stormwater runoff. These requirements would minimize the amount of stormwater runoff from potential future development in these areas. Revenue from the City’s development impact fees are used to fund infrastructure projects, including storm drain improvements. And ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
1610

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

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

Compliance with the City’s policies and programs that ensure adequate infrastructure and the regulatory provisions in the MS4 permit that limit runoff from new development would ensure that implementation of proposed would not result in significant increases in runoff that would contribute to the construction or expansion of new storm drains beyond what is already planned. In addition, the City would continue to repair, rehabilitate, and upgrade the storm drain system through implementation of the CIP program, and potential future development would be required to pay storm drainage fees per the City’s municipal code. Therefore, impacts with respect to stormwater infrastructure would be less than significant. The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

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

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

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 1611
L __ J
<<
PA4

BUSINESS PARK

18.19 AC.

EBPSP Boundary
Flow Direction
Point of Connection
3_6"
PA2

BUSINESS PARK

18.33 AC.

PAS

BUSINESS PARK

37.76AC.
- ■
-
-

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

PA3

BUSINESS PARK

18.21 AC.

PA6

BUSINESS PARK

37.71 AC.
---~••-~------

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

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
G
0 ~ 27 5 800 Feet
Source: T&B 2025 Date: 01/29/2026
1612

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 58
This page intentionally left blank.
1613

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 3.19-10 Year 2050 Forecast Electricity Consumption Area
Electricity Usage, GWh per Year
Approved Project Proposed Project Net Change
Nonresidential 2,859 2,906 47
Residential 816 861 45
Total 3,674 3,766 92
Note: GWh = gigawatt=hours
1614

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

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

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

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

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

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

New and replacement buildings in compliance with these standards would generally have greater energy efficiency than existing buildings. It is anticipated that each update to the 1615

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 1616

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

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

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

New Mitigation Measures
No new mitigation measures are needed.

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

Specific Plan
Connections to other utilities, such as telecommunications and fiber optic networks, are available in the vicinity as shown in Figure 3.19-7, EBPSP Fiber Optics Plan. Infrastructure supporting telecommunications services associated with the EBPSP would be provided and installed in compliance with all State and local regulations. Telecommunication services for EBPSP would be similar as for the City, and would include OntarioNet, AT&T, Spectrum, Xfinity, Frontier, T-Mobile, and others. Dry utilities internal to the Specific Plan area would be installed underground in conjunction with the development in accordance with applicable public utility standards and specifications and to the satisfaction of the Ontario City Engineer. 1617
I :s
,q: "'
ft:l~ o
a:
©
I
I
opr:s~CE OPr:S~cE I I l -- OPEN SPACE I

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

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

18.19 AC. 37.76AC. 37.71 AC.

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

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

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPP L EMENTAL EIR
·8 0 ~ 27 5 550 Feet
Source: T&B 2025 Date: 01/29/2026
1618

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 64
This page intentionally left blank.
1619
PA7

OPEN SPACE

8.05 AC.

PA 1

BUSINESS PARK

7.70AC.

PA4

BUSINESS PARK

18.19 AC.

PAS

OPEN SPACE

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

37.i6AC.

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

BUSINESS PARK

18.MAC.

PA6

BUSINESS PARK

37.ilAC.

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

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPP L EMENTAL EIR
·8 0 ~ 27 5 550 Feet
Source: T&B 2025 Date: 01/29/2026
1620

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 66
This page intentionally left blank.
1621

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -67
Construction of any other utility network connections would occur within dedicated public easements/ right-of-way or within the boundaries of the Specific Plan. All connections would be designed and constructed consistent with City/purveyor requirements. The locations of other lateral connections, transformers, switches, pull boxes, and dry utility manholes would be determined at the time buildings are positioned and uses are established in each planning area in conjunction with implementing development. Although the EBPSP would result in new utility connections, these connections would be part of the construction phase evaluated throughout this SEIR. The construction of utility connections necessary to serve the Specific Plan would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed throughout this SEIR. Impacts would be less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact USS-5: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities which would cause a significant impact.

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

New Mitigation Measures
No new mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Policy Plan Amendment
As discussed under Impact (a), the proposed project would increase potable and recycled water demand compared to the approved project by approximately 1,317 AFY and 68 AFY, respectively. Total water demand at buildout would be approximately 76,112 AFY, representing an approximately 3 percent increase over the 73,688 AFY projected for 2040 and 2045 in the City’s 2020 UWMP and a 2 percent increase over the approved project (74,728 AFY). 1622

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

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

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

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

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

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

As described in the City’s 2020 UWMP, the City has adequate supplies to serve 100 percent of its customers during normal, dry year, and multiple dry year demand through 2045 with projected population increases and future development projects. The City has the flexibility to increase groundwater production from the Chino Basin during drought conditions and increase the amount of imported water in wet and normal years. Implementation of the proposed EBPSP will not require new water treatment facilities and there will be sufficient supplies to serve this project and future development within the City. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 1623

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IEUA continually invests in upgrades and expansion of their wastewater treatment facilities, as documented in the Ten-Year Sewer Capital Forecast report (IEUA 2025c). Over the next 10 years, 1624

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is sufficient capacity for the wastewater providers to serve the EBPSP without exceeding existing and future wastewater demands. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 1625

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

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

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

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

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

Note: PPD = pounds per day; TPY = tons per year
As shown in this table, the proposed project would generate an additional 30,146 tons per year (TPY) of solid waste from residents and 4,687 TPY from employees. This would result in a net increase in solid waste generation at buildout of the proposed project of 34,833 TPY. 1626

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Plan
Solid waste generated during the operation of the Specific Plan land uses is anticipated to be collected by the City of Ontario and is anticipated to be hauled to either the El Sobrante Landfill ■
■
■
1627

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

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

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

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

The EBPSP’s estimated solid waste generation represents 0.13 percent of the El Sobrante Landfill’s daily capacity and 0.42 percent of the Badlands Sanitary Landfill daily capacity; as such, the Specific Plan would not contribute significantly to the daily throughput. Additionally, consistent with CALGreen, at least 65 percent of non-hazardous construction waste would be diverted from landfills through recycling, salvaging, or reuse. The EBPSP has also committed to providing sufficient space for storage and collection of green waste, organic waste, and recyclables, acting to help reduce solid waste generation. Accordingly, the potential for the EBPSP to generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure is considered less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact USS-8: Implementation of the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, and would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

Mitigation Measures 1
2,939,000 SF x 4.34 lbs/SF =12,755,260 lbs 2
12,755,260 lbs x 1 ton/2000 lbs = 6,377.63 tons 3
2,939,000 SF x 1.42 lbs/100sf per day = 41,733.80 lbs per day 1628

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moreover, the EBPSP would implement conventional land uses and would not establish uses or activities that would conflict with or obstruct local, State and federal solid waste management regulations. All solid waste generated by the EBPSP would be collected and disposed of as part of the City’s municipal waste stream. In this latter regard, solid waste management services are 1629

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND S ERVI CE S YSTE MS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .19 -75
provided throughout the City including collection and transfer of refuse, green waste, and bulky items. Recycling services are also provided. The potential for the EBPSP conflict with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste is considered less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact USS-9: The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

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

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

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

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

Overall, cumulative water demands would neither exceed planned levels of supply nor require building new water treatment facilities or expanding existing facilities beyond what is currently planned. In addition, future development would be required to pay connection fees, which would offset the costs of system maintenance and capital upgrades to support the new 1630

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

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

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

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

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

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

STORM DRAINAGE
The area considered for cumulative impacts is the Chino Creek and the Middle Santa Ana River subwatershed. Other projects in this area would increase impervious areas, thus increasing runoff and flows into the storm drain systems. Within San Bernardino County, other projects would also be required to prepare hydrology and hydraulic studies in accordance with the County Hydrology Manual and analyze stormwater flows that result from the 100-year storm event to ensure that the capacities of the storm drain systems are not exceeded. Additionally, future projects would be required to comply with the MS4 permits applicable to those 1631

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, cumulative impacts are less than significant. 1632

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CEC. 2025b. Natural Gas Consumption. Accessed November 21, 2025. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity -data/california-energy-consumption-dashboards-1.
1633

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IEUA. 2025c. Ten-Year Sewer Capital Forecast: Fiscal Year 2024/2025. https://www.ieua.org/ wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Ten-Year-Sewer-Capital-Forecast-FY-2024-2025.pdf. 1634

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

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

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

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

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

Ontario. 2012c. Sewer Master Plan Update. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/Master%20Plan%20- %20Sewer.pdf
Ontario. 2012d. Master Plan of Drainage. https://content.ontarioca.gov/ sites/default/files/2025-01/Master%20Plan%20-%20Storm%20Drain.pdf.

Ontario. 2017. Resolution No. 2017-027. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/ migrated-files/Standard%20Conditions%20of%20Approval%20 %E2%80%93%20April%2018%2C%202017.pdf.

Ontario. 2020a. Draft Water Master Plan Update.

Ontario. 2020. Recycled Water Master Plan.

Ontario. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.

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

Ontario. 2024b. Mandatory Recycling Programs.
https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/migrated-files/Ontario-Files/OntarioWaterWise/IWPM%2520-%25203.26.2024.pdf PlaceWorks. 2025. Ontario Municipal Utilities Company, Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment. (Appendix L2)
1635

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SWRCB. 2025b. Storm Water Program: Trash Implementation Program. Accessed November 22, 2025. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/ trash_implementation.html.
1636

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .19 U TI LI TI ES A ND SE RVI CE S YSTE MS
3 .19 - 82
This page intentionally left blank.
1637

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO
MARCH 2026 3.20-1

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

3.20.1 Regulatory Framework

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

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

NFPA 1141, Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land Development in Wildlands NFPA 1142, Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting NFPA 1143, Wildland Fire Management
NFPA 1144, Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations
■
■
■
■
■
1638

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Responsibility Areas
CAL FIRE designates Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) as authorized under California Government Code Sections 51175, et seq. FHSZs may be designated Very High, High, or Moderate. CAL FIRE considers many factors when designating FHSZs, including fire history, existing and potential vegetation fuel, flame length, blowing embers, terrain, and weather patterns for the area. CAL FIRE designates FHSZs in 2 types of areas depending on which level of government is financially responsible for fire protection. 1639

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

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

Building Design Standards
The California Building Code (CBC), Part 2 of 24 CCR, identifies building design standards, including those for fire safety. It is effective statewide, but a local jurisdiction may adopt more restrictive standards based on local conditions under specific amendment rules prescribed by the State Building Standards Commission. Commercial and residential buildings are plan checked by local city and county building officials for compliance with the CBC and any applicable local edits. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC include the installation of sprinklers in buildings and other facilities; the establishment of fire-resistance standards for fire ■
■
1640

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

California Public Utilities Commission
In 2007, wildfires in southern California were ignited by overhead utility power lines and aerial communication facilities near power lines. In response, the California Public Utilities Commission began considering and adopting regulations to protect the public from fire hazards posed by overhead power lines and nearby aerial communication facilities. The commission published a fire threat map—under Rulemaking 15-05-006, following procedures in Decision 17- 01-009, revised by Decision 17-06-024—that adopted a work plan for the development of a utility high-fire-threat district where enhanced fire safety regulations in Decision 17-12-024 apply (CPUC 2025). The fire regulations require electrical utilities to:
1641

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LOCAL
The Ontario Plan 2050
The Safety Element of TOP 2050 includes nine sections: 1) Seismic and Geologic Hazards, 2) Flood Hazards, 3) Fire and Rescue Hazards, 4) Noise Hazards, 5) Wind-Related Hazards, 6) Hazardous Materials and Waste, 7) Law Enforcement, 8) Emergency Management, and 9) Energy Resiliency. Chapter 3, Fire and Rescue Hazards, analyzes the City’s risk from wildfires and structural fires as well as its firefighting capabilities, water supply, roadway standards, and emergency evacuation routes. This chapter contains specific requirements for complying with the CBC and CFC, maintaining sufficient fire services, maintaining an effective emergency notifications system, water supply redundancy, and fire prevention through environmental design.
■
■
■
■
■
■
1642

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.20.2 Existing Conditions

POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
Wildfire Background
The term “wildfire” refers to fires that usually result from the ignition of dry grass, brush, or timber. Historically, wildfires commonly occurred in areas that are characterized by steep or ■
■
1643

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

Power lines can ignite wildfires several ways, including:

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

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

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

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

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

CAL FIRE estimated in 2017 that there were about three million housing units in California in FHSZs and potentially at risk from wildland fire—that is, just over 20 percent of all housing units in the state (CAL FIRE 2018).
■
■
■
■
1644

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

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

According to the California Office of Emergency Services, a WUI is defined as any area where structures and other human development meet or intermingle within wildland vegetation (Cal OES 2023). According to CAL FIRE, the WUI is subdivided into the “interface” zone (housing adjacent to wildland vegetation, but not mingled with it), the “intermix” zone (where houses and wildland vegetation directly mingle), and the “influence” zone (areas of wildfire-susceptible vegetation surrounding the other zones). The interface and intermix zones carry the highest risk 1645

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

Table 3.20-1 Historic Wildfires in and Surrounding Ontario Year Fire Name Acres Burned
1970 FPD #92 499
1974 Sunnyslope Fire 1,819
1979 Millie Fire 1,996
1979 Los Sarranos Fire 171
1980 Owl Fire 18,332
1988 Texas Fire 12,095
1990 Webb Fire II 339
1990 Yorba Fire 7,883
1996 Union Fire 269
1996 Philadelphia Fire 1,834
1998 Leroy Fire 171
1646

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

Fuel
Native habitats and vegetation communities are mostly absent throughout Ontario. According to Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of this Draft SEIR, natural vegetation in Ontario consists of California walnut woodland, Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub, Southern California arroyo chub/Santa Ana sucker stream, southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, southern sycamore alder riparian forest, and southern willow scrub (CDFW 2025). Each type of vegetation contributes to fire hazard severity to varying degrees. The qualities of vegetation that directly influence fire risk include fuel type and size, loading, arrangement, chemical composition, and dead and live fuel moisture, which contribute to the flammability characteristics of the vegetation. Grass and brush fuel types react quickly to changes in weather such as low humidity or high wind speeds. Fires in areas covered by this vegetation type can spread quickly in gusty wind conditions. Low humidity, high wind, and fuel buildup conditions can also lead to crown fires in woodland fuel types, which can be fast moving and difficult to suppress. 1647

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

Human Actions
Most wildfires are ignited by human action, the result of direct acts of arson, carelessness, or accidents. Many fires originate in populated areas along roads and around homes and are often 1648

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

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

OFD operates 11 fire stations throughout the City, including the Ontario International Airport fire station. Throughout the 11 fire stations there are ten 4-person paramedic engine companies, four 4-person truck companies, an 8-person aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) station, a fire investigation supervisor, and 2 battalion chiefs (OFD 2025).

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

Primary emergency access and evacuation routes in the City of Ontario include State Route (SR-) 60, which traverses the City from west to east; SR-83, which extends from south to north through the western portion of the City; Interstate (I-) 10, which runs west to east across the northern portion of the City; and I-15, which extends south to north along the eastern portion of the City. These highways and a network of local arterial and collector roadways that connect to them, provide the City’s primary evacuation routes.
1649

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

3.20.3 Standards for Analysis

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that, “If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,” the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to wildfire if it would:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.
1650

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

As documented in the 2022 Certified EIR, Policy M-1.1, Roadway Design and Maintenance, ensures that all City roadways comply with applicable federal, State, and local safety standards; provide adequate multimodal access; and are designed to handle capacities identified in the City’s Master Plan of Streets and Highways. This policy also requires maintenance consistent with best practices and promotes efficient traffic flow through intelligent transportation systems and travel demand management strategies. Emergency access and circulation consistency are further ensured through the City’s design review process, during which the Ontario Fire 1651

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Plan
The proposed Specific Plan involves adjustments to land use designations and roadway improvements consistent with federal, State, and local design and safety standards, acting to improve emergency circulation in the area. The proposed project would not, however, introduce new roadways or modify existing ones in a manner that would impede emergency vehicle 1652

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

EBPSP Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

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

New Mitigation Measures
Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. b Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? The 2022 Certified EIR found that implementation of the approved project would not exacerbate wildfire risks. The City of Ontario lies outside of CAL FIRE’s State Responsibility Area and contains no areas designated as Very High FHSZs. Consequently, fire risk within the planning area is predominantly urban in nature, associated with localized ignition sources rather than wildland conditions.
1653

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CD-2.8: Safe Design. We incorporate defensible space design into new and existing developments to ensure the maximum safe travel and visibility on pathways, corridors, and ■
■
■
■
1654

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, the proposed EBPSP would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to the approved project impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 1655

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

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

Development under the proposed Policy Plan would be subject to the most recent version of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, which have more stringent requirements for new development than previous versions of the code. Additionally, implementation of Policies S-3.8, S-3.9, S-8.5, and CD-2.8 would directly reduce wildfire and emergency-related risks. These policies collectively promote fire-resilient development and reduce the potential for secondary hazards such as flooding or slope instability following fire events. 1656

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

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

New Mitigation Measures
No impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required. 1657

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

Development under the amended Policy Plan would also remain subject to the most recent California Building Code and California Fire Code standards. These requirements ensure proper site drainage, erosion control, and flood protection, and therefore reduce the potential for downslope or downstream flooding, landslides, or other hazards associated with runoff or postfire slope instability. Accordingly, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to the approved project and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR, and wildfire-related impacts would remain less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 1658

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant Impact WIL-4: Implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CAL FIRE. 2018. California’s Forests and Rangelands 2017 Assessment. https://34c031f8-c9fd4018-8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/calfire-website/what1660

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ontario, City of. 2018. 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan.
1661

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

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

USGS. 2018, November 13. New Post-wildfire Resource Guide Now Available to Help Communities Cope with Flood and Debris Flow Danger. https://www.usgs.gov/center -news/post-wildfire-playbook?qt-news_science_products=1#qt-news_science_products. 1662

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

3.20 WI LDFIRE
3 .20 -26
This page intentionally left blank.
1663
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4- 1

4. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

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

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

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

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

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

An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for 1664

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

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

4.2 FACTORS CONSIDERED WHEN DEVELOPING

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact CUL-2 (PPA + EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project could impact archeological resources in the City.
■
■
■
1665

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact GHG-1 (PPA + EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in GHG emissions compared to the approved project and would not achieve the carbon neutrality threshold of AB 1279.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
1666

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

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

Impact NOI-1 (PPA): Construction activities associated with buildout of the Policy Plan Amendment would result in intermittent, temporary increases in noise levels at sensitive receptors due to construction activities. Construction of the EBPSP would not exceed applicable thresholds or significantly increase ambient noise levels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.3.1 Alternative Development Areas Outside of the City CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. The key question and first step in the analysis is whether any of the significant effects of ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
1667

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.3.3 Alternative Housing Element Sites Alternative
The City received several NOP comment letters on land use and planning impacts as a result of areas in the Ontario Ranch where high density residential (HDR) land uses are proposed. The 1668

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

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

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

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

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

4.4 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS
The following alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives that have the potential to feasibly attain most of the objectives of the proposed 1669

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

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

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

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

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

The TOP 2050 designates the Specific Plan area for Medium Density Residential (MDR), MixedUse (Eucalyptus/Chino Airport) (MU-BC); and Open Space Parkland (OS-C). Buildout under these ■
■
■
■
1670

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Plan
Similar to the EBPSP, the existing on-site agricultural uses would be removed from the Specific Plan area under this alternative. The City of Ontario no longer has land designated for agricultural use, and impacts associated with the implementation of the EBPSP, including the conversion of grazing land and Prime Farmland to a non-agricultural use, would not result in impacts not already disclosed. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would result in the same impacts to agricultural resources that would occur from implementation of the EBPSP. 1671

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

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

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

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

Operational activities associated with either the EBPSP or this alternative would result in emissions of ROGs, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Emissions calculated for the EBPSP under the No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 are shown in Table 4-2, EPBPSP No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 Air Pollutant Emissions.
1672

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.5.6 Energy
Policy Plan Amendment
As identified in Section 3.6, Energy, this alternative would result in similar energy impacts. In general, impacts to energy use under this alternative would be slightly reduced as compared to the proposed project as development would be reduced, and would be less than significant. 1674

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

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

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

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

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

4.5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Policy Plan Amendment
As identified in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would result in 3 percent emissions increase above the current 2050 TOP. As a result, this alternative would result in lesser impacts compared to the proposed project, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
1675

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

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

4.5.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Policy Plan Amendment
In both this alternative and proposed project, land uses throughout the City would be required to comply with existing federal, state, and local regulations governing use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Structures would be required to comply with building standards in the California Building Code and the California Fire Code. The proposed project would also be within the same development footprint as the current TOP 2050. Impacts would be the same as proposed project and would be less than significant. 1676

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

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

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

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

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

4.5.11 Land Use and Planning
Policy Plan Amendment
This alternative would leave the current TOP 2050 in place. As a result, there would not be a need to upzone parcels within Ontario Ranch to High Density Residential (HDR). Because the changes to the land use plan would replace areas planned for residential use with nonresidential uses, the loss in residential capacity must be offset by increasing the residential 1677

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.5.13 Noise
Policy Plan Amendment
Construction and operational noise impacts would be the same as the proposed project under this alternative. Like the proposed project, construction activities under this alternative could occur close to sensitive receptors, and impacts would be significant. This alternative would have similar operational noise impacts. Therefore, noise impacts would be the same under this alternative in comparison to the proposed project and would be significant (construction noise). 1678

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Plan
Buildout under the no project alternative would allow for up to 2,195 residential units and 1,632,143 square feet of non-residential land uses. Under TOP 2050, on-site population was estimated to be 6,335 and employment opportunities were estimated to be 3,126. As such, under this alternative, on-site employees would increase by 1,536 employees when compared to the EBPSP’s estimated 1,590 employees. As shown in Table 3.14-7, SCAG estimated a total of 95,500 housing units and 187,700 jobs in 2050 and the TOP 2050 estimated a total of 411,268 residents, 129,551 housing units, and 296,204 jobs in 2050. Buildout of the Specific Plan area as forecast under the Current TOP would be consistent with the City’s and SCAG’s growth projections. Nevertheless, growth under this alternative would be consistent with the City’s and SCAG’s growth projections, and impacts would be similar and less than significant. 1679

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.5.17 Transportation
Policy Plan Amendment
As identified in Section 3.17, Transportation, this alternative results in a slight decrease in total VMT and VMT per service population (VMT/SP) compared to proposed project. As a result, this 1680

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -1 8
alternative would reduce the project’s significant VMT impact; however, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Specific Plan
Using the assumptions from the TOP 2050 EIR for the site (2,195 residential units and approximately 1.6 million square feet of non-residential mixed use) the trip generation that would be expected under the No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 was developed and compared to the EBPSP, as shown in Table 4-4, EBPSP No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050. As shown, traffic under this alternative would increase by 17,378 trips when compared to the EBPSP. Given the increase in trip generation, it can reasonably be expected that the No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would also increase VMT. Therefore, VMT impacts would be greater than the EBPSP and would remain a significant and unavoidable impact.

Table 4-4 EBPSP No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 Trip Generation Land Use
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Actual Vehicle Business Park (ITE 770) 1,225 269 1,494 368 901 1,269 16,016 Internal Capture -14 0 -14 -17 -17 -34 -406
Multi-Family Residential
(ITE 220) 216 684 900 708 434 1,142 13,632
Internal Capture 0 -14 -14 -17 -17 -34 -406
Total Trips 1,427 939 2,366 1,042 1,301 2,343 28,836
EBPSP Trips 696 249 945 448 750 1,198 11,458
Net Change 731 690 1,421 594 551 1,145 17,378

4.5.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Policy Plan Amendment
Impacts to tribal cultural resources would primarily be associated with potential ground disturbance and development of previously undisturbed areas. Development under proposed project and this alternative would be similar, as the TOP 2050 and proposed project would have the same development footprint. Mitigation measures for the protection of tribal cultural resources would be applicable to this alternative. Additionally, both the proposed project and this alternative would comply with federal and state regulations pertaining to the protection and preservation tribal cultural resources. Therefore, impacts to potential tribal cultural resources would be similar to the proposed project and would be less than significant. 1681

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4 - 19
Specific Plan
The No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would result in a similar potential to adversely affect buried tribal cultural resources as the EBPSP, since the development impact area would be the same. As with the EBPSP, this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Potential impacts to tribal cultural resources under this alternative would be similar to those associated with the EBPSP.

4.5.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Policy Plan Amendment
This alternative would result in a decrease in population compared to TOP 2050; therefore, the impact on the City’s infrastructure systems would be reduced, including the demand on water supply. Overall, impacts would be reduced under this alternative compared to the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant.

Specific Plan
Like the EBPSP, the No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would implement all necessary onsite and off-site utilities and service infrastructure system improvements. In general, residential uses and commercial uses have greater water and sewer demands compared to business park uses. Based on the increased scope and intensity of development under this alternative, demands for utilities and services under this alternative would be increased. However, no significant impacts would result from either the EBPSP or this alternative

4.5.20 Wildfire
Policy Plan Amendment
The City of Ontario is not in a very high fire hazards severity zone. Additionally, the development footprint of the TOP 2050 and proposed project are the same. As a result, this alternative would result in similar risk associated with wildfire events. Overall, this alternative would have similar impacts compared to the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant.

Specific Plan
According to the City’s 2023 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), no high fire severity zones exist within the City, nor does the City have any wildland-urban interface areas. The No Project Alternative/Current TOP 2050 would result in a similar development impact area to the EBPSP and would therefore result in similar potential for wildfire. The impacts related to wildfire would be less than significant for both the EBPSP and this alternative. 1682

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -2 0

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

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

As compared with the EBPSP, this alternative would not meet the following objectives to the same extent due to the change in the proposed land uses from business park to residential and mixed-use:

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

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

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

4.6 TRUCK ROUTE SCENARIO 3 ALTERNATIVE
In summer 2025, the City conducted outreach and initiated an evaluation of its existing truck routes, which evaluated changes to truck routes in northern Ontario, including in the Original Model Colony. Changes in southern Ontario were evaluated as part of the Policy Plan Amendment concurrent with land use changes. The City received comments regarding heavy ■
■
■
1683

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4 - 21
truck traffic passing by residential areas, especially along Ontario Ranch Road and Archibald Avenue. Specific issues identified by the public from truck travel include noise, vibration, and air quality impacts on homes and schools; safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists; road damage from heavy vehicles; and the need for better enforcement of truck routes. Based on feedback from the public, the City identified four truck routes concepts for Ontario Ranch.

Figure 2-9, Proposed Truck Routes, identifies the proposed truck routes selected by the City to move forward for the Policy Plan Amendment and to address the requirements of AB 98.

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

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

4.6.1 Aesthetics
In this alternative, the entire City would be developed in the same areas as TOP 2050 but with truck routes dispersed across the Ontario Ranch area. The City’s Municipal Code identifies development standards to ensure quality development in the City. Aesthetic impacts would be similar to the proposed project and would be less than significant.

4.6.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
In this alternative, the City would be developed in similar areas as the proposed project. The alternative truck routes would be on existing roadways within the Ontario Ranch area and would have similar impacts to Farmland (City) and lands currently under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, impacts on agriculture and forestry resources would be similar to the proposed project and would be less than significant.
1684

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -2 2

4.6.3 Air Quality
The proposed project results in increases in diesel particulate matter (DPM) concentration and health risk along some truck route in Ontario Ranch as a result of changes to the City’s truck routes in accordance with AB 98. While these changes are designed to reduce the number of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, there are some truck routes that would experience an increase in trucks when compared to the current TOP. Under this alternative, trucks would be dispersed on several north-south and east-west truck routes, including Archibald Avenue. Because Archibald Avenue would remain a truck route, localized concentrations of air pollutants would be slightly reduced at some sensitive receptors, in particular along Ontario Ranch Road, compared to the proposed project. Localized impacts associated with the revisions to the truck routes would be similar and would remain less than significant.

Regional emissions would be the same as the proposed project because the changes to the truck routes would not generate new truck trips or warehouses that have the potential to generate additional area and stationary sources of air pollutant emissions, which cumulative contribute to health risk impacts in the air basin. Therefore, like the proposed project, implementation of this alternative would be the same and also result in significant and unavoidable impacts regarding consistency with the AQMP, cumulatively considerable net increase of pollutants for which the project region is in nonattainment, and exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. In comparison to the proposed project, this alternative would have similar, significant and unavoidable impacts.

4.6.4 Biological Resources
Under this alternative, biological resource impacts would be the same as the proposed project.

A number of special status plant species and special status wildlife species are known to occur within or immediately adjacent to the City or are known to occur in the region based on historical data. Federal and state regulations require development projects to assess and mitigate potential biological resources within a project site. This alternative would be within the same footprint as the proposed project. Mitigation measures identified for the proposed project would be applicable to this alternative. Therefore, impacts on biological resources would be the same as the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
1685
Truck
Propo
--
a••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
._ __ __ I
I
I
--~ I ~
(lJ "' ::,
,: ::,
C ~ "' <l:
~ 0
C: ·2
-~ B <: C
::, <l: 0 C: :::,: <J) "'
--- --
I ~~
1 I ~-----,----- ~
I ~ I
I
I -
.,
:,
C:
l
31 3
w
-
Holt Boulevard
City of Ontario
! ------~----===---==-1l,"'--..::::i _____ .. ~
Chino Avenue
City of Chino
C:
>
ta
Edison Avenue
r .. ::,
1 C
ell
E
'ii
Merrill Averiue
-
Riverslde Drive
Ontario Ranch Road
Llmonlte Avenue
I
'
I
Fourth Street
-
- Alrport Drive
--
I
- --
City of Eastvale
--
I
I
,.

4. ALTERNATIVES
Figure 4-1
Truck Route
Scenario 3 Alternative
c:::J EBPSP Boundary
Truck Routes
- City Trruck Routes
Adjacent Agency Truck Routes
- State DOT Network
Proposed Changes
- Truck Route Removal
- - Truck Route Addition
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0~ Miles
Source: Fehr & Peers 2025 Date: 01/21/2026
1686

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -2 4
This page intentionally left blank.
1687

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4 - 25

4.6.5 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources impacts are primarily associated with potential ground disturbance and development of previously undisturbed areas, or impacts to potential historic structures (building additions, demolition, etc.). Development under this alternative would be the same as the proposed project because the development footprint would be the same. The alternative truck routes would be on existing roadways within the Ontario Ranch area. Mitigation measures for the proposed project would be applicable to this alternative and would mitigate potential impacts to archeological resources; however, like the proposed project, this alternative would have the potential to impact historic buildings as a result of redevelopment. Therefore, impacts to potential cultural resources would be the same as the proposed project and would remain significant and unavoidable.

4.6.6 Energy
This alternative would result in the same energy use compared to the proposed project as in does not change buildout as compared to the proposed project. In general, impacts to energy use under this alternative would be the same as the proposed project and would be less than significant.

4.6.7 Geology and Soils
As with proposed project, individual development projects under this alternative would be required to prepare site-specific geotechnical investigations to evaluate seismic, liquefaction, ground settlement, paleontological resources, and/or soil expansion hazards similar to that of the proposed project. All development projects would be required to comply with existing federal, state, and local regulations, such as the California Building Code and statewide General Construction Permit. Impacts be the same as proposed project and would be less than significant.

4.6.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This alternative would result in the same buildout and a similar VMT compared to the proposed project. As a result, this alternative would also have the same GHG emissions as of the proposed project, but they would be dispersed through the Ontario Ranch area. Therefore, impacts of this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.
1688

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -2 6

4.6.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
In this alternative, land uses throughout the City would be required to comply with existing federal, state, and local regulations governing use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Since truck routes would spread throughout the Ontario Ranch area, transport hazardous materials would remain the same citywide, but would be dispersed throughout residential areas, posing a slight increase of transport of hazardous materials to additional residents. Structures would be required to comply with building standards in the California Building Code and the California Fire Code. This alternative would result in similar impacts compared to the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant.

4.6.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
This alternative would have the same hydrology and water quality impacts as the proposed project. Future project-specific WQMPs, preliminary and/or final, will be prepared consistent with the prevailing terms and conditions of the City LIP, and Model WQMP at the time of project application. Moreover, LID and water quality treatment solutions prescribed in project-specific WQMPs would be designed to support or enhance the regional BMPs and efforts implemented by the City as part of its citywide efforts to improve water quality. During construction, projectspecific SWPPPs are required to be prepared in accordance with the site-specific sediment risk analyses based on the grading plans. The SWPPP must describe construction BMPs that address pollutant source reduction and provide measures/controls necessary to mitigate potential pollutant sources. Therefore, impacts would be similar and remain less than significant.

4.6.11 Land Use and Planning
This alternative would result in dispersed truck routes in the Ontario Ranch area, but truck trips in the City would remain consistent with the proposed project. The truck routes under the alternative would be through residential areas and would not be consistent with land uses, as such impacts associated with this alternative would be higher than the proposed project but would remain less than significant. Neither this alternative nor the proposed project would divide an established community. Therefore, the land use impacts would be the same and, like the proposed project, would be less than significant.

4.6.12 Mineral Resources
The proposed project and this alternative would result in similar impacts to mineral resources.

The alternative truck routes would be on existing roadways within the Ontario Ranch area.

Impacts would be the same as the proposed project and would be less than significant. 1689

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4 - 27

4.6.13 Noise
Construction and operational noise impacts would be the same as the proposed project under this alternative. Like the proposed project, construction activities under this alternative could occur close to sensitive receptors, and impacts would be significant. This alternative would have slightly reduced operational noise and vibration impacts from a reduction in truck traffic while also increasing traffic noise levels along alternate roadways, however overall traffic noise would be reduced along major arterials in the City. Noise and vibration impacts would be slightly reduced under this alternative in comparison to the proposed project but would remain significant.

4.6.14 Population and Housing
This alternative would result in the same buildout as the proposed project. Therefore, population and housing impacts of this alternative would be similar to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.

4.6.15 Public Services
This alternative would result in the same buildout as the proposed project. As a result, the impacts on public services, including fire, police, school, and library services, would be the same as the proposed project under this alternative and would be less than significant.

4.6.16 Recreation
This alternative would result in the same buildout as the proposed project. As a result, the demand for recreation and recreational services in the City would be the same. Impacts under this alternative would be the same as the proposed project and would be less than significant.

4.6.17 Transportation
This alternative would result in the same total VMT as the truck traffic would remain the same within the City, although truck routes would be spread throughout the Ontario Ranch area. This alternative would have a similar VMT per service population (VMT/SP) compared to proposed project. Impacts would be the same under this alternative and would not eliminate the significant unavoidable VMT impact under criterion 2. Overall, this alternative would have similar VMT impacts compared to the proposed project, and the VMT impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
1690

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -2 8

4.6.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Impacts to tribal cultural resources would primarily be associated with potential ground disturbance and development of previously undisturbed areas. Development under this alternative would be similar, as this alternative and proposed project would have the same development footprint. Mitigation measures for the protection of tribal cultural resources would be applicable to this alternative. Additionally, both the proposed project and this alternative would comply with federal and state regulations pertaining to the protection and preservation tribal cultural resources. Therefore, impacts to potential tribal cultural resources would be similar to the proposed project and would be less than significant.

4.6.19 Utilities and Service Systems
This alternative would result in the same buildout as the proposed project; therefore, the impact on the City’s infrastructure systems would be the same. Overall, impacts would be similar under this alternative compared to the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant.

4.6.20 Wildfire
The City of Ontario is not in a very high fire hazards severity zone. Additionally, the development footprint of this alternative and the proposed project are the same. As a result, this alternative would result in similar risk associated with wildfire events. Overall, this alternative would have similar impacts compared to the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant.

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

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

Update the City’s truck routes based on proposed land use changes to ensure the City continues to comply with state law and ensures a safe and efficient goods movement network while minimizing the exposure of existing and future sensitive receptors to noise, vibration, and air pollution generated by heavy trucks. ■
1691

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4 - 29
Update the Policy Plan component of TOP 2050 for internal consistency with proposed land use and circulation changes.

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

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

Table 4-5 Reduced Intensity Alternative
Category Proposed Project
Reduced Intensity
Alternative Difference
Policy Plan Amendment
Population 427,741 427,741 0
Housing Units 137,177 137,177 0
Non-residential SQFT 268,162,895 267,281,195 -881,700
Jobs 301,035 300,558 -477
EBPSP Site
Non-residential SQFT 2,939,000 2,057,300 -881,700
Jobs 1,590 1,113 -477
Note: SQFT = square feet

4.7.1 Aesthetics
Under this alternative, land uses within the City would be built out in accordance with the proposed project, with the exception of the EBPSP, where the intensity would be reduced.

Though this alternative would result in a slight reduction in land use intensity in Ontario Ranch ■
1692

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -3 0
for the EBPSP, overall the aesthetics of the site would be similar to those of the proposed project.

The Specific Plan area is not in an area identified for scenic preservation. There are no scenic vistas in the Specific Plan area; nor would the development of the site adversely affect a designated scenic vista. The existing land uses would still be replaced with business park and open space – parkland uses, although the building square footage would be reduced. Site design and architectural features would be similar to the project under this alternative. Walls and fences would be provided for screening, buffering, and security purposes along building site perimeters and interior to building sites. Landscaping would include a variety of trees, shrubs, vines, and accent plants along the site’s perimeter. Thus, impacts under this alternative would be the less than significant, similar to the EBPSP. Impacts to the remaining portions of the proposed project would remain the same and would be less than significant.

4.7.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
In this alternative, the City would be developed in similar areas as the proposed project. The reduction in land use intensity would be within the EBPSP, and the remaining portions of the City would have similar impacts to Farmland (City) and lands currently under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, impacts on agriculture and forestry resources would be similar to the proposed project and would be less than significant.

Similar to the EBPSP, development realized under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would remove the existing agricultural uses from the site. The City of Ontario no longer has land designated for agricultural use, and impacts associated with the implementation of the EBPSP, including the conversion of grazing land and Prime Farmland to a non-agricultural use, would not result in significant impacts. Therefore, implementation of the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in the same impacts to agricultural resources that would occur from implementation of the EBPSP.

4.7.3 Air Quality
This alternative would result in a less than 1 percent decrease in non-residential development citywide, but approximately 30 percent decrease in non-residential development within the EBPSP. Therefore, the citywide air pollution emission impacts and local impacts would be slightly reduced. Like the proposed project, implementation of this alternative would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts regarding consistency with the AQMP, cumulatively considerable net increase of pollutants for which the project region is in nonattainment, and exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. In comparison to the proposed project, this alternative would have slightly less impact, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
1693

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4 - 31
Although the development impact area would be similar to the EBPSP, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in an approximate 30 percent reduction of allowable building square footage. Therefore, this alternative would slightly reduce the EBPSP’s already less than significant construction-related air quality impacts.

At buildout, the EBPSP’s operational emissions of ROGs, NOX, CO, and PM10 emissions would exceed the applicable South Coast AQMD regional thresholds for these pollutants and would therefore contribute to the violation of an air quality standard and result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of an ozone precursor. No feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce the EBPSP’s emissions to levels that are less than significant.

The 30 percent reduction in development intensity under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would translate to an approximate 30 percent reduction in operational-source air pollutant emissions when compared to the EBPSP. Table 4-6, Reduced Intensity Alternative Operation Emission Comparison at Buildout, compares operational-source air pollutant emissions under the EBPSP and Reduced Intensity Alternative.

Table 4-6 Reduced Intensity Alternative Operational Emissions Comparison at Buildout Pollutant
SCAQMD
Threshold
EBPSP
Reduced Intensity
Alternative
Maximum1 Daily
Emissions
Threshold
Exceeded?
Maximum2
Daily
Emissions
Threshold
Exceeded?
ROG - Summer
55 129 YES 91 YES
ROG - Winter 107 YES 75 YES
NOX - Summer
55 196 YES 138 YES
NOX - Winter 205 YES 143 YES
CO - Summer
550
759 YES 531 NO
CO - Winter 563 YES 394 NO
SO2 - Summer
150
3 NO 2 NO
SO2 - Winter 2 NO 2 NO
PM10 - Summer
150
170 YES 119 NO
PM10 - Winter 170 YES 119 NO
PM2.5 - Summer
55 47 NO 33 NO
PM2.5 - Winter 46 NO 33 NO

1. See Table 3.3-18.

2. Reflects a 30 percent reduction.
1694

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -3 2
As shown above, although the reduction in intensity realized under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be sufficient to alleviate the EBPSP’s CO and PM10 exceedances, this alternative would still result in operational exceedances of South Coast AQMD thresholds for ROG and NOX. Therefore, significant and unavoidable air quality impacts would persist under the Reduced Intensity Alternative but would be slightly reduced compared to the proposed project.

4.7.4 Biological Resources
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would involve the same development impact area as the proposed project and EBPSP. As such, this alternative would result in the same potential impacts to biological resources (including sensitive raptors, migratory birds, nesting birds, burrowing owl, and roosting bat species) as the EBPSP. As with the EBPSP, mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce impacts. Impacts to biological resources under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be comparable to the EBPSP. Impacts on biological resources would be the same as the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

4.7.5 Cultural Resources
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would have the same development impact area as the EBPSP and the proposed project. No known historical or archaeological resources, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, are present in the EBPSP area; however, there is a remote potential for the EBPSP site to contain unidentified surface or subsurface archaeological resources. Like the EBPSP, this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts. Therefore, impacts to potential cultural resources would be the same as the proposed project and would remain significant and unavoidable. Impacts to cultural resources from the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be similar to those of the EBPSP.

4.7.6 Energy
Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the total building square footage would be reduced by approximately less than 1 percent citywide but 29 percent with a proportional decrease in construction energy demands, operational building energy consumption, and vehicle fuel within the EBPSP. This alternative would result in a slight decrease in energy impacts and a decrease in buildout. In general, impacts to energy use under this alternative would be slightly decreased compared to the proposed project because development would be reduced, but would remain less than significant. This alternative would further reduce the EBPSP’s already less than significant energy impacts.
1695

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4 - 33

4.7.7 Geology and Soils
This alternative would result in the same development footprint as the proposed project. As with proposed project, individual development projects under this alternative would be required to prepare site-specific geotechnical investigations to evaluate seismic, liquefaction, ground settlement, paleontological resources, and/or soil expansion hazards similar to that of the proposed project. All development projects would be required to comply with existing federal, state, and local regulations, such as the California Building Code and statewide Construction General Permit. Impacts would be the same as proposed project and would be less than significant.

Grading and development of the entire EBPSP area would still occur under the Reduced Intensity Alternative; therefore, impacts to geology and soils would be similar to those generated by the EBPSP. This alternative would also result in a similar potential to impact undiscovered paleontological resources during grading. Development realized under this alternative, like the EBPSP, would be required to implement mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts. Therefore, impacts from the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be similar to those of the EBPSP.

4.7.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This alternative would result in a decrease in buildout compared to the proposed project. As a result, this alternative would also have a slight decrease in GHG emissions compared to the proposed project. Therefore, impacts of this alternative would be slightly decreased compared to the proposed project, but would remain significant and unavoidable.

With the reduced scope of facilities realized under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced. At buildout and with mitigation, the EBPSP’s greenhouse gas emissions of 45,539 MTCO2e/yr would exceed the applicable numeric threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced to 31,877 MTCO2e/yr. No feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce these emissions to levels that are less than significant. Therefore, although greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced under this alternative, impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable.

4.7.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
In this alternative, land uses throughout the City would still be required to comply with existing federal, state, and local regulations governing use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Structures would be required to comply with building standards 1696

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -3 4
in the California Building Code and the California Fire Code. This alternative would result in similar impacts compared to the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would develop the same types of land uses as the EBPSP, but on a reduced scale. The use and storage of potentially hazardous materials would be subject to the same federal, state, and local regulations and permitting requirements as would occur with the EBPSP. As with the EBPSP, development of the site under this alternative would address the potentially contaminated soils that may be present within the site. This alternative would be required to implement the same type of mitigation measures that are included in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Similar to the EBPSP, with mitigation incorporated, hazards and hazardous materials impacts under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be less than significant.

4.7.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
This alternative would have the same hydrology and water quality impacts as the proposed project. Future project-specific WQMPs, preliminary and/or final, will be prepared consistent with the prevailing terms and conditions of the City LIP, and Model WQMP at the time of project application. Moreover, LID and water quality treatment solutions prescribed in project-specific WQMPs would be designed to support or enhance the regional BMPs and efforts implemented as part of citywide efforts to improve water quality. During construction, project-specific SWPPPs are required to be prepared in accordance with the site-specific sediment risk analyses based on the grading plans. The SWPPP must describe construction BMPs that address pollutant source reduction and provide measures/controls necessary to mitigate potential pollutant sources. Therefore, impacts would be similar and remain less than significant.

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in a slight reduction in the amount of impervious surfaces when compared to the EBPSP. Regardless, this alternative would introduce new sources of water pollutants from construction and operational activities, and result in similar runoff and potential for impacts to drainage, erosion, and water quality as the EBPSP.

Similar to the EBPSP, this alternative would be required to include storm drain facility improvements, source control, site design, and treatment control BMPs. Therefore, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts to hydrology and water quality.

4.7.11 Land Use and Planning
The land uses identified in the proposed project would remain the same under this alternative, with the exception of the EBPSP. The current General Plan designations of the site include Medium Density Residential (with Affordable Housing Overlay), Mixed Use with Chino Airport Overlay (and Affordable Housing Overlay), and Open Space–Parkland. Uses under the Reduced 1697

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4 - 35
Intensity Alternative would not be consistent with these designations. Like the EBPSP, upon adoption of the Specific Plan, the EBPSP Development Regulations and Design Standards would apply to the Specific Plan area and would establish the applicable zoning regulations and development standards. The Specific Plan would become the land use implementation tool for the site as a whole. Similarly, no conflicts with TOP 2050 policies, the City’s Development Code, or SCAG’s Connect SoCal would occur. Both the EBPSP and the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in less than significant impacts related to land use and planning. Neither this alternative nor the proposed project would divide an established community. Therefore, the land use impacts would be the same and, like the proposed project, would be less than significant.

4.7.12 Mineral Resources
The proposed project and this alternative would result in similar impacts to mineral resources as the footprint would remain the same. Impacts would be the same as the proposed project and would be less than significant.

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in a similar development impact area as the EBPSP and would therefore result in similar potential to adversely affect any mineral resources in the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan area is designated MRZ-3 and does not contain known mineral resource deposits. The City’s Policy Plan does not identify any locally important mineral resource recovery sites on or within proximity to the site. Therefore, like the EBPSP, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would have no potential to impact the availability of known mineral resources or a mineral resource recovery site.

4.7.13 Noise
Construction noise impacts would be the same as the proposed project under this alternative for both the Policy Plan Amendment and the EBPSP. Under this alternative, the types of construction activities and equipment employed would be similar to those associated with construction of the EBPSP. Maximum received construction-source noise/vibration levels at receptors near the EBPSP would be unchanged, but the duration may be decreased. For the Policy Plan Amendment, construction activities would continue to occur close to sensitive receptors, and impacts would continue to be significant. No significant construction noise impacts were identified for the EBPSP so impacts for the Specific Plan would remain less than significant.

This alternative would have slightly decrease in operational noise impacts associated with the reduction in nonresidential square feet and associated reduction in truck trips. However, the 29 percent reduction in the nonresidential square footage within the Specific Plan would not be sufficient to reduce the significant off-site vehicular noise for either the EBPSP or the Policy Plan 1698

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -3 6
Amendment. Overall operational noise and vibration impacts would be slightly reduced under this alternative in comparison to the proposed project and would remain significant.

4.7.14 Population and Housing
This alternative would result in decrease in buildout, as shown in Table 4-5, compared to the proposed project. Therefore, population and housing impacts of this alternative would be slightly decreased compared to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.

As with the EBPSP, no housing would be developed under the Reduced Intensity Alternative. As such, no increase in population would occur. Buildout of this alternative would result in a reduction of employment opportunities on-site. While the EBPSP would employ an estimated 1,590 employees, this alternative would reduce the number of employees to 1,113. Similar to the EBPSP, development implemented under this alternative would be within the growth projections for the area, and impacts to population and housing would be less than significant.

4.7.15 Public Services
This alternative would result in decrease in non-residential square footage, as shown in Table 4- 5, compared to the proposed project. Therefore, public services impacts of this alternative would be slightly decreased compared to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.

The reduction in overall scope under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in slightly less demand for public services, including fire protection and law enforcement. This alternative would further reduce the EBPSP’s already less than significant impacts to public services.

4.7.16 Recreation
This alternative would result in a decrease in non-residential square footage, as shown in Table 4-5, compared to the proposed project. Therefore, recreation impacts of this alternative would be slightly decreased compared to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.

The EBPSP introduces 36.15 acres planned for development of the City’s public “Grand Park.” The amount of Open-Space-Parkland under this alternative is assumed to be the same as proposed under the EBPSP. Similarly, development of the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not directly increase housing or population, both of which typically cause an increase in the demand for and use of existing neighborhood parks and other citywide recreational facilities.

Therefore, impacts associated with recreation under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be less than significant and similar to the EBPSP.
1699

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4 - 37

4.7.17 Transportation
This alternative would result in decreased dwelling units as compared to the proposed project.

As such this would decrease VMT in the City and would result in a decrease in VMT impacts compared to the proposed project; however the VMT impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in reduced total VMT when compared to the EBPSP. Because the intensity and scope of uses would be decreased under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the service population would also be decreased. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would therefore not substantially alter the VMT/SP ratio otherwise resulting from the EBPSP. As with the EBPSP, VMT impacts under this alternative would remain significant and unavoidable.

4.7.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Impacts to tribal cultural resources would primarily be associated with potential ground disturbance and development of previously undisturbed areas. Development under this alternative would be similar, as this alternative and proposed project would have the same development footprint. Mitigation measures for the protection of tribal cultural resources would be applicable to this alternative. Additionally, both the proposed project and this alternative would comply with federal and state regulations pertaining to the protection and preservation tribal cultural resources. Therefore, impacts to potential tribal cultural resources would be similar to the proposed project and would be less than significant.

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in a similar potential to adversely affect buried tribal cultural resources as the EBPSP, since the development impact area would be the same.

As with the EBPSP, this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Potential impacts to tribal cultural resources under this alternative would be similar to those associated with the EBPSP.

4.7.19 Utilities and Service Systems
This alternative would result in decrease in buildout, as shown in Table 4-5, compared to the proposed project. Therefore, utilities and system services impacts of this alternative would be slightly decreased compared to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.

Like the EBPSP, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would implement all necessary on-site and off-site utilities and service infrastructure system improvements. Based on the decreased scope and intensity of development under this alternative, demands for utilities and services under 1700

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -3 8
this alternative would be slightly reduced. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would further reduce the EBPSP’s already less than significant impacts.

4.7.20 Wildfire
The City of Ontario is not in a very high fire hazards severity zone. Additionally, the development footprint of this alternative and the proposed project are the same. As a result, this alternative would result in similar risk associated with wildfire events. Overall, this alternative would have similar impacts compared to the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant.

According to the City’s 2023 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), no high fire severity zones exist within the City, nor does the City have any wildland-urban interface areas. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in a similar development impact area as the EBPSP and would therefore result in similar potential for wildfire.

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

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

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would meet most of the EBPSP objectives; however, this alternative would not meet the following objectives to the same extent as the EBPSP due to the reduced square footage and proportional reduction in employees.

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4 - 39
To facilitate the development of a variety of employment-generating uses in a business park setting.

To provide opportunities for positive economic benefit to the City, including new net revenues to the General Fund that can be used for vital City services.

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

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

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

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

The following alternative has been identified as “environmentally superior” to the proposed project:

Reduced Intensity Alternative
The Reduced Intensity Alternative has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative because it would either lessen or result in similar impacts as the proposed project; however, it would not avoid any significant and unavoidable impacts. As shown in Table 4-7, Comparison of Project Alternative Impacts, and Table 4-8, Ability to Meet Proposed Project Objectives, the Reduced Intensity Alternative lessens impacts to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, noise, public services, transportation, and utilities and system services while partially achieving the benefits of the project objectives.
■
■
■
1702

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -4 0
Table 4-7 Comparison of Project Alternative Impacts
Environmental Topic
Proposed
Project1 No Project Alternative/ Current TOP 2050
Truck Route Scenario 3
Alternative
Reduced Intensity
Alternative

3.1 Aesthetics LTS PPA: =
SP: = = = 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources LTS PPA: = SP: = = =

3.3 Air Quality SU PPA:

SP:

3.4 Biological Resources LTS/M PPA: =
SP: =
= = 3.5 Cultural Resources PPA: SU
EBPSP: LTS/M
PPA: =
SP: =
= = 3.6 Energy LTS PPA:

SP: = 3.7 Geology and Soils LTS/M PPA: =
SP: = = =

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions SU PPA:

SP: = 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials PPA: LTS
EBPSP: LTS/M
PPA:

SP: = = 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality LTS PPA:

SP: = = 3.11 Land Use and Planning LTS PPA:

SP: = = 3.12 Mineral Resources PPA: LTS
EBPSP: NI
PPA:

SP: = = +- +- +- +- +-
1703

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4- 4 1
Table 4-7 Comparison of Project Alternative Impacts
Environmental Topic
Proposed
Project1 No Project Alternative/ Current TOP 2050
Truck Route Scenario 3
Alternative
Reduced Intensity
Alternative

3.13 Noise PPA:SU
EBPSP: LTS
PPA:

SP: =

3.14 Population and Housing LTS PPA: =
SP: = = =

3.15 Public Services LTS PPA:

SP: = 3.16 Recreation LTS PPA:

SP: = = 3.17 Transportation SU PPA:

SP: = 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources LTS/M PPA:

SP: = = 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems LTS PPA:

SP: = 3.20 Wildfire LTS PPA:

SP: = = Notes:

PPA Policy Plan Amendment Reduced impact in comparison to the proposed project SP Specific Plan = Similar impact in comparison to the proposed project NI No Impact Greater impact in comparison to the proposed project LTS Less than Significant
LTS/M Less than Significant with Mitigation
SU Significant and Unavoidable

1. The impacts listed in this column represent the highest significance determination for each respective topic. +- +- +- +- +- 1704

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -4 2
Table 4-8 Ability to Meet Proposed Project Objectives
Objective
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative/
Current TOP
2050
Truck Route
Scenario 3
Alternative
Reduced
Intensity
Alternative
Policy Plan Amendment
Comprehensively plan for and assess land use changes requested by property owners while ensuring compliance with state laws and maintaining the vision and objectives of current TOP 2050.

Yes Yes Yes Yes
Reposition the planned employment center in southwest Ontario from a mix of office, retail, and residential uses to a concentration of business park uses.

Yes No Yes Yes
Ensure there is no net loss in overall housing capacity within the City, consistent with the requirements of state law. Yes Yes Yes Yes Plan for adequate housing capacity to ensure the City continues to meet the requirements of the City’s sixth-cycle RHNA obligation. Yes Yes Yes Yes Update the City’s truck routes based on proposed land use changes to ensure the City continues to comply with state law and ensures a safe and efficient goods movement network while minimizing the exposure of existing and future sensitive receptors to noise, vibration, and air pollution generated by heavy trucks.

Yes No No Yes
Update the Policy Plan component of TOP 2050 for internal consistency with proposed land use and circulation changes. Yes No No Yes 1705

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . A L T E R N A T I V E S T O T H E P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T M ARC H 2 0 2 6 4- 4 3
Table 4-8 Ability to Meet Proposed Project Objectives
Objective
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative/
Current TOP
2050
Truck Route
Scenario 3
Alternative
Reduced
Intensity
Alternative
Specific Plan
To provide a land use plan that implements The Ontario Plan’s vision and appropriately positions business park and public parkland uses north of Eucalyptus Avenue, between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue.

Yes No NA Partial
To facilitate the development of a variety of employment-generating uses in a business park setting. Yes No NA Partial
To provide business park uses that are compatible with surrounding land uses.

Yes No NA Yes
To provide opportunities for positive economic benefit to the City, including new net revenues to the General Fund that can be used for vital City services.

Yes No NA Partial
To provide opportunities for the development of passive use parks consistent with the City of Ontario’s Grand Park Master Plan. Yes No NA Yes To provide landscaped open space within the Specific Plan area, including pedestrian trails adjacent to public arterial and collector streets. Yes No NA Yes To improve connectivity in the area by providing pedestrian paths, bicycle routes, and comfort amenities such as bike racks that encourage circulation by means not dependent on a motorized vehicle.

Yes No NA Yes
To identify and construct capital improvements for water, recycled water, sewer, storm drain, and circulation facilities that serve planned land uses within and adjacent to the Specific Plan area.

Yes No NA Yes
1706

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
4 . AL T ERN AT IVE S T O THE PRO P OSED PRO JECT
4 -4 4
Table 4-8 Ability to Meet Proposed Project Objectives
Objective
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative/
Current TOP
2050
Truck Route
Scenario 3
Alternative
Reduced
Intensity
Alternative
To set forth a development phasing sequence that allows for logical development and aligns with installation of on-site and off-site infrastructure.

Yes No NA Yes
To define guidelines and standards that provide a cohesive design for architecture, landscaping, streetscapes, entry monuments, corner treatments, walls and fencing, lighting, and signage within the Specific Plan area.

Yes No NA Yes
1707
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 5- 1

5. OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
This chapter provides a discussion of the effects of the proposed project based on the analyses in Sections 3.1 through 3.20 of this Draft SEIR. The topics covered in this chapter include effects not found to be significant, significant and unavoidable impacts, significant irreversible changes to the environment, and growth-inducing effects. A more detailed analysis of the effects that the proposed project would have on the environment and proposed mitigation measures to minimize significant impacts are provided in Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft SEIR.

5.1 EFFECTS NOT FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15128, “Effects Not Found to Be Significant,” allows environmental issues for which there is no likelihood of significant impact to be “scoped out” and not analyzed further in the SEIR.

As described in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix A), the City of Ontario determined a full-scope SEIR would be required to evaluate all impacts in the 20 environmental categories; therefore, all categories are evaluated in Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, of this SEIR.

5.2 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a) requires that “Direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environment shall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short- and long-term effects.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c) requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Table ES-3, Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, in the Executive Summary of this Draft EIR summarizes the significant impacts, mitigation measures, and levels of significance with and without mitigation.

Though mitigation measures, where feasible, would reduce the level of impact of the proposed project, the following impacts would remain significant and unavoidable:

AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-1 (PPA + EBPSP): The additional population growth forecast for the Policy Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and the associated emissions would exceed the assumptions of the South Coast AQMD’s AQMP.
■
1708

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
5 . OT HER CE QA CON SI DE RATI ON S
5 -2
Impact AQ-2 (PPA): Construction activities associated with future development that would be accommodated under the Policy Plan Amendment could generate short-term emissions in exceedance of the South Coast AQMD’s threshold criteria.

Impact AQ-4 (PPA): Construction activities associated with the Policy Plan Amendment could expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations.

Impact AQ-5 (PPA): Operation of industrial and warehousing land uses accommodated under the Policy Plan Amendment would cumulatively contribute to elevated levels of toxic air contaminants in the South Coast AQMD region.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CUL-1 (PPA): Implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment could impact historical resources.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact GHG-1 (PPA + EBPSP): Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in GHG emissions compared to the approved project and would not achieve the carbon neutrality threshold of AB 1279.

Impact GHG-2 (PPA + EBPSP): The proposed project would be inconsistent with the Community Climate Action Plan’s objective of reducing citywide GHG emissions and the State’s carbon neutrality goals.

NOISE
Impact NOI-1 (PPA): Construction activities associated with buildout of the Policy Plan Amendment would result in intermittent, temporary increases in noise levels at sensitive receptors due to construction activities. Construction of the EBPSP would not exceed applicable thresholds or significantly increase ambient noise levels.

Impact NOI-2 (PPA + EBPSP): Implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP would expose sensitive receptors to substantial permanent traffic noise increases.

Impact NOI-3 (PPA): Construction activities associated with buildout of the Policy Plan Amendment may expose sensitive uses to excessive levels of groundborne vibration. ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
1709

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
5 . OT HER CEQ A CON SIDER ATI O NS
FE BRUARY 2 0 26 5- 3
Impact NOI-4 (PPA): Heavy truck traffic annoyance along City haul routes associated with buildout of the Policy Plan Amendment may expose sensitive uses to excessive levels of groundborne vibration annoyance.

Impact NOI-5 (PPA): Implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment could expose noise sensitive uses to excessive noise levels from the Ontario International Airport (ONT).

TRANSPORTATION
Impact TRA-2 (PPA + EBPSP): The proposed project would generate a substantial increase in VMT per service population and total VMT compared to the approved project resulting in significant project-level and cumulative VMT impacts.

5.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss whether “Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely.” The discussion shall consider primary and secondary impacts that generally commit future generations to similar uses, irreversible damage from environmental accidents, and irretrievable commitments of resources.

Implementation of the proposed project would include construction activities that would entail the commitment of nonrenewable and/or slowly renewable energy resources; human resources; and natural resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, other metals, water, and fossil fuels. Future developments in accordance with the proposed project would require the use of natural gas and electricity, fossil fuels, and water. The commitment of resources required for the construction and operation of the proposed project would limit the availability of such resources for future generations or for other uses during the life of the project.

An increased commitment of social services and public maintenance services (e.g., police, fire, schools, libraries, and sewer and water services) would also be required. The energy and social service commitments would be long-term obligations in view of the low likelihood of returning the land to its original condition once it has been developed.

Population growth related to the proposed project compared to the approved project would increase vehicle miles traveled and volatile organic compound emissions associated with consumer product use. The proposed project would cumulatively contribute to the South Coast Air Basin’s nonattainment designation for ozone (O3). ■
■
■
■
■
■
1710

ON TAR IO P OLIC Y P LA N AM EN DM EN T D RAFT S UP P LEMENT AL EIR

CITY O F ON TARIO
5 . OT HER CE QA CON SI DE RATI ON S
5 -4

5.4 GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS
Section 15126.2(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Typical factors may include the removal of obstacles to population growth, such as through a major expansion of a wastewater plant.

This section evaluates the proposed project’s potential to create such growth inducements. As CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e) states, “It must not be assumed that growth in an area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.” In other words, negative impacts associated with growth inducement occur only where the projected growth would cause significant adverse environmental impacts.

Approval and implementation of proposed project would not remove obstacles to growth.

Development in the City is guided by TOP 2050. Changes to the approved project are identified in Section 2.4.1, Project Characteristics, and would not result in changes to existing regulations that would remove barriers to growth in the City. Portions of the City are already served by infrastructure. Like the approved project, implementation of proposed project would allow for development of currently undeveloped land and redevelopment of existing land uses. This would induce construction of infrastructure extensions and improvements, such as roadways, storms drains, water pipes, solid waste collection systems, and energy/communication extensions toward undeveloped areas of the City. In addition, the proposed project would increase demand for electricity and natural gas that could require expansion of energy infrastructure, as provided by Southern California Edison and the Southern California Gas Company. Impacts to existing utilities and service systems and potential needs for future improvements are discussed further in Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems. TOP 2050 and the proposed project accommodate the additional population growth required to accommodate the South California Association of Governments’ Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Buildout of the proposed project may require additional firefighting and police personnel and construction of new and/or expanded facilities to improve response times, if necessary. Buildout may also require future construction of new and/or expanded schools in the school districts that serve Ontario (e.g., Chaffey Joint Union High School District, Chino Valley Unified School District, Cucamonga School District, Ontario-Montclair School District, and Mountain View School District). Impacts from the proposed project on public services facilities are discussed in detail in Section 3.15, Public Services. 1711
M ARCH 2 026 6 -1

6. REPORT PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS

CONSULTED
This Draft SEIR was prepared by the City of Ontario in consultation with the following organizations, consultants, and individuals.

LEAD AGENCY
City of Ontario
Rudy Zeledon ............................................................ Executive Director Community Development Henry Noh ............................................................................................................. Planning Director Kimberly Ruddins, AICP .......................................................................... Assistant Planning Director Thomas Grahn........................................................................................................ Principal Planner David F. Eoff IV........................................................................................................ Principal Planner Robert Morales ..................................................................................................... Associate Planner Jay Bautista................................................................................................. Transportation Manager

REPORT PREPARERS
PlaceWorks
Nicole Vermillion................................................................................................................. Principal Emma Haines ..................................................................................................................... Associate Emily Parks ......................................................................................................................... Associate Vivian Kha ........................................................................................................................... Associate Chris Shields ............................................................................................................ Senior Associate Lance Park ............................................................................................................... Senior Associate Jessica Mendoza ........................................................................................................ Project Planner Lexie Zimny......................................................................................................................... Associate Chris Hazel .................................................................................................................................... GIS Cary Nakama ....................................................................................................................... Graphics Gina Froelich ........................................................................................................... Technical Editing Laura Munoz .......................................................................................................... Word Processing 1712

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

6. REP ORT PRE PARERS AND ORGANIZATI ONS CONSULTED
6 -2
T&B Planning
Nicole Morse, Esq. .............................................................................................................. Principal Amy Flores................................................................................................... Senior Project Manager Tracy Chu................................................................................................................. Project Manager Justin Nguyen................................................................................................ Environmental Analyst Jessica Sofian................................................................................................. Environmental Analyst Cristina Maxey................................................................................... Senior GIS/Graphics Specialist Rhea Smith .................................................................................................. GIS/Graphics Technician Fehr & Peers
Jolene Hayes, AICP .............................................................................................................. Principal Paul Herrmann, PE .................................................................................................. Senior Associate Trevor Lien.................................................................................................. Senior Engineer/Planner Marsha Phillips ...................................................................................................... Engineer/Planner Cathy Fitzgerald, Inc.

Cathy Fitzgerald, DEnv, PE, QSP ........................................................................... Principal Engineer Urban Crossroads
Aric Evett ............................................................................................................................ President Charlene So, PE ................................................................................................................... Principal Haseeb Quereshi................................................................................................................. Principal Bill Lawson........................................................................................................................... Principal Alex So ..................................................................................................................... Senior Associate Jared Brawner ........................................................................................... Assistant Traffic Engineer Michael Tirohn ............................................................................................ Environmental Scientist ELMT Consulting
Tom McGill ............................................................................ Senior Biologist/Regulatory Specialist Travis McGill .............................................................................. Senior Biologist/Managing Director Rachael Lyons...................................................................................................... Associate Biologist Megan Peukert .................................................................................................... Associate Biologist BFSA Environmental Services
Jennifer Stropes ................................Vice President of Cultural Resources/Principal Archaeologist Tracy Stropes........................................ Vice President of California Operations/Principal Historian 1713

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

6. REPORT PRE PARERS AND ORGANIZATI ONS CONSULTED
M ARCH 2 026 6 -3
Southern California Geotechnical, Inc.

Daniel Nielsen .......................................................................................................... Senior Engineer Robert Trazo ......................................................................................................... Principal Engineer JLC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.

Joseph Castaneda......................................................................................................... Civil Engineer Roux Associates, Inc.

Mauricio Escobar ........................................................................Principal Geologist/Vice President Kasia Anderson.......................................................................................................Project Geologist

ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
City of Ontario Police Department
Chief Rudy Lopez............................................................................................................. Police Chief City of Ontario Fire Department
Sagar Patel............................................................................................. Fire Administrative Director Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Alexis Mascarinas, P.E. ............................................................................. Senior Associate Engineer Mountain View School District
Jeremy Currier..............................................................................................Deputy Superintendent Chaffey Joint Union High School District
Mathew Holton, Ed.D. .............................................................................................. Superintendent Ontario-Montclair School District
James Q. Hammond, Ed.D........................................................................................ Superintendent Cucamonga School District
Michael Chaix, Ed. D................................................................................................. Superintendent 1714

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

6. REP ORT PRE PARERS AND ORGANIZATI ONS CONSULTED
6 -4
Chino Valley Unified School District
Dr. Norm Enfield....................................................................................................... Superintendent Ontario International Airport
Jacqueline Meraz .....................................................................................Capital Program Specialist Native American Tribes

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
Lacy Padilla.......................... Director of Historic Preservation/ Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

CAHUILLA BAND OF INDIANS
BobbyRay Esparza ................................................................................................... Cultural Director Anthony Madrigal ...................................................................... Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Erica Schenk ................................................................................................................... Chairperson

GABRIELENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS - KIZH NATION
Christina Swindall Martinez ............................................................................................... Secretary Andrew Salas.................................................................................................................. Chairperson

GABRIELENO/TONGVA SAN GABRIEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
Anthony Morales............................................................................................................ Chairperson

GABRIELINO TONGVA INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA TRIBAL COUNCIL
Robert Dorame............................................................................................................... Chairperson Christina Conley ............................................................................. Cultural Resource Administrator

GABRIELINO/TONGVA NATION
Sandonne Goad .............................................................................................................. Chairperson

GABRIELINO-TONGVA TRIBE
Sam Dunlap ............................................................................................. Cultural Resource Director Charles Alvarez............................................................................................................... Chairperson 1715

ONT AR IO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENT AL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

6. REPORT PRE PARERS AND ORGANIZATI ONS CONSULTED
M ARCH 2 026 6 -5

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
Ann Brierty ................................................................................. Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Robert Martin ................................................................................................................ Chairperson

QUECHAN INDIAN TRIBE OF THE FORT YUMA RESERVATION
Jill McCormick ......................................................................................Historic Preservation Officer Jonathan Koteen ......................................................................... President, Quechan Tribal Council

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
Alexandra McCleary ....................................... Senior Manager of Cultural Resources Management

SANTA ROSA BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
Mercedes Estrada ................................................................................................... Cultural Director Steven Estrada.......................................................................................................... Tribal Chairman Vanessa Minott ................................................................................................. Tribal Administrator

SERRANO NATION OF MISSION INDIANS
Wayne Walker .......................................................................................................... Co-Chairperson Mark Cochrane ......................................................................................................... Co-Chairperson

SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
Joseph Ontiveros........................................................................ Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Jessica Valdez ........................................................................................ Cultural Resource Specialist 1716

ONT ARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT D RAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR

CIT Y OF ONTARIO

6. REP ORT PRE PARERS AND ORGANIZATI ONS CONSULTED
6 -6
This page intentionally left blank.
1717
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, CA 92707
714.966.9220
www.placeworks.com
1718
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations
- 1 -
EXHIBIT B. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

REGARDING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REPORT FOR THE ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2025110102

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project.

If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered “acceptable” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the FEIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 [b]). The agency’s statement is referred to as a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The following describes the project’s significant and unavoidable adverse impact and the justification for adopting a statement of overriding considerations. Although most potential project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated, as described above, 14 project impacts remain for which complete mitigation is not feasible (6 pertain to the EBPSP). The SEIR identified the following significant unavoidable adverse project impacts, which would continue to be applicable upon implementation of the proposed project:

Air Quality
Impact AQ-1 (PPA + EBPSP)
 Policy Plan Amendment: As shown in Table 3.2-12, City of Ontario Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast, of the SEIR, the proposed project would result in a substantial increase in reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) compared to TOP 2050 (approved project). At the program level, ROG and NOx emissions cannot be mitigated because the primary sources are outside local control.

ROG emissions largely come from consumer products that are regulated at the manufacturer level, and the City cannot control which products residents purchase or use. Similarly, NOx emissions from the transportation sector depend on the types of vehicles individuals choose to own and operate, which are governed by state and federal standards rather than local plans. Accordingly, because of the magnitude and 1719
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations
- 2 -
intensity of development accommodated by the proposed project, as well as regional air quality influences beyond the control of the City, impacts associated with consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) would remain significant and unavoidable. No additional feasible mitigation measures or mitigating policies at the program level would ensure consistency of the proposed project with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (South Coast AQMD) AQMP. The identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-thansignificant impacts for subsequent individual projects that meet applicable projectlevel thresholds of significance.  EBPSP: There is no feasible mitigation that would reduce impacts associated with consistency of the project with the AQMP to less than significant. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. This finding is consistent with the impacts previously identified as part of the 2022 Certified EIR. Impact AQ-2 (PPA)  Policy Plan Amendment: Buildout in accordance with the proposed project would generate short-term construction emissions that would exceed South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). Mitigation Measure AIR-1-PPA and applicable goals and policies of the proposed project would reduce constructionrelated air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. Construction emissions associated with the proposed project would be similar to the approved project because the proposed project would increase in land use intensity, not develop new, previously undeveloped areas of the city that would require substantial landform modification. However, individual projects accommodated under proposed project may exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds. Therefore, like the approved project, construction-related regional air quality impacts of developments that would be accommodated by the proposed project would remain significant and unavoidable.

Impact AQ-3 (PPA + EBPSP)
 Policy Plan Amendment: Buildout in accordance with the proposed project would generate long-term emissions that would exceed South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Mitigation Measures AIR-2-PPA and AIR-3-PPA, in addition to the goals and policies of the Policy Plan Amendment, would reduce air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. Impact AQ-3 would remain significant and unavoidable due to the increase in ROG and NOx emissions from development associated with the proposed project compared to that of the approved project.  EBPSP: Although Mitigation Measures AIR-1-SP through AIR-8-SP are designed to reduce operational-source criteria pollutant emissions of the EBPSP, there is no way 1720
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations
- 3 -
to meaningfully quantify these reductions in CalEEMod, so no numeric emissions credit has been taken in the analysis. Therefore, even with application of these measures, EBPSP operational-source emissions impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. This finding is consistent with the impacts previously identified as part of the 2022 Certified EIR.

Impact AQ-4 (PPA)
 Policy Plan Amendment: Construction activities associated with the proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TAC). Mitigation Measure AIR-1-PPA would require that future development projects incorporate measures to reduce construction emissions that would minimize exposure of sensitive receptors to elevated concentrations of criteria air pollutant emissions and TACs. Additionally, review of development projects by South Coast AQMD for permitted sources of air toxics (e.g., industrial facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities) would ensure that health risks are minimized. Individual development projects would be required to achieve the incremental risk thresholds established by South Coast AQMD, and TACs would be less than significant. However, because existing sensitive receptors may be close to project-related construction activities and because of the programmatic nature of the proposed project, construction emissions generated by individual development projects have the potential to exceed South Coast AQMD’s localized significance thresholds (LSTs) and contribute to higher levels of cancer risk in the SoCAB. Consequently, Impact AQ-4 would remain significant and unavoidable.

Impact AQ-5 (PPA)
 Policy Plan Amendment: Buildout of the proposed project and the approved project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of TACs. Buildout could result in new sources of criteria air pollutant emissions and/or TACs near existing or planned sensitive receptors. Review of development projects by South Coast AQMD for permitted sources of air toxics (e.g., industrial facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities) would ensure that health risks are minimized. Additionally, Policy ER-4.9 would ensure mobile sources of TACs not covered under South Coast AQMD permits are considered during subsequent project-level environmental review by the City of Ontario. Individual development projects would be required to achieve the incremental risk thresholds established by South Coast AQMD, and TACs would be less than significant. However, implementation of the proposed project would generate TACs that could contribute to elevated levels in the air basin. This effect is more substantial with the proposed project compared to the approved project because of the increase in industrial land use allowed under the proposed project. Though individual projects may achieve the project-level risk threshold of 10 per million, they would nonetheless contribute to 1721
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations
- 4 -
higher levels of cancer risk in the SoCAB, and therefore would result in a cumulatively considerable impact. Therefore, the proposed project’s cumulative contribution to health risk is significant and unavoidable.

Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1 (PPA)
 Policy Plan Amendment: Implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment could impact historical resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-1-PPA would require historic and potentially historic resources to be evaluated for historic significance through the City’s Development Code tier system, except those in Ontario Ranch. Mitigation Measures CUL-1-PPA and CUL-2-PPA establish requirements for historic resources classified as Tier III and II (in Ontario Ranch) and potentially historic resources (identified through survey evaluation) in Ontario Ranch to minimize significant impacts. Major modification or demolition of historic resources may be appropriate under certain circumstances. In the case of demolition, the City requires historic resources to be documented, historic features to be salvaged, and a demolition mitigation fee. Therefore, the Development Code does not provide a high level of protection for Tier III or Tier II historic resources in Ontario Ranch or potentially significant historic resources identified through a survey in Ontario Ranch. Impact CUL-1 would remain significant and unavoidable.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1 (PPA + EBPSP)
 Policy Plan Amendment: Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1-PPA would ensure that the City aligns its Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) update with the GHG reduction targets of AB 1279 and the statewide legislative GHG emission reduction targets that are in effect at the time of the CCAP update. Implementation of CCAP measures that increase the efficiency of energy and water use and offset electricity use through solar panels would reduce GHG emissions from land uses accommodated under the proposed project to the extent feasible. Given the growth in population and employment in the city, the emissions reductions needed from existing development, the overall magnitude of emissions reductions needed to achieve the GHG reduction target from existing and new development, and federal legal constraints on the implementation and effectiveness of State actions for emissions reduction, it is uncertain whether implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1-PPA would achieve the substantial reductions needed to align with the GHG reduction targets of Assembly Bill (AB) 1279. In addition, the City cannot ensure that Mitigation Measure GHG-1-PPA would be implemented prior to the generation of new GHG emissions from development facilitated under the proposed project, which could further limit the effectiveness of this mitigation measure in achieving the 1722
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations
- 5 -
required emissions reductions. Therefore, GHG emissions impacts of the proposed project compared to the approved project are considered significant and unavoidable.
 EBPSP: Preliminary CCAP measures to be implemented by the EBPSP are presented in Table 3.8-12, EBPSP CCAP Screening Table, of the SEIR. These measures are subject to change throughout the development process so long as the requisite 100 points are achieved, as required by Mitigation Measure GHG-1-SP. As shown in the table, measures implemented by the EBPSP would achieve a total of 101 points. As part of the EBPSP’s CCAP compliance measures, the EBPSP has committed to a rooftop solar system with sufficient capacity to offset 45 percent of the electrical demands. Tables

3.8-13, EBPSP GHG Emissions: Phase 1 (Mitigated); 3.8-14, EBPSP GHG Emissions:

Phases 1 and 2 (Mitigated); and 3.8-15, EBPSP GHG Emissions: Phases 1, 2, and 3 (Mitigated), in the SEIR present the estimated operational GHG emissions for all phases of the EBPSP with the incorporation of the rooftop solar system. Even with the incorporation of rooftop solar, the EBPSP would result in GHG emissions of approximately 45,539 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2e/yr) at buildout and would still exceed the numeric threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. Other features to be implemented through compliance with Mitigation Measure GHG-1-SP and Mitigation Measures AIR-1-SP through AIR-8-SP, as listed in Table 3.8-14 in the SEIR, would also reduce GHG emissions, but these reductions are not quantifiable.

Accordingly, no additional feasible mitigation measures are available at this time that would substantially lessen the identified impacts associated with full buildout of the EBPSP area. Therefore, the EBPSP would result in significant and unavoidable GHG emissions.

Impact GHG-2 (PPA + EBPSP)
 Policy Plan Amendment: Implementation of CCAP measures that increase energy efficiency, reduce(?) water use, and offset electricity use through solar panels would reduce GHG emissions from land uses accommodated under the proposed project to the extent feasible. However, given the growth in population and employment within the City, the magnitude of emissions reductions needed to achieve the CCAP’s 2050 per capita target, and federal legal constraints on the implementation and effectiveness of State actions for emission reduction, it is uncertain whether implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1-PPA would achieve the substantial reductions needed to achieve CCAP’s 2050 per capita target and the State’s carbon neutrality goals. Therefore, GHG emissions impacts of the proposed project compared to the approved project are considered significant and unavoidable.  EBPSP: The CCAP provides guidance on how to analyze GHG emissions and determine impact significance during the CEQA review of proposed development projects. Because the CCAP addresses GHG emissions reductions and is consistent 1723
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations
- 6 -
with the requirements of AB 32, Senate Bill (SB) 32, and international efforts to reduce GHG emissions, compliance with the CCAP fulfills the requirement for mitigation pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines. As shown in Table 3.8-12, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-SP-1, the EBPSP would attain the minimum requisite 100 Screening Table points. However, because the EBPSP is not consistent with the land use pattern and subsequent communitywide GHG emissions projections of the CCAP, the EBPSP is determined to be inconsistent with the CCAP and would result in a significant and unavoidable GHG impact, which was not anticipated as part of the 2022 Certified EIR.

Noise
Impact NOI-1 (PPA)
 Policy Plan Amendment: Mitigation Measure NOI-1-PPA would reduce potential impacts associated with construction of individual development projects to the extent feasible; however, due to the potential for construction activities near sensitive uses, the potential for numerous simultaneous construction projects, and the potential duration of construction activities, Impact NOI-1 could still result in a temporary substantial increase in noise levels above ambient conditions and the 80 dBA Leq threshold. Therefore, project and cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that the identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.

Impact NOI-2 (PPA + EBPSP)
 Policy Plan Amendment: Measures applied to individual development projects, such as constructing noise walls, evaluating and installing upgraded windows and doors, or applying rubberized asphalt on impacted roadway segments could reduce potential traffic noise impacts. However, impacted homes are on private property, outside of the control of future project developers, who may have limited admittance onto these properties to implement such mitigation. The cost-to-benefit ratio for the number of households benefited may not be feasible and reasonable in all cases. There are no funding mechanisms and procedures that would guarantee that the implementation of sound insulation features at each affected home would reduce traffic noise in interior areas. Therefore, project impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that the identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.
 EBPSP: Due to the infeasibility of both quiet pavement and off-site noise barriers, EBPSP-related off-site traffic noise increases at adjacent noise-sensitive land uses are considered a significant and unavoidable impact.
1724
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations
- 7 -
Impact NOI-3 (PPA)
 Policy Plan Amendment: Mitigation Measure NOI-2-PPA would reduce potential impacts associated with construction vibration from individual development projects to the extent feasible. However, due to the potential for construction activities in proximity to sensitive uses, the potential for numerous simultaneous construction projects, and the potential duration of construction activities, construction vibration impacts would be significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that the identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-thansignificant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.

Impact NOI-4 (PPA)
 Policy Plan Amendment: Revisions to Policy M-4.1 of TOP 2050 would reduce vibration annoyance impacts from individual development projects associated with heavy truck travel along City haul routes to the extent feasible. Reducing heavy truck travel speeds provides safe and efficient transport of goods on impacted roadway segments and could reduce potential heavy truck vibration annoyance impacts.

However, impacted receptors may still perceive an annoyance. Therefore, heavy truck vibration impacts associated with the proposed project would remain significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that the identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.

Impact NOI-5 (PPA)
 Policy Plan Amendment: With the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3-PPA and TOP 2050 policies, impacts to future sensitive receptors from excessive airportrelated noise from operations at the Ontario International Airport (ONT) would be reduced to comply with interior noise level thresholds of 45 dBA CNEL or less. While interior noise levels are required to achieve the interior noise limits of the California Building Standards, Title 24 and Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, exterior noise levels may continue to exceed the noise compatibility criteria for the City. Consequently, airport noise compatibility impacts of the proposed project would remain significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that the identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.

Transportation
Impact TRA-2 (PPA + EBPSP)
 Policy Plan Amendment: The proposed project would increase vehicle miles traveled per service population (VMT/SP) and total VMT compared to the approved project. 1725
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations
- 8 -
Mitigation Measure TRA-1-PPA would reduce potential impacts of future development projects to the extent feasible. Future development projects consistent with the proposed project would need to consider transportation demand management (TDM) measures consistent with those identified in the Mobility Element. TDM techniques include incentives to use transit; incentives to form carpools rather than drive alone; and making home, work, and shopping closer together to shorten travel distances. Project-level and cumulative VMT impacts under the proposed project would remain. Therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
 EBPSP: VMT/SP and total VMT would increase under the EBPSP. Mitigation Measure TRA-1-SP would reduce commute-related VMT by 7.2 percent. However, the City’s significance standard considers all trip types and does not isolate commute-related trips. Therefore, the 7.2 percent reduction applies only to a portion of the EBPSP’s total VMT and is not sufficient to fully mitigate the overall impact. Project-level and cumulative VMT impacts under the EBPSP would remain. Therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

PROJECT BENEFITS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
This section describes the benefits of the proposed project that outweigh the project’s unavoidable adverse effects and provides specific reasons for considering the project acceptable even though the Final SEIR indicated 14 significant project impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section15093(c), this statement of overriding considerations will be included in the record of the project approval and will also be noted in the Notice of Determination.

Each of the benefits identified below provides a separate and independent basis for overriding the significant environmental effects of the proposed project.

Having reduced the potential effects of the proposed project through all feasible mitigation measures, as described previously, and balancing the benefits of the proposed project against its potential unavoidable adverse impacts on air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation, the City finds that the following legal requirements and benefits of the proposed project individually and collectively outweigh the potentially significant unavoidable adverse impacts. 1726
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations
- 9 -

1. IMPLEMENTS THE OBJECTIVES ESTABLISHED FOR THE PROPOSED

PROJECT
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.  Update the Policy Plan component of TOP 2050 for internal consistency with proposed land use and circulation changes.

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. 1727
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations
- 10 -
 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.

2. PROVIDES HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING THAT HELPS EXCEED THE CITY’S

REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS
Buildout of the proposed project would allow increased population of approximately 16,000 people and 8,000 additional housing units compared to the approved project.

The approved project exceeds SCAG’s regional housing needs forecasts for Ontario, and therefore the increase in population, housing, and employment as part of the proposed project would also exceed SCAG’s regional forecast for the city. The proposed project would comply with SB 330 and SB 166, and there would be no net loss of residential units in the city with implementation of the proposed project. The proposed project would align jobs with the current employment market.

3. COMPLIES WITH CURRENT LEGISLATION
SB 330 (No Net-Loss Provisions)
If any proposed rezonings convert land from uses that allow housing to uses that do not allow housing, the City must offset this by concurrently upzoning another property elsewhere to prevent a net loss of housing capacity. Since some of the requested changes would reduce potential housing buildout, the overall amendments include additional land use changes specifically for this offset. 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 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

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.
1728
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations
- 11 -
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 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. Because the loss of sites cannot be absorbed in the current inventory and there are not enough sites that meet the criteria above to offset the loss of sites, the proposed project upzones several sites to meet the City’s RHNA obligation.

AB 98 (Truck Routes)
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, then 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). The City received comments regarding heavy truck traffic passing residential areas, especially along Ontario Ranch Road and Archibald Avenue.

Specific issues identified by the public regarding 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, in the SEIR identifies the truck routes proposed by the City to move forward for the Policy Plan Amendment and to address the requirements of AB 98. The changes to the truck route map would be made 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 to 6 lanes).
 The presence of sound walls and vegetation.
 The proximity of a parallel truck route.
1729
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations
- 12 -
 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.

4. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND GOODS MOVEMENT

EFFICIENCY
The proposed project supports the implementation of updated mobility goals and policies intended to improve transportation system efficiency while minimizing impacts on sensitive land uses. As identified above, 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 (Figure M-01) and to multipurpose trails and bikeways, identified on TOP Figure M-02, are also proposed to reflect the City’s longterm 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 SB 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. Finally, 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), and Policy M-4.1 would clarify that noise-sensitive land uses are intended to include both noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses.

5. CREATES JOBS, PROVIDES ECONOMIC BENEFITS, AND MEETS DEMANDS

FOR BUSINESS PARK SPACE
The EBPSP allows for the development of approximately 2,939,000 square feet of Business Park uses on 137.9 acres and 36.15 acres of Open Space–Parkland. In addition, the EBPSP land uses have the potential to generate up to 1,590 jobs that can be filled by residents of the City and surrounding communities. Temporary construction and longterm operational jobs created by the EBPSP would result in increased spending throughout the region, including in the City of Ontario. It is anticipated that annual personal earnings would increase through the generation of new jobs, and these earnings would ripple through the local and regional economy, creating a one-time increase in output and earnings associated with construction jobs and an on-going increase in output and earnings associated with permanent jobs.

The proposed project establishes the necessary land use plan, development standards, design guidelines, infrastructure systems, and implementation strategies on which subsequent, related development activities would be founded. The proposed EBPSP 1730
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations
- 13 -
would 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; 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; and 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 such as police and fire protection, infrastructure maintenance, and parks. The Fiscal Impact Study indicates that the EBPSP is anticipated to generate an annual surplus of approximately $530,000 for the benefit of the City.

6. IMPLEMENTATION OF LONG-RANGE PLANNING AND POLICY

CONSISTENCY
The Policy Plan Amendment advances the City’s TOP 2050 vision by 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. The proposed project also includes updates to the zoning map and Development Code to implement the Policy Plan Amendment. The proposed project promotes consistency between planning documents and supports the efficient and orderly buildout of the EBPSP, which helps promote consistency in the City’s long-range planning efforts.

7. PROVIDES INFRASTRUCTURE TO SERVE THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND LOCAL AREA
Development in the Ontario Ranch area has been constrained by a lack of infrastructure.

The EBPSP includes required infrastructure facilities, including financing and phasing.  Roadway Improvements. The developer(s) of the EBPSP would be responsible for the construction of vicinity roadway improvements, including segments of Campus Avenue, Bon View Avenue, Grove Avenue, Walker Avenue, and Eucalyptus Avenue.

Additionally, the full width of ‘A’ Street would be constructed. The project would also pay fair share costs for offsite improvements at 18 intersections identified in Table 8- 1 the Traffic Analysis.
 Transit Service Improvements. The EBPSP would construct a new bus turnout near the intersection of Grove Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue in anticipation of future Omnitrans service.
1731
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations
- 14 -
 Potable Water Infrastructure. The EBPSP includes extension of potable water to the plan area. Additional water lines would be installed in conjunction with new development. Potable water system improvements include potable water lines along Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue from Eucalyptus Avenue to the northern boundary of the Specific Plan area and a potable water line along Bon View Avenue from Eucalyptus Avenue to the northern boundary of the Specific Plan area and Public Street ‘A’ between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue.

The EBPSP would also participate in the future Phase 2 Water System Improvements that provide for broader improvements for surrounding area.  Recycled Water Infrastructure. The EBPSP includes extension of recycled water to the plan area. Recycled water system improvements necessary to serve the Specific Plan area include recycled water lines in Grove Avenue and Walker Avenue.  Sewer Infrastructure. The EBPSP includes extension of sewer to the plan area.

Sanitary sewer infrastructure improvements include new sewer lines in Campus Avenue, Bon View Avenue, Grove Avenue, Walker Avenue, and Public Street ‘A’ between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue.
 Stormwater Infrastructure. Planned site drainage improvements include the construction of necessary on-site stormwater management facilities.  Dry Utilities. The EBPSP would also construct electrical and telecommunications services utilities in the plan area.

8. PROVIDES PARKLAND NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT THE GRAND PARK Situated between the northern boundary of the EBPSP and new Public Street ‘A’, Planning Areas 7, 8, and 9 would be designated Open Space–Parkland. Implementation of the EBPSP would allow for the acquisition of this open space property by the City. This

36.15-acre area would implement a segment of the City’s public “Grand Park.” Grand Park is planned as a 3.7-mile, 340-acre greenbelt between Haven Avenue and Campus Avenue. The EBPSP would implement the southern half of a 1.25-mile stretch of the park. The northern half of this segment of Grand Park would be installed by the Center Park Specific Plan, which is currently proposed to the north of the EBPSP.1 Passive recreational opportunities for future employees, visitors, and City residents would be provided through features such as pedestrian paths, gathering areas, turf areas, and botanical gardens.
1 It is noted that although only the southern half of the Grand Park is included in the EBPSP, development of the entire park area has been assumed and analyzed in the EBPSP’s technical studies in the case of no northern development.
1732
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations
- 15 -

9. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
There are unavoidable, significant impacts in the following categories: Air Quality, Cultural Resources, GHG Emissions, Noise, and Transportation.  If the City does not adopt the Policy Plan Amendment, there would still be significant impacts relating to air quality, cultural resources, GHG emissions, noise, and transportation. Even without any growth in the City, which is not a realistic scenario, regional growth will still cause significant impacts from air quality and GHG emissions.
 Impacts relating to construction noise and vibration and construction emissions are temporary in nature.

CONCLUSION
The City Ontario has balanced the project’s benefits against the significant unavoidable impacts. The City finds that the proposed project’s benefits, which aim to enhance the City of Ontario and comply with current legislation, especially housing laws, outweigh the project’s significant unavoidable impacts, and these impacts are therefore considered acceptable in the light of the project’s benefits. The City finds that each of the benefits described above is an overriding consideration, independent of the other benefits, that warrants approval of the project notwithstanding the project’s significant unavoidable impacts.

The City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against any unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the proposed project. Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, if the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the proposed project’s unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered “acceptable.”
Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effect of the proposed project to the extent feasible by adopting the Mitigation Measures in the SEIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and this Resolution; having considered the entire administrative record on the proposed project; and having weighed the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable adverse impact after mitigation, the City Council has determined that each of the following social, economic, and environmental benefits of the proposed project separately and individually outweighs the proposed project’s potential unavoidable adverse impacts and renders those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable.
1733
Ontario Policy Plan Amendment SEIR
CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations
- 16 -
The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through the approval and implementation of the proposed project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impact of the proposed project that cannot be mitigated. The City Council finds that each of the proposed project benefits separately and individually outweighs all of the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the SEIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. 1734
RESOLUTION NO. PC26-023

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE FILE NO. PGPA25-002, A CITYWIDE AMENDMENT TO THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 POLICY PLAN (GENERAL PLAN), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF — APNs: 0113-282-15, 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, 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, 1735
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA25-002
April 28, 2026

Page 2 ends

Ontario City CouncilJune 16, 2026

Ontario City Council
June 16, 2026