Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, October 18, 2022 (part 3 of 6)

The Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment concluded that The Project site has not been identified with persons or events significant in State or national history. In 1988, Joseph A. and Doleen Borba were recorded as owners of the property, but their exact involvement with the dairy operation on the property are unknown. While many members of the extended Borba were very active in Chino Valley dairy community, both in civic and industry activities, important contributions made in association with this property were not found.
4 United State Department of Agriculture (USDA) https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/plantsanimals/livestock/afo/. 371
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-8 4.4 | Cultural Resources
The Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment concluded that the East and West Houses have not been identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history.

Criterion C. It is Representative of the Work of a Notable Builder, Designer, Architect, or Artist.

The built-environment resources of the Project site were not constructed within the period of significance for “Post 1950 [to 1969], Scientific, Large Capacity Dairies” in the New Model Colony Area. These types of large-scale dairy operations were being constructed across California, and in many parts of the United States, since the end of World War II. Per the USDA, there are over 450,000 AFOs in the United States in 2017, of which dairy operations make up a large percentage of the total number. The Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment concluded that the East and West Houses do not represent the work of a notable builder, designer, architect, or artist.

Criterion D. It Embodies Distinguishing Characteristics of a Style, Type, Period, or Method of Construction.

The Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment concluded that While the Project site does present the physical and architectural attributes of a Large Capacity Dairy, it was constructed in 1976 and is therefore outside the period of significance for a “Post 1950 [to 1969] Scientific, Large Capacity Dairy” in the New Model Colony Area. The design of the dairy facility on the Project site property had no impact on the future of architectural or agricultural development of dairy farms in Ontario or the Chino Valley in the last quarter of the twentieth-century. Furthermore, the East and West Houses do not possess sufficient character-defining features to embody the distinguishing architectural features of a “1960s through 1980s” Ranch style residence, or method of construction.

Criterion E. It is Noteworthy Example of the Use of Indigenous Materials or Craftsmanship.

The Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment concluded that the buildings and structures of the Project site do not exhibit noteworthy examples of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship.

Furthermore, the East and West Houses are not noteworthy examples of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship.

Criterion F. It Embodies Elements That Represent A Significant Structural, Engineering, or Architectural Achievement or Innovation.

The Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment concluded that the Project site does not embody elements that represent significant dairy technology, or design of a factory farm, constructed in the 1970s.

The dairy operation presents the type of large scale, dry lot, milking operation widely used across California where urban growth pushes against agrarian interests. (And why the Williamson Act was enacted to protect agricultural and open space land). Furthermore, the East and West Houses do not embody elements that represent a significant structural, engineering, or architectural achievement or innovation.
372
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-9 4.4 | Cultural Resources
Criterion G. It has a Unique Location, a Singular Physical Characteristic, or is an Established and Familiar Visual Feature of a Neighborhood, Community of the City.

The Project site is not located in a unique location. The farm is just one of many that are still located in the Chino Valley-Ontario area. The East and West Houses also do not have a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or are established and familiar visual features of a neighborhood, or community in the City.

Criterion H. It is One of the Few Remaining Examples in the City, Region, State, or Nation Possessing Distinguishing Characteristics of an Architectural or Historical Type or Specimen.

The Project site property was constructed outside of the period of significance for a “Post 1950 [to 1969] Scientific, Large Capacity Dairy” in the New Model Colony Area, and is not a rare example of a large capacity dairy in Ontario or California. Large capacity dairies continue to operate across California, and many are constructed based upon the same basic physical design, but are being outfitted with technologically advanced milking, animal husbandry, and herd control devices.

The Project site property has not been identified as a contributing member of any identified Historic District of thematically related groupings of Large Capacity Dairy farms constructed after 1969 in the New Model Colony Area. Additionally, the East and West Houses of the Project site property are not rare examples of an architectural or historical type of residential construction in the City, region, state, or nation.

4.4.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
National Register Bulletin 385
The National Park Service (NPS) has prepared guidelines to assist in the documentation of Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) by public entities. While it is federal guidance, it serves as the best and most recognized guidance for identifying TCPs. National Register Bulletin (NRB) 38 is intended to be an aid in determining whether properties have traditional cultural significance and if they are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. It is also intended to assist federal agencies, State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), Certified Local Governments, tribes, and other historic preservation practitioners who need to evaluate such properties when considering their eligibility for the NRHP as part of the review process prescribed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).

National Historic Protection Act Section 106
The Project will be reviewed in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The NHPA of 1966, as amended, is the primary set of federal laws governing projects that may affect cultural resources. Section 106 of the NHPA addresses Federal undertakings and requires agencies to review and evaluate how undertakings may impact historic properties. 5 National Register Bulletin 38. (1992). Retrieved from: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB38-Completeweb.pdf. 373
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-10 4.4 | Cultural Resources
A “Federal Undertaking” is defined as a project, activity or program that is funded, permitted, licensed, or approved by a Federal agency. Federal undertakings can occur on or off federally controlled properties and include new and continuing projects, activities, or programs, or any element thereof. Permitting pursuant to the Clean Water Act is considered a Federal undertaking for purposes of compliance with the NHPA.

Under Section 106 of the NHPA, federal agencies are required to consider the effects of their actions on properties that are listed in, or eligible for listing in, the NRHP. The following are the four general processing steps for Section 106 compliance:

1. Initiate the Section 106 process by establishing the undertaking, developing a plan for public involvement and identifying other consulting parties;

2. Identify historic properties by determining the scope of efforts, identifying cultural resources and evaluating their eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP;

3. Assess adverse effects to historic properties by applying the criteria of adverse effects to historic properties; and

4. Resolve adverse effects by consulting with the SHPO and other consulting agencies, including the ACHP if necessary, to develop an agreement that addresses the treatment of historic properties.

To address their Section 106 obligations, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)promulgated implementing regulations at 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 325, Appendix C.6 Appendix C establishes procedures to fulfill the requirements set forth in the NHPA. The USACE follows these procedures rather than those outlined in 36 CFR Part 800.

Per Appendix C, "designated historic property" is a historic property listed in the NRHP or which has been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP pursuant to 36 CFR Part 63. A historic property that, in both the opinion of the SHPO and the USACE district engineer, appears to meet the criteria for inclusion in the NRHP will be treated as a "designated historic property." The USACE will identify a “permit area” for the Project, in accordance with the following:

1. The term "permit area" as used in this appendix means those areas comprising the waters of the United States that will be directly affected by the proposed work or structures and uplands directly affected as a result of authorizing the work or structures. The following three tests must all be satisfied for an activity undertaken outside the waters of the United States to be included within the "permit area":
i. Such activity would not occur but for the authorization of the work or structures within the waters of the United States;
6 USACE. 33 SFR 325 Appendix C – Procedures for the Protection of Historic Properties. Retrieved from USACE Website:
https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Portals/64/docs/regulatory/Coordination/33%20CFR%20325%20Appendix%20C.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2021. 374
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-11 4.4 | Cultural Resources
ii. Such activity must be integrally related to the work or structures to be authorized within waters of the United States. Or, conversely, the work or structures to be authorized must be essential to the completeness of the overall project or program; and iii. Such activity must be directly associated (first-order impact) with the work or structures to be authorized.

Title 36 CFR Section 60.47 provides the criteria for evaluation of NRHP eligibility.

National Register Criteria for Evaluation. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and:
a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
b) that are associatedwith the lives of persons significant in our past; or c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Criteria considerations. Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the NRHP. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria of if they fall within the following categories:
a) A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance;
b) A building or structure removed from its original location, but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event;
c) A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; d) A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; e) A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived;
7 E-CFR. (2019). Title 36, Chapter I, Part 60, Section 60.4 – Criteria for evaluation. Retrieved from ECFR Website:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-36/chapter-I/part-60/section-60.4. Accessed July 15, 2021. 375
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-12 4.4 | Cultural Resources
f) A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or
g) A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance.

Establishing NRHP eligibility also depends on integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Sites that meet one or more NRHP eligibility criteria but do not retain integrity are not eligible for the NRHP. Guidance regarding integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association is provided by NRB 15. 8 Location - Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The relationship between the property and its location is often important to understand why the property was created or why something happened. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. Except in rare cases, the relationship between a property and its historic associations is destroyed if the property is moved.

Design -Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It results from conscious decisions made during the original conception and planning of a property (or its significant alteration) and applies to activities as diverse as community planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials.

A property's design reflects historic functions and technologies as well as aesthetics. It includes such considerations as the structural system; massing; arrangement of spaces; pattern of fenestration; textures and colors of surface materials; type, amount, and style of ornamental detailing; and arrangement and type of plantings in a designed landscape.

Design can also apply to districts, whether they are important primarily for historic association, architectural value, information potential, or a combination thereof. For districts significant primarily for historic association or architectural value, design concerns more than just the individual buildings or structures located within the boundaries. It also applies to the way in which buildings, sites, or structures are related: for example, spatial relationships between major features; visual rhythms in a streetscape or landscape plantings; the layout and materials of walkways and roads; and the relationship of other features, such as statues, water fountains, and archaeological sites.

Setting - Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historical role. It involves how not just where the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space. Setting often reflects the basic physical conditions under which a property was built and the functions it was intended to serve. In addition, the way in which a property is positioned in its environment can reflect the designer's concept of nature and aesthetic preferences. The physical features that constitute the setting of a historic property can be either natural 8 NRHP (2002). National Register Bulletin 15. Retrieved from NPS Website: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB15_web508.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2021. 376
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-13 4.4 | Cultural Resources
or man-made, including such elements as: topographic features (a gorge or the crest of a hill); vegetation; simple manmade features (paths or fences); and relationships between buildings and other features or open space. These features and their relationships should be examined not only within the exact boundaries of the property but also between the property and its surroundings. This is particularly important for districts.

Materials - Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. The choice and combination of materials reveal the preferences of those who created the property and indicate the availability of particular types of materials and technologies. Indigenous materials are often the focus of regional building traditions and thereby help define an area's sense of time and place.

A property must retain the key exterior materials dating from the period of its historic significance. If the property has been rehabilitated, the historic materials and significant features must have been preserved.

The property must also be an actual historic resource, not a re-creation; a recent structure fabricated to look historic is not eligible. Likewise, a property whose historic features and materials have been lost and then reconstructed is usually not eligible.

Workmanship-Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. Workmanship can apply to the property as a whole or to its individual components. It can be expressed in vernacular methods of construction and plain finishes or in highly sophisticated configurations and ornamental detailing. It can be based on common traditions or innovative period techniques.

Workmanship is important because it can furnish evidence of the technology of a craft, illustrate the aesthetic principles of a historic or prehistoric period, and reveal individual, local, regional, or national applications of both technological practices and aesthetic principles. Examples of workmanship in historic buildings include tooling, carving, painting, graining, turning, and joinery. Examples of workmanship in prehistoric contexts include Paleo-Indian clovis projectile points; Archaic period beveled adzes; Hopewellian birdstone pipes; copper earspools and worked bone pendants; and Iroquoian effigy pipes.

Feeling - Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. For example, a rural historic district retaining original design, materials, workmanship, and setting will relate the feeling of agricultural life in the 19th century. A grouping of prehistoric petroglyphs, unmarred by graffiti and intrusions and located on its original isolated bluff, can evoke a sense of tribal spiritual life.

Association - Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. For example, a Revolutionary 377
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-14 4.4 | Cultural Resources
War battlefield whose natural and manmade elements have remained intact since the 18th century will retain its quality of association with the battle.

Because feeling and association depend on individual perceptions, their retention alone is never sufficient to support eligibility of a property for the NRHP.

The Project is not anticipated to be subject to the federal permitting processes under “Section 106 review, “as there are no anticipated federal actions or approvals that would be required, which would trigger compliance under Section 106 of the NHPA. Under the NHPA, federal agencies are required to consider the effects of their actions on places that are listed in, or eligible for listing in, the NRHP.

Natural Register of Historic Places
The NRHP was established by the NHPA as “an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s historic resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment” (CFR 36 Section 60.2).

The NRHP recognizes both historical-period and prehistoric archaeological properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels.

To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance must meet one or more of the following four established criteria: Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; 1) Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; 2) Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or 3) Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Unless the property possesses exceptional significance, it must be at least 50 years old to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. In addition to meeting the criteria of significance, a property must have integrity.

Integrity is defined as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.” The NRHP recognizes seven qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain historic integrity a property must possess several, and usually most, of these seven aspects. Thus, the retention of the specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 regulates the protection of archaeological resources and sites on federal and Indian lands.
378
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-15 4.4 | Cultural Resources
State
California Environmental Quality Act
California public agencies must consider the effects of their actions on both “historical resources” and “unique archaeological resources.” Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21084.1, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC Section 21083.2 additionally requires agencies to determine whether proposed projects would have effects on “unique archaeological resources.” “Historical resource” is a term with a defined statutory meaning. Under California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Chapter 3 (California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines), Section 15064.5 (a) “historical resource” includes the following:

A resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC), for listing in the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1 and Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).

A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.

Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1 and Title 14 CCR Section 4852) including the following:
• Criterion 1 - Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; • Criterion 2 - Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; • Criterion 3 - 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
• Criterion 4 - Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

CEQA addresses significant impacts to historical resources. “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1)).
379
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-16 4.4 | Cultural Resources
CEQA also requires agencies to consider whether projects will affect “unique archaeological resources.” PRC Section 21083.2(g) states that “‘unique archaeological resources’ means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. Has a special and quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized, important prehistoric or historic event or person.”
California Public Records Act
Sections 6254(r) and 6254.10 of the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) were enacted to protect archaeological sites from unauthorized excavation, looting, or vandalism. Section 6254(r) explicitly authorizes public agencies to withhold information from the public relating to “Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places and records of Native American places, features, and objects… maintained by, …, the Native American Heritage Commission….”. Section 6254.10 specifically exempts from disclosure requests for “records that relate to archaeological site information and reports maintained by, or in the possession of, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the SHRC, the State Lands Commission, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), another state agency, or a local agency, including the records that the agency obtains through a consultation process between a California Native American tribe and a state or local agency.”
California Public Resources Code
Archaeological, paleontological, and historical sites are protected under a wide variety of State policies and regulations in the California PRC (PRC Sections 5020 to 5029.5, PRC Section 5079 to 5079.65, and PRC Section 5097.9 to 5097.991). In addition, cultural and paleontological resources are recognized as nonrenewable resources and receive protection under the PRC and CEQA.

PRC Sections 5020 to 5029.5 continued the former Historical Landmarks Advisory Committee as the SHRC.

The commission oversees the administration of the CRHR and is responsible for designating State Historical Landmarks and Historical Points of Interest.

PRC Section 5079 to 5079.65 define the functions and duties of the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), which administers federal- and state-mandated historic preservation programs in California as well as the California Heritage Fund.

PRC Section 5097.9 to 5097.991 provide protection to Native American historical and cultural resources and sacred sites; identify the powers and duties of the 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.
380
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-17 4.4 | Cultural Resources
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 Section 5024.1). Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP and California Historical Landmarks (CHL) numbered 770 and higher, are automatically included in the CRHR. Other properties recognized under the Point of Historical Interest (PHI) program, identified as significant in historical resources surveys, or designated by local landmarks programs, may be nominated for inclusion in the CRHR. A resource, either an individual property or a contributor to a historic district, may be listed in the CRHR if the SHRC determines that it meets any of the following criteria, which are modeled on NRHP criteria:
• Criterion 1: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. • Criterion 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. • Criterion 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic values.
• Criterion 4: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.

According to 14 CCR Section 4852(a), types of resources eligible for nomination:
1) Building. A resource, such as a house, barn, church, factory, hotel, or similar structure created principally to shelter or assist in carrying out any form of human activity. “Building” may also be used to refer to a historically and functionally related unit, such as a courthouse and jail or a house and barn;
2) Site. A site is the location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historical, cultural, or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing building, structure, or object. A site need not be marked by physical remains if it is the location of a prehistoric event, and if no buildings, structures, or objects marked it at that time. Examples of such sites are trails, designed landscapes, battlefields, habitation-sites, Native American ceremonial areas, petroglyphs, and pictographs;
3) Structure. The term “structure” is used to describe a construction made for a functional purpose rather than creating human shelter. Examples of structures include mines, bridges, and tunnels; 4) Object. The term “object” is used to describe those constructions that are primarily artistic in nature or are relatively small in scale and simply constructed, as opposed to a building or a structure. Although it may be moveable by nature or design, an object is associated with a specific setting or environment. Objects should be in a setting appropriate to their significant historic use, role, or character. Objects that are relocated to a museum are not eligible for listing in the CRHR. 381
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-18 4.4 | Cultural Resources
Examples of objects include fountains, monuments, maritime resources, sculptures, and boundary markers; and
5) Historic district. Historic districts are unified geographic entities which contain a concentration of historic buildings, structures, objects, or sites united historically, culturally, or architecturally.

Historic districts are defined by precise geographic boundaries. Therefore, districts with unusual boundaries require a description of what lies immediately outside the area, in order to define the edge of the district and to explain the exclusion of adjoining areas. The district must meet at least one of the criteria for significance discussed in Section 4852(b)(1)-(4) of this chapter.

Under PRC Section 5024.1 and 14 CCR Section 4852(c), a cultural resource must retain integrity to be considered eligible for the CRHR. Specifically, it must retain enough character or appearance to be recognizable as a historical resource and convey reasons of significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to retention of such factors as location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Cultural sites that have been affected by ground-disturbing activities, such as agricultural activities and off-road vehicle use (both of which occur within the Project site), often lack integrity because they have been directly damaged or removed from their original location, among other changes.

Typically, a prehistoric archaeological site in California is recommended eligible for listing in the CRHR based on its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion 4). Important information includes chronological markers such as projectile point styles or obsidian artifacts that can be subjected to dating methods or undisturbed deposits that retain their stratigraphic integrity. Sites such as these have the ability to address research questions.

California Historical Landmarks
CHLs are buildings, structures, sites, or places that have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value and that have been determined to have statewide historical significance by meeting at least one of the criteria listed below.

The resource also must have written consent of the property owner; be recommended by the SHRC; and be officially designated by the Director of California State Parks. The specific standards now in use were first applied in the designation of CHL No. 770. CHLs numbered 770 and above are automatically listed in the CRHR.

To be eligible for designation as a CHL, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria:
• It is the first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the state or within a large geographic region (northern, central, or southern California);
• It is associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of California; or,
• It is a prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement, or construction or is one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in a region of a pioneer architect, designer, or master builder.
382
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-19 4.4 | Cultural Resources
California Historical Resources Status Codes
In order to be considered as significant, a resource must meet at least one of the above-listed NRHP or CRHR criteria and retain enough integrity to support its period of significance and association within a historical context. A resource is assigned a California Historical Resources (CHR) status code following evaluation, which identifies its significance level. The status codes and descriptions are:

1. Properties listed in the NRHP or the CRHR.

2. Properties determined eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR.

3. Appears eligible for NRHP or CRHR through survey evaluation.

4. Appears eligible for NRHP or CRHR through other evaluation.

5. Properties recognized as historically significant by local government.

6. Not eligible for listing or designation as specified.

7. Not evaluated for NRHP or CRHR or needs re-evaluation Typically, resources designated as CHR Status Code 6 are determined ineligible for designation under any criteria and are not considered historical resources. However, there are several subcategories that exist within each of the status codes that allow for various exemptions, such as whether a resource contributes to a Historic District.

California Historic Building Code (CHBC)
The CHBC provides guidelines for the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, relocation, and reconstruction of buildings or structures designated as qualified historical buildings or properties by a local, state, or federal jurisdiction, as defined by CHBC Section 8-218. The CHBC provides guidelines for long-term preservation efforts of qualified historical buildings or properties to allow owners to make improvements for access for persons with disabilities; to provide a cost-effective approach to preservation; and, to ensure overall safety of affected occupants or users.

As defined by the CHBC, a “qualified historical building” is “any building, site, structure, object, district, or collection of structures, and their associated sites, deemed of importance to the history, architecture, or culture of an area by an appropriate local, state, or federal governmental jurisdiction. This includes designated buildings or properties on, or determined eligible for, official national, state, or local historical registers or official inventories, such as the NRHP, CRHR, CHLs, California PHI, and officially adopted city or county registers, inventories, or surveys of historical or architecturally significant sites, places, or landmarks.”9
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and 7052 State Health and Safety Code (HSC), Section 7050.5, declares that, in the event of the discovery of human remains outside of a dedicated cemetery, all ground disturbance must cease, and the county coroner must 9 California Historic Building Code (Sections 18950 to 18962 of Division 13, Part 2.7 of California Health and Safety Code). 383
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-20 4.4 | Cultural Resources
be notified. HSC Section 7052 establishes a felony penalty for mutilating, disinterring, or otherwise disturbing human remains, except by relatives.

More precisely, if human remains are encountered, Section 7050.5 states that:
a) “Every person who knowingly mutilates or disinters, wantonly disturbs, or willfully removes any human remains in or from any location other than a dedicated cemetery without authority of law is guilty of a misdemeanor, except as provided in Section 5097.99 of the PRC. The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to any person carrying out an agreement developed pursuant to subdivision (l) of Section 5097.94 of the PRC or to any person authorized to implement Section 5097.98 of the PRC.
b) 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 or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27491 of the Government Code or any other related 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 for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the PRC. 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 if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.”10
PRC Section 5097.91, PRC Section 5097.98, PRC Section 5097.94 and the Native American Heritage Commission
PRC Section 5097.91 established the NAHC, the duties of which include inventorying places of religious or social significance to Native Americans and identifying known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands. PRC Section 5097.98 specifies a protocol to be followed when the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner.

PRC Section 5097.94 establishes the powers and duties of the NAHC, including, but not limited to:
a) To identify and catalog places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans and known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands. The identification and cataloging of known graves and cemeteries shall be completed on or before January 1, 1984. The 10 State of California. (1987). Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. Retrieved from State of California Website:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=7050.5. 384
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-21 4.4 | Cultural Resources
commission shall notify landowners on whose property the graves and cemeteries are determined to exist and shall identify the Native American group most likely descended from those Native Americans who may be interred on the property. b) To make recommendations relative to Native American sacred places that are located on private lands, are inaccessible to Native Americans, and have cultural significance to Native Americans for acquisition by the state or other public agencies for the purpose of facilitating or assuring access thereto by Native Americans.
c) To make recommendations to the Legislature relative to procedures that will voluntarily encourage private property owners to preserve and protect sacred places in a natural state and to allow appropriate access to Native American religionists for ceremonial or spiritual activities.

For a complete list of powers and duties, visit:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum=5097.94.

California Penal Code, Section 622.5
California Penal Code, Section 622.5, provides misdemeanor penalties for injuring or destroying objects of historic or archaeological interest located on public or private lands but specifically excludes the landowner.

Local
City of Ontario Development Code
The City Development Code Chapters 4 and 7 establish the City’s scope of historic preservation activities and is the primary body of local law relating to historic preservation. Division 7.01 includes the purpose and authority for historic preservation, and Division 4.02 includes criteria for local historic designation and procedures for the alteration or demolition of historic properties.

Properties may be designated at the local level as Historic Landmarks or Districts. The City Council maintains a record of historic properties that are eligible to apply for placement on the City’s List of Designated Historic Landmarks or Districts. Any property owner may request the designation of a Historical Resource as a Historic Landmark or District by applying to the City’s Planning Department.

Pursuant to Development Code Section 4.02.040, a property that meets one or more of the following criteria is eligible to be placed on the City’s List of Historic Landmarks and Districts as a Landmark:
• It meets the criteria for listing in the NRHP; or
• It meets the criterion for listing in the CRHR; or
385
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-22 4.4 | Cultural Resources
• It meets one or more of the following criteria:
▪ It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s history; ▪ It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; ▪ It is representative of the work of a notable builder, designer, architect, or artist; ▪ It embodies distinguishing characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction;
▪ It is noteworthy example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; ▪ It embodies elements that represent a significant structural, engineering, or architectural achievement or innovation;
▪ It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community of the City; ▪ It is one of the few remaining examples in the City, region, state, or nation possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historical type or specimen; or ▪ It has yielded or is likely to yield information important to the City’s history or prehistory.

Pursuant to Development Code Section 4.02.040, any neighborhood or area that meets one or more of the following criteria is eligible to be placed on the City’s List of Historic Landmarks and Districts as a District:
• Is a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of Historical Resources or thematically related grouping of structures which contribute to each other and are unified by plan, style, or physical development; and embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master and possesses high artistic values;
• Reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of a park landscape, site design, or community planning;
• Is associated with, or the contributing resources are unified by events that have a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or
• The historic resource is, or the contributing resources are associated with lives of persons important to Ontario, California, or national history.

Landmarks and Districts listed in the NRHP or the CRHR are automatically placed on the City’s List of Historic Landmarks and Districts. In addition to the criteria listed above that refer to the historical significance of the resource, the City also requires Landmarks and Districts to have integrity for the time in which they are significant.

The City requires that EIRs associated with Specific Plans in New Model Colony (also referred to as NMC, or Ontario Ranch [OR]) must consider the findings discovered in the City of Ontario’s Historic Context for 386
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-23 4.4 | Cultural Resources
the New Model Colony Area11 and address impacts to historical resources. Therefore, this analysis of the resources on the Project site considers the contextual aspects of the NMC Historic Context with an analysis of the Project.

The City Development Code Article 26, Historic Preservation, 12 promotes the public health, safety, and
general welfare by:
• Safeguarding the character and history of the City which is reflected in its unique cultural, historical, and architectural heritage, with emphasis on the “Model Colony” as recognized by an Act of Congress and presented at the St. Louis World’s Fair in 1904; • Promoting public knowledge, appreciation, and understanding of the City’s past; • Fostering civic and neighborhood pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past; • Promoting the enjoyment and use of Historical Resources appropriate for the education and recreation of the people of the City;
• Enhancing the visual and aesthetic character, diversity, and interest of the City; • Enhancing property values and stabilizing neighborhoods within the City; • Recognizing Historical Resources and protecting areas of historical buildings from encroachment of incompatible designs;
• Providing economic benefits to the City and its inhabitants through financial incentives for preservation;
• Protecting and enhancing the City’s attraction to tourists and visitors, • Stimulating business and industry;
• Promoting public awareness of the benefits of preservation; and • Encouraging public participation in historic preservation, thereby increasing civic pride in the City’s heritage.

The Project site would comply with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, ensuring all historicallysignificant findings within the City, including the Project site, would align with the above standards.

City of Ontario Policy Plan
The Ontario Plan (TOP) is the main planning vision for the City. TOP considers the growth of the City within six areas of focus:

1. Vision

2. Government Manual

3. Policy Plan

4. City Council Priorities
11 Galvin and Associates. (2004). The City of Ontario’s Historic Context for the New Model Colony Area. Prepared for City of Ontario Planning Department. Available online at http://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Historic-Preservation/the_dairy_industry.pdf. 12 City of Ontario Development Code Article 26. (2011). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Historic_Preservation/historic_preservation_ordinance_0.pdf 387
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-24 4.4 | Cultural Resources

5. Implementation, and

6. Tracking and Feedback
Included in TOP, the Policy Plan is a Community Design Element that describes goals and policies which act as a framework toguide the City’s future growth.

Community Design Element
Goal CD4 Historic buildings, streets, landscapes, and neighborhoods, as well as the story of Ontario’s people, businesses, and social and community organizations, that have been preserved and serve as a focal point for civic pride and identity.

Policy CD4-1 Cultural Resource Management. Update and maintain an inventory of historic sites and buildings, professional collections, artifacts, manuscripts, photographs, documents, maps, and other archives.

4.4.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

C-1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

C-2 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

C-3 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

Historical Resources
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 provides direction on determining significance of impacts to archaeological and historical resources. Generally, a resource shall be considered “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR:
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
• Is associated with lives of persons important in our past; • 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 • Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC Section 5024.1; 14 CCR Section 4852)
The fact that a resource is not listed in the CRHR, not determined to be eligible for listing, or not included in a local register of historical resources does not preclude a lead agency from determining that it may be a historical resource. The City is a Certified Local Government (CLG) that is required to review historic resource surveys and make determination of eligibility for listing on an ongoing basis as part of the implementation of the certified historic preservation program. 388
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-25 4.4 | Cultural Resources
Section 7.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant:
• Threshold C-3
This impact will not be addressed in the following analysis.

4.4.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP CUL-1 Cultural and paleontological resources are recognized as nonrenewable resources and receive protection under the PRC and CEQA.

PPP CUL-2 Native American historical and cultural resources and sacred sites are protected under PRC Sections 5097.9 to 5097.991, which 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.

PPP CUL-3 The removal, without permission, of any paleontological site or feature is prohibited from lands under the jurisdiction of the state or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof (PRC Section 5097.5). This applies to agencies’ ownactivities, including construction and maintenance, and permit actions by others.

PPP CUL-4 Adverse impacts to paleontological resources from developments on public (state, county, city, and district) lands require reasonable mitigation. (PRC Section 5097.5) PPP CUL-5 If human remains are discovered within a project site, disturbance of the site must stop until the coroner has investigated and made recommendations for the treatment and dispositionof the human remains to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative. If the coroner has reason to believe the human remains are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the NAHC. (California HSC Section 7050.5)

4.4.5 Methodology
California Historic Resources Inventory System and Cultural Background Research On July 25, 2018, MCC conducted a search of the California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS) at the South-Central Coast Information Center (SCCIC), located at the California State University, Fullerton, Orange County. The record search covered the initial 84.1-acre Approved SP. In April 2020, MCC staff compiled previous CHRIS research of previous nearby projects that overlap the supplemental 71.69- acre Project site. These searches covered any previously recorded cultural resources and investigations within a one-mile radius of the entire Project site. The CHRIS search also included a review of the NRHP, the CRHR, the California PHI list, the California Historical Landmarks list, the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list, and the California State Inventory of Historic Resources.

Cultural Field Survey
MCC conducted thorough background research and analysis to verify the exact location of each identified cultural resource, the condition or integrity of the resource, and identify areas of cultural resource sensitivity. An MCC Archaeologist and cross-trained Paleontologist conducted the survey of the initial 389
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-26 4.4 | Cultural Resources
Approved SP on July 27, 2018. The survey consisted of walking in parallel transects spaced at approximately 15-meter intervals over the Project site, while closely inspecting the ground surface. In February 2020, MCC conducted a supplemental assessment forthe Project site, east of the Approved SP, encompassing an additional 80.83 acres. This assessment included a compilation of previous CHRIS record searches that overlap the expanded Project site. All undeveloped areas were examined for artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools or fire-affected rock), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., postholes, foundations), or historic-era debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics). Representative photographs were taken of the entire study area.

Results
California Historic Resources Inventory System and Cultural Background Research The CHRIS records searches in 2018 and 2020 identified a total of 23 cultural resources investigations that have been previously conducted within a one-mile mile radius buffer around the Project site, seven of which are located adjacent to the Project site. The cultural records search identified six previously recorded cultural resources within a one-mile radius buffer around the Project site, none of which are located within the Project site. Refer to Appendix D for a list of previous conducted cultural resources studies within a one-mile radius of the Project site.

The records search identified six previously-recorded cultural resources within one mile of the Project site. All of these resources are historic, with no prehistoric resources previously identified within the record search buffer. No resources have been recorded within the Project site.

A review of historic-era aerial photographs and maps show the initial Approved SP has been consistently used for agricultural and dairy activities since the 1930s, with the supplemental Project site utilized for agricultural by the 1950s. No structures were observed within the Project site until the early 1980s, thus no existing buildings are considered historic.

Conclusions
Cultural Resources Conclusions
The Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment of the Project site included a CHRIS records search, NAHC outreach, background research, a field pedestrian survey and site visit. The records search results indicated no previously recorded resources within the Project site and six historic-era resources within a one-mile radius. During the field survey, no cultural resources were encountered.

However, since completion of the Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment, additional archaeological resources were found at two locations near the Project site.13 13 Material Culture Consulting. Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment Ontario Ranch Business Park, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California.
390
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-27 4.4 | Cultural Resources
Approach To Analysis
This analysis of impacts on cultural resources examines the Project’s temporary (i.e., construction) and permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on application of the significance criteria/thresholds outlined above. Each criterion is discussed in the context of the Project site and the surrounding characteristics/ geography. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in environmental conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the environment.

The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on field observations, review of Project maps and drawings; analysis of aerial and ground‐level photographs; and review of various data available in public records, including local planning documents. The determination that any components of the Project may result in “significant” adverse effects on historical and archaeological resources and human remains considers the existing site’s historical resource value and the severity of the Project implementation on resources that may be considered historical.

4.4.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the preliminary environmental analysis disclosed potentially significant impacts.

Impact 4.4-1 Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? [Threshold C-1] Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact Under CEQAGuidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1), a project has a significant impact on a historical resource if it “would result in the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resources would be materially impaired.” Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2), material impairment would occur if the project would result in demolition or material alteration of those physical characteristics that convey the resource’s historical significance.

As described above, potential historical resources in the Project site were evaluated to determine if they are considered historical resources. Since the assessment of the Project site’s historical resources found no significance of the dairy farm or its structures, the structures were not found to be integral in the history of dairy farming or dairy operations in the City or the Chino Valley area. Therefore, they are not considered eligible for listing pursuant to criterion in the NRHP, CRHR, or as a Landmark in the City.

Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

Impact 4.4-2 Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? [Threshold C-2] Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact The CHRIS records search identified a total of 23 cultural resources investigation that have been previously conducted within a 1-mile mile radius buffer around the Project site, with two studies adjacent to the 391
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-28 4.4 | Cultural Resources
Project site (see Appendix D). Since completion of the cultural resources report, additional archaeological resources were found at two locations near the Project site.

Despite actions taken to ensure that all cultural resources are identified prior to construction, including record searches and on-site field surveying, there remains a possibility that undiscovered, buried archaeological resources might be encountered during grading activities. If discovered, impacts to those resources would be potentially significant. In order to minimize any potential impact to the environment, impacts to archaeological resources are considered potentially significant, and mitigation measures are required to ensure the proper treatment of undiscovered archaeological resources that may be encountered during grading. The implementation of mitigation measures MM CUL-1 below and MM TCR-1 would reduce the impacts to less than significant levels.

Following the completion of Project construction and disturbances to the Project site, the Project operation will not include further ground disturbing activities, and it is not anticipated to caus e a substantial or adverse change in the significant of an archaeological resource since construction will be completed and mitigation measures applied. Therefore, operational impacts will be less than significant.

4.4.7 Cumulative Impacts
Cultural resources impacts are site-specific and generally do not combine to result in cumulative impacts.

In the immediate vicinity of the Project site, no significant cultural resources were identified that if altered could combine with the effects of the Project to result in a cumulatively significant impact to cultural resources. Additionally, cultural resources investigations would be required for other projects before the City would permit ground disturbances or demolition or substantial alteration of existing structures. Such investigations would identify resources on the affected project sites that are or appear to be eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR. Such investigations would also recommend mitigation measures to protect and preserve cultural resources. The proposed Project includes mitigation measures to ensure proper identification, treatment, and preservation of cultural resources that could be inadvertently discovered on the Project site to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, cumulative impacts to historicalresources would be less than significant.

The Project could result in potential site-specific impacts to currently unknown archaeological resources discovered during grading and trenching activities. Other projects within the cumulative study area also have the potential to result in damage and/or loss to these resources. The combination of the Project as well as past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the City and County would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, County, and local regulations concerning preservation, salvage, or handling of cultural resources, including compliance with required mitigation. Similar to the Project, these projects also would be required to implement and conform to mitigation measures, which would be likely to reduce impacts to less than significant. Although in the process of development, some known or unknown resources may be lost, it is not anticipated that these impacts would be cumulatively considerable. In addition, implementation of MM CUL-1 would reduce Project-specific impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
392
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-29 4.4 | Cultural Resources

4.4.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Impact 4.4-1 would be less than significant.

Without mitigation, the following impact would be potentially significant:
• Impact 4.4-2 Buildout of the Project could impact buried or obscured archaeological resources during grading activities.

4.4.9 Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM TCR-1 in Section 4.15, Tribal Cultural Resources, for mitigation of tribal cultural resources.

MM CUL-1 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits for the Project site, a Cultural Awareness Training Program shall be provided to all construction managers and construction personnel prior to commencing any ground disturbance work at the Project sites. The training shall be prepared and conducted by a Qualified Archaeologist to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. The training may be discontinued when ground disturbance is completed. Construction personnel shall not be permitted to operate equipment within the construction area unless they have attended the training. A copy of the training transcript and/or training video, as well as a list of the names of all personnel who attended the training and copies of the signed acknowledgment forms shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for their review and approval.

4.4.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation
In addition to compliance with existing regulatory requirements and PPPs, implementation of MM CUL-1 and MM TCR-1 would ensure the Project Applicant and construction contractors are aware of potential archaeologicalresources on-site and have specified procedures to implement to ensure these potentially undiscovered resources are not damaged during grading and construction activities. The mitigation measure requires that any archaeological resources encountered during Project ground-disturbing activities be preserved and/or recovered, evaluated, and curated, if necessary, by a qualified archaeologist, thus reducing potential impacts associated with archaeological resources to less than significant levels. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to cultural resources have been identified.

4.4.11 References
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (2019). Title 36, Chapter I, Part 60, Section 60.4 – Criteria for evaluation. Retrieved from ECFR Website: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-36/chapter-I/part60/section-60.4.

Material Culture Consulting. May 2020. Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment Ontario Ranch Business Park. San Bernardino, CA: Material Culture Consulting National Register of Historic Places (1992). National Register Bulletin 38. Retrieved from NPS Website:
from: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB38-Completeweb.pdf. 393
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-30 4.4 | Cultural Resources
State of California. (1947). GC Chapter 10. Retrieved from State of California Website:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&di vision=2.&title=3.&part=3.&chapter=10.&article=1.&goUp=Y.

State of California. (1987). Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. Retrieved from State of California Website:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum= 7050.5.

State of California (2010). PRC Section 5097.98. Retrieved from State of California Website:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=5097.98.&lawC ode=PRC.

State of California. (2011). PRC Section 5097.99. Retrieved from State of California Website:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=5097.99.&lawC ode=PRC.

State of California. (2016). PRC Section 27491. Retrieved from State of California Website:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=27491.&lawCo de=GOV.

State of California. (2019). PRC Section 5097.94. Retrieved from State of California Website:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=5097.94.&lawC ode=PRC.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (n.d.). 33 CFR 325 Appendix C – Procedures for the Protection of Historic Properties. Retrieved from USACE Website:
https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Portals/64/docs/regulatory/Coordination/33%20CFR%20325%2 0Appendix%20C.pdf.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. (rev. 1998). National Register Bulletin 38 – Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. Retrieved from NPS Website: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB38-Completeweb.pdf. 394
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.5-1 4.5 | Energy

4.5 ENERGY
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates potential impacts related to energy resources associated with the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Project (Project), within the City of Ontario (City). The energy analysis consists of a summary of the existing conditions, the energy regulatory framework, a discussion of the Project’s potential impacts on energy resources, and identification of mitigation of the Project that may reduce energy consumption, as needed. Energy calculations for the Project are included in Appendix B4, Energy Calculations.

4.5.1 Environmental Setting
Energy use is typically quantified using the British Thermal Unit (BTU), a unit of heat defined as the amount of heat energy required to raise one pound-mass of water by one degree Fahrenheit. Total energy use in California was 7,966.6 trillion BTU in 2018 (the most recent year for which this specific data is available), with a total consumption per capita being 202 million BTU. The State is the second largest consumer of energy in the U.S. but ranks 50th for energy consumption on a per capita basis. Of California’s total energy use, the breakdown by sector is approximately 39.8 percent transportation, 23.2 percent industrial,

18.9 percent commercial, and 18.1 percent residential. Electricity and natural gas in California are generally used by stationary sources such as residences, commercial sites, and industrial facilities, whereas petroleum use is generally accounted for by transportation-related energy use. 1 Electricity
Electricity as a utility is a man-made resource. The production of electricity requires the consumption or conversion of resources, including water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, and nuclear resources, into energy. The delivery of electricity requires several system components including substations and transformers that lower transmission line power (voltage) to a level appropriate for distribution and use.

The electricity generated is distributed through a network of transmission and distribution lines commonly called a power grid. Conveyance of electricity through transmission lines is typically responsive to market demands.

Energy capacity, or electrical power, is generally measured in watts (W), while energy use is measured in watt-hours (Wh). For example, if a light bulb has a capacity rating of 100 W, the energy required to keep the bulb on for 1 hour would be 100 Wh. If ten 100 W bulbs were on for 1 hour, the energy required would be 1,000 Wh or 1 kilowatt-hour (kWh). On a utility scale, a generator’s capacity is typically rated in megawatts (MW), which is one million watts, while energy use is measured in megawatt-hours (MWh) or gigawatt-hours (GWh), which is one billion Wh.

The Project site 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 1 US Energy Information Agency (USEIA) (2019). California State Energy Profile. Available at https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA.

Accessed August 13, 2021.
395
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.5-2 4.5 | Energy
County on the north. Total electricity consumption in SCE’s service area was 103,597 GWh in 2020. 2 Sources of electricity sold by SCE in 2019, the latest year for which data are available, were:
• Thirty-five percent renewable, consisting mostly of solar and wind • Eight percent large hydroelectric
• Sixteen percent natural gas
• Eight percent nuclear
• Thirty-three percent unspecified sources – that is, not traceable to specific sources3 The Project site generates electricity demand for the day-to-day operations of the dairy farm and residences on-site. Existing use of electricity on-site includes lighting, heating and cooling, ventilation, and milking equipment, such as pumps and cooling systems. Based on billing statements for November 2018 to October 2019, the existing on-site operations resulted in a total electricity demand of 746,948 kWh for this period.

Natural Gas
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides gas service in the City and has facilities throughout the City, including the Project site. The service area of SoCalGas 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. Total natural gas consumption in SoCalGas’s service area was 7,147million therms. 4 The Project site generates natural gas demand for the day-to-day operations of the dairy farm and residences on-site. Estimated annual natural gas demand for the existing on-site operations is 387,510 kilo-BTU per year (kBTU/year) or 3,876 therms.3 Natural gas demands on-site mainly stem from the use of space and water heaters, cooking appliances, and laundry and water appliances.

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA; Public Law 110-140) was signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 19, 2007. The Act’s goal is to achieve energy security in the United States by increasing renewable fuel production, improving energy efficiency and performance, protecting consumers, improving vehicle fuel economy, and promoting research on greenhouse gas (GHG) capture and storage. Under the EISA, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program (RFS2) was expanded in several key ways:
2 California Energy Commission. 2016. Electricity Consumption by Planning Area. Retrieved from:
http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyplan.aspx
3 Southern California Edison. (2020). 2019 Power Content Label, Southern California Edison. Retrieved from SCE Website:
https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/inline-files/SCE_2019PowerContentLabel.pdf. Accessed August 13, 2021. 4 California Energy Commission. 2016. Gas Consumption by Planning Area. Retrieved from: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyplan.aspx 396
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.5-3 4.5 | Energy
• Expanded the RFS program to include diesel, in addition to gasoline; • Increased the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from nine billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022; • Established new categories of renewable fuel and set separate volume requirements for each; and
• Required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to apply lifecycle GHG performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces.

RFS2 lays the foundation for achieving significant reductions of GHG emissions from the use of renewable fuels, for reducing imported petroleum, and encouraging the development and expansion of our nation's renewable fuels sector.

The EISA also includes a variety of new standards for lighting and for residential and commercial appliance equipment. The equipment includes residential refrigerators, freezers, refrigerator-freezers, metal halide lamps, and commercial walk-in coolers and freezers.

State
Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 32
California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and requires CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. Reductions in overall energy consumption have been implemented to reduce emissions. See Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EIR for a further discussion of AB 32.

In September 2016, the Governor signed into legislation SB 32, which builds on AB 32 and requires the state to cut GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. With SB 32, the Legislature also passed AB 197, which provides additional direction for updating the Scoping Plan to meet the 2030 GHG reduction target codified in SB 32. The California Air Resources Board (CARB)has published a draft update to the Scoping Plan and has received public comments on this draft but has not released the final version.

Additional energy efficiency measures beyond the current regulations are needed to meet these goals as well as the AB 32 GHG reduction goal of reducing Statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and the SB 32 goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (see Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, for a discussion of AB 32 and SB 32). Part of the effort to meet California’s long-term reduction goals include reducing petroleum use in cars and trucks by 50 percent, increasing from one-third to more than one-half of California’s electricity derived from renewable sources, doubling the efficiency savings achieved at existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner; reducing the release of methane, black carbon, and other short-lived climate pollutants, and managing farm and rangelands, forests, and wetlands so they can store carbon.
397
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.5-4 4.5 | Energy
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards: Title 24, Part 6 (California Energy Code) Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6), commonly referred to as “Title 24”, California’s energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings, was established by the California Energy Commission (CEC) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption, and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which took effect on January 1, 2020, promote photovoltaic (PV) systems in newly constructed residential buildings and additional lighting standards. With rooftop solar electricity generation, homes built under the 2019 standards will use about 53 percent less energy than those under the 2016 standards. With the new lighting standards, nonresidential buildings would use 30 percent less energy than buildings built under the 2016 standards.

The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CBEES)updates focus on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings and include requirements that will enable both demand reductions during critical peak periods and future solar electric and thermal system installations.

The Title 24, Part 6 was created as part of the California Building Standards Code by the California Building Standards Commission in 1978 to establish statewide building energy efficiency standards to reduce California’s energy use. These standards include provisions applicable to all buildings, residential and non-residential, which describe requirements for documentation and certificates that the building meets the standards. These provisions include mandatory requirements for efficiency and design of the following types of systems, equipment, and appliances:
• Air Conditioning Systems
• Heat Pumps
• Water Chillers
• Gas- and Oil-Fired Boilers
• Cooling Equipment
• Water Heaters and Equipment
• Pool and Spa Heaters and Equipment
• Gas-Fired Equipment Including Furnaces and Stoves/Ovens • Windows and Exterior Doors
• Joints and Other Building Structure Openings (Envelope) • Insulation and Cool Roofs
• Lighting Control Devices
• Solar PV Systems
The standards include additional mandatory requirements for space conditioning (cooling and heating), water heating, indoor and outdoor lighting systems, as well as equipment in non-residential, high-rise 398
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.5-5 4.5 | Energy
residential, and hotel or motel buildings. Mandatory requirements for low-rise residential buildings cover indoor and outdoor lighting, fireplaces, space cooling and heating equipment (including ducts and fans), and insulation of the structure, foundation, and water piping. The standards require solar PV systems for new homes. In addition to the mandatory requirements, the standards call for further energy efficiency that can be provided through a choice between performance and prescriptive compliance approaches.

Separate sections apply to low-rise residential and to non-residential, high-rise residential, and hotel or motel buildings. In buildings designed for mixed use (e.g., commercial and residential), each section must meet the standards applicable to that type of occupancy.

The performance approach set forth under these standards provides for the calculation of an energy budget for each building and allows flexibility in building systems and features to meet the budget. The energy budget addresses space-conditioning (cooling and heating), lighting, and water heating.

Compliance with the budget is determined using a CEC-approved computer software energy model. The alternative prescriptive standards require demonstrating compliance with specific minimum efficiency for components of the building such as building envelope insulation R-values, fenestration (areas, U-factor and solar heat gain coefficients of windows and doors) and heating and cooling, and water heating and lighting system design requirements. These requirements vary depending on the building’s location in the State’s 16 climate zones.

The CBEES are updated on an approximately three-year cycle as technology and methods have evolved.

As a result of new law under AB 970, passed in the fall of 2000 in response to the State’s electricity crisis, an emergency update of the standards went into effect in June 2001. The CEC then initiated an immediate follow-on proceeding to consider and adopt updated standards that could not be completed during the emergency proceeding. The 2013 Standards went into effect July 1, 2014. The CBEES updates focus on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings, and include requirements that will enable both demand reductions during critical peak periods and future solar electric and thermal system installations.

California Green Building Standards
The California Green Building Standards Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11), commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code, is a Statewide mandatory construction code that was developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The CALGreen Code requires new residential and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory measures under five topical areas: planning and design; energy efficiency; water efficiency and conservation; material conservation and resource efficiency; and environmental quality. The CALGreen Code also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local governments may adopt which encourage or require additional measures in the five green building topics. The 2019 CALGreen Code went into effect January 1, 2020.
2008 California Energy Action Plan Update
The 2008 Energy Action Plan (EAP) Update provides a status update to the 2005 EAP II, which is the State of California’s principal energy planning and policy document. The 2008 EAP continues the goals of the original EAP and describes a coordinated implementation plan for State energy policies, and identifies 399
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.5-6 4.5 | Energy
specific action areas to ensure that California’s energy is adequate, affordable, technologically advanced, and environmentally sound. First-priority actions to address California’s increasing energy demands are energy efficiency, demand response (i.e., reduction of customer energy usage during peak periods in order to address system reliability and support the best use of energy infrastructure), and the use of renewable sources of power. If these actions are unable to satisfy the increasing energy and capacity needs, the plan supports clean and efficient fossil-fired generation. 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The CEC adopted Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR §§1601 through 1608) on October 11, 2006. The regulations were approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non-federally regulated appliances. While these regulations are now often viewed as “business-as-usual,” they exceed the standards imposed by all other states and they reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy demand.

Senate Bill 1078 and 107; Executive Order S-14-08, S-21-09, and SB 2X SB 1078 (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) requires retail sellers of electricity, including investor-owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide at least 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. SB 107 (Chapter 464, Statutes of 2006) changed the target date to 2010. In November 2008, then-Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which expands the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. In September 2009, then-Governor Schwarzenegger continued California’s commitment to the RPSby signing Executive Order S-21-09, which directs the CARB under its AB 32 authority to enact regulations to help the State meet its RPS goal of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020. In April 2011, Governor Brown signed SB 2X, which legislated the prior Executive Order S-14-08 renewable standard.

Executive Order B-30-15, Senate Bill 350, and Senate Bill 100 In April 2015, the Governor issued Executive Order B-30-15, which established a GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. SB 350 (Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015) advanced these goals through two measures. First, the law increasesthe renewable power goal from 33 percent renewables by 2020 to 50 percent by 2030. Second, the law requires the CEC to establish annual targets to double energy efficiency in buildings by 2030. The law also requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to direct electric utilities to establish annual efficiency targets and implement demand-reduction measures to achieve this goal. In 2018, SB 100 revised the goal of the program to achieve the 50 percent renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60 percent target by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also established a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045. 400
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.5-7 4.5 | Energy
Local
City of Ontario Climate Action Plan
The City adopted the Community Climate Action Plan (CAP) in November 2014. The primary purpose of the City’s Community CAP is to design a feasible strategy is toestablish the long-term framework for action on climate change to ensure greenhouse gas pollution is reduced while boosting low-carbon innovation.

The City is updating the Community CAP as part of the Ontario Plan Update, which was anticipated to be completed in 2021. The City is in the process of developing an interim Development Screening Table and the latest draft was revised on May 1, 2018. The updated CAP will include a specific target for GHG reductions for 2030, 2040, and 2050. The targets will be consistent with broader State and federal reduction targets and will reflect contemporary scientific understanding of GHG reductions required by 2050. At the time of the Project GHG analysis, the City’s CAP update is underway.

The Ontario Plan (TOP)
As part of the City’s TOP, the Environmental Resources Element includes Goal ER3 which focuses on creating a cost-effective and reliable energy system sustained through low-impact construction, site and neighborhood energy conservation, and diverse sources of energy generation that collectively help to minimize the region’s carbon footprint. Goal ER3 includes the following six policies:

Policy ER3-1 Conservation Strategy. Require conservation as the first strategy to be employed to meet applicable energy-saving standards.

Policy ER3-2 Green Development – Communities. Require the use of best practices identified in green community rating systems to guide the planning and development of all new communities.

Policy ER3-3 Building and Site Design. Require new construction to incorporate energy efficient building and site design strategies, which could include appropriate solar orientation, maximum use of natural daylight, passive solar and natural ventilation.

Policy ER3-4 Green Development – Public Buildings. We require all new and substantially renovated City buildings in excess of 10,000 square feet achieve a LEED Silver Certification standard, as determined by the U.S. Green Building Council.

Policy ER3-5 Fuel Efficient and Alternative Energy Vehicles and Equipment. Purchase and use vehicles and equipment that are fuel efficient and meet or surpass state emissions requirements and/or use renewable sources of energy.

Policy ER3-6 Generation – Renewable Sources. Promote the use of renewable energy sources to serve public and private sector development.
401
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.5-8 4.5 | Energy

4.5.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

E-1 Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.

E-2 Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

4.5.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies
Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP E-1 New buildings are required to achieve the current CBEES (Title 24, Part 6) and the CALGreenCode (Title 24, Part 11). The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards were effective starting January 1, 2020. The Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the CALGreen Code are updated tri-annually with a goal to achieve zero net energy for residential buildings by 2020 and nonresidential buildings by 2030.

PPP E-2 New buildings are required to adhere to the CALGreen Code requirement to provide bicycle parking for new non-residential buildings, or meet local bicycle parking ordinances, whichever is stricter (CALGreen Code Sections 5.106.4.1, 14.106.4.1, and

5.106.4.1.2).

PPP E-3 The CALGreen Code requires the recycling and/or salvaging for reuse at minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste generated during most “new construction” projects (CALGreen Code Sections 4.408 and 5.408).

Construction contractors are required to submit a construction waste management plan that identifies the construction and demolition waste materials to be diverted from disposal by recycling, reuse on the project, or salvaged for future use or sale and the amount (by weight or volume).

PPP E-4 Construction activities are required to adhere to Title 13 California Code of Regulations Section 2499, which requires that nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less.

PPP E-5 New buildings are required to adhere to the CALGreen Code and Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requirements to increase water efficiency and reduce urban per capita water demand.

PPP E-6 CARB’s RPS is a foundational element of the State’s emissions reduction plan. These mandates apply directly to investor-owned utilities, which in the case of the Project is SCE. On September 10, 2018, SN100 was signed into law and established the following RPS targets: 50 percent renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and 60 percent target by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also requires that retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatt hours of those 402
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.5-9 4.5 | Energy
products sold to their retail end-use customers achieve 44 percent of retail sales by December 31, 2024; 52 percent by December 31, 2027; and 60 percent by December 31, 2030.

PPP E-7 The 2007 Energy Bill creates new federal requirements for increases in fleetwide fuel economy for passenger vehicles and light trucks under the Federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. The federal legislation requires a fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon (mpg) to be achieved by 2020. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is directed to phase in requirements to achieve this goal. Analysis by CARB suggests that this will require an annual improvement of approximately

3.4 percent between 2008 and 2020.

PPP E-8 SB 375 requires the reduction of GHG emissions from light trucks and automobiles through land use and transportation efforts that will reduce vehicle miles traveled. In essence, SB 375's goal is to control GHGs by curbing urban sprawl and through better land use planning. SB 375 essentially becomes the land use contribution to the GHG reductionrequirements of AB 32, California's global warming bill enacted in 2006, and SB 32.

Project Design Features
PDF E-1 The tilt-up concrete warehouse buildings would have rooftops that can support tenant improvements for solar panels (i.e., solar-ready).

PDF E-2 All outdoor water demands would be served with recycled water.

PDF E-3 The Project would include installation of electric vehicles charging stations to service 71 parking stalls for electric vehicles (EV) and 101 clean air/vanpool parking spaces.

PDF E-4 The Project would include use of energy efficient Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs), implementation of passive design such as skylights, building orientation, landscaping, and strategic colors to improve building energy performance, use of high performance dual pane window glazing in office storefronts, and incorporation of skylights into at least two percent of warehousing/distribution building roof area to provide natural light and to reduce electric lighting demand.

4.5.5 Methodology
Based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Energy Conservation, in order to ensure energy implications are considered in project decisions, CEQA identifies that EIRs include a discussion of the potential impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing wasteful, unnecessary, or inefficient use of energy resources as applicable. Environmental effects may include the Project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type during demolition, construction, and operation; the effects of the Project on local and regional energy supplies; the effects of the Project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy; the degree to which the Project complies with existing energy standards; the effects of the Project on energy resources; and the Project’s projected transportation energyuse requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation 403
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.5-10 4.5 | Energy
alternatives, if applicable. The energy and fuel usage information provided in this section is based on the following:
• Building Energy: Electricity and natural gas usage associated with building energy that would be generated by land uses accommodated under the Project are based on CalEEMod default electricity and natural gas rates. New buildings are modeled to comply with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which are 30 percent more energy efficient for non-residential buildings than the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. • On-Road Vehicle Fuel Usage: Fuel usage associated with operation-related vehicle trips in addition to construction-related vehicle trips (i.e., worker and vendor trips) are based on fuel usage data obtained from EMFAC2017, Version 1.0.2, and on vehicle trip generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) data provided Urban Crossroads (see Appendix I2). • Off-Road Equipment Fuel Usage: Fuel usage for construction-related off-road equipment are based on fuel usage data obtained from OFFROAD2017, Version 1.0.1, and on the equipment mix and operations anticipated for the Project (see Table 4.5-1, Construction-Related Fuel Usage, for details regarding the anticipated construction schedule and equipment).

4.5.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.

Impact 4.5-1 Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation? [Threshold E-1]
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact Short-Term Construction Impacts
Project construction would create temporary increased demands for electricity and vehicle fuels compared to existing conditions and would result in short-term transportation-related energy use. Energy consumption during construction (2022 through 2024) was calculated using the CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.2 computer model, and the results are shown in Table 4.5-1.

Table 4.5-1: Construction-Related Fuel Usage
Project Component Gasoline Diesel
VMT Gallons VMT Gallons
Construction Worker Commute 1,799 319,184 0 0
Construction Vendor Trips 0 0 571 219,633
Construction Truck Haul Trips 0 0 0 0
Construction Off-Road Equipment N/A 0 N/A 93,519
Total 1,799 319,184 571 313,152
Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2; EMFAC2021 Version 1.0.1; OFFROAD2017 Version 1.0.1 404
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.5-11 4.5 | Energy
Electrical Energy
Construction activities associated with the land uses accommodated under the Project would require electricity use to power the construction equipment. The electricity use during construction would vary during different phases of construction, where the majority of construction equipment during demolition and grading would be gasoline-powered or diesel-powered, and the later construction phases would require electricity-powered, such as interior construction and architectural coatings. Overall, the use of electricity would be temporary in nature and would fluctuate according to the phase of construction.

Additionally, it is anticipated that the majority of electric-powered construction equipment would be hand tools (e.g., power drills, table saws, compressors) and lighting, which would result in minimal electricity usage during construction activities. Therefore, Project-related construction activities would not result in wasteful or unnecessary electricity demands and impacts would be less than significant.

Natural Gas Energy
It is not anticipated that construction equipment used for the Project would be powered by natural gas, and no natural gas demand is anticipated during construction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with respect to natural gas usage.

Transportation Energy
Transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, VMT, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Transportation energy used during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel and/or gasoline. It is anticipated that the majority of off-road construction equipment, such as those used during demolition and grading activities, would be gasoline-powered or diesel-powered.

The use of energy resources by vehicles and equipment would fluctuate according to the phase of construction. To limit wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption, the construction contractors are anticipated to minimize non-essential idling of construction equipment during construction in accordance with Section 2449 of the CCR, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9. In addition, electrical energy would be available for use during construction from existing power lines and connection, which could minimize or avoid the use of generators that are less efficient than tying into existing SCE infrastructure. Furthermore, construction trips would not result in unnecessary use of energy since the Projectsite is centrally located and is served by numerous regional freeway systems (e.g., Interstate 10 [I-10], Interstate 15 [I-15], and State Route 60 [SR 60]) that provides the most direct and shortest routes from various areas of the region.

Moreover, all construction-equipment operation would cease upon completion of Project construction.

Thus, impacts related to transportation energy use during construction would be temporary and would not require expanded energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure. Additionally, over time as fuel efficiencies and fuel technologies improve, it is likely that transportation energy consumption will decrease. Overall, it is expected that construction fuel associated with land use developments accommodated under the Project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than similar development projects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with respect to transportation energy.
405
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.5-12 4.5 | Energy
Long-Term Impacts during Operation
Project operation would create additional demands for electricity and natural gas compared to existing conditions and would result in increased transportation energy use. Operational use of energy would include heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings; water heating; operation of electrical systems, use of on-site equipment and appliances; and indoor, outdoor, perimeter, and parking lot lighting.

Electrical Energy
Operation of the existing facility consumes electricity for various purposes, including, but not limited to heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings, water heating, operation of electrical systems, security and control center functions, lighting, and use of on-site equipment and appliances. The proposed electricity consumption for the business park, warehouses, and associated parking lot are shown in Table 4.5-2, Electricity Consumption.

Table 4.5-2: Electricity Consumption
Land Use Electricity (kWh/year)1
Warehouse & High-Cube Fulfillment (Unrefrigerated) 2,861,958 High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse (Refrigerated) 7,136,740 Office Park 2,183,760
Surface Parking Lot 400,580
Proposed Project Total 12,583,038
Existing Use Electricity Consumption 756,948
Net Change 11,826,090
Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2
Notes: kWh = kilowatt hour
1Based on electricity usage between November 2018 and October 2019.

Electrical service to the Project would be provided by SCE through connections to existing offsite electrical lines and new on-site infrastructure. As shown in the table, the Project would have an annual electricity demand of 12,583,038 kWh/year and result in an overall net increase of 11,826,090 kWh/year. While the Project would increase energy demand at the Project site compared to existing conditions, it would be required to comply with the applicable Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the CALGreen Code.

Because the Project would be consistent with the requirements of these energy-related regulations, it would not result in wasteful or unnecessary electricity demands. In addition, it is projected that 100 percent of the total outdoor water demand would be served by recycled water, which would contribute to minimizing the energy associated with the distribution and treatment of water. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant impact related to electricity.

Natural Gas Energy
The proposed natural gas consumption for the Project site is shown in Table 4.5-3, Natural Gas Consumption. As seen in the table, natural gas demand would total 12,404,974 kBTU/year with the Project due to consumption from the proposed office building and warehouses. Overall, implementation of the Project would result in a net increase in natural gas demand by 12,017,464 kBTU/year. Because the Project would be built to meet the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, it would not result in wasteful or 406
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.5-13 4.5 | Energy
unnecessary natural gas demands. Therefore, operation of the Project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to natural gas usage.

Table 4.5-3: Natural Gas Consumption
Land Use Natural Gas (kBTU/year)
Warehouse & High-Cube Fulfillment (Unrefrigerated) 2,479,548 High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse (Refrigerated) 9,266,650 Office Park 658,776
Surface Parking Lot 0
Proposed Project Total 12,404,974
Existing Use Natural Gas Consumption1 387,510
Net Change 12,017,464
Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2
Notes: kBTU = kilo-British thermal unit
1Based on natural gas use reported for October 2019 multiplied by 12 months.

Transportation Energy
The Project would consume transportation energy during operations from the use of motor vehicles.

Because the efficiency of the motor vehicles in use, such as the average miles per gallon for motor vehicles involved with the Project are unknown, estimates of transportation energy use is assessed based on the overall VMT and related transportation energy use. The Project-related VMT would primarily come from future employees. As seen in Table 4.5-4, Operation-Related Fuel Usage, the VMT for the Project is estimated to be 24,461,798. However, the Project would involve the construction of an industrial and business park that would provide more opportunities for employment for residents of the City and would be within an urbanized area with nearby amenities and public transit options. Furthermore, the Project includes a Circulation Plan to provide connectivity to the trails and bikeway corridors identified in the Ontario Multipurpose Trails and Bikeway Corridor Plan. Specifically, the Project includes and identifies installation of a Class II bikeway along Merrill Avenue and multipurpose trails along Euclid, Eucalyptus, and Merrill avenues. The City is also coordinating with regional transit agencies to implement Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)service that would include the segment of Euclid Avenue along the western boundary of the Project site. In addition, in compliance with the CALGreen Code, the Project would include bicycle racks and storage for employee use. These features and aspects of the Project would contribute to minimizing VMT and transportation-related fuel usage. Overall, it is expected that operation-related fuel usage associated with the Project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than similar development projects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with respect to operation-related fuel usage.

Table 4.5-4: Operation-Related Fuel Usage
Gasoline Diesel
VMT Gallons VMT Gallons
Passenger Vehicles 14,230,899 658,838 0 0
Transport Trucks 0 0 14,230,899 1,805,989
Operation Off-Road Equipment 0 0 N/A 0
Total 14,230,899 658,838 14,230,899 1,805,989
Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2; EMFAC2017 Version 1.0.2; OFFROAD2017 Version 1.0.1 407
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.5-14 4.5 | Energy
Impact 4.5-2 Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State or Local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? [Threshold E-2]
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan (CAP)
The City’s Community CAP includes measures related to building energy. However, the measures included in the City’s Community CAP would generally not be applicable to the Project. For example, Measures Energy 3 through Energy 5 pertain to the retrofit of existing residential and non-residential buildings only.

Implementation of the Project would result in the development and operation of new buildings only.

Therefore, the Project would not be inconsistent with the energy efficiency and renewable energy measures of the City’s Community CAP.

City of Ontario TOP
Table 4.5-5, Consistency with the TOP evaluates the consistency of the Project to the applicable policies of TOP. As shown in the table, the Project would generally be consistent with the applicable policies of TOP. For example, the sustainable design strategies in Chapter 5.8 of the Project Specific Plan Amendment includes use of energy efficient LEDs, implementation of passive design such as skylights, building orientation, landscaping, and strategic colors to improve building energy performance, use of highperformance dual pane window glazing in office storefronts, and incorporation of skylights into at least two percent of warehousing/distribution building roof area to provide natural light and to reduce electric lighting demand (see PDF E-4). Therefore, overall, the Project would be consistent and would not interfere with the City of Ontario TOP.

Table 4.5-5: Consistency with the TOP
Goal/Policy No. Goal/ Policy Consistency
Policy ER3-1
Conservation Strategy: Require
conservation as the first strategy to be
employed to meet applicable energy
saving standards.

Consistent: The proposed Project incorporates
energy-saving conservation strategies into its design
guidelines by addressing lighting, bicycle parking,
sustainable landscaping, and energy efficiency.

Sustainable design strategies include design and
construction of energy efficient buildings to reduce
air, water, and land pollution and environmental
impacts fromenergy production and consumption.

Policy ER3-2
Green Development – Communities:

Require the use of best practices
identified in green community rating
systems to guide the planning and
development of all new communities.

Consistent: Development of land uses
accommodated under the Project would be in
compliance with the CALGreen Code. Additionally,
the proposed Project’s Sustainable Design Strategies
include the use of best practices through passive
design to improve building energy performance.

Policy ER3-3
Building and Site Design: Require new
construction to incorporate energy
efficient building and site design
strategies, which could include
appropriate solar orientation,
maximum use of natural daylight,
Consistent: The proposed Project’s Sustainable
Design Strategies include the use of passive design to
improve building energy performance through
skylights, building orientation, landscaping, and use
of select colors. Additionally, the development of land uses accommodated under the proposed Project
408
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.5-15 4.5 | Energy
Goal/Policy No. Goal/ Policy Consistency
passive solar and natural ventilation. would also be designed in compliance with the CALGreenCode.

Policy ER3-4
Green Development – Public
Buildings: We require all new and
substantially renovated City buildings
in excess of 10,000 square feet achieve
a LEED Silver Certification standard, as
determined by the U.S. Green Building
Council.

Not Applicable: This policy is applicable to Cityowned buildings.

Policy ER3-5
Fuel Efficient and Alternative Energy
Vehicles and Equipment: We
purchase and use vehicles and
equipment that are fuel efficient and
meet or surpass state emissions
requirements and/or use renewable
sources of energy.

Consistent: Up to 71 parking stalls for EV and 101
clean air/vanpool parking spaces would be installed
Project under the proposedProject (see PDF E-3).

Policy ER3-6
Generation – Renewable Sources:

Promote the use of renewable energy
sources to serve public and private
sector development.

Consistent: There are no current plans to install a
photovoltaic (PV) system under the Project. However,
buildings developed under the Project would have
rooftops that can support tenant improvements for
solar panels (i.e., solar-ready) which will comply with solar ready requirements of the Building Energy
Efficiency Standards, which would enable future
tenants to install a PV system.

Source: Ontario 2009.

4.5.7 Cumulative Impacts
The areas considered for cumulative impacts to electricity and natural gas supplies are the service areas of SCE and SoCalGas, respectively, described above in Section 4.5.1. Other projects would generate increasedelectricity and natural gas demands. However, all projects within the SCE and SoCalGas service areas would be required to comply with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the CALGreenCode, which would contribute to minimizing wasteful energy consumption. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

4.5.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, PPPs, and PDFs, impacts 4.5-1 and 4.5-2 would be less than significant.

4.5.9 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

4.5.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Because no mitigation measures are required, impacts remain less than significant. 409
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.5-16 4.5 | Energy

4.5.11 References
California Air Resources Board. 2017, January 11 (reviewed). Clean Car Standards - Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2019 Building Energy and Efficiency Standards. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiencystandards.

California Gas and Electric Utilities (CGEU). 2018, July. 2018 California Gas Report. https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/documents/cgr/2018_California_Gas_Report.pdf.

City of Ontario, Community Climate Action Plan, 2014.

Ontario, City of. 2009. The Ontario Plan – Policy Plan. http://www.ontarioplan.org/policy-plan/.

Urban Crossroads. 2019, December 5. Ontario Ranch Business Park Traffic Impact Analysis. ———. 2019, November 26. Ontario Ranch Business Park Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Assessment. 410
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.6-1 4.6 | Geology and Soils

4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies and analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment (Project) as they relate to geological and soil resources, paleontological resources, or unique geologic features in the City of Ontario (City) within San Bernardino County (County). The environmental setting will be discussed for the Project, along with any applicable federal, state, regional, and local policies and regulations.

Additionally, this section will describe the specific mitigation measures that would be used to minimize any significant environmental impact, if any are identified. The data collected provides information on existing conditions in the Project region from literature search, review of existing data, and site surveys.

This evaluation of the Project site and the potential impacts to geology and soils is largely based on the following sources:
• City of Ontario Policy Plan Update EIR
• Geotechnical Feasibility Study Proposed Commercial/Industrial Development, Southern California Geotechnical (SCG), January 28, 2020. (Appendix E)
• Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment Ontario Ranch Business Park, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California, Material Culture Consulting (MCC), May 2020 (Appendix D).

4.6.1 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
The Project site is located at the southeast corner of Eucalyptus Avenue and Sultana Avenue within the City. The Project site is bounded by Eucalyptus Avenue to the north, by Sultana Avenue to the west, by Merrill Avenue to the south, and by Campus Avenue to the east. The Project site consists of an approximately 71.69-acre rectangular parcel. The Project site is currently developed as an operational dairy farm. The northeastern portion of the site is developed with cattle pens with multiple canopy structures, farmhouses, and structures associated with milking activities. The buildings appear to be single-story structures of wood frame construction and the canopies appear to be of metal frame construction. It is expected that all of these structures are supported on conventional shallow foundations. Ground surface cover in the northeastern portion of the site generally consists of turf grass, asphaltic concrete, and concrete pavements surrounding the farmhouses and other structures, manure in the cattle pen areas, and exposed soils with sparse native grass and weed growth in the remaining areas. The northwestern portion and southern one-third of the site are planted with row crops.

Based on visual observations made at the time of the subsurface investigation and from elevation information obtained from Google Earth, the overall site topography generally slopes downward to the southwest at a gradient of one percent. From a previous study conducted by MCC in 2018, the surveyor deemed the entirety of the Ontario Ranch Business Park (Approved SP) area, including the Project site, as generally flat, with elevation averaging approximately 197 meters (646 feet) above mean sea level (AMSL).

The Project site has been disturbed by the development and over 80 years of use by dairy farms. 411
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.6-2 4.6 | Geology and Soils
Vegetation is characterized as primarily agricultural and commercial landscaping with no native vegetation observed.

A geotechnical feasibility study was prepared for the Project (see Appendix E), which reviewed the existing site soil characteristics and geotechnical feasibility of implementation of the Project. During the field investigation, existing conditions of the ground surface of the Project consisted of vegetation characterized as primarily agricultural and commercial landscaping with no native vegetation observed, and exposed soils within the remaining areas. At the time of the surface exploration, free water was not encountered.

Near- and Sub-surface Conditions
Manure and Topsoil
Although not encountered at the boring and trench locations, the active cattle pen areas were visually observed to be covered with manure at the ground surface. Highly organic topsoil materials were encountered at the trench locations performed in the planted areas on the site. At these trench locations, these materials were approximately 6 to 12 inches in thickness. These materials generally consist of silty fine sands and contain abundant fine root fibers and/or other fibrous organic material. All of the manure and any organic topsoil will be removed from the Project site or utilized in non-structural areas, such as landscape planters.

Additionally, some of the soils in the upper 2 to 3 feet, located beneath the highly organic topsoil in the planted areas, possess organic contents greater than three percent. The fill soils at Trench No. T-3 also possess organic contents in excess of three percent. It may be feasible to use these soils infills, provided that they are cleaned of highly organic materials and can be blended with the underlying soils in order to reduce the organic content to less than three percent throughout.

The results of laboratory testing performed on near-surface soils beneath the organic topsoil (within the planted areas) indicates that soils within the upper 1 to 2 feet possess organic contents ranging from

2.8 to 6.2 percent. The soils present between depths of 2 and 3 feet possess organic contents ranging between 1.5 and 2.9 percent. It is considered feasible to use most of these soils, not including the manure and organic topsoil, in the upper 2 to 3 feet in structural fills, provided that these soils are cleaned of all apparent vegetation or highly organic material and thoroughly blended with the inorganic soils from greater depths at the site. Based on our experience with similar projects in the vicinity of the Project site, a final mixture containing less than three percent organic content is acceptable for the Project site. All manure and any organic topsoil will be removed during initial site stripping and that additional organic testing be conducted during the design-level geotechnical investigation and at the completion of rough grading of the building pads in order to verify that the organic contents of the blended on-site soils are within the acceptable limits.

Artificial Fill
Artificial fill soils were encountered at the ground surface at all of the boring locations and at one of the trench locations. The fill soils encountered at the boring and trench locations extend to depths of 1.5 to 412
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.6-3 4.6 | Geology and Soils

8.5 feet and consist of loose to medium dense silty fine sands and fine sandy silts, and medium stiff to stiff clayey sands and sandy clays with occasional silty clays. The fills soils encountered in the planted areas of the site contain appreciable roots and organic fibers. The fill soils generally possess a disturbed appearance, and some samples possess minor debris content, such as asphaltic concrete fragments, resulting in their classification as artificial fill.

Alluvium
Native alluvial soils were encountered beneath the fill at all of the boring locations and beneath the topsoil or fill materials at all of the trench locations. The near surface alluvium generally consists of loose to medium dense silty fine sands to fine sandy silts, fine to medium sands, clayey fine sands and medium stiff to stiff fine sandy clays, silty clays, and clayey silts. Dense silty sands were encountered between depths of 38.5 feet and the maximum depth explored of 40 feet in two of the boring locations. The undocumented fill soils and the upper portion of the near surface native alluvium are not considered suitable for support of the new structure, in their present condition. Remedial grading would be necessary within the proposed building areas in order to remove and replace the existing fill and a portion of the near-surface alluvium as compacted structural fill.

Groundwater
Free water was not encountered during the drilling of any of the borings. Based on the lack of any water within the borings, and the moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, the static groundwater is considered to have been present at a depth in excess of 40 feet at the time of the subsurface exploration.

As part of our research, we reviewed available groundwater data in order to determine regional groundwater depths. Recent water level data was obtained from the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), GeoTracker website, http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Available data for monitoring wells, located approximately 4,200 feet west from the site, indicate high groundwater levels at 83 feet below ground surface (bgs).

Faulting and Seismicity
Fault Zones
The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no evidence of faulting was identified during the geotechnical investigation. There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within the Project area. The nearest faults to the Project site are the Central Avenue Fault and Chino Fault approximately 2.3 miles and 3 miles southwest of the site, respectively.

There have been no notable earthquakes, of a magnitude of 5.5 or more, affecting the Ontario-Chino region within the last 50 years. The most recent earthquake, the 2008 Chino Hills Earthquake, occurred southwest of the Project site and had a magnitude of 5.4. 413
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.6-4 4.6 | Geology and Soils
Surface Fault Rupture
Ground rupture due to a fault movement typically results in a small percentage of total impact caused by an earthquake. Due to the distance of the Project site to a known active fault (approximately 2.3 and 3 miles southwest of the Project site), there is limited potential for surface fault rupture at the site.

Seismic Ground Shaking
Horizontal ground acceleration, which frequently results in widespread damage to structures, is estimated as a percentage of the acceleration of gravity (g). The damage that an earthquake will cause to a structure depends on the earthquake’s size, location, distance, and depth; the types of rock and soil at the surface of the Project site; and the type of construction of the structure.

When comparing the sizes of earthquakes, the most meaningful feature is the amount of energy released.

Thus, scientists most often consider seismic moment, a measure of the energy released when a fault ruptures. We are more familiar, however, with scales of magnitude, which measure amplitude of ground motion. The energy released by an earthquake is measured as moment magnitude (Mw). The moment magnitude scale is logarithmic; therefore, each one-point increase in magnitude represents a 10-fold increase in amplitude of the waves as measured at a specific location and a 32-fold increase in energy.

That is, a magnitude 7 earthquake produces 100 times (10 x 10) the ground motion amplitude of a magnitude 5 earthquake.

Geologic Hazards
Liquefaction and Related Ground Failure
Liquefaction is the loss of strength in generally cohesionless, saturated soils when the pore-water pressure induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or exceeds the overburden pressure. The primary factors which influence the potential for liquefaction include groundwater table elevation, soil type and plasticity characteristics, relative density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. The depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact surface improvements is generally identified as the upper 50 feet bgs. Liquefaction potential is greater in saturated, loose, poorly graded fine sands with a mean (d50) grain size in the range of 0.075 to 0.2 millimeters (mm). Non-sensitive clayey (cohesive) soils which possess a plasticity index of at least 18 are generally not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction, nor are those soils which are above the historic static groundwater table.

Research of the San Bernardino County Land Use Services website indicates that the Project site is not located within a zone of liquefaction susceptibility. In addition, the subsurface conditions at the boring locations are not considered to be conducive to liquefaction. Based on the mapping performed by the County and the conditions encountered at the boring and trench locations, liquefaction is not considered to be a design concern for this Project.

Earthquake-Induced Landslides
The Project site generally slopes downward to the southwest at a gradient of one percent. There are no slopes on or near the Project site that would cause earthquake-induced landslides. 414
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.6-5 4.6 | Geology and Soils
Settlement
The remedial grading willbe performed to remove the existing undocumented fill soils as well as a portion of the near-surface native alluvium and replace these materials as compacted structural fill. The over excavation should extend to a sufficient depth so that the native soils that will remain in place below the recommended depth of over excavation will not be subject to significant load increases from the foundations of the new structures. Provided that the remedial grading is completed, the post-construction static settlements can be limited within tolerable limits.

Soluble Sulfates
The results of the soluble sulfate testing, as discussed in the geotechnical investigation report, indicate soluble sulfate concentrations between 0.002 and 0.032 percent. These concentrations are considered to be negligible with respect to the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Publication 318-05 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, Section 4.3. Therefore, specialized concrete mix designs are not considered to be necessary, with regard to sulfate protection purposes. Additional soluble sulfate testing will be conducted during the design-level geotechnical investigation and at the completion of rough grading to verify the soluble sulfate concentrations of the soils which are present at the proposed building pad grades.

Shrinkage/Subsidence
Subsidence occurs when a large portion of land sinks, usually due to the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. Soils that are particularly subject to subsidence include those with high silt or clay content.

Removal and recompacting of the near-surface native fill soils is estimated to result in an average shrinkage of 7 to 17 percent. Additional exploration during the design level investigation will help to refine the potential shrinkage estimate. It should be noted that the potential shrinkage estimates are based on dry density testing performed on small-diameter samples taken at the boring locations.

Minor ground subsidence is expected to occur in the soils below the zone of removal, due to settlement and machinery working. The subsidence is estimated to be 0.10 feet. These estimates are based on previous experience and the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations. The actual amount of subsidence is expected to be variable and would be dependent on the type of machinery used, repetitions of use, and dynamic effects, all of which are difficult to assess precisely.

Expansive Soils
Expansive soils contain substantial amounts of clay that swells when wetted and shrinks when dried; the swelling or shrinking can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. The composition of the near surface soils at this site ranges from sands, silty sands, and sandy silts to silty clays, sandy clays, and clayey silts. Laboratory testing performed on representative samples of these materials indicate that they possess low to medium expansion potentials (EI = 43 to 52). Based on the presence of potentially expansive soils, special care should be taken to properly moisture condition and maintain adequate moisture content within all subgrade soils as well as newly placed fill soils. The preliminary foundation and floor slab design recommendations contained within the geotechnical study are made in 415
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.6-6 4.6 | Geology and Soils
consideration of the expansion index test results. Additional expansion index testing will be performed at the time of the design-level geotechnical investigation.

Corrosive Soils
The results of laboratory testing indicate that the tested samples of the near surface soils possess resistivity values ranging between 1,320 to 2,880 ohms centimeter (ohm-cm), and pH values ranging between 7.2 to 8.0. These test results have been evaluated in accordance with guidelines published by the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA). The DIPRA guidelines consist of a point system by which characteristics of the soils are used to quantify the corrosivity characteristics of the site. Resistivity, pH, Sulfides, and redox potential are factors that enter into the evaluation procedure. Relative soil moisture content is also considered. Based on these factors, and utilizing the DIPRA procedure, the onsite soils are considered severely corrosive to ductile iron pipe. Therefore, protection for embedded metal improvements is expected to be required.

The results of chloride content testing indicate that the on-site soils possess chloride concentrations ranging between 16 to 125 parts per million (ppm). The Caltrans Memo to Designers 10-5, Protection of Reinforcement Against Corrosion Due to Chlorides, Acids and Sulfates, dated June 2010, indicates that soils possessing chloride concentrations greater than 500 ppm are considered to be corrosive. The chloride concentrations present in the soils tested are not considered to constitute a “corrosive” exposure to steel reinforcement within reinforced concrete. However, based on our experience with other dairy projects, soils present in cattle pen areas may possess chloride concentrations above 500 ppm. Therefore, SCG recommends that additional chloride content testing be performed on soils located within the cattle pen areas at the time of the design-level investigation.

Paleontological Setting
According to the California Geological Survey (CGS), the Project site is underlain by Quaternary Alluvium composed of alluvium, lake, playa, and terrace deposits or unconsolidated and semi-consolidated sediments.1 The Project is within the Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province of California, which is an east-west trending series of steep mountain ranges and valleys. It extends offshore, slanted against the coastline, including islands and prominent mountain ranges, like the San Bernardino Mountains which resides along the San Andreas fault. Apart from the east-west direction, intense north-south compression of the province is squeezing the Transverse Ranges, causing the region to become “one of the most rapidly rising regions on earth.” Within this region of California, the “thickness of Cenozoic petroleum-rich sedimentary rocks has been folded and faulted, making this one of the important oil-producing areas in the United States.”2
Paleontological Resources
The Project area is situated in the San Bernardino Basin, adjacent to the Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province. This province is comprised of a series of mountain ranges that run transverse to most mountain ranges in southern California – roughly east/west trending. The mountains within the Transverse Ranges 1 California Department of Conservation (DOC). (2015). Geologic Map of California. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/gmc/. 2 CGS. (2002). California Geomorphic Provinces. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/CGS-Notes/CGS-Note-36.pdf. 416
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.6-7 4.6 | Geology and Soils
Geomorphic Province, including the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains to the north and northeast, were uplifted by tectonic activity, and provide a major sedimentary source for the alluvium basins of the adjacent areas. The geologic units underlying the Project site are mapped entirely as younger Quaternary alluvium (Qyfa) dating from the late Holocene to Pleistocene. These deposits derived broadly as alluvial fan deposits from the San Bernardino Mountains to the north.

Qyfa are Holocene to late Pleistocene-aged alluvial fan deposit that typically consists of river and stream derived sediments. The sediments are comprised of slightly consolidated gray-hued arkosic, sandy and gravel-sand deposits derived from local Peninsular Ranges batholith granitic bodies.

4.6.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act was enacted in 1997 to “reduce the risks to life and property from future earthquakes in the United States through the establishment and maintenance of an effective earthquake hazards and reduction program.” To accomplish this, the act established the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP), which refined the description of agency responsibilities, program goals, and objectives. NEHRP’s mission includes improved understanding, characterization, and prediction of hazards and vulnerabilities; improvement of building codes and land use practices; risk reduction through post-earthquake investigations and education; development and improvement of design and construction techniques; improvement of mitigation capacity; and accelerated application of research results. NEHRP designates the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the lead agency of the program and assigns it several planning, coordinating, and reporting responsibilities.

Programs under NEHRP help inform and guide planning and building code requirements such as emergency evacuation responsibilities and seismic code standards.

State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was signed into state law in 1972, and amended, with its primary purpose being to mitigate the hazard of fault rupture by prohibiting the location of structures for human occupancy across the trace of an active fault. The California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was a direct result of the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, which was associated with extensive surface fault ruptures that damaged numerous homes, commercial buildings, and other structures. California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act requires the State Geologist to delineate regulatory zones known as “earthquake fault zones” along faults that are “sufficiently active” and “well defined” and to issue and distribute appropriate maps to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction. Pursuant to the California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and as stipulated in Section 3603(a) of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), structures for human occupancy are not permitted to be placed across the trace of an active fault. The California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act also prohibits structures for human occupancy within 50 feet of the trace of an active fault, unless proven by an appropriate geotechnical 417
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.6-8 4.6 | Geology and Soils
investigation and report that the development site is not underlain by active branches of the active fault, as stipulated in Section 3603(a) of the CCR. Furthermore, the act requires that cities and counties withhold development permits for sites within an earthquake fault zone until geologic investigations demonstrate that the sites are not threatened by surface displacement from future faulting, as stipulated in Section 3603(d) of the CCR.

Seismic Hazard Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act was adopted by the State in 1990 for the purpose of protecting the public from the effects of non-surface fault rupture earthquake hazards, including strong ground shaking, liquefaction, seismically induced landslides, or other ground failure caused by earthquakes. The goal of the act is to minimize loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating seismic hazards. The CGS prepares and provides local governments with seismic hazard zones maps that identify areas susceptible to amplified shaking, liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and other ground failures.

California Building Code
Current law states that every local agency enforcing building regulations, such as cities and counties, must adopt the provisions of the California Building Code (CBC) within 180 days of its publication. The publication date of the CBC is established by the California Building Standards Commission, and the code is under Title 24, Part 2, of the CCR. The CBC provides minimum standards to protect property and public safety by regulating the design and construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other building elements to mitigate the effects of seismic shaking and adverse soil conditions.

The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock on-site, and the strength of ground shaking with a specified probability at a site. The 2019 CBC took effect on January 1, 2020. Requirements for Geotechnical Investigations Requirements for geotechnical investigations are included in CBC Appendix J, Grading, Section J104; additional requirements for subdivisions requiring tentative and final maps and for other specified types of structures are in California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 17953 to Section 17955 and in CBC Section 1802. Testing of samples from subsurface investigations is required, such as from borings or test pits. Studies must be done as needed to evaluate slope stability, soil strength, position and adequacy of load-bearing soils, the effect of moisture variation on load-bearing capacity, compressibility, liquefaction, differential settlement, and expansiveness. CBC Section J105 sets forth requirements for inspection and observation during and after grading.

California Public Resources Code
The California Public Resources Code (PRC), Chapter 1.7, Sections 5097.5 and 30244, include additional State-level requirements for the assessment and management of paleontological resources. These statutes require reasonable mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources resulting from development on state lands, define the removal of paleontological “sites” or “features” from state lands as a misdemeanor, and prohibit the removal of any paleontological “site” or “feature” from state land without permission of the jurisdictional agency. These protections apply only to State land. 418
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.6-9 4.6 | Geology and Soils
Local
City of Ontario General Plan
The Ontario Plan (TOP) Safety Element, Seismic & Geologic Hazards section states that the City is susceptible to earthquakes, alluvial deposits that underlie the region, and the rapid withdrawal of groundwater causing subsidence. The Safety Element policies ensure that the City is prepared for and would effectively deal with seismic and geologic hazards.

Safety Element
Goal S1 Minimized risk of injury, loss of life, property damage and economic and social disruption caused by earthquake-induced and other geologic hazards.

Policy S1-1 Implementation of Regulations and Standards. We require that all new habitable structures be designed in accordance with the most recent California Building Code adopted by the City, including provisions regarding lateral forces and grading.

Policy S1-2 Entitlement and Permitting Process. We follow state guidelines and the California Building Code to determine when development proposals must conduct geotechnical and geological investigations.

City of Ontario Municipal Code
The City Municipal Code (MC) adopted the 2019 CBC by ordinance (Section 8 1.01), which incorporates the 2018 Edition of the International Building Code (IBC), as published by the International Code Council.

These regulations provide applicable standards and documentation of requirements found in the CBC that address construction of structures and seismic safety. New construction, alteration, or rehabilitation shall comply with applicable ordinances set forth by the City and/or by the most recent City building and seismic codes in effect at the time of project design. In accordance with Section 1803.2 of the 2019 CBC, a geotechnical investigation is required that must evaluate soil classification, slope stability, soil strength, position and adequacy of load-bearing soils, the effect of moisture variation on soil-bearing capacity, compressibility, liquefaction, and expansiveness, as necessary, determined by the City building official.

The geotechnical investigation must be prepared by registered professionals (i.e., California Registered Civil Engineer or Certified Engineering Geologist).

4.6.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

G-1 Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.)
419
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.6-10 4.6 | Geology and Soils
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. iv) Landslides.

G-2 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

G-3 Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.

G-4 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

G-5 Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.

G-6 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Section 7.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant:
• Threshold G1 i), iv)
• Threshold G-2
• Threshold G-4
• Threshold G-5
These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis.

4.6.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP GEO-1 The Project would be required to comply with the California Building Code and the Ontario MC Section 1803.2, with requires a geotechnical investigation to evaluate soil classification, slope stability, soil strength, position and adequacy of load-bearing soils, the effect of moisture variation on soil-bearing capacity, compressibility, liquefaction, and expansiveness, as necessary, determined by the City building official. The geotechnical investigation must be prepared by registered professionals (i.e., California Registered Civil Engineer or Certified Engineering Geologist.

4.6.5 Methodology
Geotechnical
The subsurface exploration conducted for this project consisted of three borings (advanced to depths of 35 to 40 feet bgs. Additionally, four trenches were excavated to depths of 6.5 to 10 feet bgs. All of the borings and trenches were logged during drilling by a member of SCG. 420
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.6-11 4.6 | Geology and Soils
The borings were advanced with hollow-stem augers, by a conventional truck-mounted drilling rig. These trenches were excavated using a backhoe with a 24-inch-wide bucket. Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples were taken during drilling. Relatively undisturbed soil samples were taken with a split barrel “California Sampler” containing a series of one-inch-long, 2.416±-inch-diameter brass rings.

This sampling method is described in ASTM Test Method D-3550. Samples were also taken using a 1.4± inch inside diameter split spoon sampler, in general accordance with ASTM D-1586. Both samplers are driven into the ground with successive blows of a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. The blow counts obtained during driving are recorded for further analysis. Bulk samples were collected in plastic bags to retain their original moisture content. The relatively undisturbed ring samples were placed in molded plastic sleeves that were then sealed and transported to our laboratory.

The approximate boring and trench locations are indicated on the Boring and Trench Location Plan, included as Plate 2 in Appendix A of the Geotechnical Feasibility Study (see Appendix E). The Boring and Trench Logs, which illustrate the conditions encountered at the boring and trench locations, as well as the results of some of the laboratory testing, are included in Appendix B of the Geotechnical Feasibility Study (see Appendix E).

Paleontological Resources
Paleontological Records Research
MCC conducted thorough background research and analysis, including geologic maps and a review of relevant geological and paleontological literature to determine which geologic units are present within the Project area and whether fossils have been recovered from those geologic units elsewhere in the region. As geologic units may extend over large geographic areas and contain similar lithologies and fossils, the literature review included areas well beyond the Project site. The results of the literature review included an overview of the geology of the region and a discussion of the paleontological sensitivity (or potential) of the geologic units within the Project site. A search for paleontological records was completed by staff of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) in Los Angeles on August 2, 2018. The record search included a one-mile radius around the Approved SP area, as well as the Project site, and identified any vertebrate localities in the museum’s records that exist near the study area in the same or similar deposits. In February 2020, MCC conducted a supplemental assessment of the Project site, to the east of the Approved SP, encompassing an additional 80.83 acres. This assessment included a compilation of previous CHRIS record searches that overlap the Project site.

Paleontological Field Survey
MCC also conducted a field survey to verify the exact location of each identified paleontological resource, the condition or integrity of the resource, and identify areas of paleontological resource sensitivity. An MCC Archaeologist and cross-trained Paleontologist, conducted the survey of the Approved SP on July 27, 2018. The survey consisted of walking in parallel transects spaced at approximately 15-meter intervals while closely inspecting the ground surface. The type of sediment and land formations were also noted in order to assess the potential for paleontological sensitivity. Existing ground disturbances (e.g., cut banks, ditches, animal burrows, etc.) were also visually inspected to get a sense of subsurface deposits and soil horizons. Representative photographs were taken of the Project site. 421
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.6-12 4.6 | Geology and Soils
Results
Paleontological Records Search Results
The locality search at LACM did not yield any fossil localities within one mile of the Project site and no fossil localities within the Project site. The geological units mapped within the entirety of the Project area is comprised of Qyfa. While these deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils within the uppermost layers, it is likely they are underlain in this region by older Quaternary deposits at relatively shallow depth. The closest vertebrate fossil locality from similar sediments is LACM 7811, which is located due east of the Project site, and west of Mira Loma, California. This locality produced a fossil specimen of whipsnake (Maticophis) at a depth of 9 to 11 feet bgs. The next closest vertebrate fossil locality from Older Quaternary deposits is LACM 1207, located south-southeast of the Project site on the northwestern side of Corona, California. This locality produced fossil specimen of deer (Odocoileus). Additional literature was consulted, including The University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP)’s Miocene Mammal Mapping Project (MioMap), with no fossil localities within the Project site.

Paleontological Field Survey Results
During the course of fieldwork, survey conditions were generally poor. The majority of the Approved SP was inaccessible to intensive level survey, due to agricultural and dairy activities. The areas that were surveyed intensively had ground visibility ranging from fair (50 percent) to good (approximately 75 percent) with most of the landscaping a combination of manure and annual grasses. However, the Approved SP was surveyed opportunistically, from multiple viewpoints within and around the perimeter of the Projectsite. As previously stated, the Project site, was determined as not requiring additional survey as no significant paleontological resources were identified within the direct Project site during the locality search or the field survey and area is considered low to moderate sensitivity for paleontological resources.

The Approved SP and Project site has been repeatedly and significantly altered and disturbed by over 80 years of agricultural/dairy operations. Modern refuse was observed throughout the Project area. The visual observation of sediment included tan fine loam with small pebble and cobble inclusions that became muddy with increasedorganic content when wet and with cattle presence. This is consistent with the mapping of Qyfa deposits. No paleontological resources were observed during the survey.

Representative photos of the area are found within the MCC field survey (Appendix D of this Draft EIR).

4.6.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the preliminary environmental analysis disclosed potentially significant impacts.

Impact 4.6-1 Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: [Threshold G-1ii and iii] ii) Strong seismic ground shaking.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction Level of Significance Before Mitigation: With construction of structural improvements in accordance with the Specific Plan, the CBC and PPP GEO-1, Impact 4.6.-1 would be Less Than Significant
422
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.6-13 4.6 | Geology and Soils
Surface Fault Rupture
The Project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no evidence of faulting was identified during the geotechnical investigation. The Project site is not subject to surface rupture of a known active fault, as the nearest faults are approximately 2.3 to 3 miles southwest of the Project site.

The possibility of significant fault rupture on the site is considered to be low. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Ground Shaking
Southern California is considered a seismically active region and the regional vicinity of the Project site contains a number of known earthquake faults. As part of the Geotechnical Feasibility Study, 2019 CBC Seismic Design Parameters were generated for future structural improvements within the Project area.

Structures for human occupancy must be designed to meet or exceed 2019 CBC standards for earthquake resistance. The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock on-site, and the strength of ground motion with a specified probability at the Project site. Therefore, future development of habitable structures within the Project site would be conducted in accordance with the 2019 CBC Seismic Design Parameters generated as part of the Geotechnical Feasibility Study, which would reduce impacts from seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level.

Liquefaction
According to the Geotechnical Feasibility Study, the Project site is not within a zone of liquefaction susceptibility and the subsurface conditions at the boring locations are not considered to be conducive to liquefaction. Liquefaction potential under the site is low due to the depth of groundwater and the mix of soil type and is not considered to be a design concern for the Project. Therefore, Project development would not subject people or structures to liquefaction hazards, and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact 4.6-2 Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. [Threshold G-3] Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Lateral Spreading and Subsidence
As discussed in Impact 4.6-1iii, above, liquefaction is not considered to be a design concern for the Project, and potential for lateral spreading would be low. The major cause of ground subsidence is the excessive withdrawal of groundwater. Based on the conditions encountered in the borings and trenches conducted for the Geotechnical Feasibility Study, groundwater was not observed within 30 feet of the ground surface, and recent water level data obtained from a SWRCB indicates that the highest groundwater levels range around 83 feet bgs in the vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, based on anticipated groundwater depths, it is not expected that groundwater would affect excavations for the foundations and utilities.

However, minor subsidence is expected to occur in the soils below the zone of soil removal, due to settlement and machinery working; the subsidence is estimated to be 0.10 feet. Furthermore, removal and recompacting of the near-surface native fill soils is estimated to result in an average shrinkage of 7 to 423
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.6-14 4.6 | Geology and Soils
17 percent. Additional exploration during the design level investigation will help to refine the potential shrinkage estimate. If a more accurate and precise shrinkage estimate is desired, a shrinkage study will be performed involving several excavated test-pits where in-place densities are determined using in-situ testing methods instead of laboratory density testing on small-diameter samples.

Inaccordance with Mitigation Measure (MM)GEO-1, SCG will perform a shrinkage study involving several excavated test-pits where in-place densities are determined using in-situ testing methods instead of laboratory density testing on small-diameter samples; special care will need to be taken to properly moisture condition and maintain adequate moisture content within all subgrade soils as well as newly placed fill soils; protection for embedded metal improvements will be required; additional chloride content testing be performed on soils. Therefore, with implementation of MM GEO-1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Consolidation and Collapsible Soils
Collapsible soils shrink upon being wetted and/or subjected to a load. Selected soil samples were tested to determine their consolidation potential, and their potential for collapse of heave. As the existing fill soils and the upper portion of the near surface alluvium are not considered suitable for support of new structures, remedial grading would be necessary.

As stated above, highly organic topsoil materials were encountered at the trench locations performed in the planted areas on the Project site. The concentrations of these soils are considered to be negligible and therefore, specialized concrete mix designs are not considered to be necessary, with regard to sulfate protection purposes.

Therefore, in accordance with MM GEO-2 and MM GEO-3, all of the manure and any organic topsoil will be removed from the site or utilized in non-structural areas, provided that they are cleaned of highly organic materials and can be blended with the underlying soils in order to reduce the organic content to less than three percent throughout; and additional soluble sulfate testing will be conducted during the design-level geotechnical investigation and at the completion of rough grading to verify the soluble sulfate concentrations of the soils which are present at the proposed building pad grades.

Furthermore, any remedial grading performed will be in accordance with MM GEO-4, which ensures the removal of any existing undocumented fill soils and near-surface native alluvium will be replaced with materials such as compacted structuralfill. With application of MM GEO-4, post-construction settlements of the proposed structures are expected to be within tolerable limits. Therefore, with implementation of MM GEO-2 through MM GEO-4, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Impact 4.6-3 Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [Threshold G-6]
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact The Project site currently operates with agricultural uses and is frequently disturbed by human and machine activity. A Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment was prepared for the proposed Project to review the susceptibility of subsurface geologic units to provide paleontological 424
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.6-15 4.6 | Geology and Soils
resources as well as review records for fossil localities near the Project site. No paleontological resources or unique geologic formations were identified on the Project site during the field survey. A records search within a one-mile radius of the Project site did not yield any fossil localities and there were no fossil localities identified within the Project site boundaries. The closest vertebrate fossil locality from similar sediments is located west of Mira Loma, east of Archibald Avenue along Sumner Road, north of Cloverdale Road, which produced a fossil specimen of a whipsnake at a depth of 9 to 11 feet bgs.

The geologic units underlying the Project site are mapped entirely as Qyfa dating from the late Holocene to Pleistocene. While these deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils within the uppermost layers, it is likely they are underlain in the area by older Quaternary deposits at relatively shallow but unknown depth. There are nearby localities from similar sedimentary deposits found within the proposed off-site improvement area. Therefore, the Project site is considered low to moderate sensitivity for paleontological resources. The Project would require remedial grading to remove all existing undocumented fill soils and near-surface alluvial soils. Over excavation to depths of 4 to 6 feet bgs is anticipated; however, design-level investigation could result in additional over excavation requirements.

Should excavation exceed a depth of 10 feet bgs, there is the potential to encounter paleontological resources. Therefore, MM GEO-5 will be required to ensure grading activities have the potential to encounter unknown, buried resources, and impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

4.6.7 Cumulative Impacts
Geology and soils impacts are site-specific and generally do not combine to result in cumulative impacts.

Like the Project, future development projects would be required to comply with applicable state and local building regulations, including the most recent CBC. Site-specific geologic hazards would be addressed in each project’s geotechnical investigation. Further, future developments would be required to comply with environmental analysis and review. Therefore, no significant cumulative impact would occur.

Additionally, other projects in the area would involve ground disturbance and could damage paleontological resources that could be buried in those project sites. As with the Project, other projects would require site-specific paleontological analysis that could lead to mitigation requiring monitoring and recovery, identification, and curation of any resources discovered. Cumulative impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant, and Project contribution would not be cumulatively considerable.

4.6.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, some impacts would be less than significant: 4.6-1.

Without mitigation, these impacts would be potentially significant:
• Impact 4.6-2 Potentially unstable soils that can result in lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
• Impact 4.6-3 Grading activities have the potential to encounter buried paleontological resources at depths below 10 feet.
425
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.6-16 4.6 | Geology and Soils

4.6.9 Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.6-2
MM GEO-1 A shrinkage study will be performed involving several excavated test-pits where inplace densities are determined using in-situ testing methods instead of laboratory density testing on small-diameter samples. Special care will be taken to properly moisture condition and maintain 2 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content within all subgrade soils as well as newly placed fill soils. Additional expansion index testing will be performed at the time of the design-level geotechnical investigation.

Protection(protective coating, metal plating, corrosive inhibitors, etc.) for embedded metal improvements will be installed and additional chloride content testing will be performed on soils.

MM GEO-2 All manure and any organic topsoil will be removed during initial site stripping and that additional organic testing will be conducted during the design-level geotechnical investigation. Prior to grading, grubbing, and segregating of the manure in the cattle pens and the highly organic soils in the planted areas will be done. These soils will be removed from the site or reutilized in nonstructural areas, such as landscape planters.

Any additional organic materials encountered in buried fills will also be segregated during grading and reutilized in nonstructural areas, such as landscape planters. Any additional organic materials encountered in buried fills will also be segregated during grading.

MM GEO-3 Additional soluble sulfate testing would be conducted during the design-level geotechnical investigation and at the completion of rough grading to verify the soluble sulfate concentrations of the soils.

MM GEO-4 The remedial grading would be performed to remove the existing undocumented fill soils as well as a portion of the near-surface native alluvium and replace these materials as compacted structural fill. The over excavation would extend to a sufficient depth so that the native soils that will remain in place below the recommended depth of over excavation will not be subject to significant load increases from the foundations of the new structures.

Impact 4.6-3
MM GEO-5 Periodic paleontological spot checks would be conducted when excavation exceeds depths of 10 feet below the surface to determine if older, paleontologically-sensitive sediments are present. If present, full-time monitoring would be implemented. Prior to the start of construction, a paleontological resource monitoring plan (PRMP) would be prepared and implemented. The Project’s PRMP would implement the following procedures:
▪ A trained and qualified paleontological monitor would perform spot-check and/or monitoring of any excavations on the Project that have the potential to impact paleontological resources in undisturbed native sediments below 10 feet in 426
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.6-17 4.6 | Geology and Soils
depth. The monitor will have the ability to redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources. ▪ The Project paleontologist may re-evaluate the necessity for paleontological monitoring after examination of the affected sediments during excavation, with approval from Lead Agency and Client representatives.
▪ Any potentially significant fossils observed shall be collected and recorded in conjunction with best management practices and Society of Vertebrate Paleontology professional standards.
▪ Any fossils recovered during mitigation shall be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations. ▪ A report documenting the results of the monitoring, including any salvage activities and the significance of any fossils, shall be prepared and submitted to the appropriate personnel.

4.6.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation
MM GEO-1 will ensure determination in place densities, special care will be taken to properly moisture condition and maintain adequate moisture content within soils, and protection for embedded metal improvements will be installed and additional chloride content testing will be performed on soils.

MM GEO-2 ensures all manure, and any organic topsoil will be removed during initial site stripping and that additional organic testing will be conducted to verify that the organic contents of the blended on-site soils are within the acceptable limits. To ensure accordance with ACI Publication 318-05 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, Section 4.3, MM GEO-3 through MM GEO-4 require additional soluble sulfate testing be conducted during the design-level geotechnical investigation and at the completion of rough grading to verify the soluble sulfate concentrations of the soils which are present at the proposed building pad grades. This would ensure a less than significant impact would occur.

Because fossils may be present at depths greater than 10 feet below the existing ground surface, paleontological monitoring in these areas is required. MM GEO-5would require a paleontological monitor to ensure that any paleontological finds are properly excavated and preserved, and that grading is halted to assess the find for significance. With the implementation of MM GEO-5, potential impacts associated with paleontological resources would be less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to paleontological resources have been identified.

4.6.11 References
California Building Code. (2020). Adoption of the Building Code. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ontarioca/latest/ontario_ca/0-0-0-46118#JD_Title8Ch.1.

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2015. Geologic Map of California. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/gmc/ (accessed January 2021).City of Ontario. Areas of Liquefaction Susceptibility Map. Retrieve from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/areas-of-liquefaction.pdf. 427
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.6-18 4.6 | Geology and Soils
CGS. 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/CGS-Notes/CGS-Note-36.pdf.

California DOC.2015. Fault Activity Map of California. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/.

Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC). 2021. Earthquake Information. https://scedc.caltech.edu/significant/.

San Bernardino County. (2010). San Bernardino County Land Use Plan General Plan Geologic Hazard Overlays. San Bernardino, CA: San Bernardino County. Retrieved from:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/lus/hazmaps/fh27b.pdf.

Material Culture Consulting. May 2020. Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment Ontario Ranch Business Park, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California.

Ontario Municipal Code. (2021). Retrieved from:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ontarioca/latest/ontario_ca/0-0-0-42829.

San Bernardino County Geologic Hazard Overlay Map. Retrieved from:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GeoHazMaps/FH27C_20100309.pdf.

Southern California Geotechnical (SCG). January 2020. Geotechnical Feasibility Study. Proposed Commercial/Industrial Development NEC Grove Avenue and Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California.

United States Geological Survey. (2020). U.S. Quaternary Faults. Retrieved from:
https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf 88412fcf.
428
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-1 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas

4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment (Project) to cumulatively contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts, within the City of Ontario (City). Because no single project is large enough to result in a measurable increase in global concentrations of GHG, climate change impacts of a project are considered on a cumulative basis.

This evaluation is based on the methodology recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Modeling of GHG emissions was conducted using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2020.4, the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) EMFAC2021, Version 1.0.2, and CARB’s OFFROAD2017 (Orion Web Database), Version 1.0.1. Model outputs are in Appendix B3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model Data, of this Draft EIR.

4.7.1 Environmental Setting
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
Certain gases in the Earth’s atmosphere classified as GHGs play a critical role in determining the Earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the Earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space.

This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the Earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. Because the Earth has a much lower temperature than the sun, it emits lower-frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on Earth.

The primary GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that contribute to climate change. Examples of fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3); however, it is noted that these gases are not associated with typical land use development. Human-caused emissions of GHGs exceeding natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming.

GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (one to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time periods to be dispersed around the globe. Although the exact lifetime of a GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and cannot be pinpointed, more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, 429
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-2 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
vegetation, or other forms of carbon sequestration. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 emissions, approximately 55 percent is sequestered through ocean and land uptakes every year, averaged over the last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions remains stored in the atmosphere.1 Table 4.7-1, Description of Greenhouse Gases, describes the primary GHGs attributed to global climate change, including their physical properties.

Table 4.7-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas that is emitted naturally and through human activities.

Natural sources include decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing.

Anthropogenic sources are from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, and industrial facilities. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is variable because it is readily exchanged in the atmosphere. CO2 is the most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (Global Warming Potential [GWP] of 1) for determining Global Warming Potentials for other GHGs.

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) N2O is largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. Primary human-related sources of N2O include agricultural soil management, sewage treatment, combustion of fossil fuels, and adipic and nitric acid production. N2O is produced from biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests.

The atmospheric lifetime of N2O is approximately 120 years. The GWPof N2O is 298.

Methane (CH4) CH4, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from off-gassing (the release of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Methane is the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume. Human-related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry, rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. Natural sources of CH4 include wetlands, gas hydrates, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and wildfires. The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 is about 12 years and the GWPis 25.

Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs)
HFCs are typically used as refrigerants for both stationary refrigeration and mobile air conditioning. The use of HFCs for cooling and foam blowing is increasing, as the continued phase out of CFCs and HCFCs gains momentum. The 100-year GWP of HFCs range from 124 for HFC-152 to 14,800 for HFC-23.

Perfluorocarbons
(PFCs)
PFCs have stable molecular structures and only break down by ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers above Earth’s surface. Because of this, they have long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. Global Warming Potentials range from 6,500 to 9,200.
1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved from:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/.
430
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-3 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
Greenhouse Gas Description
Chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs)
CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. They are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the Earth’s surface). CFCs were synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer prohibited their production in 1987. Global Warming Potentials for CFCs range from 3,800 to 14,400.

Sulfur Hexafluoride
(SF6)
SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, and nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has a lifetime of 3,200 years. This gas is manmade and used for insulation in electric power transmission equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas. The GWP of SF6 is 23,900.

Hydrochlorofluorocarb
ons (HCFCs)
HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical composition to CFCs. The main uses of HCFCs are for refrigerant products and air conditioning systems. As part of the Montreal Protocol, HCFCs are subject to a consumption cap and gradual phase out. The United States is scheduled to achieve a 100 percent reduction to the cap by 2030. The 100-year Global Warming Potentials of HCFCs range from 90 for HCFC-123 to 1,800 for HCFC-142b.

Nitrogen Trifluoride
(NF3)
NF3 was added to Health and Safety Code §38505(g)(7) as a GHG of concern. This gas is used in electronics manufacture for semiconductors and liquid crystal displays. It has a high GWP of 17,200.

Sources: Compiled from U.S. EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases, (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases), accessed 12-30-2020; U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016, 2018; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, 2007; National Research Council, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010; U.S. EPA, Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission from Natural Sources, April 2010.

4.7.2 Regulatory Setting
This section describes the federal, State, and local regulations applicable to GHG emissions.

To date, national standards have not been established for nationwide GHG reduction targets, nor have any regulations or legislation been enacted specifically to address climate change and GHG emissions reduction at the project level. Various efforts have been promulgated at the federal level to improve fuel economy and energy efficiency to address climate change and its associated effects.

Federal
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA; December 2007), among other key measures, requires the following, which would aid in the reduction of national GHG emissions:
• Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. • Set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model year 2020 and direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a fuel 431
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-4 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
economy program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy standard for work trucks.
• Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products and procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment Finding The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to regulate GHG emissions stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air pollutants under the existing Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and must be regulated if these gases could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Responding to the Court’s ruling, the U.S. EPA finalized an endangerment finding in December 2009. Based on scientific evidence it found that six GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) constitute a threat to public health and welfare. Thus, it is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the existing FCAA and the U.S. EPA’s assessment of the scientific evidence that form the basis for the U.S. EPA’s regulatory actions.

Federal Vehicle Standards
In response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling discussed above, Executive Order 13432 was issued in 2007 directing the U.S. EPA, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Department of Energy to establish regulations that reduce GHG emissions from motor vehicles, non-road vehicles, and non-road engines by 2008. In 2009, the NHTSA issued a final rule regulating fuel efficiency and GHG emissions from cars and light-duty trucks for model year 2011, and in 2010, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA issued a final rule regulating cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012–2016.

In 2010, an Executive Memorandum was issued directing the Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, U.S. EPA, and NHTSA to establish additional standards regarding fuel efficiency and GHG reduction, clean fuels, and advanced vehicle infrastructure. In response to this directive, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA proposed stringent, coordinated federal GHG and fuel economy standards for model years 2017-2025 light-duty vehicles. The proposed standards projected to achieve 163 grams per mile of CO2 in model year 2025, on an average industry fleet-wide basis, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if this level were achieved solely through fuel efficiency. The final rule was adopted in 2012 for model years 2017–2021, and NHTSA intends to set standards for model years 2022–2025 in a future rulemaking. On January 12, 2017, the U.S. EPA finalized its decision to maintain the current GHG emissions standards for model years 2022–2025 cars and light trucks. It should be noted that the U.S. EPA is currently proposing to freeze the vehicle fuel efficiency standards at their planned 2020 level (37 mpg), canceling any future strengthening (currently 54.5 mpg by 2026).

In addition to the regulations applicable to cars and light-duty trucks described above, in 2011, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA announced fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks for model years 2014–2018. The standards for CO2 emissions and fuel consumption are tailored to three main vehicle categories: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles. 432
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-5 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
According to the U.S. EPA, this regulatory program will reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption for the affected vehicles by 6 to 23 percent over the 2010 baselines.

In August 2016, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA announced the adoption of the phase two program related to the fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The phase two program will apply to vehicles with model year 2018 through 2027 for certain trailers, and model years 2021 through 2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. The final standards are expected to lower CO2 emissions by approximately 1.1 billion metric tons and reduce oil consumption by up to 2 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program.

On September 27, 2019, the U.S. EPA and the NHTSA published the “Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program.” (84 Fed. Reg. 51,310 (Sept. 27, 2019.) The Part One Rule revokes California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and set zero-emission vehicle mandates in California. On March 31, 2020, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA finalized rulemaking for SAFE Part Two, which sets CO2 emissions standards and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks, covering model years 2021-2026.

Clean Power Plan and New Source Performance Standards for Electric Generating Units On October 23, 2015, the U.S. EPA published a final rule (effective December 22, 2015) establishing the carbon pollution emission guidelines for existing stationary sources: electric utility generating units (80 Federal Register [FR] 64510–64660), also known as the Clean Power Plan (CPP). These guidelines prescribe how states must develop plans to reduce GHG emissions from existing fossil-fuel-fired electric generating units. The guidelines establish CO2 emission performance rates representing the best system of emission reduction for two subcategories of existing fossil-fuel-fired electric generating units: one fossil-fuel-fired electric utility steam-generating unit and two stationary combustion turbines.

Concurrently, the U.S. EPA published a final rule (effective October 23, 2015) establishing standards of performance for GHG emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed stationary sources: electric utility generating units (80 FR 64661–65120). The rule prescribes CO2 emission standards for newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed affected fossil-fuel-fired electric utility generating units. The U.S. Supreme Court stayed implementation of the CPP pending resolution of several lawsuits. Additionally, in March2017, the federal government directed the U.S. EPA Administrator to review the CPP to determine whether it is consistent with current executive policies concerning GHG emissions, climate change, and energy.

Presidential Executive Order 13783
Presidential Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth issued on March 28, 2017, orders all federal agencies to apply cost-benefit analyses to regulations of GHG emissions and evaluations of the social cost of CO2, N2O, and CH4. 433
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-6 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
State
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for the coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California. Various Statewide and local initiatives to reduce California’s contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness about climate change and its potential for severe long-term adverse environmental, social, and economic effects. California is a significant emitter of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) in the world and produced 459 million gross metric tons of CO2e in 2013.

In the State, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by industrial operations such as manufacturing and oil and gas extraction.

The State legislature has enacted a series of bills that constitute the most aggressive program to reduce GHGs of any state in the nation. Some legislation, such as the landmark Assembly Bill (AB) 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was specifically enacted to address GHG emissions. Other legislation, such as Title 24 building efficiency standards and Title 20 appliance energy standards, were originally adopted for other purposes such as energy and water conservation, but also provide GHG reductions. This section describes the major provisions of the legislation.

Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) AB 32 instructs the CARB to developand enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 also directedCARB to set a GHG emissions limit based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. It set a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving GHG reductions in a technologically and economically feasible manner.

CARB Scoping Plan
CARB adopted the Scoping Plan to achieve the goals of AB 32. The Scoping Plan establishes an overall framework for the measures that would be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. CARB determined that achieving the 1990 emissions level would require a reduction of GHG emissions of approximately 29 percent below what would otherwise occur in 2020 in the absence of new laws and regulations (referred to as “business-as-usual”)2. The Scoping Plan evaluates opportunities for sectorspecific reductions, integrates early actions and additional GHG reduction measures by both CARB and the State’s Climate Action Team, identifies additional measures to be pursued as regulations, and outlines the adopted role of a cap-and-trade program3. Additional development of these measures and adoption of the appropriate regulations occurred through the end of 2013. Key elements of the Scoping Plan include:
• Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs, as well as building and appliance standards.
2 CARB defines business-as-usual (BAU) in its Scoping Plan as emissions levels that would occur if California continued to grow and add new GHG emissions but did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions. Projections for each emission-generating sector were compiled and used to estimate emissions for 2020 based on 2002–2004 emissions intensities. Under CARB’s definition of BAU, new growth is assumed to have the same carbon intensities as was typical from 2002 through 2004. 3 The Climate Action Team, led by the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is a group of State agency secretaries and heads of agencies, boards, and departments. Team members work to coordinate statewide efforts to implement global warming emissions reduction programs and the State’s Climate Adaptation Strategy. 434
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-7 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
• Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent by 2020. • Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other programs to create a regional market system and caps sources contributing 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions (adopted in 2011).
• Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets (several sustainable community strategies have been adopted).
• Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, heavy-duty truck measures, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (amendments to the Pavley Standard adopted 2009; Advanced Clean Car standard adopted 2012), goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (adopted 2009). • Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on gasses with high global warming potential, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State of California’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation.
• The California Sustainable Freight Action Plan was developed in 2016 and provides a vision for California’s transition to a more efficient, more economically competitive, and less polluting freight transport system. This transition of California’s freight transport system is essential to supporting the State’s economic development in coming decades while reducing pollution. • CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy demonstrates how the State can simultaneously meet air quality standards, achieve GHG emission reduction targets, decrease health risk from transportation emissions, and reduce petroleum consumption over the next fifteen years. The mobile Source Strategy includes increasing zero-emission vehicle (ZEV)buses and trucks.

In 2012, CARB released revised estimates of the expected 2020 emissions reductions. The revised analysis relied on emissions projections updated in light of current economic forecasts that accounted for the economic downturn since 2008, reduction measures already approved and put in place relating to future fuel and energy demand, and other factors. This update reduced the projected 2020 emissions from 596 million metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e) to 545 MMTCO2e. The reduction in forecasted 2020 emissions means that the revised business-as-usual reduction necessary to achieve AB 32’s goal of reaching 1990 levels by 2020 is now 21.7 percent, down from 29 percent. CARB also provided a lower 2020 inventory forecast that incorporated State-led GHG emissions reduction measures already in place. When this lower forecast is considered, the necessary reduction from business-as-usual needed to achieve the goals of AB 32 is approximately 16 percent.

CARB adopted the first major update to the Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The updated Scoping Plan summarizes the most recent science related to climate change, including anticipated impacts to California and the levels of GHG emissions reductions necessary to likely avoid risking irreparable damage. It identifies the actions California has already taken to reduce GHG emissions and focuses on areas where further reductions could be achieved to help meet the 2020 target established by AB 32.

In 2016, the Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 32, which codifies a 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. With SB 32, the Legislature passed companion legislation, AB 197, which 435
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-8 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
provides additional direction for developing the Scoping Plan. On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted a second update to the Scoping Plan.
4 The 2017 Scoping Plan details how the State will reduce GHG emissions to meet the 2030 target set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. Other objectives listed in the 2017 Scoping plan are to provide direct GHG emissions reductions; support climate investment in disadvantaged communities; and support the Clean Power Plan and other Federal actions.

Senate Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit) Signed into law in September 2016, SB 32 codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target in Executive Order B-30-15 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). The bill authorizes CARB to adopt an interim GHG emissions level target to be achieved by 2030. CARB also must adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective GHG reductions.

SB 375 (The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008) Signed into law on September 30, 2008, SB 375 provides a process to coordinate land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities to help California meet the GHG reduction goals established by AB 32. SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions, aligns planning for transportation and housing, and creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies.

AB 1493 (Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards) AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Implementation of the regulation was delayed by lawsuits filed by automakers and by the U.S. EPA’s denial of an implementation waiver. The U.S. EPA subsequently granted the requested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011. The regulations establish one set of emission standards for model years 2009–2016 and a second set of emissions standards for model years 2017 to 2025. By 2025, when all rules will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer CO2e emissions and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions.

SB 1368 (Emission Performance Standards)
SB 1368 is the companion bill of AB 32, which directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to adopt a performance standard for GHG emissions for the future power purchases of California utilities.

SB 1368 limits carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for energy longer than five years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean, combined-cycle natural gas power plant. The new law effectively prevents California’s utilities from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants located in or out of the State. The CPUC adopted the regulations required by SB 1368 on August 29, 2007.

The regulations implementing SB 1368 establish a standard for baseload generation owned by, or under long-term contract to publicly owned utilities, for 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour(MWh). 4 California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed May 9, 2018. 436
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-9 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
SB 1078 and SBX1-2 (Renewable Electricity Standards)
SB 1078 requires California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017.

SB 107 changed the due date to 2010 instead of 2017. On November 17, 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which established a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) target for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Executive Order S-21-09 also directed CARB to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the State’s load-serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020. CARB approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010 by Resolution 10-23.

SBX1-2, which codified the 33 percent by 2020 goal.

SB 350 (Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015) Signed into law on October 7, 2015, SB 350 implements the goals of Executive Order B-30-15. The objectives of SB 350 are to increase the procurement of electricity from renewable sources from 33 percent to 50 percent (with interim targets of 40 percent by 2024, and 45 percent by 2027) and to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses of retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation. SB 350 also reorganizes the Independent System Operator to develop more regional electricity transmission markets and improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States.

AB 398 (Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms)
Signed into law on July 25, 2017, AB 398 extended the duration of the Cap-and-Trade program from 2020 to 2030. AB 398 required CARB to update the Scoping Plan and for all GHG rules and regulations adopted by the State. It also designated CARB as the Statewide regulatory body responsible for ensuring that California meets its Statewide carbon pollution reduction targets, while retaining local air districts’ responsibility and authority to curb toxic air contaminants and criteria pollutants from local sources that severely impact public health. AB 398 also decreased free carbon allowances by over 40 percent by 2030 and prioritized Cap-and-Trade spending to various programs including reducing diesel emissions in impacted communities.

SB 150 (Regional Transportation Plans)
Signed into law on October 10, 2017, SB 150 aligns local and regional GHG reduction targets with State targets (i.e., 40 percent below their 1990 levels by 2030). SB 150 creates a process to include communities in discussions on how to monitor their regions’ progress in meeting these goals. The bill also requires the CARB to regularly report on that progress, as well as on the successes and the challenges regions experience associated with achieving their targets. SB 150 provides for accounting of climate change efforts and GHG reductions and identifies effective reduction strategies.

SB 100 (California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: Emissions of Greenhouse Gases) Signed into law in September 2018, SB 100 increased California’s renewable electricity portfolio from 50 to 60 percent by 2030. SB 100 also established a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045.
437
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-10 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
Executive Orders Related to GHG Emissions
California’s Executive Branch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs using executive orders. Although not regulatory, they set the tone for the State and guide the actions of state agencies.

Executive Order S-3-05
Executive Order S-3-05 was issued on June 1, 2005, which established the following GHG emissions reduction targets:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target. Because this is an executive order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local governments or the private sector.

Executive Order S-01-07
Issued on January 18, 2007, Executive Order S 01-07 mandates that a statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. The executive order established a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and directed the Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the California Energy Commission, CARB, the University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the “life-cycle carbon intensity” of transportation fuels. CARB adopted the LCFS on April 23, 2009.

Executive Order S-13-08
Issued on November 14, 2008, Executive Order S-13-08 facilitated the California Natural Resources Agency development of the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.

Executive Order S-14-08
Issued on November 17, 2008, Executive Order S-14-08 expands the State’s Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. Additionally, Executive Order S-21-09 (signed on September 15, 2009) directs CARB to adopt regulations requiring 33 percent of electricity sold in the State to come from renewable energy by 2020. CARB adopted the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010, which requires 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 for most publicly-owned electricity retailers.

Executive Order S-21-09
Issued on July 17, 2009, Executive Order S-21-09 directs CARB to adopt regulations to increase California's RPS to 33 percent by 2020. This builds upon SB 1078 (2002), which established the California RPS program, 438
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-11 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
requiring 20 percent renewable energy by 2017, and SB 107 (2006), which advanced the 20 percent deadline to 2010, a goal which was expanded to 33 percent by 2020 in the 2005 Energy Action Plan II.

Executive Order B-30-15
Issued on April 29, 2015, Executive Order B-30-15 established a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and directs CARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of MMTCO2e. The 2030 target acts as an interim goal on the way to achieving reductions of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, a goal set by Executive Order S-3-05. The executive order also requires the State’s climate adaptation plan to be updated every three years and for the State to continue its climate change research program, among other provisions. With the enactment of SB 32 in 2016, the Legislature codified the goal of reducing GHG emissions by 2030 to 40 percent below 1990 levels.

Executive Order B-55-18
Issued on September 10, 2018, Executive Order B-55-18 establishes a goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter.

This goal is in addition to the existing statewide targets of reducing GHG emissions. The executive order requires CARB to work with relevant state agencies to develop a framework for implementing this goal. It also requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan to identify and recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality. The executive order also requires state agencies to develop sequestration targets in the Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan.

California Regulations and Building Codes
California has a long history of adopting regulations to improve energy efficiency in new and remodeled buildings. These regulations have kept California’s energy consumption relatively flat even with rapid population growth.

Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The appliance efficiency regulations (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 20, Sections 1601-1608) include standards for new appliances. Twenty-three categories of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. These standards include minimum levels of operating efficiency, and other costeffective measures, to promote the use of energy- and water-efficient appliances.

Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (CCR Title 24, Part 6), was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption.

The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energyefficient technologies and methods. Energy-efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards approved on January 19, 2016 went into effect on January 1, 2017. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards were adopted on May 9, 2018 and went into effect on January 1, 2020. Under 439
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-12 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
the 2019 standards, homes will use about 53 percent less energy and nonresidential buildings will use about 30 percent less energy than buildings under the 2016 standards.

Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11 code) commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code, is a statewide mandatory construction code developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the Department of Housing and Community Development. The CALGreen Code standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory measures under the topics of planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency/conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. The CALGreen Code also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local governments may adopt that encourage or require additional measures in the five green building topics. The most recent update to the CALGreen Code went into effect January 1, 2017. Updates to the 2016 CALGreen Code took effect on January 1, 2020 (2019 CALGreen Code). The 2019 CALGreen Code standards continue to improve upon the existing standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings.

Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds
The SCAQMD formed a GHG California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Significance Threshold Working Group to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents. As of the last Working Group meeting (Meeting 15) held in September 2010, the SCAQMD is proposing to adopt a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency.

With the tiered approach, projects are compared with the requirements of each tier sequentially and would not result in a significant impact if it complies with any tier. Tier 1 excludes projects that are specifically exempt from SB 97 from resulting in a significant impact. Tier 2 excludes projects that are consistent with a GHG reduction plan that has a certified final CEQA document and complies with AB 32 GHG reduction goals. Tier 3 excludes projects with annual emissions lower than a screening threshold.

The SCAQMD has adopted a threshold of 10,000 metric tons of CO2e (MTCO2e) per year for industrial projects and a 3,000 MTCO2e threshold was proposed for non-industrial projects but has not been adopted. During Working Group Meeting #75it was explained that this threshold was derived using a 90 percent capture rate of a large sampling of industrial facilities. During Meeting #8, 6the Working Group defined industrial uses as production, manufacturing, and fabrication activities or storage and distribution (e.g., warehouse, transfer facility, etc.). The Working Group indicated that the 10,000 MTCO2e per year threshold applies to both emissions from construction and operational phases plus indirect emissions 5 Meeting 7: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008- 2009/ghg-meeting-7/ghg-meeting-7-minutes.pdf?sfvrsn=2
6 Meeting 8: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008- 2009/ghg-meeting-8/ghg-meeting-8-minutes.pdf?sfvrsn=2
440
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-13 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
(electricity, water use, etc.). The SCAQMD concluded that projects with emissions less than the screening threshold would not result in a significant cumulative impact.

GHG efficiency metrics are utilized as thresholds to assess the GHG efficiency of a project on a per capita basis or on a service population basis (the sum of the number of jobs and the number of residents provided by a project) such that a project would allow for consistency with the goals of AB 32 (i.e., 1990 GHG emissions levels by 2020 and 2035). GHG efficiency thresholds can be determined by dividing the GHG emissions inventory goal of the State, by the estimated 2035 population and employment. This method allows highly efficient projects with higher mass emissions to meet the overall reduction goals of AB 32, and is appropriate, because the threshold can be applied evenly to all project types (residential or commercial/retail only and mixed use).

The following SCAQMD rule related to GHG emissions isrequired of construction activities associated with the Project:
• Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule) - SCAQMD has adopted Rule 2305 in May 2021 to reduce emissions associated with warehouses and mobile sources attracted to warehouses. This rule applies to all existing and proposed warehouses over 100,000 square feet located in SCAQMD. Rule 2305 requires warehouse operators to track annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with truck trips to and from the warehouse. These trip miles are used to calculate the warehouses’ WAIRE (Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions) Points Compliance Obligation. WAIRE Points are earned based on emission reduction measures and warehouse operators are required to submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes truck trip data and emission reduction measures. Reduction strategies listed in the WAIRE menu include acquire zero emission (ZE) or near zero emission (NZE) trucks; require ZE/NZE truck visits; require ZE yard trucks; install on-site ZE charging/fueling infrastructure; install onsite energy systems; and install filtration systems in residences, schools, and other buildings in the adjacent community.

Warehouse operators that do not earn a sufficient number of WAIRE points to satisfy the WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation are required to pay a mitigation fee.

Southern California Association of Governments
Per SB 375, CARB set the following regional transportation GHG emissions reduction targets for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG):
• 8 percent reduction from the 2005 per capita amount by 2020 • 13 percent reduction from the 2005 per capita amount by 2035 SCAG's Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) is included in the SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The goals and policies of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS that reduce VMT focus on transportation and land use planning that include building infill projects, locating residents closer to where they work and play and designing communities so there is access to high quality transit service. The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS would result in an eight percent reduction in GHG emissions per capita by 2020, an 18 percent reduction by 2035 and a 21 percent reduction by 2040— compared with 2005 levels. This meets or exceeds the State’s mandated reductions established 441
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-14 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
by CARB and meets the requirements of SB 375 as codified in Government Code §65080(b) et seq., which are eight percent by 2020 and 13 percent by 2035. The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS is expected to reduce the number of VMT per capita by more than seven percent and Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) per capita by 17 percent (for automobiles and light/medium duty trucks) as a result of more location efficient land use patterns and improved transit service.

On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal (2020-2045 RTP/SCS). Connect SoCal outlines more than $638 billion in transportation system investments through 2045 to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. Connect SoCal includes plans to support development of ZEV trucks and passenger vehicles to reduce air pollution and GHG emissions.

CARB updated the regional targets in 2018 to ensure consistency with the more stringent statewide reduction goals subsequently introduced by the California legislature and the Governor’s office. For the SCAG region, the updated targets are eight percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2020 (this value is unchanged from the previous 2020 CARB target), and 19 percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2035.

Connect SoCal SCS has been found to meet State targets for reducing GHG emissions from cars and light trucks. Connect SoCal achieves per capita GHG emission reductions relative to 2005 levels of eight percent in 2020, and 19 percent in 2035, thereby meeting the GHG reduction targets established by the CARB for the SCAG region.

Chino Airport Land Use, Compatibility Plan
The Project site is within the Chino Airport Influence Area. The Chino Airport is located just south of the Project site across Merrill Avenue. The Chino Airport has adopted its own Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (ACLUP).

Local
City of Ontario Climate Action Plan
The City adopted the Community Climate Action Plan (CAP) in November 2014. The primary purpose of the City’s Community CAP is to design a feasible strategy to reduce GHG emissions generated by community activities that is consistent with statewide Scoping Plan GHG reduction efforts. Community activities are those activities occurring in association with the land uses and activities within the City’s jurisdictional boundary, generally from sources of emissions that the City’s community can influence or control. The GHG emissions reduction target established under the CAP is 30 percent under year 2020 business-as-usual (BAU) levels. This goal is consistent with CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan, which was developed to implement AB 32 and provide a recommended GHG reduction target of 15 percent below “current” (2005-2008) levels to local communities by the year 2020 (Ontario 2014).

As part of the CAP, the City published a guidance document titled “Greenhouse Gas Emissions, CEQA Thresholds and Screening Tables” (December 2014) (Screening Tables).7 As part of this guidance, the City 7 City of Ontario. 2014. Community Climate Action Plan, Appendix B. Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Applications/Community%20Climate%20Action%20Plan%20-%20Appendix%20B.pdf. (accessed September 3, 2021). 442
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-15 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
determined that if GHG emissions of a given project exceeds 3,000 MTCO2e per year, then project emissions would need to be reduced by 25 percent when compared to year 2008 emissions levels.

Alternatively, the project would need to achieve a minimum of 100 points pursuant to measures identified in the Screening Tables. The Screening Tables include a variety of measures to choose from, including building energy efficiency, water conservation, and VMT (vehicle miles traveled) reduction.

The City is in the process of developing an interim Development Screening Table and the latest draft was revised on May 1, 2018. The updated CAP will include a specific target for GHG reductions for 2030, 2040, and 2050. The targets will be consistent with broader State and federal reduction targets and will reflect contemporary scientific understanding of GHG reductions required by 2050. At the time of the Project GHG analysis, the City’s CAP update is underway.

4.7.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

GHG-1 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

GHG-2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Addressing GHG emissions generation impacts requires an agency to determine what constitutes a significant impact. The amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines specifically allow lead agencies to determine thresholds of significance that illustrate the extent of an impact and are a basis from which to apply mitigation measures. This means that each agency is left to determine whether a project’s GHG emissions will have a “significant” impact on the environment. The guidelines direct that agencies are to use “careful judgment” and “make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” the project’s GHG emissions.

City of Ontario Climate Action Plan
The City CAP includes reducing 39,769 MTCO2e resulting from new development by the year 2020. This would require new development to be 25 percent more efficient than current development. To ensure new development projects are consistent with the Community CAP, the Community CAP includes implementation of a Development Review Process (DRP) to reduce GHG emissions associated with new development. The DRP sets forth procedures for evaluating GHG impacts and determining significance for CEQA purposes by applying an emissions level that is determined to be less than significant for small projects, and using the Greenhouse Reduction Measures Screening Threshold Table to mitigate project GHG emissions that exceed the threshold level.
• Projects with 3,000 MTCO2e or Less. The City determined the size of development that is too small to be able to provide the level of GHG emission reductions expected from the Screening Tables based upon the 90th percentile capture rate concept developed by the SCAQMD GHG Working Group. Projects that generate 3,000 MTCO2e or less would have less than significant GHG 443
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-16 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
emissions and would not need to use the Screening Tables to mitigate project-related GHG, although they would be required to implement best management practices. • Projects that Exceed 3,000 MTCO2e: If the project is above 3,000 MTCO2e then the applicants for future development projects within the City would need either to use the “Screening Tables” in the CAP, or quantify GHG emissions and provide additional mitigation that achieves a 25 percent reduction. The Screening Tables provide a menu of options that both ensures implementation of the reduction strategies and flexibility.

4.7.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP GHG-1 New buildings are required to achieve the current California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and the CALGreen Code. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards become effective on January 1, 2020. The Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen Code are updated tri-annually with a goal to achieve zero net energy for residential buildings by 2020 and nonresidential buildings by 2030.

PPP GHG-2 New buildings are required to adhere to the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) requirement to provide bicycle parking for new non-residential buildings, or meet local bicycle parking ordinances, whichever is stricter (CALGreen Code Sections 5.106.4.1, 14.106.4.1, and 5.106.4.1.2).

PPP GHG-3 California’s Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) requires the recycling and/or salvaging for reuse at minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste generated during most “new construction” projects (CALGreen Code Sections 4.408 and 5.408). Construction contractors are required to submit a construction waste management plan that identifies the construction and demolition waste materials to be diverted from disposal by recycling, reuse on the project, or salvaged for future use or sale and the amount (by weight or volume).

PPP GHG-4 Construction activities are required to adhere to Title 13 CCR 2499, which requires that nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less.

PPP GHG-5 New buildings are required to adhere to the CALGreen Code and Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requirements to increase water efficiency and reduce urban per capita water demand.

PPP GHG-6 CARB’s RPS is a foundational element of the State’s emissions reduction plan. These mandates apply directly to investor-owned utilities, which in the case of the proposed Project is Southern California Edison (SCE). On September 10, 2018, SB 100 was signed into law and established the following RPS targets: 50 percent renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and 60 percent target by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also requires that retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatt hours of those products sold to their retail end-use customers 444
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-17 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
achieve 44 percent of retail sales by December 31, 2024; 52 percent by December 31, 2027; and 60 percent by December 31, 2030.

PPP GHG-7 On January 18, 2007, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-1-07 requiring the establishment of a LCFS for transportation fuels. The LCFS was amended in 2011 and readopted in 2015. This statewide goal requires that California’s transportation fuels reduce their carbon intensity by at least 10 percent by 2020.

PPP GHG-8 SB 375 requires the reduction of GHG emissions from light trucks and automobiles through land use and transportation efforts that will reduce VMT. Inessence, SB 375's goal is to control GHGs by curbing urban sprawl and through better land use planning.

SB 375 essentially becomes the land use contribution to the GHG reduction requirements of AB 32, California's global warming bill enacted in 2006, and SB 32.

PPP GHG-9 The heavy-duty tractors and trailers (i.e., trucks that are 53-foot or longer) must use U.S. EPA SmartWay certified tractors and trailers or retrofit their existing fleet with SmartWay verified technologies in accordance with CARB’s Heavy-Duty (TractorTrailer) GHG Regulation. Owners are responsible for replacing or retrofitting their affected vehicles with compliant aerodynamic technologies and low rolling resistance tires. Sleeper cab tractors model year 2011 and later must be SmartWay certified. All other tractors must use SmartWay verified low rolling resistance tires. Trailers must have low rolling resistance tires and aerodynamic devices.

PPP GHG-10 The medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicle engines are required to comply with the U.S.

EPA’s GHG and fuel efficiency standards. The federal and California Phase 1 standards took effect with model year 2014 tractors, vocational vehicles, and heavy-duty pick-up trucks and vans and the engines powering such vehicles (the Phase 1 standards excludes trailers). The federal Phase 2 standards cover model years 2018-2027 for certain trailers and model years 2021- 2027 for semi-trucks and large pick-up trucks, vans and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. California is aligned with the federal Phase 2 standards in structure, timing, and stringency, but with some minor California differences. The California Phase 2 regulations became effective April 1, 2019.

4.7.5 Project Design Features
PDF GHG-1 Indoor material handling equipment used throughout the Project area shallbe electric and may not be propane or diesel-powered.

PDF GHG-2 The tilt-up concrete warehouse buildings shall have rooftops that can support tenant improvements for solar panels (i.e., solar-ready).

PDF GHG-3 All outdoor water demands shall be served with recycled water.

4.7.6 Methodology
Global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative impact of GHG emissions. Therefore, there is no project-level analysis. The baseline against which to compare potential impacts of the project includes the 445
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-18 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
natural and anthropogenic drivers of global climate change, including worldwide GHG emissions from human activities which almost doubled between 1970 and 2010 from approximately 27 gigatons (Gt) of CO2 per year to nearly 49 GtCO2 per year.8 As such, the geographic extent of climate change and GHG emissions cumulative impact discussion is worldwide.

The Project’s construction and operational emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2020.4.0 (CalEEMod). Details of the modeling assumptions and emission factors are provided in Appendix B3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model Data. For construction, CalEEMod calculates emissions from off-road equipment usage and on-road vehicle travel associated with haul, delivery, and construction worker trips. GHG emissions during construction were forecasted based on the proposed construction schedule and applying the mobile-source and fugitive dust emissions factors derived from CalEEMod. The Project’s construction-related GHG emissions would be generated from off-road construction equipment, on-road hauling and vendor (material delivery) trucks, and worker vehicles.

The Project’s operations-related GHG emissions would be generated by vehicular traffic, off-road equipment, area sources (e.g., landscaping maintenance, consumer products), electrical generation, natural gas consumption, water supply and wastewater treatment, and solid waste. The increase of traffic over existing conditions as a result of the Project was obtained from the Project’s Traffic Analysis Study (see Appendix I) prepared by Urban Crossroads (August 2021). Project trip generation from the Trip Generation Analysis is based on the following Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) land use categories:
• ITE Land Use 157: High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse
• ITE Land Use 155: High-Cube Fulfillment Center
• ITE Land Use 150: Warehousing
• ITE Land Use 130: Industrial Park
Truck mix percentages are based on the SCAQMD Truck Trip Generation Study applied to ITE truck percentages. Other operational emissions from area, energy, and stationary sources were quantified in CalEEMod based on land use activity data.

4.7.7 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the preliminary environmental analysis disclosed potentially significant impacts.

Impact 4.7-1 Would the Project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that could have a significant impact on the environment? [Threshold GHG-1] Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact 8 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014. 446
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-19 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
Short-Term Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project would result in direct emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4 from construction equipment and the transport of materials and construction workers to and from the Project site. The GHG emissions only occur during temporary construction activities and would cease once construction is complete. The total GHG emissions generated during all phases of constructionwere combined and are shown in Table 4.7-2, Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Table 4.7-2: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Category MTCO2e
Construction Year 1 (2022) 1,710
Construction Year 2 (2023) 3,538
Construction Year 3 (2024) 740
Total Construction Emissions 5,988
30-Year Amortized Construction 200
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix B3 for model outputs.

As shown, the Project would result in the generation of approximately 5,988 MTCO2e over the course of construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over the lifetime of the Project (assumed to be 30 years), then added to the operational emissions. 9 The amortized Project
construction emissions would be 200 MTCO2e per year. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.

Long-Term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the Project. GHG emissions would result from direct emissions such as Project-generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, and operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the Project, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the Project, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators.

Total GHG emissions associated with the Project are summarized in Table 4.7-3, Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As shown in Table 4.7-3, the Project’s unmitigated emissions would be approximately 24,929 MTCO2e annually from both construction (amortized) and operations. Project-related GHG emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s 10,000 MTCO2e per year threshold for industrial uses. The majority of the GHG emissions (70 percent) are associated with non-construction related mobile sources. Emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards, and the Project has no control over these standards.
9 The project lifetime is based on the standard 30-year assumption of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13, August 26, 2009). 447
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-20 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
Table 4.7-3: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source
MTCO2e per Year
Unmitigated Mitigated
Construction Amortized Over 30 Years 200 200
Area Source 0.09 0.09
Energy1 2,909 0
Mobile2 17,390 17,155
Off-road3 2,517 0
Waste 775 775
Water and Wastewater 1,138 1,138
Total 24,929 19,268
SCAQMD Threshold 10,000 10,000
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes

1. Mitigation Measure MM GHG-1 requires the installation of photovoltaic solar panels to offset energy emissions. MM GHG-2 requires the buildings to meet or exceed CALGreen Code Tier 2 standards.

2. MM AQ-3 requires implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single occupant vehicles. MM AQ4 promotes the use electric vehicles (EV). MM AQ-5 requires the Project to provide electrical hookups to run onboard auxiliary equipment and power refrigeration units while the truck is stopped. MM AQ-6 requires truck drivers to shut-off engines after five minutes of idling.

3. MM AQ-2 requires the use of electric powered cargo handling equipment rather than diesel or natural gas.

Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix B for model outputs.

As shown in Table 4.7-3, the Project would generate approximately 19,268 MTCO2e per year with the implementation of operational air quality MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6. MM AQ-2 requires the use of electrical off-road equipment such as forklifts and hostlers/yard trucks. MM AQ-3 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and encourage public transit. MM AQ-4 requires the buildings to be designed to accommodate electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, MM AQ-5 requires electrical hookups at all loading bays, and MM AQ-6 prohibits idling when engines are not in use.

Standard condition (SC) GHG-1 through SC GHG-9, as required by the California Building Code, would provide designated parking to promote the use of alternative fuels and clean fleets, facilitate future installation of EV supply equipment, and limit idling times. Furthermore, MM GHG-1 requires the installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels to offset the Project’s energy consumption and MM GHG-2 requires the Project to meet or exceed CALGreen Code Tier 2 standards to further improve energy efficiency.

With mitigation, the majority (89 percent) of emissions are from mobile sources and neither the Project Applicant nor the City have regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions, no feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce the Project’s impacts with respect to mobile operational emissions to less than significant levels. While the Project has some control over GHG emissions (refer to MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6), the majority of emissions are beyond the Project’s control. However, MM GHG-3 would require that the Project incorporate Project Design Features to achieve a minimum score of 100 points on the Screening Tables. As stated in the Community CAP, projects that achieve a minimum 448
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-21 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
score of 100 points or provide additional mitigation that achieves a 25 percent reduction are considered less than significant. However, at the time of this analysis, the City’s CAP update is underway and the potential timeframes for approval and adoption of the City CAP update are unknown. Once approved, the CAP may implement performance standards and GHG emissions reduction targets differing from the current CAP. There is the potential that even after achieving more than 100 points on the current Screening Tables, the Project may conflict with as-yet-unknown performance standards and GHG emissions reduction targets implemented under the anticipated CAP updates, and thereby result in GHG emissions that would be considered to represent a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, even with the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 and MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-3, this Project impact is conservatively considered significant and unavoidable.

Standard Conditions and Requirements:

SC GHG-1 Require construction equipment to turn off when not in use per Title 13 of the CCR Section 2449.

SC GHG-2 In accordance with California Title 24 Standards, buildings will be designed to have 15 percent of the roof area “solar ready” that will structurally accommodate later installation of rooftop solar panels. If future building operators pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar panels prior to occupancy.

SC GHG-3 Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls and sensors for landscaping according to the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Requirements (Section 17.06.030 of the City’s MC).

SC GHG-4 Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures in accordance with Section 5.303 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

SC GHG-5 Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 5.408.1 of the CALGreen Code Code Part 11.

SC GHG-6 Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in readily accessible areas in accordance with Section 5.410.1 of the CALGreenCode Part 11.

SC GHG-7 Provide designated parking for any combination of low-emitting, fuel efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles. At least eight percent of the total parking spaces are required to be designated in accordance with Section 5.106.5.2, Designated Parking for Clean Air Vehicles, of the CALGreenCode Part 11.

SC GHG-8 Provide at least six percent of the total parking spaces to facilitate future installation of EV supply equipment in accordance with Section 5.106.5.3.2, Multiple Charging Space Requirements, of the CALGreen Code Part 11.

SC GHG-9 Limit idling time for commercial vehicles to no more than five minutes per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485.
449
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-22 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
Impact 4.7-2 Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions? [Threshold GHG-2] Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan
The primary purpose of the City’s Community CAP is to design a feasible strategy to reduce GHG emissions generated by community activities that is consistent with statewide Scoping Plan GHG reduction efforts.

The City has identified a series of reduction measures to be implemented by the City. These reduction measures include programs that improve building energy efficiency, increase use of public and active transit and decrease VMT, increase use of alternative-fueled vehicles, increase use of renewable energy, reduce water consumption, and reduce waste.

Table 4.7-4, Community CAP Consistency evaluates the consistency of the proposed Project to the applicable measures of the Community CAP. As discussed in the table, the proposed Project would be consistent with all applicable measures. By using energy more efficiently, harnessing renewable energy to power buildings, recycling waste, and enhancing access to sustainable transportation modes, the City can keep dollars in local economy, create new green jobs, and improve community quality of life. As shown in Table 4.7-4, the Project would not conflict with the goals of the Community CAP.

Table 4.7-4: Community CAP Consistency
CAP Measure
Name Measure Description Consistency
Performance Standard For New Development
PS-1
Performance Standard for New
Development: New projects emitting
more than 3,000 MTCO2e per year need
to reduce emissions by 25 percent.

Consistent:

The proposed Project will achieve a
minimum of 100 points using the
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures
Screening Threshold Table as required
under MM GHG-3. MM GHG-3 will
ensure that the Project demonstrates
consistency with the reduction
measures in the CAP. Projects with
features that yield 100 Screening Table
points have been determined to have a
less than significant individual and
cumulative GHG emission impact.

BMP-1
Performance Standard for New
Development; Best Management
Practices: New projects emitting less
than 3,000 MTCO2e per year to exceed
Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards by at
least 5 percent, or equivalent level of
GHG emission reduction.

N/A:

This measure is not applicable to the
Project because it would generate
emissions exceeding 3,000 MTCO2e per
year.

Building Energy
Energy-1
CAP Consistency: Ensure that the City’s
local Climate Action, Land Use, Housing,
and Transportation Plans are aligned
N/A:

This measure is not applicable to
individual land use development
projects.
450
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-23 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
CAP Measure
Name Measure Description Consistency
with, support, and enhance any regional
plans that have been developed
consistent with state guidance to achieve
reductions in GHG emissions.

Energy-2
Regional Cooperation: Coordinate with
special districts, nonprofits, and other
public organizations to share resources,
achieve economies of scale, and develop
green building policies and programs that
are optimized on a regional scale.

N/A:

This measure is not applicable to
individual land use development
projects.

Energy-3
Energy Efficiency Funding for Existing
Low-Income Residents: Partner with
community services agencies to fund
energy efficiency projects, including
heating, ventilation, air conditioning,
lighting, water-heating equipment,
insulation, and weatherization, for lowincome residents. Provide permittingrelated and other incentives for energyefficient building project.

N/A:

This measure is not applicable to
individual land use development
projects.

Energy-4
Energy Efficiency Incentives and
Programs to Promote Retrofits for
Existing Residential Buildings:

Incentivize or otherwise support
voluntary energy-efficiency retrofits of
existing residential buildings to achieve
reductions in natural gas and electricity
usage. Adopt standards and/or promote
voluntary programs that retrofit indoor
lights, electric clothes dryers, energy-star
thermostats, window seals, duct sealing,
air sealing, and attic insulation.

N/A: This measure is applicable to existing
buildings only.

Energy-5
Energy Efficiency Incentives and
Programs to Promote Retrofits for
Existing Non-Residential Buildings:

Voluntary programs for existing nonresidential facilities will improve buildingwide energy efficiency by 20 percent by 2020.

N/A: This measure is applicable to existing
buildings only.

Energy-6
Streetlights: Adopt outdoor lighting
standards to reduce electricity
consumption. Require 40 percent
reduction in energy use from traffic
signals and streetlights by 2020.

N/A: This measure is to be taken at the City
level.

Renewable Energy
Renewable
Energy-1
Solar Installation for Existing NonResidential for Major Rehabilitations or N/A: This measure is applicable to existing buildings only.
451
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-24 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
CAP Measure
Name Measure Description Consistency
Expansions: Install solar photovoltaic
panels on nonresidential buildings
greater or equal to 25,000 square feet in
size requiring discretionary permits for
major rehabilitations or expansions
(additions of 25,000 square feet of office
retail/commercial or 100,000 square feet
of industrial/warehouse floor area).

Renewable
Energy-2
Solar Installation in Existing SingleFamily Housing: Install solar panels on 22 percent of existing single-family homes
by 2020.

N/A: This measure is applicable to existing
buildings only.

Renewable
Energy-3
Solar Installation in Existing
Nonresidential Buildings: Install solar
panels on 32 percent of existing
nonresidential buildings by 2020
N/A: This measure is applicable to existing
buildings only.

Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater-1
Recycled Water: Require 50 percent of all
water used for non-potable sources to be
recycled water by 2020. Require all new
parks and schools to use 100 percent
recycled water for non-potable outdoor
uses, as feasible. Develop public
educational materials that support and
encourage the use of recycled water.

Adopt a City Municipal facility goal of 50
percent use of recycled water for nonpotable sources.

Consistent:

The proposed Project would construct
and be connected to recycled water
infrastructure. It is projected that 100
percent of total outdoor water demand
of the Project would be served by
recycled water.

Wastewater-2
Waste-to-Energy/Methane Recovery:

Encourage the Inland Empire Utilities
Agency (IEUA) to implement waste-toenergy projects at the IEUA RP-1 wastewater treatment plant by 2020, and
to utilize collected gas to fuel onsite
stationary sources.

N/A:

This measure is not applicable to the
Project because the Project would not
build waste-to-energy projects.

Solid Waste Management
Waste-1
Waste Diversion: Divert 75 percent of
city-generated waste from landfills. Consistent:

The proposed Project would be subject
to all applicable local, State, and federal
waste diversion requirement. See
Section 4.16, Utilities.

Waste-2
Construction and Demolition Waste
Recovery Ordinance: Implement an
ordinance requiring building projects to
recycle or reuse at least 50 percent of
unused or leftover building materials.

Consistent:

The proposed Project is anticipated to
recycle and reuse leftover or unused
building materials.
452
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-25 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
CAP Measure
Name Measure Description Consistency
On-Road Transportation
Trans-1
Expand Public Transportation
Infrastructure: Work with appropriate
agencies to create an interconnected
transportation system that allows a shift
in travel from private passenger vehicles
to alternative modes, including public
transit, ride sharing, car-sharing,
bicycling, and walking.

N/A: This measure is not applicable to
general industrial projects.

Trans-2
Transit Frequency and Speed: To the
extent feasible, support shorter transitpassenger travel time through reduced headways and increased speed. Support
regional transit operators to reduce
average fleet travel time by 5 minutes.

N/A: This measure is not applicable to
general industrial projects.

Trans-3
“Smart Bus” Technology: Collaborate
with LA Metro, Metrolink, and Omnitrans
to implement “Smart Bus” technology.

N/A: This measure is not applicable to
general industrial projects.

Trans-4
Expand Public Transportation
Participation: Collaborate with regional
transit operators on programs to increase
use of the City’s public transportation
system.

N/A: This measure is not applicable to
general industrial projects.

Trans-5
Low- and Zero-Emission Vehicles:

Support and promote the use of low- and
zero-emission vehicles in the City.

Consistent:

The proposed Project would designate
at least eight percent of parking spaces
for fuel efficient and carpool/vanpool
vehicles.

Trans-6
Vehicle Idling: Prohibit idling of heavyduty trucks (greater than 26,000 gross vehicle weight) for longer than 3 minutes.

N/A:

This measure is not directly applicable to
the proposed Project as the measure
pertains to a City action to adopt an
ordinance. However, the current idling
limit adopted by CARB and local air
district regulations is 5 minutes (Rule
2485). Compliance with CARB airborne
toxic control measures that reduce
diesel emissions would also reduce
heavy-duty truck exhaust associated
with the proposed Project to the extent
feasible.

Trans-7
Parking Policy: Adopt a comprehensive
parking policy that encourages
carpooling and the use of alternative
transportation, including providing
parking spaces for car-share vehicles at
convenient locations accessible by public
transportation. Consider requirements
for the following to reduce vehicle miles
Consistent:

The proposed Project would designate
at least eight percent of parking spaces
for fuel-efficient and carpool/vanpool
vehicles. The proposed Project would
also include a TDM Program as
identified in MM AQ-3.
453
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-26 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
CAP Measure
Name Measure Description Consistency
traveled (VMT) within the City by 2
percent. Designate 5 percent of
downtown parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles
Trans-8
Event Parking: Consider establishing
policies and programs to reduce onsite
parking demand and promote ridesharing during events at the Ontario Convention Center and other event
venues. Consider a goal to reduce VMT at
major events by 2 percent.

N/A:

The proposed Project involves
development of general industrial uses
and not an event venue.

Trans-9
Roadway Management: Implement
traffic and roadway management
strategies to improve mobility and
efficiency and reduce associated
emissions. Consider a goal to reduce
community vehicle fuel consumption by 2
percent.

Consistent: The proposed Project would include a
TDM Program as identified in MM AQ-3.

Trans-10
Signal Synchronization: Evaluate
potential efficiency gains from further
signal synchronization. Synchronize
traffic signals throughout the City and
with adjoining cities while allowing free
flow of mass transit systems. Require
continuous maintenance of the
synchronization system. Consider a goal
to reduce City-wide vehicle fuel
consumption by 2 percent.

N/A: This measure is to be taken at the City
level.

Trans-11
School Transit Plan: Encourage local
school districts to develop school transit
plans to substantially reduce automobile
trips to, and congestion surrounding,
schools. (According to some estimates,
parents driving their children to school
account for 20–25 percent of the
morning commute.) Plans may address,
e.g., necessary infrastructure
improvements and potential funding
sources, replacing older diesel buses with
low- or zero-emission vehicles, mitigation
fees to expand school bus service, Safe
Routes to School programs, and other
formal efforts to increase walking and
biking by students. Although this
measure is not within the City’s authority,
Ontario can work with local school
districts to develop these plans.

N/A:

The proposed Project involves
development of general industrial uses
and is not a school project.

Source: City of Ontario, Community Climate Action Plan, 2014 454
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-27 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
The CAP Appendix B, Greenhouse Gas Emissions CEQA Thresholds and Screening Tables (CAP Screening Tables), establishes a points system that assigns values for each GHG emissions mitigation design element or operational program feature incorporated into a given development project. The CAP Screening Tables point values correspond to the minimum GHG emissions reduction expected from each feature. Projects with features that yield at least 100 Screening Table points are considered consistent with the reduction quantities anticipated in the City’s CAP. Such projects would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative GHG emissions impact. Table 4.7-5, GHG Reduction Measures Screening Table for Industrial Development, identifies potential design features and their associated scores. The City is also considering additional design features, but they have not yet been assigned point values as part of the ongoing CAP update process. The Project Applicant may work with the City to determine point values for additional design features with the goal of achieving a minimum of 100 points. Table 4.7-5 shows that the proposed Project has the potential to achieve 100 points on the CAP’s screening tables.

Table 4.7-5: GHG Reduction Measures Screening Table for Industrial Development Feature Description Assigned
Point Value
Insulation
2008 Baseline (walls: R-13; roof/attic: R-30) 0
Modestly Enhanced Insulation (walls: R-13; roof/attic: R-38) 15 Enhanced Insulation (rigid wall insulation: R-13; roof/attic: R-38) 18 Greatly Enhanced Insulation (spray foam wall insulated walls R-15 or higher) roof/attic R-38 or higher) 20
Windows
2008 Baseline Windows (0.57 U-factor, 0.4 solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) 0 Modestly Enhanced Window Insulation {0.4 U-Factor, 0.32 SHGC) 7 Enhanced Window Insulation {0.32 U-Factor, 0.25 SHGC) 8 Greatly Enhanced Window Insulation {0.28 or less U-Factor, 0.22 or less SHGC) 12
Cool Roof
Modest Cool Roof (CRRC Rated 0.15 aged solar reflectance, 0.75 thermal emittance) 12
Enhanced Cool Roof (CRRC Rated 0.2 aged solar reflectance, 0.75 thermal emittance) 14
Greatly Enhanced Cool Roof (CRRC Rated 0.35 aged solar reflectance, 0.75 thermal emittance) 16
Air Infiltration
Air barrier applied to exterior walls, calking, and visual inspection such as the HERS Verified Quality Insulation Installation (Q11 or equivalent) 12 Blower Door HERS Verified Envelope Leakage or equivalent 10 Thermal Storage
of Building
Modest Thermal Mass (10% of floor or 10% of walls: 12" or more thick exposed concrete or masonry. No permanently installed floor covering such as carpet, linoleum, wood or other insulating materials) 4 Enhanced Thermal Mass (20% of floor or 20% of walls: 12" or more thick exposed concrete or masonry. No permanently installed floor covering such as carpet, linoleum, wood or other insulating materials) 6 455
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-28 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
Feature Description
Assigned
Point Value
Enhanced Thermal Mass (80% of floor or 80% of walls: 12" or more thick exposed concrete or masonry. No permanently installed floor covering such as carpet, linoleum, wood or other insulating materials) 24 Indoor Space Efficiencies
Heating/Cooling
Distribution
System
Minimum Duct Insulation (R-4.2 required) 0
Modest Duct insulation (R-6) 8
Enhanced Duct Insulation (R-8) 10
Space Heating/
Cooling
Equipment
2008 Minimum HVAC Efficiency (SEER 13/60% AFUE or 7.7 HSPF} 0 Improved Efficiency HVAC (SEER 14/65% AFUE or 8 HSPF) 7 High Efficiency HVAC (SEER 15/72% AFUE or 8.5 HSPF) 8
Very High Efficiency HVAC (SEER 16/80% AFUE or 9 HSPF) 12 Water Heaters
2008 Minimum Efficiency (0.57 Energy Factor) 0
Improved Efficiency Water Heater (0.675 Energy Factor) 14 High Efficiency Water Heater (0.72 Energy Factor) 16
Very High Efficiency Water Heater (0.92 Energy factor) 19 Solar Pre-heat System (0.2 Net Solar Fraction) 4
Enhanced Solar Pre-heat System (0.35 Net Solar Fraction) 8 Daylighting
All peripheral rooms within the living space have at least one window (required) 1
All rooms within the living space have daylight (through use of windows, solar tubes, skylights, etc.) 5
All rooms daylighted 7
Artificial Lighting
2008 Minimum (required) 0
Efficient lights (25% of In-unit fixtures considered high efficacy. High efficacy is defined as 40 lumens/watt for 15 watt or less fixtures: SO lumens/watt for15 to 40 watt fixtures, 60 lumens/watt for fixtures >40watt) 9 High Efficiency lights (50% of in-unit fixtures are high efficacy) 12 Very High Efficiency Lights (100% of in-unit fixtures are high efficacy) 14 Appliances
Energy Star Commercial Refrigerator (new) 4
Energy Star Commercial Dish Washer (new) 4
Energy Star Commercial Clothes Washing 4
Irrigation and Landscaping
Water Efficient
Landscaping
Eliminate conventional turf from landscaping 0
Only moderate water using 3
Only low water using plants 4
456
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-29 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
Feature Description
Assigned
Point Value
Only California Native landscape that requires no, or only supplemental, irrigation 8
Water Efficient
Irrigation Systems
Low precipitation spray heads <. 75"/hour, or drip irrigation 1 Weather based Irrigation control systems combined with drip irrigation (demonstrate 20% reduced water use) 5
Recycled Water Recycled connections (purple pipe) to irrigation system on site 5 Potable Water
Showers Water Efficient Showerheads (2.0 gpm) 3
Toilets Water Efficient Toilets (1.5 gpm) 3
Faucets Water Efficient faucets (1.28 gpm) 3
Commercial
Dishwashers Water Efficient Dishwasher (6 gallons per cycle or less) 1 Commercial
Laundry Washers Water Efficient Washing Machine (Water factor < 5.5) 1 Source: City of Ontario, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Screening Threshold Table Directions, revised 5-1-2018.

As noted above, implementation of MM GHG-3would require future development accommodated under the proposed Project to be designed to achieve at least 100 points on the City’s GHG Screening Threshold Table. Implementation of MM GHG-3 would ensure that future Project development is consistent with the City’s Community CAP and would reduce impacts to less than significant. However, there is the potential for the Project to generate GHG emissions that would result in significant impacts on the environment, and it is therefore conservatively considered to be a significant and unavoidable impact.

SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [RTP/SCS]). The RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. SCAG’s RTP/SCS establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks for 2020 and 2035 as well as an overall GHG target for the Project region consistent with both the target date of AB 32 and the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of Executive Orders 5-03-05 and B-30-15.

The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS contains over 4,000 transportation projects, ranging from highway improvements, railroad grade separations, bicycle lanes, new transit hubs and replacement bridges. These future investments were included in county plans developed by the six county transportation commissions and seek to reduce traffic bottlenecks, improve the efficiency of the region’s network, and expand mobility choices for everyone. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is an important planning document for the region, allowing project sponsors to qualify for federal funding.

The plan accounts for operations and maintenance costs to ensure reliability, longevity, and cost effectiveness. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is also supported by a combination of transportation and land use 457
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-30 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
strategies that help the region achieve State GHG emissions reduction goals and FCAA requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support our vital goods movement industry, and utilize resources more efficiently. GHG emissions resulting from development-related mobile sources are the most potent source of emissions, and therefore Project comparison to the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is an appropriate indicator of whether the Project would inhibit the post-2020 GHG reduction goals promulgated by the state. The Project’s consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS goals is analyzed in detail in Table 4.7-6, 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Consistency.

Table 4.7-6: 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Consistency
SCAG Goals Consistency
GOAL 1: Encourage regional economic
prosperity and global
competitiveness.

N/A: This is not a project-specific policy and is
therefore not applicable. However, the
Project will include industrial
development which would contribute to
regional economic prosperity.

GOAL 2: Improve mobility, accessibility,
reliability, and travel safety for
people and goods.

Consistent: Although this Project is not a
transportation improvement project, the
Project is located near the Chino Airport
and existing transit routes on State Route
(SR) 60, SR 71, and Interstate 15 (I-15).

GOAL 3: Enhance the preservation, security,
and resilience of the regional
transportation system.

N/A: The Project is not a transportation
improvement project and is therefore not
applicable.

GOAL 4: Increase person and goods
movement and travel choices within
the transportation system.

N/A: The Project is not a transportation
improvement project and is therefore not
applicable.However, the Project includes
warehouse use that would support goods
movement.

GOAL 5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and improve air quality.

Consistent: The Project is located in proximity to
existing truck routes and freeways.

Location of the Project within a
developed area would reduce trip
lengths, which would reduce GHG and air
quality emissions.

GOAL 6: Support healthy and equitable
communities
Consistent: Although the Project exceeds regional
thresholds for NOX, the Project does not
exceed localized thresholds. Based on the
Friant Ranch decision, projects that do
not exceed the SCAQMD’s LSTs would not
violate any air quality standards or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation and result
in no criteria pollutant health impacts.

GOAL 7: Adapt to a changing climate and
support an integrated regional
development pattern and
transportation network.

N/A: This is not a project-specific policy and is
therefore not applicable.
458
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-31 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
SCAG Goals Consistency
GOAL 8: Leverage new transportation
technologies and data-driven
solutions that result in more
efficient travel.

N/A: This is not a project-specific policy and is
therefore not applicable.

GOAL 9: Encourage development of diverse
housing types in areas that are
supported by multiple
transportation options.

N/A: The Project involves development of a
warehouse and does not include housing.

GOAL 10: Promote conservation of natural
and agricultural lands and
restoration of habitats.

Consistent: Although the Project would remove Prime
Farmland, this development is consistent
with the City’s TOP EIR and Agricultural
Overlay District, which is an interim
overlay while this area transitions to
urban development.

Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, 2020.

As shown in Table 4.7-6, the Project would be consistent with all applicable stated goals of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Implementation of the Project would not result in any significant impacts or interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s post-2020 mobile source GHG reduction targets.

Consistency with the CARB Scoping Plan
The California State Legislature adopted AB 32 in 2006. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHGs (CO2, CH4, NOX, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Pursuant to the requirements in AB 32, CARB adopted the Scoping Plan in 2008, which outlines actions recommended to obtain that goal. The Scoping Plan provides a range of GHG reduction actions that include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms such as the cap-and-trade program, and an AB 32 implementation fee to fund the program. As shown in Table 4.7-7, Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures, the Project is consistent with most of the strategies, while others are not applicable to the Project.

The 2017 Scoping Plan Update identifies additional GHG reduction measures necessary to achieve the 2030 target. These measures build upon those identified in the first update to the Scoping Plan in 2013.

Although a number of these measures are currently established as policies and measures, some measures have not yet been formally proposed or adopted. It is expected that these actions to reduce GHG emissions will be adopted as required to achieve Statewide GHG emissions targets. As such, impacts related to consistency with the Scoping Plan would be less than significant.

Table 4.7-7: Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures Scoping Plan
Sector
Scoping Plan
Measure
Implementing
Regulations Project Consistency
Transportation California Cap-andTrade Program
Linked to Western
Climate Initiative
Regulation for the
California Cap on GHG
Emissions and MarketBased Compliance
Mechanism October
20, 2015 (CCR 95800)
Consistent. The Cap-and-Trade Program applies to
large industrial sources such as power plants,
refineries, and cement manufacturers. However, the
regulation indirectly affects people who use the
products and services produced by these industrial
sources when increased cost of products or services
459
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-32 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
Scoping Plan
Sector
Scoping Plan
Measure
Implementing
Regulations Project Consistency
(such as electricity and fuel) are transferred to the
consumers. The Cap-and-Trade Program covers the
GHG emissions associated with electricity consumed in
California, generated in-State or imported.

Accordingly, GHG emissions associated with CEQA
projects’ electricity usage are covered by the Cap-andTrade Program. The Cap-and-Trade Program also covers fuel suppliers (natural gas and propane fuel
providers and transportation fuel providers) to address emissions from such fuels and combustion of other
fossil fuels not directly covered at large sources in the Program’s first compliance period.

California Light-Duty
Vehicle GHG
Standards
Pavley I 2005
Regulations to Control
GHG Emissions from
Motor Vehicles
Pavley I 2005
Regulations to Control
GHG Emissions from
Motor Vehicles
Consistent. This measure applies to all new vehicles
starting with model year 2012. The Project would not
conflict with its implementation as it would apply to all new passenger vehicles purchased in California.

Passenger vehicles, model year 2012 and later,
associated with construction and operation of the
Project would be required to comply with the Pavley
emissions standards.
2012 LEV III California
GHG and Criteria
Pollutant Exhaust and
Evaporative Emission
Standards
Consistent. The Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) III
amendments provide reductions from new vehicles
sold in California between 2017 and 2025. Passenger
vehicles associated with the site would comply with
LEV III standards.

Low Carbon Fuel
Standard
2009 readopted in
2015. Regulations to
Achieve GHG Emission
Reductions Subarticle

7. Low Carbon Fuel
Standard CCR 95480
Consistent. This measure applies to transportation
fuels utilized by vehicles in California. The Project
would not conflict with implementation of this
measure. Motor vehicles associated with construction
and operation of the Project would utilize low carbon
transportation fuels as required under this measure.

Regional
TransportationRelated GHG
Targets.

SB 375. Cal. Public
Resources Code §§
21155, 21155.1,
21155.2, 21159.28
Consistent. The Project would provide development in
the region that is consistent with the growth
projections in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.

Goods Movement Goods Movement
Action Plan January
2007
Not applicable. The Project does not propose any
changes to maritime, rail, or intermodal facilities or
forms of transportation.

Medium/Heavy-Duty
Vehicle
2010 Amendments to
the Truck and Bus
Regulation, the
Drayage Truck
Regulation and the
Tractor-Trailer GHG
Regulation
Consistent. This measure applies to medium and
heavy-duty vehicles that operate in the state. The
Project would not conflict with implementation of this
measure. Medium and heavy-duty vehicles associated
with construction and operation of the Project would
be required to comply with the requirements of this
regulation.

High Speed Rail Funded under SB 862 Not applicable. This is a Statewide measure that cannot be implemented by a project applicant or Lead
Agency.

Electricity and
Natural Gas
Energy Efficiency Title 20 Appliance
Efficiency Regulation
Consistent. The Project would not conflict with
implementation of this measure. The Project would
Title 24 Part 6 Energy comply with the latest energy efficiency standards.

Efficiency Standards for
Residential and NonResidential Building
Title 24 Part 11 California
Green Building Code
Standards
460
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-33 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
Scoping Plan
Sector
Scoping Plan
Measure
Implementing
Regulations Project Consistency
Renewable Portfolio
Standard/Renewable
Electricity Standard.
2010 Regulation to
Implement the
Renewable Electricity
Standard (33% 2020)
Consistent. The Project would obtain electricity from
the electric utility, SCE. In 2020, SCE obtained 42.6
percent of its power supply from renewable sources,
including large hydroelectric projects. Therefore, the
utility would provide power when needed on-site that
is composed of a greater percentage of renewable
sources.

Million Solar Roofs
Program
SB 350 Clean Energy and
Pollution Reduction Act
of 2015 (50% 2030)
Million Solar Roofs
Program
Tax Incentive Program Consistent. This measure is to increase solar throughout California, which is being done by various
electricity providers and existing solar programs. The
program provides incentives that are in place at the
time of construction.

Water Water Title 24 Part 11 California
Green Building Code
Standards
Consistent. The Project would comply with the
CALGreen Code, which requires a 20 percent reduction
in indoor water use.

SBX 7-7—The Water
Conservation Act of 2009
Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance
Green Buildings Green Building
Strategy
Title 24 Part 11 California
Green Building Code
Standards
Consistent. The measure seeks to increase the use of
green building practices. The Project would implement
required green building strategies through existing
regulation that requires the Project to comply with
various CALGreen Code requirements. The Project
includes sustainability design features that support the Green Building Strategy.

Industry Industrial Emissions 2010 CARB Mandatory
Reporting Regulation
Not applicable. The Mandatory Reporting Regulation
requires facilities and entities with more than 10,000
MTCO2e of combustion and process emissions, all
facilities belonging to certain industries, and all electric power entities to submit an annual GHG emissions
data report directly to CARB. As shown above,
although total Project GHG emissions would exceed
10,000 MTCO2e, the majority of these emissions are
from mobile sources. Therefore, this regulation would
not apply.

Recycling and
Waste
Management
Recycling and Waste Title 24 Part 11 California
Green Building Code
Standards
Consistent. The Project would not conflict with
implementation of these measures. The Project is
required to achieve the recycling mandates via
compliance with the CALGreen Code. The City has
consistently achieved its State recycling mandates.

AB 341 Statewide 75
Percent Diversion Goal
Forests Sustainable Forests Cap and Trade Offset
Projects
Not applicable. The Project is in an area designated for urban uses. No forested lands exist on-site.

High Global
Warming
Potential
High GWPGases CARB Refrigerant
Management Program
CCR 95380
Consistent. The regulations are applicable to
refrigerants used by large air conditioning systems and large commercial and industrial refrigerators and cold
storage system. The Project would not conflict with the refrigerant management regulations adopted by CARB.

Agriculture Agriculture Cap and Trade Offset
Projects for Livestock
and Rice Cultivation
Not applicable. The Project site is designated for urban development. No grazing, feedlot, or other agricultural activities that generate manure are proposed to be
implemented by the Project.

Source: California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017 and CARB, Climate Change Scoping Plan, December 2008.
461
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-34 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
Conclusion
As seen in Table 4.7-4, Table 4.7-6, and Table 4.7-7, the Project would be consistent with applicable plan goals. In addition, the Project would include MM GHG-1, MM GHG-2 and several sustainable design features as required by MM GHG-3 that would help reduce GHG emissions.

Regarding goals for 2050 under Executive Order S-3-05, at this time it is not possible to quantify the emissions savings from future regulatory measures, as they have not yet been developed; nevertheless, it can be anticipated that operation of the proposed Project would benefit from the implementation of current and potential future regulations (e.g., improvements in vehicle emissions, SB 100/renewable electricity portfolio improvements, etc.) enacted to meet an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.

The majority of the GHG reductions from the Scoping Plan would result from continuation of the Cap-andTrade regulation. AB 398 extends the State’s Cap-and-Trade program through 2030 and the Scoping Plan provide a comprehensive plan for the state to achieve its GHG targets through a variety of regulations enacted at the State level. Additional reductions are achieved from electricity sector standards (i.e., utility providers to supply 60 percent renewable electricity by 2030 and 100 percent renewable by 2045), doubling the energy efficiency savings at end uses, additional reductions from the LCFS, implementing the short-lived GHG strategy (e.g., hydrofluorocarbons), and implementing the Mobile Source Strategy and Sustainable Freight Action Plan.

Several of the State’s plans and policies would contribute to a reduction in mobile source emissions from the Project. These include the CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation, Executive Order N-79-20, CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy, CARB’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan, and CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement. CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation was approved in June 2020 requiring truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero-emission (ZE) trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every new truck sold in California is required to be ZE. The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation accelerates the transition of ZEmedium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8.

Executive Order N-79-20 establishes the goal for all new passenger cars and trucks, as well as all drayage/ cargo trucks and off-road vehicles and equipment, sold in California, will be zero-emission by 2035 and all medium and heavy-duty vehicles will be ZE by 2045. It also directs CARB to develop and propose rulemaking for passenger vehicles and trucks, medium-and heavy-duty fleets where feasible, drayage trucks, and off-road vehicles and equipment “requiring increasing volumes” of new ZEVs “towards the target of 100 percent.”
CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy which includes increasing ZEV buses and trucks and their Sustainable Freight Action Plan which improves freight system efficiency, utilizes near-zero emissions technology, and deployment of ZEV trucks. This Plan applies to all trucks accessing the Project site and may include existing trucks or new trucks that are part of the statewide goods movement sector. CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement identifies measures to improve goods movement efficiencies such as advanced combustion strategies, friction reduction, waste heat recovery, and electrification of 462
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-35 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
accessories. While these measures are not directly applicable to the Project, any commercial activity associated with goods movement would be required to comply with these measures as adopted. As such, the Project would not interfere with their implementation.

The Project would not obstruct or interfere with efforts to increase ZEVs or state efforts to improve system efficiency. As discussed above and in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, MM AQ-2 through MMAQ-6 would reduce mobile source emissions and would support the State’s transition to ZEVs by requiring electrical hookups at all cold storage loading bays, promoting the use of alternative fuels and clean fleets, and requiring electric vehicle charging stations and/or infrastructure to support the future installation of truck charging stations. The Project would also benefit from implementation of the State programs for ZEVs and goods movement efficiencies that reduce future GHG emissions from trucks.

The Project’s long-term operational GHG emissions would exceed City’s threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year despite the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 (refer to Section 4.2, Air Quality), as well as MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-3, which require the Project to acquire energy from renewable sources, meet or exceed CALGreen Code Tier 2 standards, and achieve a minimum of 100 points on the CAP Screening Threshold Checklist. Achieving 100 points ensures that the Project would not impede California’s statewide GHG reduction goals for 2030 and 2050, but the potential Project GHG emissions remain a significant and unavoidable impact.

4.7.8 Cumulative Impacts
Project-related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide.

Therefore, impacts under Impact Threshold 4.7-1 are not Project-specific impacts, but the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative GHG impact. As discussed previously, incorporation of mitigation would contribute to minimizing emissions, although implementation of the proposed Project would still result in net annual emissions that exceed the GHG emissions significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year under the City’s CAP. Therefore, Project-related GHG emissions and their contribution to global climate change would be cumulatively considerable, and GHG emissions impacts would be significant.

4.7.9 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Without mitigation, these impacts would be potentially significant:
• Impact 4.7-1, buildout of the Project could potentially generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that could have a significant impact on the environment. • Impact 4.7-2 buildout of the Project could potentially conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

4.7.10 Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.7-1
Refer to MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 in the Section 4.2, Air Quality. The following additional mitigation is also required.
463
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-36 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
MM GHG-1 The Project shall install solar photovoltaic (PV) panels or other source of renewable energy generation on-site, or otherwise acquire energy from the local utility that has been generated by renewable sources, that would provide 100 percent of the expected building load. The buildings shall include an electrical system and other infrastructure sufficiently sized to accommodate the PV arrays. The electrical system and infrastructure must be clearly labeled with noticeable and permanent signage.

MM GHG-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City of Ontario demonstrating that the Project is designed to meet or exceed CALGreen Code Tier 2 standards in effect at the time of building permit application.

MM GHG-3 All project development proposals shall implement Screening Table Measures that achieve at least 100 points per the Screening Tables. The City shall verify that Screening Table Measures achieving the 100-point performance standard are incorporated in development plans prior to the issuance of building permit(s) and/or site plans (as applicable). The City shall verify implementation of the selected Screening Table Measures prior to the issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy.

Impact 4.7-2
Refer to MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 in Section 4.2, Air Quality and MM GHG 1 through MM GHG-3, above.

4.7.11 Level of Significance After Mitigation
In addition to Project Design Features and compliance with existing regulatory requirements and PPPs, the Project’s long-term operational GHG emissions would exceed City’s threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year despite the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 (refer to Section 4.2, Air Quality), as well as MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-3, which requires the Project to acquire energy from renewable sources, meet or exceed CALGreen Code Tier 2 standards, and achieve a minimum of 100 points on the CAP Screening Threshold Checklist. Achieving 100 points ensures that the Project would not impede California’s statewide GHG reduction goals for 2030 and 2050, but the Project’s GHG emissions remain a significant and unavoidable impact. Therefore, even with the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 and MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-3, the Project’simpact on GHG emissions is conservatively considered significant and unavoidable.

4.7.12 References
California Air Resources Board, Appendix B: Emissions Estimation Methodology of On-Road Diesel-Fueled Heavy-Duty Drayage Trucks at California Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards. Table II-7. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/downloads/drayage_trucks/appbf.pdf.

California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, 2017.

City of Ontario, Community Climate Action Plan, 2014.
464
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.7-37 4.7 | Greenhouse Gas
City of Ontario, The Ontario Plan, 2007.

HPA Architecture, Conceptual Site Plan Scheme 10A, 1-27-2019.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, 2007.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013.

National Research Council, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010.

State of California, Code of Regulations Section 15065.5a, 2018.

Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy), 2020.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #8, 2009.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13, 2009.

U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016, 2018.

U.S. EPA, Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission from Natural Sources, 2010.

U.S. EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases, 2018.
465
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-1 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section evaluates the potential impacts of the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Project (Project) on human health and the environment due to exposure to hazardous materials or conditions associated with the Project site, Project construction, and Project operations. Potential Project impacts and appropriate mitigation measures or standard conditions are included as necessary. The analysis in this section is based, in part, upon the following source:
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Report, Citadel EHS, January 10, 2020. (Appendix F)

4.8.1 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
Current Uses of Property
The Project site is currently occupied by dairy farms, as shown on Figure 3-3, Aerial Photograph. The Project site consists ofresidential structures with a dairy barn located between the residences; a detached garage; a dry grain/feed storage shed; an equipment storage shed; approximately 10 hay storage sheds; and approximately 13 canopies/sheds associated with the corrals for the housing of the cattle. A retention pond is located south of the corrals. The retention pond collects surface wastes from across the Project site, as well as provides a potential dumping area for other dairy and animal-related wastes. The remaining areas of the Project site appear as irrigated cropland. At the time of the Project site reconnaissance, the site was occupied by GH Dairy No. 2. A low-lying part of the cropland was observed in the southwest corner of the Project site during the Project site reconnaissance. Due to recent rain events, this low-lying area appeared to be a retention pond. However, according to the Project site representative, this lowlying area is typically empty and dry about 80 to 90 percent of the time, and water is pumped out after rain events. The Project site consists of eight Accessor Parcel Numbers (APNs), each consisting of various agricultural purposes. Equipment throughout the Project site include above-ground storage tanks for storage of diesel, grain/feed, and water; one potable water well; milking machines and pumping system; silos for storage of milk; air compressors; boilers; and pole-mounted transformers. In general, the Project site appeared to be well maintained and the building/ground conditions appeared to be in good condition.

Historical Uses of Property
A review of historical photographs and records showed that the Project site was generally agricultural/ undeveloped as early as 1902. Eucalyptus Avenue and Merrill Avenue appeared developed by 1902. The Project site remained generally agricultural until at least 1981 with the development of the existing dairy farm. Properties in the Project site vicinity appeared generally undeveloped in 1902:
• Properties north of the Project site appeared to have been developed with an orchard by 1938.

The two existing residences appear developed by 1966. The properties north of the Project site appeared in their current configuration by 1994 with the development of a retention pond. • Properties east of the Project site appeared generally agricultural until the development of the existing dairy barn and associated structures by 1975. Additional canopies were completed by 1987 and by 2009.
466
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-2 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Properties west of the Project site appeared generally agricultural until the development of a small structure, likely a residence or farm-relatedbuilding, along Eucalyptus Avenue by 1975. The current dairy barn appeared developed by 1987.
• Properties south of the Project site appeared developed with hangars along with a large exterior plane storage/parking area by 1946. These structures were likely occupied by Cal-Aero Primary School and Cal-Aero Flight Academy. By 1973, this area was occupied by part of the Chino Airport.

Several of the hangars were demolished by 1975.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
A Phase I ESA (see Appendix F) was completed in January 2020. The Project site was identified on the following environmental databases: Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database (HIST UST), Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS UST), Facility Inventory Database (CAFID UST), Waste Discharge System (WDS), California Environmental Reporting System(CERS), California Environmental Reporting System (CERS HAZ WASTE), Facility Index System/Facility Registry System (FINDS), California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS), Water Board Enforcement Action Listings (ENF), and San Bernardino County Permit. The Project site was identified on the historical underground storage tank (UST) databases under Ted Miller Dairy. According to information provided by ESA, a 6,000-gallon UST was located at the Project site. No further information was provided. The Project site was also identified on the current UST database under AG-Borba, Joe. No further information was provided.

The Project site was identified on the FINDS database. FINDS contains facility information and “pointers” to other sources. The Project site was identified on this database due to the following references:
• California Enviroview – California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) database for confined animal feeding operations;
• California Enviroview – California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) as a Risk Management Plan (RMP) reporter; and
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) – Compliance Information System (ICIS) for concentrated animal feeding operation and NPDES permit.

The Project site was identified on the WDS database as an agricultural facility with designated/influent or solid wastes that pose a significant threat to water quality (dairy waste ponds). The Project site was listed on the Water Board ENF for a notice of violation, issued on January 30, 2009, for failure to submit the 2008 annual report on time.

The Project site was also identified on the San Bernardino County Permit database with an active hazardous materials (four to 10 chemicals) permit and on CERS as a chemical storage facility. Evaluations by regulatory agencies have been performed since 1987. No violations have been reported with the exception of violations identified in 2008, 2009, 2013, and 2016. The violations issued in 2016 were related to business plans submittals; returned to compliance in August 2017. No information was provided concerning the remaining violations; however, the violations were listed as historical. 467
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-3 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The appearance of the Project site on the historic and current UST databases may be an environmental concern. No further information was provided regarding the status of the UST.

Citadel reviewed information provided by EDR regarding nearby properties to evaluate for potential onProject site vapor encroachment concerns from off-site sources. According to EDR, no historical releases of petroleum products from a leaking UST (LUST) occurred within 0.25-mile and upgradient of the Project site. There are no properties within 0.125-mile and upgradient or cross-gradient of the Project site that are listed on the Historical Gas Station and Dry Cleaners databases. However, the Chino Airport property is located south of the Project site and was identified as occupied by Flite Craft from as early as 1986 as an aircraft and heavy equipment repair services. This Project site will be further discussed in the Regulatory Agencies section below.

Regulatory Agencies
The GeoTracker Database is the California State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) Internet accessible database system used by the SWRCB, regional boards, and local agencies to track and archive compliance data from authorized or unauthorized discharges of waste to land, or unauthorized releases of hazardous substances from USTs. The Project site was not identified in the database. According to GeoTracker, the nearest Cleanup Program Site (CPS) is the Chino Airport, located at 7000 Merrill Avenue, south of the Project site. The primary chemicals of concern (COCs) in the groundwater at this CPS include trichloroethene (TCE); 1,2,3-trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP); cis-1,2-dichloroethane; and 1,1-dichloroethene.

According to the Semiannual Groundwater Monitoring Report, dated March 19, 2019, and prepared by Tetra Tech, portions of Chino Airport have functioned as an airfield since the early 1940s. Since the 1960s, San Bernardino County (County) has operated the Airport as a public airport for commercial, industrial, and general aviation use. Past and present uses include a flight academy; aircraft sales and storage; modification of military aircraft; various manufacturing; crop dusting; aircraft restoration; maintenance repair shops; aircraft painting, stripping, and washing; fire retardant chemical mixing and loading; U.S. Forest Service aircraft maintenance and operations; and aircraft museums. According to the report, three areas of concern (AOCs) were identified. These AOCs are located approximately 350 feet south of the Project site; 675 feet south-southwest of the Project site; and 900 feet southeast of the Project site.

Based on the drawing depicting the TCE and 1,2,3-TCP groundwater plumes, the TCE plume is approximately 300 feet south of the Project site. The nearest monitoring well, CAMW1, is located approximately 60 feet south of the Project site and designated as an upgradient background well. Local groundwater flow direction was estimated toward the southeast and southwest. According to the report, no COCs have been detected in the background well to date. Based on the reviewed data, this CPS is not expected to be a significant environmental concern to the Project site. However, due to the emerging contaminants of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), the proximity of the Chino Airport to the Project site may be a future environmental concern. No records were found for the sampling of PFAS compounds at this time; however, this may be requested and included in future groundwater monitoring events. 468
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-4 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Conditions
According to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard of Practice E1527-13, a recognized environmental condition (REC), fall under three specific categories when evaluating a site or properties within the Project site vicinity. These categories are defined below.

A recognized environmental condition (REC) means the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions.

A controlled REC (CREC) is a recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (for example, as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria established by regulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls).

An historical REC (HREC) is a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the Project site and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the Project site to any required controls (e.g., use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls).

According to ASTM E2600-15, the goal of conducting a vapor encroachment screening on a parcel of property is to identify a vapor encroachment condition (VEC), which is the presence or likely presence of COC vapors in the subsurface of the target property caused by the release of vapors from contaminated soil or groundwater or both either on or near the target property as identified by Tier 1 or Tier 2 procedures. The purpose of Tier 1 is to conduct a screen using Phase I ESA-type information to determine if a VEC exists at the target property. If the Tier 1 screen cannot rule out the possibility of a VEC existing at the target property, then a Tier 2 screen can be conducted. Tier 2 applies numeric screening criteria to existing or newly collected soil, soil gas, and/or groundwater testing results to evaluate whether a VEC can be ruled out. Tier 2 has two data collective components: non-invasive and invasive.

Based on our review of these databases, reported release incidents that would repres ent RECs in connection with the Project site or a source of a release that would be likely to contribute to a VEC were identified. Citadel identified the following environmental concerns:
• The Project site was identified on the historical and current UST databases for a 6,000-gallon diesel UST. Mr. Hein Hettinga had no knowledge of any on-site USTs. Citadel submitted a request to the San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD) for further information; however, SBCFD has not yet responded to the request. Therefore, the UST represents a REC. Citadel recommends reviewing available files at the SBCFD. If the UST has not yet been removed, Citadel recommends 469
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-5 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
the proper removal of the UST and a subsurface investigation to determine if the UST had impacted the subsurface.
• During the Project site reconnaissance, two elevated aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) were observed at the Project site. The elevated ASTs were located on a gravel surface. No secondary containment was observed under the ASTs. Some staining was observed beneath the ASTs. The observed staining by the ASTs represents a REC; however, the staining would likely be localized to this area. Citadel recommends the removal of the ASTs prior to Project site redevelopment and preparation of a soil management plan to manage the stained soils during redevelopment. • The retention ponds collect surface wastes from across the Project site, as well as provide a potential dumping area for other dairy and animal-related wastes. Due to the potential for chemical constituents to accumulate in the ponds and become trapped in the sediment, Citadel recommends conducting a limited subsurface assessment of the sediments after the ponds have been drained to evaluate the sediments for chemical risks to human health and the environment. • The Chino Airport may be considered an off-site REC due to its role as an emergent COC. No evidence for designating the Project site as a HREC or CREC from reviews of historical documents and present Project site conditions was found.

Non-ASTM Scope Considerations
The current Project site buildings were constructed prior to bans using asbestos-containing building materials (ACBMs), lead-based paint (LBP), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in electrical equipment came into effect in 1989, 1978, and 1978, respectively. No testing is known to have been performed to evaluate for the presence of ACBMs or PCBs at the Project site.

The California Bureau of Mines and Geology and California Department of Public Health (CADPH) participated in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) State Radon Survey, a Federal survey to measure levels of indoor radon in all states. Based on the results of this survey, CADPH predicted that approximately 0.5 percent of homes in Region 9, where the Project site is located, would have radon concentrations over the U.S. EPA action level of 4.0 picocuries per liter (pCi/L).

The Federal U.S. EPA Radon Zone for San Bernardino County is Zone 2, which indicates an average indoor concentration greater than or equal to 2.0 pCi/L of air and less than or equal to 4.0 pCi/L. In a survey, 14 tests were conducted within the 91710-zip code, where the Project site is located, for the presence of radon. Of these, none were found to contain radon in excess of the U.S. EPA’s action level of 4.0 pCi/L.

According to the Phase I ESA, one potable well was observed on-site. Per Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06071C9335H, the Project site and adjacent properties are located within areas in which flood hazards are undetermined but possible (Zone D).1 1 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2022. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06071C9335H. 2022. Retrieved from: https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd. 470
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-6 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
According to the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) database, wetland areas identified as a Freshwater Ponds, are located within the Project site.2
Airport-Related Hazards
The Project site is located immediately north of the Chino Airport and is approximately 4.6 miles southwest of the Ontario International Airport (ONT). The City is currently preparing an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for Chino Airport which relies on the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics that is expected to be adopted in 2022. The Chino Airport ALUCP will establish policies and criteria for the four types of compatibility impacts which include safety, noise, airspace protection, and overflight. The Project site is not within the Chino Airport noise impact zone. Projects within the Project boundary shall be required to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans for Ontario International Airport and Chino Airport.

The Project site is within Safety Zone 6 of the Chino Airport Overlay (Generic Safety Zones for General Aviation Airports from the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics – California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook), as shown in Figure 3-7, Airport Influence Areas. Zone 6 compatibility criteria prohibit peopleintensive uses such as stadiums, large day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes.

The following open land and occupancy limit requirements shall apply in Chino Airport Safety Zones, as established by the Chino Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. • Zone 6: At least 10% of the zone shall remain as open land or an open area every ¼ mile to ½ mile is required; occupancy shall be limited to 300 people per acre on average and a maximum of 1,200 people in any one acre.

Open land is defined as areas at least 300 feet long by 75 feet wide (about 0.5 acre) that are relatively level and free of tall vertical objects such as structures, overhead lines/wires, and large trees and poles greater than 4 inches in diameter and taller than 4 feet above the ground. In the Project area, surrounding roads (Eucalyptus, Campus, and Merrill Avenues), drive aisles, flood control basins and truck yards can be considered as acceptable open lands in urbanized settings. 3 Figure 4.8-2, Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility, shows the Project site as being in the Ontario Airport’s airport influence areas. Land use compatibility assessments for ONT are included in the ALUCP.
2 National Wetlands Inventory. 2022. Surface Waters and Wetlands Map. Retrieved from:
https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/. 3 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. (2011). Page 4-31. Retrieved from: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/aeronautics/documents/californiaairportlanduseplanninghandbook-a11y.pdf. 471
Not to scale
FIGURE 4.8-1: Chino Airport Safety Zones
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment

SULTANA AV SULTANA AV
Project Site Project Site
472
Project Site Source: The Ontario Plan (2011), Map 2-1 Compatibility Policy Map: Airport Influence Area FIGURE 4.
8-2: Ontario International Airport Land Use
CompatibilityOntario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment 473
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-9 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 (42 United States Code [USC] Section 6901 et seq.) is the principal federal law that regulates the generation, management, and transportation of waste. Hazardous waste management includes the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. The RCRA gave the U.S. EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from “cradle to grave,” that is, from generation to transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal, at active and future facilities. It does not address abandoned or historical sites. The RCRA also set forth a framework for managing nonhazardous wastes. Later amendments required phasing out land disposal of hazardous waste and added underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as “Superfund,” was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law provides broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA established requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites, and established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified. CERCLA also enabled the revision of the National Contingency Plan. The National Contingency Plan provides the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The National Contingency Plan also establishes the National Priorities List (NPL), which is a list of contaminated sites warranting further investigation by the U.S. EPA. CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act on October 17, 1986 to help further manage contaminated sites.

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) authorized the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA; 42 USC Section 11001 et seq.) to inform communities and citizens of chemical hazards in their areas by requiring businesses to report the locations and quantities of chemicals stored on-site to state and local agencies; releases to the environment of more than 600 designated toxic chemicals; off-site transfers of waste; and pollution prevention measures and activities and to participate in chemical recycling. The U.S. EPA maintains and publishes an online, publicly available, national database of toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities by certain industry groups and federal facilities—the Toxics Release Inventory.

To implement EPCRA, each state appointed a state emergency response commission to coordinate planning and implementation activities associated with hazardous materials. The commissions divided their states into emergency planning districts and named a local emergency planning committee for each district. The federal EPCRA program is implemented and administered in California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), a state commission, six local committees, and 81 Certified Unified Program 474
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-10 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Agencies (CUPAs). Cal OES coordinates and provides staff support for the state commission and local committees.

Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) provides U.S. EPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. TSCA addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including PCBs, asbestos, radon, and LBP. Title IV of the TSCA directs U.S. EPA to regulate LBPhazards.

TSCA Sections 402 and 404 requires that those engaged in lead abatements, risk assessments and inspections in homes or child-occupied facilities (e.g., day care centers and kindergartens) built prior to 1978 be trained and certified in specific practices to ensure accuracy and safety. TSCA Section 403, sets standards for dangerous levels of lead in paint, household dust, and residential soil.

Occupational Safety and Health Act
The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) (29 USC Section 651 et seq.) authorizes each state (including California) to establish their own safety and health programs with the U.S. Department of Labor, with OSHA approval. The California Department of Industrial Relations regulates implementation of worker health and safety in California. California OSHA enforcement units conduct on-site evaluations and issue notices of violation to enforce necessary improvements to health and safety practices. California standards for workers dealing with hazardous materials are contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and include best practices for all industries (General Industrial Safety Orders), and specific practices for construction and other industries. Workers at hazardous waste sites (or working with hazardous wastes as might be encountered during excavation of contaminated soil) must receive specialized training and medical supervision according to the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) regulations.

OSHA Regulation 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Standard 1926.62 regulates the demolition, renovation, or construction of buildings involving lead materials. Federal, State, and local requirements also govern the removal of asbestos or suspected asbestos containing materials (ACMs), including the demolition of structures where asbestos is present. All friable (crushable by hand) ACMs, or non-friable ACMs subject to damage, must be abated prior to demolition following all applicable regulations.

Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 61 Subpart M Title 40 CFR Section 61 Subpart M—National Emissions Standards for Asbestos—sets forth emissions standards for asbestos from demolition and renovation activities, and for waste disposal from such activities.

Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 745
Title 40, Part 745 contains regulations developed under Section 402 and 406 of the TSCA and applies to all renovations performed for compensation in target housing and child-occupied facilities. The purpose of this subpart is to ensure the following:
475
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-11 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Owners and occupants of target housing and child-occupied facilities receive information on LBP hazards before these renovations begin; and
• Individuals performing renovations regulated in accordance with Section 745.82 are properly trained; renovators and firms performing these renovations are certified; and the work practices in Section 745.85 are followed during these renovations.

Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1926.62
Title 29 CFR Section 1926.62 sets standards for occupational health and environmental controls for lead exposure in construction, regardless of the lead content of paints and other materials. The standards include requirements addressing exposure assessment, methods of compliance, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene facilities and practices, medical surveillance, medical removal protection, employee information and training, signs, recordkeeping, and observation and monitoring.

US EPA’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program Rules.

The U.S. EPA’s 2008 Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule (as amended in 2010 and 2011), aims to protect the public from LBP hazards associated with renovation, repair, and painting activities. These activities can create hazardous lead dust when surfaces with lead paint, even from many decades ago, are disturbed. The rule requires workers to be certified and trained in the use of lead-safe work practices, and requires renovation, repair, and painting firms to be U.S. EPA-certified. These requirements became fully effective April 22, 2010.

State
California Environmental Protection Agency
The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) was created in 1991, unifying California’s environmental authority in a single cabinet-level agency and bringing the California Air Resources Board(CARB), SWRCB, Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB), California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (known as CalRecyle and formerly the Integrated Waste Management Board), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and Department of Pesticide Regulation under one agency. These agencies were placed within the Cal/EPA “umbrella” for the protection of human health and the environment and to ensure the coordinated deployment of state resources. Its mission is to restore, protect, and enhance the environment, to ensure public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality.

California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC), which is updated every three years, is included in CCR Title 24, Chapter 9 and was created by the California Building Standards Commission. Based on the International Fire Code, the CFC serves as the primary means for authorizing and enforcing procedures and methods to ensure the safe handling and storage of hazardous substances that pose potential public health and safety hazards.

The CFC regulates the use, handling, and storage requirements for hazardous materials at certain facilities.

The CFC and the California Building Code (CBC) apply a classification system in identifying appropriate protective measures relative to fire protection and public safety. Such measures may include identification 476
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-12 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
and use of proper construction standards, setbacks from property lines, and/or installation of specialized equipment.

State Fire Regulations
Fire regulations for California are established in Sections 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC), which includes regulations for structural standards (similar to those identified in the CBC), fire protection and public notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers and smoke alarms, standards for high-rise structures and childcare facilities, and fire suppression training. The State Fire Marshal is responsible for enforcement of these established regulations and building standards for all state-owned buildings, state-occupied buildings, and state institutions in California.

Government Code Section 65962.5(a), Cortese List
As required by California Government Code (CGC) Section 65962.5, Cal/EPA develops an annual update to the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List, which is a planning document used by the state, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. The DTSC is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other state and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the list.

The EnviroStor database constitutes the DTSC’s component of Cortese List data by identifying State response sites, federal Superfund sites, school cleanup sites, and voluntary cleanup sites. The EnviroStor database identifies sites that have known contamination or sites for which further investigation is warranted. It also identifies facilities that are authorized to treat, store, dispose, or transfer hazardous waste.4
State agencies with involvement and/or jurisdiction over public health hazards and hazardous materials management and regulations include the:
• Cal/EPA: The boards, departments, and offices that make up the Cal/EPA include CARB, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, DTSC, OEHHA, and the SWRCB. These boards, departments and offices were placed within the Cal/EPA “umbrella” to create a cabinet-level voice for the protection of human health and the environment (such as clean air, clean water, clean soil, safe pesticides, and waste recycling and reduction) to assure the coordinated deployment of state resources. • DTSC: The mission of the DTSC is to protect California’s people and environment from harmful effects of toxic substances by restoring contaminated resources, enforcing hazardous waste laws, reducing hazardous waste generation, and encouraging the manufacture of chemically safer products. As part of its mission, the DTSC maintains its Enforcement and Emergency Response Division (EERD) to administer the technical implementation of the State Unified Program. The Unified Program is a consolidation of six environmental programs at the local level. Those agencies at the local level with responsibility for the program are known as CUPAs. The DTSC also 4 DTSC. EnviroStar. (2019). Retrieved from: at https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?basic=True. 477
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-13 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
has the responsibility of overseeing and regulating hazardous materials, generators, transporters, and facilities that may use, generate, store, transport, or recycle, hazardous materials. • SWRCB: Brownfields are underutilized properties where reuse is hindered by the actual or suspected presence of pollution or contamination. The SWRCB Brownfield Program goals are to:
▪ Expedite and facilitate site cleanups and closures for brownfield sites to support reuse of those sites;
▪ Preserve open space and green fields;
▪ Protect groundwater and surface water resources, safeguard public health, and promote environmental justice; and
▪ Streamline site assessment, clean up, monitoring, and closure requirements and procedures within the various SWRCB site cleanup programs.

Site clean-up responsibilities for brownfields primarily reside within four main SWRCB programs:

The UST Program; Site Cleanup Program; Department of Defense Program; and the Land Disposal Program. These SWRCB cleanup programs are charged with ensuring sites are remediated to protect California’s surface and groundwater and return them to beneficial uses. • RWQCB
• Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA):

Cal/OSHA is the primary agency responsible for worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. Cal/OSHA standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations. The employer is required to monitor worker exposure to listed hazardous substances and notify workers of exposure (8 CCR 337–340). The regulations specify requirements for employee training, availability of safety equipment, accident prevention programs, and hazardous substance exposure warnings.
• Construction Safety Orders 1529 (pertaining to asbestos), and 1532.1 (pertaining to lead) from Title 8 of the CCR
• Office of Emergency Services (Office of Emergency Services–California Accidental Release Prevention Implementation)
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
• CARB
• Caltrans
• OEHHA (Proposition 65 implementation)
• CalRecycle
• California Highway Patrol (for the enforcement for hazardous materials transportation regulations. Hazardous materials and waste transporters are responsible for complying with all applicable packaging, labeling, and shipping regulations.) • South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rules and Regulations (pertaining to asbestos abatement, including Rule 1403)
478
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-14 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hazardous chemical and biohazardous materials management laws in California include the following statutes:
• Hazardous Materials Management Act – requires that businesses handling or storing certain amounts of hazardous materials prepare a hazardous materials business plan, which includes an inventory of hazardous materials stored on site (above specified quantities), an emergency response plan, and an employee training program.
• Hazardous Waste Control Act (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Article 2, Section 25100, et seq.) – authorizes the DTSC and local CUPAsto regulate facilities that generate or treat hazardous waste.
• Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) – requires the governor to publish and update, at least annually, a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm, and to inform citizens about exposures to such chemicals. Hazardous Waste Management Planning and Facility Siting, also known as the Tanner Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 2948, 1986) – requires counties to prepare, for California DTSC approval, hazardous waste management plans, and prescribes specific public participation activities, which must be carried out during the local land use permit process for siting new or expanding off-site commercial treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. • Hazardous Materials Storage and Emergency Response (AB 2185) – requires the immediate reporting to local fire departments and Offices of Emergency Services of any release or threatened release of a hazardous material, regardless of the amount handled by the business. • California Medical Waste Management Act (HSC Sections 117600–118360) – establishes procedures for the proper handling, storage, treatment, and transportation of medical waste. • Land Disposal Restrictions (CCR, Chapter 18, Title 22) – set up by Congress in 1984 for the U.S. EPA, ensures that toxic constituents present in hazardous waste are properly treated before hazardous waste is land disposed.

Department of Toxic Substance Control
The mission of the DTSC is to protect California’s people and environment from harmful effects of toxic substances by restoring contaminated resources, enforcing hazardous waste laws, reducing hazardous waste generation, and encouraging the manufacture of chemically safer products. As part of its mission, the DTSC maintains its EERD to administer the technical implementation of the State Unified Program.

The Unified Program is a consolidation of six environmental programs at the local level. Those agencies at the local level with responsibility for the program are known as CUPAs. The DTSC also has the responsibility of overseeing and regulating hazardous materials, generators, transporters, and facilities that may use, generate, store, transport, or recycle, hazardous materials.

Government Code Section 65962.5
Pursuant to CGC Section 65962.5, environmental regulatory database lists were reviewed to identify and locate properties with known hazardous substance contamination within the proposed one-mile radius of the Project area (CGC, Section 65960 et seq.). Four state agencies are required to provide lists of 479
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-15 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
facilities that have contributed, harbor, or are responsible for environmental contamination within their jurisdiction. The four state agencies that are required to provide these lists to the Secretary for Environmental Protection include the DTSC, the State Department for Health Services, the SWRCB, and the CalRecycle. The Secretary for Environmental Protection then takes each of the four respective agency lists and forms one list, referred to as the Cortese List, which is made available to every city and/or county in California.

Regional Water Quality Control Board
The RWQCB is a department of Cal/EPA that oversees investigation and cleanup of sites including USTs where wastes have been discharged in order to protect the water quality of the state. The RWQCB regulates wastewater discharges to surface waters and to groundwater. They also regulate storm water discharges from construction, industrial, and municipal activities.

California Health and Safety Code
Cal/EPA has established rules governing the use of hazardous materials and the management of hazardous wastes. California HSC Section 25531, et seq. incorporate the requirement of Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act and the Clean Air Act as they pertain to hazardous materials. HSC Section 25534 directs owners or operators storing, handling, or using regulated substances exceeding threshold planning quantities to develop and implement a Risk Management Plan. The Risk Management Plans are submitted to the administering agency and possibly U.S. EPA, depending upon the chemical and the amount, for review. California law defines a hazardous material as any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may pose a present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released in the workplace or the environment (California HSC Section 25501).

California Hazardous Waste Control Law
The California Hazardous Waste Control Law (HSC Division 20, Chapter 6.5) is administered by the Cal/EPA to regulate the management of hazardous wastes. While the Hazardous Waste Control Law is generally more stringent than the RCRA, until the U.S. EPA approves the California hazardous waste control program(which is charged with regulating the generation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste), both the State and federal laws apply in California. The Hazardous Waste Control Law lists 791 chemicals and approximately 300 common materials that may be hazardous; establishes criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; prescribes management controls; establishes permit requirements for treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation; and identifies wastes that cannot be disposed of in landfills.

California Accidental Release Prevention Program
Similar to the Federal Risk Management Program, the California Accidental Release Prevention Program includes state requirements as well as a list of regulated substances and thresholds. The regulations of the program are contained in CCR Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 4.5. The intent of California Accidental Release Prevention Program is to prevent accidental releases of substances that can cause serious harm 480
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-16 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
to the public and the environment, to minimize the damage if releases do occur, and to ensure compliance with community right-to-know laws.

Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law The Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law (HSC Section 25500 et seq.) aims to minimize the potential for accidents involving hazardous materials and to facilitate an appropriate response to possible hazardous materials emergencies. The law requires businesses that use hazardous materials to provide inventories of those materials to designated emergency response agencies, to illustrate on a diagram where the materials are stored on-site, to prepare an emergency response plan, and to train employees to use the materials safely. Any business that handles hazardous materials in quantities equal to or greater than 55 gallons, 500 pounds, or 200 cubic feet of gas must submit a business plan.

Hazardous Materials Transportation
Section 31303 of the California Vehicle Code and U.S. Department of Transportation regulate hazardous materials transport. The California Highway Patrol and California Department of Transportation are the enforcement agencies. Cal OES provides emergency response services involving hazardous materials incidents.

Worker and Workplace Hazardous Materials Safety
Cal/OSHA is responsible for developing and enforcing workplace safety standards and ensuring worker safety in the handling and use of hazardous materials. Among other requirements, Cal/OSHA obligates many businesses to prepare Injury and Illness Prevention Plans and Chemical Hygiene Plans. The Hazard Communication Standard requires that workers be informed of the hazards associated with the materials they handle.

Hazardous Materials in Structures: Asbestos-Containing Materials and Lead-Based Paint Several regulations and guidelines pertain to abatement of and protection from exposure to ACM and LBP, including Construction Safety Orders 1529 (pertaining to ACM) and Section 1532.1 (pertaining to LBP) from Title 8 of the CCR and Part 61, Subpart M, of the CFR (pertaining to ACM). In California, ACM and LBP abatement must be performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certification from the California Department of Health Services. Asbestos is also regulated as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act and a potential worker safety hazard under the authority of Cal/OSHA.

Requirements for limiting asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation are specified in SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities). CGC Section 1529 and 1532.1 provide for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection and good working practice by workers exposed to lead and ACMs.

Requirements for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments 481
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-17 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Phase I ESAs are required for land purchasers to qualify for the Innocent Landowner Defense under CERCLA, to minimize environmental liability under other laws such as RCRA, and as a lender prerequisite to extend a loan for purchase of land.

Certified Unified Program Agency
A CUPA is an agency of a county or city that administers several state programs regulating hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. The SBCFD is the CUPA for all incorporated cities and towns and unincorporated areas. SBCFD administers the following programs:
• Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program • California Accidental Release Prevention Program, a combination of federal and state programs for the prevention of accidental release of regulated toxic and flammable substances • UST Program
• Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Program
• Hazardous Waste Generator and Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment Programs Program • Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP) and Hazardous Material Inventory Statement (HMIS) in California Fire Code Program.
8 CCR Section 1529 and 1532.1: Worker Safety Standards: Asbestos and Lead CCR Title 8 Section 1529 sets forth worker safety standards for lead exposure for employees conducting demolition, construction, and renovation work, including painting, and decorating.

CCR Title 8 Section 1532.1 sets forth worker safety standards for employees in work including construction, demolition, renovation, and maintenance.

California Aeronautics Act
The State Aeronautics Act included in the California Public Utilities Code establishes statewide requirements for airport land use compatibility planning and requires nearly every county to create an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) or other alternative. The County opted for an alternative to the ALUC and delegated responsibility to prepare an ALUCP for each airport jurisdiction.

California Airport Land Use Compatibility Planning Handbook The California Airport Land Use Compatibility Planning Handbook provides planning guidance to ALUCs and counties and cities with jurisdiction over airport area land uses. The purpose of the handbook is to support the State Aeronautics Act. The handbook allows jurisdictions flexibility in determining air safety zones that represent areas of assumed accident potential.

Regional
SCAQMD
482
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-18 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
SCAQMD Rule 1403 governs the demolition of buildings containing asbestos materials. Rule 1403 specifies work practices with the goal of minimizing asbestos emissions during building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of ACM.

San Bernardino County Public Health Agencies
The County Department of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health Services has regulatory control over hazardous and solid waste, land use, wastewater.

Additionally, the Department of Public Works manages solid waste, transportation, and storm water. This department also manages all construction and demolition activities.

The Hazardous Materials Division of the SBCFD is designated by the State Secretary for Environmental Protection as the CUPA for the County in order to focus the management of specific environmental programs at the local government level. The CUPA is charged with the responsibility of conducting compliance inspections for over 7,000 regulated facilities in the County. The SBCFD manages six hazardous material and hazardous waste programs. This includes hazardous waste management and above/underground storage tanks. The CUPA program is designed to consolidate, coordinate, and uniformly and consistently administer permits, inspection activities, and enforcement activities throughout the County.

San Bernardino County Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program In the County, the Business Emergency/Contingency Plan (Business Plan) is also used to satisfy the contingency plan requirement for hazardous waste generators. Any business subject to any of the CUPA permits is required in the County to file a Business Emergency/Contingency Plan using the California Environmental Reporting System. This submission is used as the basis for the permit application. A new business going through the process of obtaining County planning or building approval is required to comply with the Business Emergency/Contingency Plan requirement prior to obtaining final certificate of occupancy and prior to bringing hazardous materials onto the property.

The quantities that trigger disclosure are based on the maximum quantity on-site at any time excluding materials under active shipping papers or for direct retail sale to the public. The basic quantities are hazardous materials at or exceeding 55 gallons, 500 pounds, or 200 cubic feet at any time in the course of a year; specified amounts of radio actives, and extremely hazardous substances above the threshold planning quantity.

Local
City of Ontario Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City developed a Hazard Mitigation Plan to make the City infrastructure, business, and residents less vulnerable to future incidents. The plan was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. A risk assessment was conducted to identify and profile natural and man-made hazards that pose a risk to the City, assess the City’s vulnerability to these hazards, and examine the 483
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-19 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
capabilities in place to mitigate them. Based on the risk assessment, goals, and objectives for reducing the City’s vulnerability to hazards were identified. The four goals of the multi-hazard mitigation plan are:
• Minimize loss of life and property from natural and man-made hazard events • Protect public health and safety
• Increase public awareness of risk from natural and man-made hazards • Enhance emergency systems including warning systems
City of Ontario General Plan
The following goal and policies contained in the Safety Element (Hazardous Materials and Waste) of The Ontario Plan (TOP) are relevant to the Project:

Goal S6 Reduced potential for hazardous materials exposure and contamination.

Policy S6-1 Disclosure and Notification. We enforce disclosure laws that require all users, producers, and transporters of hazardous materials and wastes to clearly identify the materials that they store, use or
Policy S6-2 Response to Hazardous Materials Releases. We respond to hazardous materials incidents and coordinate these services with other jurisdictions.

Policy S6-4 Safe Storage and Maintenance Practices. We require that the users of hazardous materials be adequately prepared to prevent and mitigate hazardous materials releases.

Policy S6-5 Location of Hazardous Material Facilities. We regulate facilities that will be involved in the production, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials, pursuant to federal, state, county, and local regulations, so that impacts to the environment and sensitive land uses are mitigated.

Policy S6-9 Remediation of Methane. We require development to assess and mitigate the presence of methane, per regulatory standards and guidelines.

City of Ontario Municipal Code (MC)
MC Section 7-3.07. Safety devices, lights, and barricades. Any activity or encroachment on a right-of-way which is hazardous, creates a hazard, or is in conflict with the normal use of a right-of-way shall be adequately safeguarded as required by the City. In the conduct of such activity or encroachment, materials, supplies, excavated material, and equipment shall be properly placed, and the permittee shall provide and maintain such safety devices, including, but not limited to, lights, barricades, signs, and guards, as are necessary to protect the public.

MC Section 9-1.3330. Environmental Performance Standards that require: “The use, handling, storage, and transportation of combustibles and explosives shall comply with applicable provisions of the Uniform 484
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-20 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Fire Code, the City of Ontario Hazardous Waste Ordinance and all other local, state and federal regulations.”
Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan The ONT ALUCP was adopted by Ontario City Council on April 19, 2011 and amended in 2018. The basic function of the ALUCP is to provide guidance to affected jurisdictions and promote compatibility between the airport and surrounding land uses. The ALUCP designates the airport influence area, safety zones, noise impact zones, airspace protection zones, and overflight notification zones. Height and noise restrictions for future land uses are established for the airport approach safety zones. All development shall be constructed or reconstructed in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77.

Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Compliance
The Project site is located directly north of the Chino Airport and within the Chino airport influence areas.

The City is currently preparing an ALUCP for Chino Airport which relies on the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, that is expected to be adopted in 2022.

The Chino ALUCP will establish policies and criteria for the four types of compatibility impacts which include safety, noise, airspace protection, and overflight. The Project site is not within the Chino Airport noise impact zone. Projects within the Specific Plan boundary shall be required to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the ALUCP for Chino Airport.

4.8.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

HAZ-1 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
HAZ-2 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
HAZ-3 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? HAZ-4 Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
HAZ-5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? HAZ-6 Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
485
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-21 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-7 Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Section 7.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant:
• Threshold H-3
• Threshold H-6
• Threshold H-7
These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis.

4.8.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP HAZ-1 Transportation of Hazardous Waste. Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes shall be transported to and/or from the proposed project in compliance with any applicable State and federal requirements, including the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations listed in the CFR (Title 49, Hazardous Materials Transportation Act); Caltransstandards; and the Cal/OSHAstandards.

PPP HAZ-2 RCRA. Hazardous waste generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal shall be conducted in compliance with the Subtitle C of the RCRA (Title 40 CFR Part 263), including the management of nonhazardous solid wastes. The SBCFD serves as the designated CUPA and which implements State and federal regulations for the following programs: (1) Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program, (2) California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program, (3) Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Program, and (4) UST Program (5) Hazardous Waste Generator and Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment Programs (6) HMMP and Hazardous Material Inventory Statement Program.

PPP HAZ-3 ACMs. Demolition activities that have the potential to expose construction workers and/or the public to ACMs shall be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations, including, but not limited to:
▪ SCAQMD Rule 1403
▪ HSC Section 39650 et seq.
▪ Title 8 CCR Section 1529
▪ Cal/OSHA regulations ( Title 8 CCR Section 1529)
▪ CFR (Title 40, Part 61, Title 40, Part 763, and Title 29, Part 1926) PPP HAZ-4 Removal of Hazardous Materials. The removal of hazardous materials, such as PCBs, mercury-containing light ballast, and mold shall be completed in accordance with applicable regulations pursuant to 40 CFR 761 (PCBs), 40 CFR 273 (mercury-containing light ballast), and 29 CFR 1926 (molds) by workers with the HAZWOPER training, as outlined in 29 CFR 1910.120 and 8 CCR 5192.
486
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-22 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
PPP HAZ-5 LBPs. Demolition activities that have the potential to expose construction workers and/or the public to LBP shall be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations, including, but not limited to:
▪ Cal/OSHA regulations (CCR Title 8 Section 1532.1)
▪ CFR (Title 40, Part 745, and Title 29, Part 1926)
▪ U.S. EPA’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program Rules and Residential Lead-Based Paint Disclosure Program
▪ Sections 402/404 and 403, and Title IV of the TSCA

4.8.5 Methodology
This analysis evaluates the potential impacts of the Project on human health and the environment due to potential exposure of hazardous materials or conditions associated with the Project site, Project construction, and Project operations. The Phase I ESA was conducted in accordance with the ASTM Standard of Practice E1527-13 and the standards of care and diligence normally practiced by recognized consulting firms in performing services of a similar nature.

The assessment included:
• Site inspection to verify current Site conditions, and check for visible evidence of previously disposed and/or currently present hazardous waste, surface contamination, USTs and ASTs, suspect PCBs, and other potential environmental hazards. • A visual survey of the adjacent properties and the immediate vicinity to determine if any nearby sites posed a significant environmental threat to the site. • Review of currently and readily available documents, including maps, aerial photographs, governmental databases of known hazardous waste sites and underground tanks, other consultant reports (if any), fire insurance maps, and other accessible records. • Review of results from a search of available current land title records for environmental cleanup liens and other activity and use limitations, such as engineering controls and institutional controls.

Consultation with appropriate governmental agencies having jurisdiction relative to the past history of the property, complaints, or incidents in the immediate area, and permits that may have been issued.

4.8.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
487
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-23 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.8-1 Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [Thresholds H-1 and H-2] Level of Significance Before Mitigation: With the implementation of PPP HAZ-1 through HAZ-5, Impact 4.8-1 would be Potentially Significant Construction
Project-related construction activities would involve the use of larger amounts of hazardous materials than would Project operation. Construction activities would include the use of materials such as fuels, lubricants, and greases in construction equipment and coatings used in construction. According to the City’s Fire Department Hazardous Materials standards, the materials used would be in small quantities or stored in such a manner as to reduce any safety hazards. 5 The use of these materials would also be temporary and short-term or single-use in nature and would cease upon completion of the proposed Project’s construction phase. Project construction workers would also be required to conduct the safe handling of hazardous materials use as proposed in Mitigation Measure (MM) HAZ-4.

Additionally, as with Project operation, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. For example, all spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities are required to be immediately contained, the hazardous material identified, and the material remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations for the cleanup and disposal of that contaminant. All contaminated waste would be required to be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by SBCFD would be required through the duration of the Project construction phase. Therefore, hazards to the public or the environment arising from the routine use of hazardous materials during Project construction would be less than significant.

Grading Activities
Grading activities required to develop the Project would involve the disturbance of on-site soils. There is the potential for the discovery of contamination during grading activities, due to potential for chemical constituents to accumulate in the ponds and become trapped in the sediment (i.e., pesticides, heavy metals, or chemicals). Furthermore, site grading requires the removal of ASTs, where areas of staining were observed. No secondary containment was observed under the ASTs. Some staining was observed beneath the ASTs. The observed staining by the ASTs represents a REC; however, the staining would likely be localized to this area. Citadel recommends the removal of the ASTs prior to Project redevelopment and 5 Ontario Fire Department. (2021). Hazardous Material Information Packet. Retrieved from:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Fire/hazardous_material_information_packet.pdf. 488
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-24 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
preparation of a soil management plan to manage the stained soils during redevelopment. The handling and transport of these materials and exposure to contaminated soils for workers and the surrounding environment could result in a significant impact. Contaminated soils encountered during grading would be required to be removed and disposed of off-site in accordance with all applicable regulatory guidelines.

The handling and transport of these materials and exposure to contaminated soils for workers and the surrounding environment could result in a significant impact. Contaminated soils encountered during grading would be required to be removed and disposed of off-site in accordance with all applicable regulatory guidelines. MM HAZ-2 would further reduce these risks, as a Phase II subsurface assessment would be required. Site grading also requires the removal of ASTs, where areas of staining were observed, and septic tanks prior to site development. A demolition permit from San Bernardino County Building & Safety Division will be required to remove the septic tank(s). MM HAZ-5 would be applied to these activities prior to the commencement of construction activities.

The historic and current use of the Project site as a dairy-production farm may produce methane gas in the subsurface from animal wastes. A methane assessment was conducted to assess subsurface methane levels across a portion of the site. Based on the results of this investigation, methane gas was detected in subsurface vapor probes at maximum concentrations of approximately 10 percent of the lower explosive limit (LEL) for methane. The methane survey conducted is a preliminary investigation that identified methane on site, and further investigation is required to determined maximum concentrations across the project site. MM HAZ-1would be applied in order to minimize risks associated with the risk of methane encountered on the Project site.

Demolition
Demolition of buildings and equipment on-site has the potential to expose and disturb ACMs, PCBs, LBP, and mercury. Project site buildings were constructed prior to bans on ACBMs, PCBs, and LBPcoming into effect. Such releases could pose significant risks to persons living and working in and around the Project site, as well as to Project construction workers. Before demolition, a comprehensive ACM survey would be conducted to identify the locations and quantities of ACM in above-ground structures, pursuant to MM HAZ-6. MM HAZ-6would be incorporated to reduce the risk from ACMs. The removal of hazardous materials, such as PCBs, mercury-containing light ballast, and mold, shall be completed in accordance with applicable regulations pursuant to 40 CFR 761 (PCBs), 40 CFR 273 (mercury-containing light ballast), and 29 CFR 1926 (molds) by workers with the HAZWOPER training, as outlined in 29 CFR 1910.120 and 8 CCR 5192. The removal of LBP material shall be implemented in accordance with CCR, Title 8 Section 1532.1, the CFR (Title 40, Part 745, and Title 29, Part 1926), the U.S. EPA’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program Rules and Residential Lead-Based Paint Disclosure Program, and sections 402/404 and 403, and Title IV of the TSCA.

The potential exposure of construction workers to ACMs, PCBs, LBP, or mercury is a potentially significant impact. Through MM HAZ-6, survey of existing structures prior to demolition will characterize the potential exposure and further reduce impacts from the potential release of these materials. 489
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-25 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Operation
Operation of the business park would involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials, such as industrial cleansers, greases, and oils for cleaning and maintenance purposes. The industrial park, intended for warehousing and ancillary office uses, may also involve transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials; the specific substances and quantities of such materials are presently unknown. The use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be governed by existing regulations of several agencies, including the U.S. EPA, U.S. Department of Transportation, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, and the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. Additionally, the proposed Project would also be operated with strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District. Mandatory compliance with laws and regulations, would ensure that operational impacts would be less than significant.

Impact 4.8-2 Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? [Threshold H-4]
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: With the implementation of PPP HAZ-1 through HAZ-4, Impact 4.8-2 would be Potentially Significant The Project site was identified on the WDS database as an agricultural facility with designated/influent or solid wastes that pose a significant threat to water quality (dairy waste ponds). As noted in Impact 4.8-1, the Project Applicant shall perform a Phase II subsurface assessment, pursuant to MM HAZ-2 of the sediments after the ponds have been drained. If the Phase II subsurface assessment detects chemical risks to human health and the environment due to sediments in the ponds, the Project Applicant is required to prepare a soils management plan, and any engineering or administrative controls or long‐term operations and maintenance plan that is required by DTSC. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

Impact 4.8-3 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? [Threshold H-5]
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact As stated previously, the Project site is within the ONT and Chino Airport’s airport influence area.

Furthermore, although the Project site is within Safety Zone 6 of the Chino Airport, Zone 6 compatibility criteria prohibit people-intensive uses such as stadiums, large day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes. The Project site would not contain such uses and would comply with Safety Zone 6 standard.

Additionally, the Project site is not within theONT safety zone, noise impact zone, or airspace protection zone. The Project site also lies within an allowable range of 130 feet to 160 feet of building height as depicted in Figure 4.8-3, Allowable Building Heights. Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area and impacts would be less than significant.
490
Not to scale
FIGURE 4.8-3: Allowable Building Heights
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Source: Chino Airport State Handbook & Final Composite Safety Zones Comparison - Allowable Building Heights Project Site
Project Site Project Site
491
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-27 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.8.7 Cumulative Impacts
Hazards and hazardous waste impacts are typically unique to each site and do not usually contribute to cumulative impacts. Cumulative development projects would be required to assess potential hazardous materials impacts on the development site prior to grading. The Project and other cumulative projects would be required to comply with laws and regulations governing hazardous materials and hazardous wastes used and generated as described previously. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant after regulatory compliance.

The areas considered for cumulative airport-related hazards impacts are the airport influence areas of ONT and Chino Airport. Some related projects may be proposed within the safety compatibility zones of the ONT and Chino airport influence areas, and thus could expose the nearby population to potential hazards such as aircraft crashes. Airport land use planning agencies for ONT and Chino Airport regulate development within their safety compatibility zones. Related projects proposed within safety compatibility zones would be required to comply with each safety zone’s respective land use regulations set forth by the affected agencies. After regulatory compliance, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

4.8.8 Level of SignificanceBefore Mitigation
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and PPPS, Impact 4.8-3 would be less than significant.

Without mitigation, these impacts would be potentially significant:
• Impact 4.8-1 If the Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

If the Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
• Impact 4.8-2 If the Project would be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

4.8.9 Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.8.1
MM HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project applicant shall conduct further testing for the presence of methane on the Project site, in accordance with DTSC methane assessment guidelines. The Project applicant shall prepare a methane gas soil survey and implement grading activity recommendations to the satisfaction of the City Building Department. This survey and recommendation shall include a postconstruction soil gas investigation and installation of methane gas mitigation systems where post-grading methane levels exceed 5,000 ppmv, should any such levels occur. 492
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-28 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM HAZ-2 Following drainage of the on-site ponds, the Project applicant shall conduct a limited Phase II subsurface assessment of sediments to evaluate the sediments for chemical risks to human health and the environment. If contamination from dairy and animalrelated wastes is encountered at a level above Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for non-residential uses, the appropriate environmental agency (Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substance Control, South Coast Air Quality Management District) shall be notified. Any contamination identified as a result of such testing/sampling shall be investigated and removed or remediated to the satisfaction of the environmental agency with evidence provided to the City, such that there are no residual significant impacts following mitigation. Prior to allowing the commencement of any soil removal or hauling activities at the Proposed Project, the City will review and/or evaluate potential air quality impacts (criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants from equipment exhaust, earthmoving, and other on-site remedial activities, as applicable) to verify that impacts are properly assessed and disclosed in accordance with CEQA.

MM HAZ-3 Soil Management Plan. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant to prepare a Soil Management Plan that details procedures and protocols for on-site management of soils containing potentially hazardous materials. The SMP would be implemented during grading activities on-site to ensure that soils containing residual levels of hydrocarbons or arsenic are properly identified, monitored, and managed on-site, and include the following:
▪ A certified hazardous waste hauler shall remove all potentially hazardous soils. In addition, sampling of soil shall be conducted during excavation to ensure that all petroleum hydrocarbon and arsenic impacted soils are removed, and that Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for non-residential uses are not exceeded.

Excavated materials shall be transported per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to a landfill permitted by the State to accept hazardous materials. ▪ Any subsurface materials exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall require immediate cessation of excavation activities. Soils suspected of contamination shall be tested for potential contamination. If contamination is found to be present per the Department of Toxic Substances Control Screening Levels for industrial/commercial land use (DTSCSLi) and the U.S. EPA Regional Screening Levels for industrial/commercial land use (EPARSLi), it shall be transported and disposed of per state regulations to an appropriately permitted landfill.
▪ The SMP shall include a Health and Safety Plan (HSP) that addresses potential safety and health hazards and includes the requirements and procedures for employee protection; each contractor will be required to have their own HSP tailored to their particular trade that addresses the general project safety requirements. The HSP shall also outline proper soil handling procedures and 493
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-29 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction.
▪ The SMP shall be prepared and executed in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1166, Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Decontamination of Soil. The SMP shall require the timely testing and sampling of soils so that contaminated soils can be separated from inert soils for proper disposal. The SMP shall specify the testing parameters and sampling frequency. Anticipated testing includes total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). During excavation, Rule 1166 requires that soils identified as contaminated shall be sprayed with water or another approved vapor suppressant or covered with sheeting during periods of inactivity of greater than an hour, to prevent contaminated soils from becoming airborne. Under Rule 1166, contaminated soils shall be transported from the project site by a licensed transporter and disposed of at a licensed storage/treatment facility to prevent contaminated soils from becoming airborne or otherwise released into the environment.
▪ All SMP measures shall be printed on the construction documents, contracts, and project plans prior to issuance of grading permits.

MM HAZ-4 Construction period testing: Construction at the Project site shall be conducted under a Project-specific Construction Risk Management Plan (CRMP) to protect construction workers, the general public, and the environment from subsurface hazardous materials previously identified and to address the possibility of encountering unknown contamination or hazards in the subsurface. The CRMP shall summarize soil and groundwater analytical data collected on the Project sites during past investigations and during site investigation activities; delineate areas of known soil and groundwater contamination, if applicable; and identify soil and groundwater management options for excavated soil and groundwater, in compliance with local, state, and federal statutes and regulations. The CRMP shall:
▪ Provide procedures for evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil and groundwater during Project excavation and dewatering activities, respectively.
▪ Require the preparation of a Project-specific Health and Safety Plan that identifies hazardous materials present, describes required health and safety provisions and training for all workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials in accordance with State and Federal worker safety regulations, and designates the personnel responsible for Health and Safety Plan implementation.
▪ Require the preparation of a contingency plan that shall be applied should previously-unknown hazardous materials be encountered during construction activities. The contingency plan shall include provisions that require collection of soil and/or groundwater samples in the newly-discovered affected area by a qualified environmental professional prior to further work, as appropriate. The 494
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-30 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
analytical results of the sampling shall be reviewed by the qualified environmental professional and submitted to the appropriate regulatory agency.

The environmental professional shall provide recommendations, as applicable, regarding soil/waste management, worker health and safety training, and regulatory agency notifications, in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. Work shall not resume in the area(s) affected until these recommendations have been implemented under the oversight of the County or regulatory agency, as appropriate.
▪ Designate personnel responsible for implementation of the CRMP. The CRMP shall be submitted to the County for review and approval prior to the issuance of construction and demolition permits.

MM HAZ-5 Prior to the commencement of any construction-related site activities (clearing, demolition, grading etc.), all above-ground storage tanks (ASTs) and underground storage tanks (USTs) shall be removed. ASTs storing diesel shall be disposed of by a State of California licensed contractor and in compliance with the required San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD) Hazardous Materials Division regulations for tank removals. For stained soils in the vicinity of diesel containing ASTs, as identified in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) dated January 10, 2020, soil samples shall be collected, as directed by the SBCFD inspector, for chemical analysis at a laboratory licensed by the State of California. If contaminated soils are encountered, a soil management plan shall be prepared to manage the stained soils during redevelopment. USTs shall be removed through reviewing available files at the SBCFD and ensuring the proper removal of the UST and a subsurface investigation to determine if the UST had impacted the subsurface.

MM HAZ-6 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any buildings or structures on-site, the Project applicant shall conduct a comprehensive ACM survey to identify the locations and quantities of ACM in above-ground structures. The Project applicant shall retain a licensed or certified asbestos consultant to inspect buildings and structures on-site. The consultant’s report shall include requirements for abatement, containment, and disposal of ACM, if encountered, in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1403.

Impact 4.8.2
MM HAZ-2 applies.

4.8.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The MMsrequire further testing for methane and a Phase II subsurface assessment to evaluate subsurface sediments for chemical risks to human health once the ponds are drained. Additionally, a SMP would be required to ensure safe and appropriate handling, transportation, off-site disposal, reporting, oversight, and protocols used during construction to protect the health and safety of workers and future residents.

The mitigation measures also require the proper removal and disposal of ASTs and ACMs. These measures will reduce risks to human health and potential impacts of hazards and hazardous materials to less than 495
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.8-31 4.8 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
significant levels. In addition to implementation of MMs, the Project would also be compliant with regulatory requirements and PPPs; therefore, the overall impact is reduced to less than significant. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to hazards have been identified.

4.8.11 References
Citadel Environmental Services Inc. (Citadel). 2020, January 10. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report.

Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC). EnviroStar. 2019. Retrieved from: at https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?basic=True.

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2005, June 16. Advisory on Methane Assessment and Common Remedies at School Sites. http://www.hawaiidoh.org/references/U.S.

EPA%202005b.pdf.

Department of Toxic Substances Control, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, and San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (DTSC, LARWQCB, and SFRWQCB).2015, July Advisory, Active Soil Gas Investigations.

Ontario, City of. 2018. Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Emergency-Management/ReadyOntario/city_of_ontario_2018_hmp.pdf.

San Bernardino County Fire Department. (2019). About CUPA (Certified Unified Program Agency).

Retrieved from: https://sbcfire.org/hazmatcupa/.
496
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.9-1 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality

4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential impacts of the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Project (Project) to hydrology and water quality conditions in the City of Ontario (City). Hydrology deals with the distribution and circulation of water, both on land and underground. Water quality deals with the quality of surface water and groundwater. Surface water includes lakes, rivers, streams, and creeks; groundwater is under the earth’s surface.

The following analysis is based in part on information obtained from:
• Preliminary Hydrology Calculations for the Ontario Ranch Business Park II, Thienes Engineering Inc., February 14, 2020, revised January 3, 2022. (Appendix G1) • Preliminary Water Quality Plan for the Ontario Ranch Business Park Phase 2, Thienes Engineering Inc., January 11, 2022 (Appendix G2)
• Water Supply Assessment Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., September 2021. (Appendix J)
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Citadel Environmental Services Inc., January 10, 2020. (Appendix F)

4.9.1 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
Regional Drainage
The City is within the Chino Creek Watershed, which is part of the larger Santa Ana River Watershed. The Chino Creek Watershed encompasses parts of San Bernardino County (County), Riverside County, and Los Angeles County and includes the cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Upland, Montclair, Ontario, Fontana, Chino, and Chino Hills. It drains a basin of approximately 218 square miles from the San Gabriel Mountains to the Santa Ana River near Corona. The watershed is intensely developed for residential, industrial, and agricultural use. As a result, the creek and its tributaries are highly polluted and receive effluent from multiple wastewater treatment plants, storm drains, and agricultural runoff.

Local Drainage
The City is divided into two distinct areas: Old Model Colony (OMC) and New Model Colony, now known as Ontario Ranch (OR). The two areas are generally divided by Riverside Drive. The City presently owns and maintains over 136 miles of storm drains, mostly serving the OMC area of the City. In addition to the City-owned storm drains there are the State-owned storm drains along California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans)Interstate 10 (I-10) and State Route 60 (SR 60) corridors. All the City and State storm drain facilities discharge to regional backbone facilities owned and operated by San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) that are tributary to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Prado Flood Control Basin.
497
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.9-2 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
The City lies in the western portion of the Santa Ana River’s watershed, upstream of the Prado Flood Control Basin. It is in a 277-square-mile area referred to as Zone 1 by SBCFCD. Zone 1 generally slopes towards the south. Four major regional channel systems traverse Zone 1 in a north-south direction; they include San Antonio Channel, Cucamonga Channel, Day Creek Channel, and San Sevaine Channel.

Site Hydrology
The Project site is located in the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin, Chino Subbasin (No. 8-2.01) as determined by the California Department of Water Resources. 1 The subbasin is bounded by the
impermeable rocks of the San Gabriel Mountains and the Cucamonga fault to the north; the Rialto-Colton fault to the east; the contact with impermeable rocks forming the Jurupa Mountains and low divides connecting the exposures to the southeast; the contact with impermeable rocks of the Puente Hills and the Chino fault to the south; and the San Jose fault to the west. San Antonio Creek and Cucamonga Creek drain the surface of the subbasin southward to join the Santa Ana River.

The water-bearing units include the alluvial-fan deposits from the Holocene age and the interfingering finer, alluvial-fan deposits and coarser, fluvial deposits from the Pleistocene age. Groundwater recharge occurs by direct infiltration or precipitation on the subbasin floor, by infiltration of surface flow, and by underflow of groundwater from adjacent basins. The five recharge facilities include Deer Creek, Day Creek, East Etiwanda Creek, San Sevaine Channel, and Victoria Basin. Local groundwater flow direction was estimated toward the southeast and southwest.2
The Project site currently consists of single-family residential structures, an operational dairy farm and irrigated cropland. There are large existing retention ponds that collect surface waste from the dairy farming practices. Current drainage for the southeast portion of the site surface is southerly to a dirt swale adjacent to Merrill Avenue, then westerly to a set of four corrugated steel pipes, then southerly to an earthen channel (Airport Channel) adjacent to Euclid Avenue in the City of Chino. The 25-year and 100-year existing condition peak flow rates from this area are approximately 49.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 85.1 cfs, respectively.

Surface Water Quality
Section 303(d) of the 1972 federal CWA requires states to identify water bodies that do not meet water quality objectives and are not supporting their beneficial uses. Each state must submit an updated list, called the 303(d) list, to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) every two years. In addition to identifying the water bodies that are not supporting beneficial uses, the list also identifies the pollutant or stressor causing impairment and establishes a priority for developing a control plan to address the impairment. The list also identifies water bodies where 1) a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) has been approved by the U.S. EPA and an implementation plan is available, but water quality standards are not yet met, and 2) water bodies where the water quality problem is being addressed by an action other than a TMDL and water quality standards are not yet met.
1 California Department of Water Resources. (2006). https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/GroundwaterManagement/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-Basin-Descriptions/8_002_01_ChinoSubbasin.pdf 2 Citadel Environmental Services Inc. (Citadel). 2020, January 10. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. 498
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.9-3 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
Currently, stormwater from the Project site discharges to the Airport Channel, which eventually discharges into Prado Park Lake (Prado Basin). This basin is currently listed on the California 303(d) list as a Category 5 water body which is defined as “a water segment where standards are not met and a TMDL is required, but not yet completed, for at least one of the pollutants listed.” 3 The water quality impairments listed for the Prado Basin are nutrients and indicator bacteria (pathogens). The available information from the Regional Board 8 indicates a TMDL completion date of 2019 for nutrients. The TMDL for pathogens was approved in 2007.
4 Groundwater
The City obtains its groundwater from the Chino Groundwater Basin (Chino Basin). 5 The Chino Basin is one
of the largest groundwater basins in southern California and consists of approximately 220 square miles, where 80 percent of the basin lies within San Bernardino County, 15 percent within Riverside County, and five percent within Los Angeles County.6 Due to its sprawling geographical area that extends across multiple jurisdictions, and because groundwater from the Chino Basin is the principal water supply for 20 municipal agencies and approximately 400 agricultural and dairy operations, the Chino Basin serves as an integral part of the regional and Statewide water supply system.7 The Chino Basin has approximately five million acre-feet of water in storage and an estimated one million acre-feet of additional unused storage capacity. Prior to 1978, the Chino Basin was in overdraft. After 1978, the Chino Basin was managed via adjudication by the Chino Basin Watermaster.
8 Groundwater quality in Chino Basin is generally good with better quality in the northern portion of the basin where recharge occurs. Generally, salinity, measured as total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeds 500 milligrams per liter (mg/l) and nitrate concentrations exceed 50 mg/l south of Riverside Drive. 9 There also are several groundwater contamination plumes that affect the City of Ontario’s groundwater supply.

The Project site is not within any of the groundwater contamination plumes. 10 The Project site is currently agricultural land use, including dairy operations and field crops. The Project site is not connected to the City’s water supply and uses an on-site groundwater well for irrigation of crops and other agricultural-related uses.
11 The use of this water supply would cease upon implementation of the Project, and the Project would be connected to the City’s municipal water supply. 3 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). (2019). Category 5, 2014 and 2016 303(d) List. Retrieved from:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/category5_report.shtml 4 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). (2019). Final California 2014 and 2016 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305 (b) Report).

Retrieved from: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/00483.shtml#34603 5 The Ontario Plan. (2009). Section 5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality. Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/31708.pdf 6 Chino Basin Water Conservation District. (2021). Retrieved from: https://cbwcd.org/387/The-Chino-Groundwater-Basin 7 Bureau of Reclamation. Chino Basin Water Bank Strategic Plan. (2018). Retrieved from:
https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/watermarketing/docs/applications/2018/Inland%20Empire%20Utilities%20Agency.pdf 8 Chino Basin Watermaster. (2021). Retrieved from: http://www.cbwm.org/ 9 The Ontario Plan. (2009). Section 5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, pg. 5.9-6. Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/31708.pdf 10 The Ontario Plan. (2009). Areas of Impaired Water Quality in the Chino Groundwater Basin. Retrieved from:
https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/impaired-water.pdf 11 Citadel Environmental Services Inc. (Citadel). 2020, January 10. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. 499
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.9-4 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
Flood and Dam Inundation Zones
The Project site is within Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) Flood Zone D, as per the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Map No. 06071C9335H. 12 Zone D is an area where there are
possible but undetermined flood hazards, as no analysis of flood hazards has been conducted. There are no nearby water bodies or streams that would result in flooding at the Project site.

The site is also located within the dam inundation area for San Antonio Dam, which is a flood control and debris dam on San Antonio Creek. The dam is owned and operated by the USACE. 13 Seiche
A seiche is an oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin such as a reservoir, harbor, lake, or storage tank. The Project site is not located near any water storage tanks or reservoirs that would be at risk of seiche during seismic activity. The nearest body of water is the San Antonio Dam, approximately 12 miles to the north. A seiche at San Antonio Dam would cover a much smaller area than a catastrophic failure of the dam and it is highly unlikely that any flood waters would reach the Project site.

Tsunami
A tsunami is a great sea wave produced by undersea disturbances such as tectonic displacement or large earthquakes. The Project site is approximately 30 miles from the ocean and is therefore not at risk of flooding from a tsunami.

4.9.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Clean Water Act and National Pollution Elimination Discharge System The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes regulations to control the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulates water quality standards for surface waters (U.S. Code, Title 33 Section 1251 et seq.). Under the act, the U.S. EPA is authorized to set wastewater standards and runs the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Under the NPDES program, permits are required for all new developments that discharge directly into waters of the United States.

The federal CWA requires wastewater treatment of all effluent before it is discharged into surface waters.

NPDES permits for such discharges in the Project region are issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
12 Federal Emergency Management Act. National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer. (2020). Retrieved from: https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd&extent=- 117.81426821289033,33.99346556420189,-117.48193178710954,34.1356709592875 13 City of Ontario. Hazard Mitigation Plan. (2018). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/EmergencyManagement/ReadyOntario/city_of_ontario_2018_hmp.pdf 500
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.9-5 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the principal federal law intended to ensure safe drinking water to the public, was enacted in 1974 and has been amended several times since it came into law. The Act authorizes the U.S. EPA to set national standards for drinking water, called the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, to protect against both naturally occurring and man-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 activities. If a water system does not meet standards, it is the water supplier’s responsibility to notify its customers.

Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to provide subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations limiting development in floodplains. FEMA also issues FIRMs that identify which land areas are subject to flooding. These maps provide flood information and identify flood hazard zones in the community. The design standard for flood protection is established by FEMA. FEMA’s minimum level of flood protection for new development is the 100-year flood event, also described as a flood that has a 1-in-100 chance of occurring in any given year. The Project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain.

State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Water Code Section 13000 et seq.), which was passed in California in 1969 and amended in 2013, the SWRCB has authority over State water rights and water quality policy. This Act divided the state into nine regional basins, each under the jurisdiction of a RWQCB to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis at the local and regional level. RWQCBs engage in a number of water quality functions in their respective regions. RWQCBs regulate all pollutant or nuisance discharges that may affect either surface water or groundwater. The Project site and the City of Ontario are within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB.

State Water Resources Control Board Construction General Permit The SWRCB has adopted a Statewide Construction General Permit (CGP)(Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ) for stormwater discharges associated with construction activity. These regulations prohibit the discharge of stormwater from construction projects that include one acre or more of soil disturbance. Construction activities subject to this permit include clearing, grading, and other disturbance to the ground, such as stockpiling or excavation, that results in soil disturbance of at least one acre of total land area. Individual developers are required to submit Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) to the SWRCB for coverage under the NPDES permit prior to the start of construction. The PRDs include a Notice of Intent (NOI), risk assessment, site map, Stormwater 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. 501
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.9-6 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
The NPDES CGP requires all dischargers to (1) develop and implement a SWPPP, which specifies best management practices (BMPs) to be used during construction of the project; (2) eliminate or reduce nonstormwater discharge to stormwater conveyance systems; and (3) develop and implement a monitoring program of all specified BMPs. The two major objectives of the SWPPP are to (1) help identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that affect the water quality of stormwater discharges and (2) to describe and ensure the implementation of BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater as well as non-stormwater discharges.

State Water Resources Control Board Trash Amendments
On April 7, 2015, the SWRCB adopted an Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan) to Control Trash and Part 1 Trash Provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (ISWEBE Plan). Together, they are collectively referred to as "the Trash Amendments." The purpose of the trash amendments is to reduce trash entering waterways Statewide, provide consistency in the SWRCB’s regulatory approach to protect aquatic life and public health beneficial uses, and reduce environmental issues associated with trash in State waters. There are two compliance tracks:
• Track 1: Permittees install, operate, and maintain a network of certified Full Capture Systems (FCS) to capture trash in storm drains, located in priority land use areas for municipal systems, and the entire facility for industrial and commercial permit holders • Track 2: Permittees install, operate, and maintain any combination of controls (structural and/or institutional) anywhere in their jurisdiction as long as they demonstrate that their system performs as well as Track 1
The Trash Amendments provide a framework for permittees to implement its provisions. Full compliance must occur within 10 years of the permit and permittees must also meet interim milestones such as average load reductions of 10 percent per year.

Senate Bill 92
On June 27, 2017, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 92 into law, which set forth new requirements focused on dam safety. As part of this legislation, dam owners must now submit inundation maps to the Department of Water Resources (DWR). After the maps are approved, the dam owner must submit an emergency action plan to the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). The dam owner must submit updated plans and inundation maps every 10 years, or sooner under certain conditions. Cal OES will review and approve the emergency action plans. This legislation set forth additional provisions for the emergency action plans including compliance requirements, exercises of the plan, and coordination with local public safety agencies (Cal OES 2019).

California Water Code Section 13751
In 1949, the California Legislature concluded that collecting information on newly constructed, modified or destroyed wells would be valuable in the event of underground pollution, and would also provide geologic information to better manage California’s groundwater resources. Section 13751 of the Water Code requires Well Completion Reports (WCR) forms to be filed with DWR within 60 days from the 502
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.9-7 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
date that construction, alteration, abandonment, or destruction of a well is completed. Completed WCR forms are sent to the DWR Region Office whose boundaries include the area where the well is located.

Regional
Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) The Basin Plan establishes water quality standards for the ground and surface waters of the region and includes an implementation plan describing the actions by the Santa Ana RWQCB and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain the water quality standards. The Santa Ana RWQCB regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region’s ground and surface water.

Permits are issued under various programs and authorities. The terms and conditions of these discharge permits are enforced through a variety of technical, administrative, and legal means. Water quality problems in the region are listed in the Basin Plan, along with the causes of the water quality problems, if known. For waterbodies with quality below the levels necessary to allow all the beneficial uses of the water to be met, plans for improving water quality are included. The latest update for the 1995 Basin Plan was issued in February 2016.

San Bernardino County Regional Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) Permit Within the San Bernardino County area of the Santa Ana River Basin, management and control of the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) is shared by a number of agencies, including the SBCFCD, San Bernardino County, and the cities of Big Bear Lake, Chino, Chino Hills, Colton, Fontana, Grand Terrace, Highland, Lom a Linda, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Rialto, San Bernardino, Upland, and Yucaipa.

On January 29, 2010, the Santa Ana RWQCB issued an area wide MS4 permit to the County and municipalities in San Bernardino County. Waste discharge requirements for stormwater entering municipal storm drainage systems are set forth in the MS4 permit, Order No. R8-2010-0036, NPDES No. CAS618036. This permit expired on January 29, 2015. On August 1, 2014, the SBCFCD submitted a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) on behalf of San Bernardino County and the 16 incorporated cities within San Bernardino County. The submitted ROWD serves as the permit renewal application for the fifth term MS4 permit for San Bernardino County.

San Bernardino County Stormwater Program
The Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) for the Santa Ana Region of San Bernardino County is the guidance document for the Project’s stormwater design in compliance with Santa Ana RWQCB requirements for Priority Projects or Transportation Projects. The MS4 Permit requires that a preliminary project-specific WQMP be prepared for review early in the project development process and that a Final WQMP be submitted prior to the start of construction. A projectspecific WQMP is required to address the following:
• Develop site design measures using Low Impact Development (LID) principles • Establish project-specific design capture volume (DCV) and applicable Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOC) requirements
503
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.9-8 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
• Evaluate feasibility of on-site LID BMPs
• Maximum hydrologic source control, infiltration, and biotreatment BMPs • Select applicable source control BMPs
• Address post-construction BMP maintenance requirements Local
City of Ontario Standard Conditions of Approval for New Development • SC 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 3.68: 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 Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented by the Project during construction in order to reduce the discharge of sediment and other pollutants into the City's storm drain system. • SC 3.69: Prior to Grading Plan approval and the issuance of a grading permit, a completed WQMP shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Engineering Department. The WQMP shall be submitted using the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program's model template and shall identify all Post Construction, Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control BMPs that will be incorporated into the Project, in order to minimize the adverse effects on receiving waters.

City of Ontario Master Plan of Drainage
The City of Ontario’s Master Plan of Drainage (MPD) is a planning level drainage study that includes the following:
• Update and evaluation of inventory and capacities of the existing City-owned storm drain facilities.
• Preparation of hydrology studies to quantify peak flow rates for runoffs during major storm events, that are based on built-out conditions as per the Land Use Plan adopted by City Council on January 27, 2010 and the Ontario Plan.
• Identification and quantification of upgrades to existing City-owned storm drain systems to provide adequate flood protection and mitigate development impacts, based on the City’s latest policies and goals.
• Evaluation of alternatives to eliminate drainage deficiencies using the existing facilities to the maximum extent.
• Development of a master plan that establishes preliminary alignment and sizes for recommended future backbone drainage facilities that will ensure adequate flood protection. 504
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.9-9 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
• Development of project costs and prioritization for the implementation of the recommended master plan facilities.

The Ontario Plan (TOP)
TOP contains policies and goals addressing stormwater infrastructure. Table 4.9-1, Ontario Policy Plan Goals and Policies Relevant to Hydrology and Water Quality, provides a summary of these goals and policies.

Table 4.9-1: Ontario Policy Plan Goals and Policies Relevant to Hydrology and Water Quality Goal/Policy# Goal/Policy
Goal ER1 A reliable and cost-effective system that permits the City to manage its diverse water resources and needs.

Policy ER 1-5 Groundwater Management: We protect groundwater quality by incorporating strategies that prevent pollution, require remediation where necessary, capture and treat urban run-off, and recharge the aquifer.

Policy ER1-6 Urban Run-off Quantity: We encourage the use of low impact development strategies to intercept run-off, slow the discharge rate, increase infiltration and ultimately reduce discharge volumes to traditional storm drain systems.

Policy ER1-7 Urban Run-off Quality: We require the control and management of urban run-off, consistent with Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations.

Goal S2 Minimize risk of injury, loss of life, property damage and economic and social disruption caused by flooding and inundation hazards.

Policy S2-1 Entitlement and Permitting Process: We follow State guidelines and building code to determine when development proposals require hydrological studies prepared by a State-certified engineer to assess the impact that the new development will have on the flooding potential of existing development down-gradient.

Policy S2-2 Flood Insurance: We will limit development in flood plains and participate in the National Flood Insurance Program.

Policy S2-5 Storm Drain System: We maintain and improve the storm drain system to minimize flooding Policy S2-6 Use of Flood Control Facilities: We encourage joint use of flood control facilities as open space or other types of recreational facilities.

Source: Ontario 2009.

4.9.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

HYD-1 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.

HYD-2 Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
505
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.9-10 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
HYD-3 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site.
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows.

HYD-4 In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.

HYD-5 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Section 7.0, Effects Found Not To be Significant, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant:
• Threshold HYD-2
• Threshold HYD-3 (i)
Therefore, these impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis.

4.9.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP HYD-1 The Project will be constructed and operated in accordance with the City’s Standard Condition SC 3.66 that requires a hydrology study and drainage analysis be prepared and signed by a California registered civil engineer in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual and the City of Ontario’s Standards and Guidelines. Additional drainage facilities may be required after review of the studies by the City.

PPP HYD-2 Any construction shall be regulated by the SWRCB in a manner pursuant to and consistent with applicable requirements contained in the General Permit No.

CAS000002, SWRCB Order Number 2009-0009-DWQ. This includes preparation of a SWPPP and an Erosion Sediment and Control Plan, as per the City of Ontario’s requirements.

PPP HYD-3 The Project will be constructed and operated in accordance with the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit (Order No. R8-2010-0036, NPDES No. CAS618036 as renewed by the ROWD submitted on August 1, 2014). The MS4 Permit requires new development and redevelopment projects to prepare a preliminary WQMP and a final WQMP to:
▪ Develop site design measures using LID principles
▪ Establish Project-specific DCV and applicable HCOC requirements ▪ Evaluate feasibility of on-site LID BMPs
506
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.9-11 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
▪ Maximize hydrologic source control, infiltration, and biotreatment BMPs ▪ Select applicable source control BMPs
▪ Address post-construction BMP maintenance requirements PPP HYD-4: On-site wells shall be abandoned in compliance with DWR standards and San Bernardino County well permit requirements.

4.9.5 Methodology
A preliminary hydrology report (see Appendix G1) and preliminary WQMP (see Appendix G2) were prepared for the Project. Hydrology calculations were computed using San Bernardino County Rational Method program (by AES Software). The soil type is "B" per the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual.

The San Bernardino County Small Area Unit Hydrograph Model (also by AES Software) was used for detention calculations.

4.9.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.

Impact 4.9-1 Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? [Threshold HYD-1]
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: With implementation of PPP HYD-1, PPP HYD-2, and PPP HYD-3, Impact 4.9-1 would be Less Than Significant Construction
Clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with the Project have the potential to impact water quality through soil erosion and increasing the amount of silt and debris carried in runoff.

Additionally, the use of construction materials, such as fuels, solvents, and paints may present a risk to surface water quality. Finally, the refueling and parking of construction vehicles and other equipment onsite during construction may result in oil, grease, or related pollutant leaks and spills that may discharge into the storm drain system.

To minimize these potential impacts, development of the Project would require compliance with the CGP Water Quality Order 2009-0009-DWQ (as amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ), which requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. A SWPPP requires the incorporation of BMPs to control sediment, erosion, and hazardous materials contamination of runoff during construction and prevent contaminants from reaching receiving water bodies. The SWRCB mandates that projects that disturb one or more acres of land must obtain coverage under the Statewide CGP. As required by the CGP, prior to the start of construction activities, the Project Applicant must file PRDs with the SWRCB, which includes a NOI, risk assessment, site map, annual fee, signed certification statement, SWPPP, and postconstruction water balance calculations. The construction contractor is always required to maintain a copy of the SWPPP at the site and implement all construction BMPs identified in the SWPPP during construction 507
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.9-12 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
activities. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant would be required to provide proof of filing of the PRDs with the SWRCB, which include preparation of SWPPP. Categories of potential BMPs that would be implemented for this Project are described in Table 4.9-2, Construction BMPs.

Table 4.9-2: Construction BMPs
Category Purpose Examples
Erosion Controls and
Wind Erosion Controls
• Use project scheduling and
planning to reduce soil or
vegetation disturbance
(particularly during the rainy
season)
• Prevent or reduce erosion
potential by diverting or
controlling drainage
• Prepare and stabilize disturbed
soil areas
Scheduling, preservation of existing vegetation,
hydraulic mulch, hydroseeding, soil binders,
straw mulch, geotextile and mats, wood
mulching, earth dikes and drainage swales,
velocity dissipation devices, slope drains,
streambank stabilization, compost blankets,
soil preparation/roughening, and nonvegetative stabilization Sediment Controls Filter out soil particles that have
been detached and transported in
water
Silt fence, sediment basin, sediment trap, check
dam, fiber rolls, gravel bag berm, street
sweeping and vacuuming, sandbag barrier,
straw bale barrier, storm drain inlet protection,
manufactured linear sediment controls,
compost socks and berms, and biofilter bags
Wind Erosion Controls Apply water or other dust
palliatives to prevent or minimize
dust nuisance
Dust control soil binders, chemical dust
suppressants, covering stockpiles, permanent
vegetation, mulching, watering, temporary
gravel construction, synthetic covers, and
minimization of disturbed area
Tracking Controls Minimize the tracking of soil off-site by vehicles
Stabilized construction roadways and
construction entrances/exits, and entrance/
outlet tire wash
Non-Storm Water
Management Controls
• Prohibit discharge of materials
other than stormwater, such as
discharges from the cleaning,
maintenance, and fueling of
vehicles and equipment.
• Conduct various construction
operations, including paving,
grinding, and concrete curing and
finishing, in ways that minimize
non-stormwater discharges and
contamination of any such
discharges.

Water conservation practices, temporary
stream crossings, clear water diversions, illicit
connection/discharge, potable and irrigation
water management, and the proper
management of the following operations:
paving and grinding, dewatering, vehicle and
equipment cleaning, fueling and maintenance,
pile driving, concrete curing, concrete finishing,
demolition adjacent to water, material over
water, and temporary batch plants
Waste Management and
Controls (i.e., good
housekeeping practices)
Manage materials and wastes to
avoid contamination of
stormwater.

Stockpile management, spill prevention and
control, solid waste management, hazardous
waste management, contaminated soil
management, concrete waste management,
sanitary/septic waste management, liquid
waste management, and management of
material delivery storage and use
Source: California Stormwater Quality Association 2003. 508
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.9-13 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
In addition, the City requires that an erosion and sediment control plan be submitted prior to grading plan approval and the issuance of a grading permit. Implementation of the erosion control plan would address any potential erosion issues associated with the proposed grading and site preparation activities.

Operations
Once the Project has been constructed, urban runoff could include a variety of contaminants that could impact water quality. Runoff from buildings and parking lots typically contain oils, grease, fuel, antifreeze, by-products of combustion (such as lead, cadmium, nickel, and other metals), as well as fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and other pollutants. Precipitation at the beginning of the rainy season may result in an initial stormwater runoff (first flush) with high pollutant concentrations.

According to the Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 permit, this project would be classified as a Priority Development Project because it would create more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. Therefore, a preliminary WQMP and a final WQMP would be required for the Project under the MS4 Permit. A preliminary WQMP has been prepared by Thienes Engineering (2022) (see Appendix G2) and a final WQMP would be submitted to the City prior to the start of construction.

The preliminary WQMP for the Project includes the following site design/ LID BMPs:
• Construct streets, sidewalks, and parking lot stalls to the minimum widths necessary. • Install seven (7) underground stormwater retention chambers where downstream landscaped areas are limited.

Source control BMPs are designed to minimize the potential for pollutants to come into contact with stormwater, thereby limiting the potential for water quality impacts downstream. A variety of source control BMPs will be incorporated into the Project and implemented during its operation, including the following:
• Minimize non-stormwater site runoff through efficient irrigation system design and controllers. • Minimize trash and debris in storm runoff in parking lots, and roadways through a regular sweeping program.
• Provide solid roofs overall trash enclosures
• Provide site occupants/site owners/properties managers with a copy of the project WQMP and stormwater BMPs.
• Provide site occupants and employees with education/training materials for operation and maintenance of the stormwater BMPs.
• Install stormwater placards/stenciled messages with a “No Dumping” message on all on-site/offsite storm drain inlets.

Treatment control BMPs (single or in combination) remove pollutants of concern from on-site runoff. The following BMPs are designed to control stormwater pollutants where it is not feasible to install on-site or off-site Site Design/LID BMPs, with the requisite capacity to treat the DCV for identified Pollutants of Concern or where pretreatment of stormwater runoff is required, ahead of infiltration All treatment 509
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.9-14 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
control BMPs would be designed in accordance with the procedures and spreadsheets provided in the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for WQMPs and include:
• Gravity Separator devices for pretreatment of sediment, trash/litter or Oil & Grease The preliminary WQMP shows that the Project can treat the full DCV on-site. The DCV would be captured and treated by seven Chemical Mechanical Polishing (CMP) underground detention basins. Stormwater runoff is captured via catch basins that convey the runoff into hydrodynamic separators (Debris Separating Baffle Boxes[DSBB]). The DSBBs consist of settling chambers for separating out larger solids and a media filter cartridge for capturing fine total suspended solids that may contain metals, nutrients, and bacteria.

Runoff is then released into the on-site storm drains for eventual discharge into the regional storm drain system.

As specified in the preliminary WQMP, the HCOC requirements are achieved by using LID and hydromodification BMPs. The total volume of stormwater runoff detained by the underground CMP chambers (361,237 cubic feet) is greater than the calculated volume needed to meet the HCOC requirements (358,988 cubic feet). Therefore, implementation of the Project would not increase the time of concentration and the post-development runoff volume would not exceed pre-development conditions for the design storm event. Operational water quality impacts would be less than significant with implementation and maintenance of the BMPs described above and as specified in the WQMP. Also, the Project would comply with all State, County, and local regulations regarding stormwater runoff during construction and operational phases of the Project. Therefore, water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would not be exceeded, and surface water and groundwater quality would not be degraded. Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact 4.9-2 Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: [Threshold HYD-3 (ii), (iii), and (iv)]
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run-off in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
iii) Create or contribute run-off water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off?
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Level of Significance before Mitigation: With implementation of PPP HYD-1 and PPP HYD-3, Impact 4.9-2 would be Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
The Project would not involve the alteration of any natural drainages or watercourses. In general, stormwater runoff from the Project site would surface drain to various catch basins scattered throughout the site. The Project would construct a CMP underground chamber and a series of drywells. Any runoff would flow into inlets where stormwater would be intercepted into the CMP chamber and drywell 510
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.9-15 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
systems for water quality treatment. These systems would utilize infiltration as the primary form of water treatment by storing the stormwater runoff until it gradually exfiltrates into the underlying soil. Once water quality volume has been met, when the CMP underground chamber is full, higher flows at the catch basins would be conveyed away from the Project site via a larger on-site storm drain system. From there, runoff would eventually discharge to Merrill Avenue. The proposed on-site storm drain system would be sufficiently sized to limit the Project’s runoff discharge to less than the existing 25-year discharge on the Project site. Flows beyond the allowable rate will be forced to temporarily detain above ground in the proposed truck yards throughout the site, and then slowly released via the proposed on-site storm drain at a rate below existing condition 25-year storm event runoff rate.

There currently are no improved drainage facilities other than earthen ditches in the vicinity of the Project site since the existing land use is agricultural. However, the Project Specific Plan describes storm drain improvements that would be implemented as part of the Project consistent with the City of Ontario’s Master Plan of Drainage.

Though the constructed storm drains will be consistent with the Storm Drain Master Plan, the ultimate discharge location downstream, between Pine Avenue and Merrill Avenue in the City of Chino, is not fully improved at this time. Until this occurs, the Project will utilize on-site stormwater detention so that discharge from Project development remains less than peak flow rates prior to development.

Catch basins located throughout the Project site will collect runoff. On-site storm drain systems will convey runoff southerly to a reinforced concrete box facility in Merrill Avenue. As established by the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (Approved SP), the Project site will be required to also connect to the planned constructed storm drains in Eucalyptus Avenue, north of Merrill Avenue. Each storm drain in Merrill Avenue will be equipped with a hydrodynamic separator or equivalent alternative approved devices to satisfy the statewide trash mandate. Each device will be approved by and listed on the Certified Full Capture System List of Trash Treatment Control Devices of the SWRCB. Runoff from these storm drains would eventually discharge into the Airport Channel, which runs along the east side of Euclid Avenue to the Prado Flood Control Basin. The City of Chino has future plans to replace the Airport Channel with the Euclid Avenue Storm Drain, which would needto be evaluated to accommodate flow rates projected from Drainage Area XIV, including the Project site as described in the MPD.

Until the future storm drain infrastructure is constructed, the Project wouldretain on-site any stormwater runoff in excess of the stormwater volume produced by a 25-year storm under existing conditions. This would prevent the stormwater discharge into the earthen channel along Merrill Avenue from exceeding its capacity in the interim period before the regional storm drain system is installed.

This system is designed to detain the stormwater runoff from the two-year, one-hour storm event (i.e., the DCV specified in the RWQCB regulations). It also is designed to meet HCOC requirements by temporarily detaining stormwater runoff so that the post-development peak flows do not exceed predevelopment conditions by more than five percent.

Since the existing storm drain infrastructure does not have the capacity to accept stormwater flows in excess of the 25-year storm, the Project proposes on-site truck yards would be utilized to detain the 511
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.9-16 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
difference between existing condition 25-year storm event runoff rate and proposed condition 100- storm event runoff rate
Details regarding the proposed stormwater systems are provided in the preliminary hydrology report (see Appendices G1) and preliminary WQMP Appendices G2). Table 4.9-3, Proposed Peak Drainage Flow Rates from a 25-Year and 100-Year Storm, indicates the peak flow rates that would be discharged from the site for the 25-year and 100-year storm events under existing conditions and under post-development conditions with and without the proposed on-site detention.

Table 4.9-3 Proposed Peak Drainage Flow Rates from a 25-Year and 100-Year Storm Existing 25-Year
Storm
Existing 100-Year
Storm
Proposed 100-Year
Without Detention
Proposed 100-Year
With Detention
Peak Flow Rates (cfs) 49.5 cfs 85.1 cfs 162.7 cfs 49.9 cfs Source: Thienes Engineering 2022
cfs = cubic feet per second
With the proposed BMPs and on-site detention, the 100-year peak flow rate from the Project site to Merrill Avenue would be approximately 49.9 cfs. This is comparable to the peak flow rate under existing conditions for the 25-year storm event (49.5 cfs). Storm drainpipe sizes and hydraulics would be determined during the final design phase to ensure that the post-development 100-year flow rate is comparable to the existing condition 25-year flow rate.

The Project would not result in the impedance or redirection of flood flows. Off-site stormwater runoff would be intercepted by the proposed future storm drain along Eucalyptus Avenue. On-site stormwater runoff would be retained and filtered on-site prior to discharge into the existing earthen ditch along Merrill Avenue or the City’s proposed future storm drain system and post-development flow rates for the 100-year storm would be less thanexisting condition flow rates for the 25-year storm. In general, the site would retain existing drainage patterns with eventual discharge to the earthen ditch to the south or into the proposed future storm drain along Merrill Avenue. In addition, the Project site is not in a 100-year floodplain or near any surface water bodies that could result in flood flows.

With the implementation of the BMPs and detention features, the Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in on- or off-site flooding.

Also, the Project site design LID features and on-site detention facilities would ensure that stormwater runoff does not exceed the capacity of the storm drain system. The calculated stormwater runoff volume for the 100-year storm under post development conditions would be less than the amount of stormwater runoff for the 25-year storm under existing conditions. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Impact 4.9-3 Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? [Threshold HYD-4] Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impact 4.9-3 would be Less Than Significant 512
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.9-17 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
Construction and Operations
The Project site is not within a 100-year floodplain, as per FEMA FIRM No. 06071C9335H, dated August 28, 2008. It is designated as within Zone D, where no analysis of flood hazards has been conducted.

However, the Project site is relatively flat and there are no nearby water bodies or streams or other conditions that would result in flooding at the Project site.

The Project site, as well as a large portion of the City, is within the dam inundation zone of San Antonio Dam. The dam is owned and operated by the USACE and functions as a flood control and debris dam for the San Antonio River. Dams in California are monitored and inspected annually by the California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). In addition, dam owners are required to maintain Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) that include procedures for damage assessment and emergency warnings. An EAP identifies potential emergency conditions at a dam and specifies preplanned actions to help minimize property damage and loss of life should those conditions occur. EAPs contain procedures and information that instruct dam owners to issue early warning and notification messages to downstream emergency management authorities.

The probability of dam failure is very low, and the City of Ontario has never been impacted by a major dam failure. According to the latest dam inundation map dated February 1986, the arrival time of the first flood wave would be between 8 and 10 hours after the catastrophic failure of the dam and the depth of water is estimated to be approximately two feet. This would provide ample time for implementing evacuation procedures, as specified in the City’s 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan. In addition, the proposed BMPs and LID measures at the Project site would result in the treatment and biofiltration of any floodwatersthat enter the site and prevent pollutants from entering the regional storm drain system.

The Project site is also not located near any water storage tanks or reservoirs that would result in a seiche during seismic activity. The Project site is inland and approximately 30 miles from the ocean and therefore is not at risk of flooding due to tsunamis. Impacts associated with the release of pollutants due to inundation would be less than significant.

Impact 4.9-4: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? [Threshold HYD-5] Level of Significance Before Mitigation: With implementation of PPP HYD-2, PPP HYD-3, and PPP HYD-4, Impact 4.9-4 would be Less Than Significant Construction and Operations
Adherence to the State Groundwater Conservation Plan (GCP), implementation of the SWPPP, and adherence to the City’s Erosion and Sediment Control Plan requirements, as described in detail in Impact 4.9-1, would ensure that surface and groundwater quality are not adversely impacted during construction. In addition, implementation of the LID and BMP measures at the site, including hydrodynamic separators and underground detention would ensure that water quality is not impacted during the operational phase of the Project. As a result, site development would not obstruct or conflict with the implementation of the Basin Plan.
513
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.9-18 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
The Project site is currently used for agricultural uses, including dairy operations and field crops. The site currently uses groundwater from an on-site groundwater well for the irrigation of crops and other agricultural related uses, which would cease with implementation of the Project. The on-site groundwater well would be abandoned per the California DWR Standards and would require a permit from the San Bernardino Department of Environmental Health Services and completion of a DWR 188 Well Completion Form.

Upon development, the Project site would be connected to the City’s public water supply and there would be no on-site wells for use of groundwater. The City manages both the potable and non-potable supplies to ensure withdrawals from the Chino Basin do not exceed the safe yield for the Chino Basin, as per the Chino Basin Watermaster's Optimum Basin Management Program (OBMP). Therefore, the Project would not obstruct or conflict with the OBMP and impacts would be less than significant.

4.9.7 Cumulative Impacts
Hydrology and Drainage
Cumulative projects within the Chino Watershed could increase impervious areas and increase stormwater runoff rates. However, all projects within the watershed would be required to prepare and implement WQMPs that include provisions for the capture and infiltration of runoff or the temporary detention of stormwater runoff in HCOC areas so that post-development runoff discharges do not exceed pre-development runoff rates, in accordance with the NPDES MS4 permit. Thus, no significant cumulative drainage impacts would occur, and Project drainage impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Water Quality
Cumulative projects have the potential to generate pollutants during project construction and operation.

All construction projects that disturb one acre or more of land would be required to prepare and implement SWPPPs in order to obtain coverage under the Statewide GCP. All projects within the watershed would also be required to prepare and implement WQMPs specifying BMPs, including LID measures, that would be applied during project design and project operation to minimize water pollution from project operation. Furthermore, all future development would be required to comply with applicable local, State and federal requirements, as part of the City’s discretionary review process. This includes compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, which specifically addresses water quality (Municipal Code Article 5, Construction Requirements). Thus, no significant cumulative water quality impacts would occur, and Project water quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

4.9.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 4.9-1, 4.9-2, 4.9-3, and 4.9-4.

4.9.9 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
514
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.9-19 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality

4.9.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation
In addition to compliance with existing regulatory requirements and PPPs, impacts would be less than significant.

4.9.11 References
Bureau of Reclamation. Chino Basin Water Bank Strategic Plan. (2018). Retrieved from:
https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/watermarketing/docs/applications/2018/Inland%20Empire% 20Utilities%20Agency.pdf.

California Department of Water Resources. (2006). https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/WebPages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-BasinDescriptions/8_002_01_ChinoSubbasin.pdf.

California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). 2019. Dam Safety Planning Division. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/cal-oes-divisions/hazard-mitigation/dam-safety-planning-division.

California Stormwater Quality Association. (2003). Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook.

Retrieved from:
https://www.casqa.org/sites/default/files/BMPHandbooks/BMP_Municipal_Complete.pdf.

Chino Basin Watermaster. (2021). Retrieved from: http://www.cbwm.org/.

Chino Basin Water Conservation District. (2021). Retrieved from: https://cbwcd.org/387/The-ChinoGroundwater-Basin.

Citadel Environmental Services Inc. (Citadel). 2020, January 10. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report.

City of Ontario, (2017). Standard Conditions of Approval for New Development. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/Documents/20170418- standard_conditions_for_new_development.pdf.

City of Ontario. Hazard Mitigation Plan. (2018). Retrieved from:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/EmergencyManagement/ReadyOntario/city_of_ontario_2018_hmp.pdf.

Department of Water Resource (DWR). 1999, November. How to Fill Out a Well Completion Report. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57573edf37013b15f0435124/t/57e2c7e103596e4c714a 5fc9/1474480098590/How+to+Fill+Out+a+Well+Completion+Report.pdf.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2008, August 28. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06071C9335H. Accessed 2021. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. 515
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.9-20 4.9 | Hydrology and Water Quality
Federal Emergency Management Act. National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer. (2020). Retrieved from: https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa 9cd&extent=-117.81426821289033,33.99346556420189,-
117.48193178710954,34.1356709592875.

Hunsaker and Associates Irvine. 2012, March, City of Ontario Master Plan of Drainage. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/master_plan_of_drainage_city_of_ontario.pdf.

San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans. (2013).

Retrieved from: https://cms.sbcounty.gov/Portals/50/Land/SantaAnaRiver-WQMP-FinalJune2013.pdf?ver=.

San Bernardino County. (2017). Safe Drinking Water. http://wp.sbcounty.gov/dph/programs/ehs/safedrinking-water/.

San Bernardino County. (2018). Well Permit Application. Retrieved from:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/dph/dehs/Depts/EnvironmentalHealth/EHSDocuments/well_per mit_application.pdf.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). (2019). Category 5, 2014 and 2016 303(d) List. Retrieved from:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/categ ory5_report.shtml.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). (2019). Final California 2014 and 2016 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305 (b) Report). Retrieved from:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/00483 .shtml#34603.

The Ontario Plan. (2009). Areas of Impaired Water Quality in the Chino Groundwater Basin. Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/impaired-water.pdf.

The Ontario Plan. (2009). Section 5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality. Retrieved from:
https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/31708.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Permitting 101. Retrieved from:
https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/101pape.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2021). Urban Runoff: Low Impact Development. Retrieved from:
https://www.epa.gov/nps/urban-runoff-low-impact-development. 516
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.10-1 4.10 | Land Use and Planning

4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
This section of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates potential impacts to land use in the City of Ontario (City) from implementation of the proposed Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment project (Project). The analysis in this section is based on the proposed land use designations described in Chapter 3, Development Plan, and Chapter 4, Land Use and Development Standards, of the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment (Project or Project SPA). The Project, including the SPA, has been evaluated for its consistency with relevant goals and policies in The Ontario Plan (TOP) and the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).

Potential land use impacts of the Project analyzed in this section of the Draft Subsequent EIR include those that could result in land use incompatibilities, division of neighborhoods or communities, or interference with other land use plans. Where applicable, mitigationmeasures are proposed to ensure the application of actions which would minimize or remove land use impacts that are identified as significant.

4.10.1 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
The Project site is currently an operational dairy farm with two on-site single-family homes, a dairy barn, a storage structure, numerous livestock corrals and feed storage barns with large retention ponds collecting waste from dairy farm operations. Other parts of the Project site are utilized for farming crops.

Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
Land uses surrounding the Project site include dairy farms, agricultural land and commercial property associated with the Chino Airport. Surrounding land uses and designations are described below and shown on Figure 3-8, Surrounding Land Use Map within Section 3.0, Project Description. • North: Eucalyptus Avenue and a mix of agricultural and service commercial uses, with scattered single-family homes with a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use (New Model Colony West). Areas to the north are zoned Specific Plan with Agricultural (AG) Overlay. • East: Campus Avenue and agricultural uses with General Plan land use designations of Industrial(IND) (0.55 floor area ratio [FAR]) and Business Park (BP) (0.6 FAR). Areas to the east are zoned as the approved South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan which includes business park and industrial planning areas.
• South: Merrill Avenue and commercial and public uses associated with the Chino Airport, within the City of Chino. The City of Chino General Plan Map designates the land south of the Project site as P – Public.1 The area to the south is zoned AD – Airport Development with an Airport Overlay District.2
1 City of Chino. Rev. 2020. City of Chino General Plan Map. https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10382578/File/City%20Hall/Departments/Community%20Development/Chino% 20General%20Plan%20Map%20-%20Revised%20February%2013,%202020.pdf (accessed February 2021). 2 City of Chino. Rev. 2020. City of Chino Zoning Map.
https://www.cityofchino.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10382578/File/City%20Hall/Departments/Community%20Development/Chino%20Zo ning%20Map%20-%20Revised%20February%2014,%202020.pdf (accessed February 2021). 517
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.10-2 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
• West: Sultana Avenue and agricultural uses with General Plan land use designations of BP (0.6 FAR) and IND (0.55 FAR). Areas to the west are zoned as the approved Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (Approved SP).

Existing General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Classifications In 2010, the City adopted TOP, which serves as the City’s business plan and includes a long-term vision and a principle-based Policy Plan, which functions as the City’s General Plan. TOP land use designations and the Ontario Municipal Code - Title 9 Development Code (Ontario MC) zoning classifications for the Project site is shown below in Table 4.10-1, Existing General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Classifications.
3 Table 4.10-1: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Classifications Location General Plan Land Use Designation Zoning Classification Project site Low-Medium Density Residential (5.1 - 11 du / ac) Business Park (0.6 FAR) Chino Airport Overlay
SP, Specific Plan
AG, Agricultural Overlay

1. City of Ontario. Rev. 2020. Exhibit LU-01 Land Use Plan. https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2021/02/TOPLUP_Map24x3610_6._20210212.pdf.

2. City of Ontario. Zoning Map. (2015). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Documents/Zoning%20Map/Zoning_20210212.pdf

3. Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan, page 1-15.

In addition, the Project site is within the Ontario Airport and Chino Airport Influence Areas.4 , 5 The Project
proposes BPand IND land use designations. The BP land use designation accommodates industrial-serving commercial uses, office uses, and very light industrial uses. Development within this land use designation is typically multi-tenant in nature; however, single-tenant buildings are not precluded. Permitted uses include construction uses; manufacturing uses; wholesale trade uses; health care and social assistance uses; commercial uses; and warehousing uses. The IND land use designation accommodates storage and warehousing uses located in larger buildings on larger sites. Uses may include e-commerce, high cube warehouses, or distribution. A wide range of manufacturing and assembly uses are also permitted in this district. Permitted uses include agricultural uses; construction uses; wholesale trade uses; commercial uses; and warehousing uses. Further, through the Project SPA, the Project site will consist of two new Planning Areas: Planning Areas 3 and 4. Planning Area 3 (PA 3) will consist of business park buildings that would allow for the development of uses such as offices, technology centers, research and development, enterprises, light manufacturing, and warehouse/distribution uses. Planning Area 4 (PA 4) will consist of general light industrial, manufacturing, warehouse/distribution, and e-commerce fulfillment center operations.

As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project site’s current land use designation in the City's General Plan (TOP) is Low-Medium Density Residential (LMDR) and BP. However, the City is planning to adopt TOP 2050 Update in August 2022, which shows the Project site as BP and IND consistent with the proposed SPA. As this Draft Subsequent EIR is planned for approval after approval of the City's TOP 2050 3 This is the current land use designation in the City's TOP. However, the City is planning to adopt TOP 2050 Update this August, which shows the Project site as Business Park and Industrial, consistent with the proposed SPA. As the ORBP II SPA Subsequent EIR is planned for approval after approval of the City's TOP 2050 Update, the Project would be consistent with the land use designations following TOP 2050 Update. 4 Los Angeles/Ontario International Airport. 2010. Map 2-1 Compatibility Policy Map: Airport Influence Area. https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/policy-map-2-1. 5 Riverside County ALUC. 2008. Map CH-1 Compatibility Map: Chino Airport. http://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/PDFGeneral/plan/newplan/09- %20Vol.%201%20Chino.pdf (accessed February 2021).
518
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.10-3 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
Update, the Project would be consistent with the land use designations following TOP 2050 Update. As part of the forthcoming proposed TOP 2050 Update that will precede this Project, the underlying land use designations for the Project site will include 11.63 acres of BP (at a maximum FAR of 0.6) and 60.06 acres of IND (at a maximum FAR of 0.55). The maximum allowable FARs in the current TOP are greater than those proposed for this Project. TOP 2050 Update land use designations and the Ontario MC - Title 9 Development Code zoning classifications for the Project site is shown below in Table 4.10-2, TOP 2050 Update General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Classifications. 6 Table 4.10-2: TOP 2050 UpdateGeneral Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Classifications Location General Plan Land Use Designation Zoning Classification Project Site
Industrial (0.55 FAR)
Business Park (0.6 FAR) Chino Airport Overlay
SP, Specific Plan
AG, Agricultural Overlay

1. City of Ontario. 2022. The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental EIR, Figure ES-3 Place Types. Retrieved from:
https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/271618-
2/attachment/eWuGwlyBRUCdOW7ZaCm4H1mV0w8mPGsss0XHvAPaJ8sKEtqYcqdQkAGVxgSCOnxC8eoq7OlGLj0AWg4X0.

2. City of Ontario. Zoning Map. (2015). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Documents/Zoning%20Map/Zoning_20210212.pdf

4.10.2 Regulatory Setting
Regional
Southern California Association of Governments
SCAG is a regional council of governments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties, which encompass over 38,000 square miles. SCAG is the federally recognized metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for this region and a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG is also the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under federal and State law. In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to analyze their impacts on regional planning programs. As the southern California region’s MPO, SCAG cooperates with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and other agencies in preparing regional planning documents. SCAG has developed regional plans to achieve specific regional objectives, as discussed below.

The Specific Plan is considered a project of “regionwide significance” pursuant to the criteria in SCAG’s Intergovernmental Review Procedures Handbook (November 1995) and Section 15206 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, this section addresses the Project’s consistency with the applicable SCAG regional planning guidelines and policies.

Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy In September 2020, SCAG adopted the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS includes a strong commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources to comply with 6 This is the current land use designation in the City's TOP. However, the City is planning to adopt TOP 2050 Update this August, which shows the Project site as Business Park and Industrial, consistent with the proposed SPA. As the ORBP II SPA Subsequent EIR is planned for approval after approval of the City's TOP 2050 Update, the Project would be consistent with the land use designations following TOP 2050 Update. 519
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.10-4 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
SB 375, improve public health, and meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This longrange plan, required by the state of California and the federal government, is updated by SCAG every four years as demographic, economic, and policy circumstances change. The RTP/SCS is a living, evolving blueprint for the region’s future.

The City is a member jurisdiction of the San Bernardino Council of Governments (SBCOG), and a participating agency in SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.

Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan The Project site is within the Ontario Airport Influence Area. The Ontario International Airport (ONT) Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) was adopted on April 19, 2011 by the Ontario City Council to promote compatibility with surrounding land uses. The Ontario International ALUCP provides guidance to local jurisdictions that may be affected by ONT and the objective of the Plan is to avoid future compatibility conflicts.

Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The Project site is within the Chino Airport Influence Area. The Chino Airport is located just south of the Project site across Merrill Avenue. The City of Ontario is currently preparing an ALUCP for Chino Airport which relies on the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, that is expected to be adopted in 2022. The Chino ALUCPwill establish policies and criteria for the four types of compatibility impacts which include safety, noise, airspace protection, and overflight.

Projects within the Specific Plan Amendment boundary shall be required to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the ALUCPs for ONT and Chino Airport. The purpose of an ALUCP is to promote peaceful and safe coexistence with the airport’s surrounding communities and to identify areas that would be influenced by future airport operations. The ALUCP is intended to:
• Provide for the orderly development of the public use airport and the area surrounding to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems;
• Protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas surrounding the airport.

Local
The Ontario Plan
The City adopted TOP on January 27, 2010. TOP is the community’s blueprint for future development through 2035. The Project site is made of 8 parcels total–2 is designated as BPand 6 as LMDR. The existing land use designations and descriptions are provided in Table 4.10-3, Existing TOP Land Use Designations. 520
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.10-5 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
Table 4.10-3: Existing TOP Land Use Designations
Land Use Dwelling Units per Acre
or Floor Area Ratio
Description of Land Use Designation
Business Park 0.6 FAR Employee-intensive office uses including corporate offices, technology centers, research and development, “clean” industry, light manufacturing, and supporting retail.

Low-Medium
Density Residential

5.1 - 11 du/ac Single/multi-family attached and detached residences, including small lot subdivisions, townhouses, and courtyard homes.

Source: City of Ontario. Rev 2017. LU-02 Land Use Designations Summary Table. https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2020/11/LU-02-Land-Use-design-table_032017.pdf.

The City is planning to adopt TOP 2050 Update in August 2022, which shows the Project site as BP and IND, consistent with the proposed Project SPA. As this Draft Subsequent EIR is planned for approval after approval of the City's TOP 2050 Update, the Project would be consistent with the land use designations following TOP 2050 Update, asshown in Table 4.10-4, TOP 2050 Update Land Use Designations.

Table 4.10-4: TOP 2050 Update Land Use Designations
Land Use Dwelling Units per Acre
or Floor Area Ratio
Description of Land Use Designation
Business Park 0.6 FAR Employee-intensive office uses including corporate offices, technology centers,research and development, “clean” industry, light manufacturing, and supporting retail within a business park setting.

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

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

Source: City of Ontario. 2022. City of Ontario TOP 2050 Update, Table 3-2 Land Use Designations in the City of Ontario. https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/271618-
2/attcityachment/eWuGwlyBRUCdOW7ZaCm4H1mV0w8mPGsss0XHvAPaJ8sKEtqYcqdQkAGVxgSCOnxC8eoq7OlGLj0AWg4X0.

City of Ontario Development Code
The City of Ontario Development Code, Title 9 of the Ontario MC, is designed to promote and protect public health, safety, and general welfare in the community. Development Code Chapter 5, Zoning and Land Use establishes zoning designations and development standards to regulate orderly development.

The Project site is zoned as SP District with an AG Overlay. The SP zoning district was established to accommodate the adoption of Specific Plans pursuant to the Development Code and consistent with all land use designations of the Policy Plan component of the TOP. The AG Overlay District is established to accommodate the continuation of agricultural uses within the City until it is developed as per the Policy Plan component of the TOP and the underlying zoning district. The intent of the AG Overlay District is to permit continued agricultural use of properties or to establish general agricultural uses appropriate for areas of concentrated agricultural uses.
521
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.10-6 4.10 | Land Use and Planning

4.10.3 Threshold of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

LU-1 Physically divide an established community.

LU-2 Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Section 7.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant:
• Threshold LU-1
This impact will not be addressed in the following analysis.

4.10.4 Methodology
This analysis analyzes the Project’s consistency with regional and local plans, policies and regulations for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Specifically, the Project was analyzed with respect to the applicable regional planning guidelines and strategies of SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and the City’s TOP.

Approach to Analysis
This analysis of impacts on land use and planning components examines the Project’s temporary (i.e., construction) and permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on application of the significance criteria/thresholds outlined above. Each criterion is discussed in the context of the Project site and the surrounding characteristics/geography. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in environmental conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the environment.

The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on review of Project maps and drawings; analysis of aerial and ground‐level photographs; and review of various data available in public records, including local planning documents. The determination that a Project component will or will not result in “substantial” adverse effects on land use and planning standards considers the available policies and regulations established by local and regional agencies and the amount of deviation from these policies in the Project’s components.

4.10.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.

Impact 4.10-1 Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? [Threshold LU-2]
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact. 522
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.10-7 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
The Project consists of a SPA to allow for development of an industrial and business park on eight parcels covering approximately 71.69 acres in the City. The development would include six buildings ranging from 61,300 sf to 530,460 sf in building size. This would allow for the development of approximately 1,640,690 sf of industrial and business park buildings.

The 71.69-acre Project site’s proposed industrial and business park use is inconsistent with the Project site’s current TOP land use designation, which is currently 56 acres of LMDR and 18 acres of BP (the Project proposes approximately 12 acres of BP, and approximately 60-acres of IND, to facilitate development of the Project).
7 The Project SPA would provide a land use plan, circulation plan, streetscape plan, infrastructure service plan, grading plan, maintenance plan, phasing plan, design guidelines, development regulations, and implementation measures to guide the development of the Project site.

Although the Project would be inconsistent with the City’s current TOP (a significant unavoidable impact), this would be remedied upon the City’s planned adoption of TOP 2050 Update, which is scheduled for City approval in August 2022. Should the Project follow approval of TOP 2050 (which proposes the site as BP and IND land uses consistent with the Project’s proposed SPA), the Project would be consistent with the City’s TOP 2050 land use designations.

The Project would allow for up to 227,951 sf of business park building space to be developed on a total of

11.6 acres. This would be developed with business park buildings that would allow for the development of uses such as offices, technology centers, research and development, enterprises, light manufacturing, and warehouse/distribution uses. The Project would allow up to 1,412,739 sf of industrial building space to be constructed. This would be comprised of 60 acres and would allow for the development of uses such as general and light industrial, manufacturing, warehouse/distribution, and e-commerce fulfillment center operations.

Below is an evaluation of the Project’s consistency with applicable plans and policies that have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Southern California Association of Governments RTP/SCS Compatibility The Project is considered a project of regionwide significance pursuant to the criteria outlined in SCAG’s Intergovernmental Review Procedures Handbook (November 1995) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15206, because it would involve a net increase of over 500,000 sf of business establishment.

Therefore, a consistency analysis with the applicable regional planning guidelines and strategies of SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is required. Table 4.10-5, Consistency with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Goals, provides an assessment of the Project’s consistency with the recently adopted 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal) goals. The RTP/SCS goals are directed toward transit, transportation and mobility, and protection of the environment and health of residents. Consistency with SCAG population growth projections is addressed separately in Section 4.12, Population and Housing. The consistency analysis below focuses on the broad, policy-oriented goals of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS to determine the Project’s consistency with the RTP/SCS. 7 As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, upon adoption of the City’s TOP 2050 Update planned for August 2022, the Project site would be consistent with the City’s general plan land use designations. To be conservative, this EIR has evaluated the Project against the City’s current TOP policies and the Project site’s current residential and business park land use designations. 523
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.10-8 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
Table 4.10-5: Consistency with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Goals RTP/SCS Goal Project Consistency
RTP/SCS G1: Encourage regional
economic prosperity and global
competitiveness.

Consistent: The Project’s objective is to create an economic engine to drive future growth in the City and the County, spur infrastructure improvements in the area, and implement the SPA vision. The Project would allow for the development of urban uses on currently underutilized land.

RTP/SCS G2: Improve mobility,
accessibility, reliability, and travel
safety for people and goods.

Consistent: Implementation of the Project would include roadway improvements and other major infrastructure investments that would ensure that mobility accessibility for people and goods would be maximized. The Project would also expand the City’s industrial uses in proximity to local airports (namely Chino Airport) and regional transportation networks. The vehicular and pedestrian improvements in the Project would be implemented and maintained to meet the needs of employees and customers.

RTP/SCS G3: Enhance the
preservation, security, and resilience
of the regional transportation
system.

Consistent: All modes of public and commercial transit throughout the Project area would be required to follow safety standards set by State, regional, and local regulatory documents. For example, sidewalks must follow precautions established in the Development Code. The Project would not remove or alter in a reductive manner access to the local public transportation near the Project site, including bus routes near Eucalyptus Avenue.

RTP/SCS G4: Increase person and
goods movement and travel choices
within the transportation system.

Consistent:The Project would involve transportation improvements in the form of improvements to nearby streets. These improvements to Merrill Avenue, Campus Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue, and Sultana Avenue would increase the efficiency of the streets after implementation of the Project. Further discussion regarding transportation impacts stemming from the implementation of the Project are discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation and Traffic.

RTP/SCS G5: Reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and improve air quality.

Consistent: Discussion regarding reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can be found in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Discussion regarding improvements to air quality can be found in Section 4.2, Air Quality.

The reduction of energy use, improvement of air quality, and promotion of more environmentally sustainable development would be encouraged through the existing and proposed alternative transportation modes, sustainable building and landscaping design techniques, and other best management practices for structures and non-structures.

In addition, the Projectis within walking distance of the Eucalyptus and Euclid Omnitrans bus route 83. Omnitrans bus route 83 directly connects the site to the cities of Chino and Upland and to several stops in Ontario as well as the Chino Transit Center and Ontario Civic Center Transfer Station.

RTP/SCS G6: Support healthy and
equitable communities.

Consistent: The Project would be constructed to current building codes, State and Federal requirements including CALGreen Code. 524
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.10-9 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
RTP/SCS Goal Project Consistency
RTP/SCS G7: Adapt to a changing
climate and support an integrated
regional development pattern and
transportation network.

Consistent: The Project would construct new roads, infrastructure, and buildings to support uses consistent with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and consistent with current building codes, State and Federal requirements including CALGreen Code. This includes electric vehicle (EV) Parking spaces, energy-efficient buildings, and use of construction and grading equipment that complies with current air quality standards, etc. See Section 4.2, Air Quality; 4.7 Green House Gas Emissions; and Section

4.14 Transportation and Traffic.

RTP/SCS G8: Leverage new
transportation technologies and
data-driven solutions that result in
more efficient travel.

RTP/SCS G9: Encourage development
of diverse housing types in areas that
are supported by multiple
transportation options.

Consistent: The proposed TOP and zoning designations for the Project site are for BP and IND land use designations, and SP-AG Zoning development. No residential development is proposed nor would be permitted under the proposed land use designations.

RTP/SCS G10: Promote conservation
of natural and agricultural lands and
restoration of habitats
Consistent: Although the Project would develop lands with Prime Farmland, this is consistent with the City’s TOP policy planning document as well as the Agricultural Overlay which anticipates future development. Further discussion regarding impacts to agricultural lands is provided in Section 4.1, Agriculture and Forestry Resources. There are no habitat restoration sites present on the Project site.

Source: SCAG. 2020. 2020-2045 SCAG RTP/SCS Connect SoCal Goals. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocalplan_0.pdf?1606001176.

The Ontario Plan Compatibility
An analysis of the Project’s consistency with Citywide goals in the current TOP is provided in Table 4.10-6, Consistency with the City of Ontario General Plan (TOP). Because CEQA Impact Threshold 4.10-2 emphasizes consistency with land use goals “adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect,” Table 4.10-6 focuses on consistency with the City’s TOP Elements that address environmental issues. Goals and policies that do not address environmental effects or are not applicable to the Project are not addressed below. Note that the following TOP consistency analysis is based upon Project consistency with the City’s current TOP. While the Project is consistent with the current TOP goals and policies noted below, the Project’s proposed land use designations as reflected in the proposed SPA are inconsistent with current TOP land use designations of LMDR and BP, which represents a significant impact. As discussed further below, this land use inconsistency would be remedied upon the City’s approval of the proposed TOP 2050 Update planned for August 2022. Should the Project approval follow TOP 2050 Update approval, the Project’s land uses would be consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designations as proposed in TOP 2050 Update.

Table 4.10-6: Consistency with the City of Ontario General Plan (TOP) General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
Land Use Element
Goal LU1: A community that has a spectrum of housing types and price ranges that match the jobs in the City and that make it possible for people to live and work in Ontario and maintain a quality of life.

LU1-2: Sustainable Community Strategy.

We integrate state, regional and local
Sustainable Community/Smart Growth
Principles into the development and
entitlement process.

Consistent: The Project encourages the efficient use of energy resources in design, product selection, and operational techniques.

The Design Guidelines in Chapter 5 of the Project’s Specific Plan addresses lighting, bicycle parking, sustainable landscaping, and sustainable design strategies. Landscape provisions require the use of 525
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.10-10 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
drought-resistant vegetation and shade trees to conserve water and reduce heat islands. The Project’s sustainable design strategies include design and construction of energy efficient buildings to reduce air, water, and land pollution and environmental impacts from energy production and consumption. Protecting water quality, reducing runoff, and reducing water demand for landscaping are promoted in the Development Plan in Chapter 3 of the Project’s SPA through the recycled water plan and storm drainage facilities source control and treatment practices.

LU1-3: Adequate Capacity. We require
adequate infrastructure and services for
all development.

Consistent: The Project’s SPA establishes a Phasing Plan that is coordinated with affected infrastructure providers and ensures that uses on the project site are adequately served. The Project’s Specific Plan requires infrastructure development to occur in a timely manner.

Potable and recycled water, sewer, fiber optic communications, and storm drain infrastructure improvements that ultimately serve the Project site are addressed in Chapter 3, Development Plan, of the Project’s SPA. Infrastructure and services will be consistent with City of Ontario infrastructure master plans and the approved development agreement.

Please refer to Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, for further discussion regarding utility infrastructure.

Goal Land Use 2: Compatibility between a wide range of uses.

LU2-3: Hazardous Uses. We regulate the
development of industrial and similar
uses that use, store, produce or
transport toxic substances, air
emissions, other pollutants, or
hazardous materials.

Consistent:Uses within the SPA are required to comply with federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to the use, storage, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials, toxic substances, and other pollutants. Refer to Section 4.8,Hazards and Hazardous Materials,for further discussion of hazardous materials.

LU2-5: Regulation of Uses. We regulate
the location, concentration, and
operations of uses that have impacts on
surrounding land uses.

Consistent: The Project’s SPA land use plan contained in Chapter 3, Development Plan, utilizes the BP designation (PA 3) to buffer the IG land use designation (PA4) from the existing agricultural uses located north of Eucalyptus Avenue. Chapter 4, Land Use and Development Standards restricts PA 3 to less intense business park uses and requires the building height to be lower. Furthermore, the conceptual site design places truck traffic ingress and egress and visible loading docks away from the existing residential uses.

LU2-6: We require infrastructure to be
aesthetically pleasing and in context
with the community character.

Consistent: The Project’s SPA design guidelines (Chapter 5) are intended to support high-quality development that complements the surrounding community. Landscaped areas and drive entrances will be planned to separate parking areas and keep the parking lot from being the dominant visual element of the Project site. The SPA also establishes landscape setback requirements (Chapter 4, Land Use and Development Standards) and conceptual streetscape design (Chapter 5, Design Guidelines) along all roadways within the Project 526
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.10-11 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
site to create safe and attractive streets for pedestrians and motorists and ensure cohesive patterns of development.

LU2-9: Methane Gas Sites. We require
sensitive land uses and new uses on
former dairy farms or other methaneproducing sites be designed to minimize health risks.

Consistent: The Project’s SPA incorporates into its Implementation Plan (Chapter 6) requirements for the Project to comply with any mitigation measures identified in this Draft Subsequent EIR, including those for soil remediation and proper venting to address the potential existence of methane gases within the Project site.

Goal Land Use 5: Integrated airport systems and facilities that minimize negative impacts to the community and maximize economic benefits.

LU5-7: ALUCP Consistency with Land Use
Regulations. We comply with state law
that requires general plans, specific
plans and all new development be
consistent with the policies and criteria
set forth within an Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan for any public use
airport.

Consistent: The Project site is within the ONT Influence Area and the Chino Airport Influence Area. The Specific Plan Amendment discusses compliance with the ALUCP requirements for the Ontario Airport and the Chino Airport in Chapter 2, Section 2.2, Airport Influence Areas.

Community Design Element
Goal CD1: A dynamic, progressive city containing distinct neighborhoods and commercial districts that foster a positive sense of identity and belonging among residents, visitors, and businesses.

CD1-2: Growth Areas. We require
development in growth areas to be
distinctive and unique places within
which there are cohesive design themes.

Consistent: The SPAdesign guidelines (Chapter 5, Design Guidelines) and development standards (Chapter 4, Land Use and Development Standards) ensure high quality, cohesive, attractive, and appropriately-scaled development that complements and integrates into the Ontario Ranch community and adds value to the City.

Goal CD2: A high level of design quality resulting in public spaces, streetscapes, and development that are attractive safe, functional, and distinct.

CD2-1: Quality Architecture. We
encourage all developments to convey
visual interest and character through:
• Building volume, massing, and height
to provide appropriate scale and
proportion;
• A true architectural style which is
carried out in plan, section, and
elevation through all aspects of the
building and site design and
appropriate for its setting;
• Exterior building materials that are
visually interesting, high quality,
durable, and appropriate for the
architectural style.

Consistent: The Project design guidelines (Chapter 5 of the Project SPA) ensure that:
1) Scale, massing, fenestration, materials, and colors are consistent with the building’s architectural style and compatible with the overall design in the Project area;
2) Articulation is provided through elements such as cornices, parapets, expression lines, and changes in materials and/or colors;
3) Use of a variety of colors, materials, and/or textures on each building is appropriate to the architectural features or massing.

CD2-5: Streetscapes. We design new
and, when necessary, retrofit existing
streets to improve walkability, bicycling
and transit integration, strengthen
Consistent:The Project’s SPA(Chapter 3, Section 3.3, Circulation Plan) addresses connectivity, street improvements, pedestrian and bicycle plans, and transit. In Chapter 5.3, Landscape Design, the SPAidentifies street improvements and streetscape including parkways, street 527
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.10-12 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
connectivity, and enhance community
identify through improvements to the
public right-of-way such as sidewalks,
street trees, parkways, curbs, street
lighting, and street furniture.
trees, sidewalks, landscape buffers, and street lighting for Eucalyptus Avenue, Merrill Avenue, Campus Avenue, and Sultana Avenue within the SPA area, which are consistent with the Circulation Element of TOP. The SPA streetscape design creates an aesthetically pleasing view for pedestrians and motorists, screens parking and loading areas from the public right-of-way, and visually integrates the development into the surrounding Ontario Ranch community.

CD2-6: Connectivity. We promote
development of local street patterns and
pedestrian networks that create and
unify neighborhoods, rather than divide
them, and create cohesive and
continuous corridors, rather than
independent “islands.”
Consistent: The SPA creates an efficient street system by providing convenient connections with adjacent land uses in compliance with the vision of the Circulation Element of the TOP. Roads will be improved with sidewalks, trails and bikeways to supplement vehicular transportation through the design of SPAstreet sections (Chapter 3.3:

Circulation Plan) and streetscape (Chapter 5.3, Landscape Design).

CD2-7: Sustainability. We collaborate
with the development community to
design and build neighborhoods,
streetscapes, sites, outdoor spaces,
landscaping and buildings to reduce
energy demand through solar
orientation, maximum use of natural
daylight, passive solar and natural
ventilation, building form, mechanical
and structural systems, building
materials and construction techniques.

Consistent:The SPAis committed to sustainable design strategies that integrate principles of environmental stewardship into the design, construction and operation process. General Plan Consistency (Chapter 7.0) incorporates sustainability principles into its design guidelines (Chapter 5.8, Sustainable Design Strategies), such as drought tolerant landscaping, skylights in warehouse/distribution buildings to provide natural light and reduce lighting demand, high performance dual pane glazing in office storefronts, and LED products for energy efficient site lighting. Design strategies include the design and construction of energy efficient buildings to reduce air, water, and land pollution and environmental impacts from energy production and consumption. The use of recycled water to irrigate landscape is required by the SPA’s Recycled Water Plan (Chapter 3.5), consistent with the City of Ontario Recycled Water Master Plan.

CD2-9: Landscape Design.We encourage
durable landscaping materials and
designs that enhance the aesthetics of
structure, create, and define public and
private spaces, and provide shade and
environmental benefits.

Consistent: Consistent with the vision for Ontario Ranch as outlined in the Ontario Ranch Streetscape Master Plan, the SPA (Chapter 5.3, Landscape Design) provides for landscaped setbacks and landscaped parkways adjacent to bike lanes and sidewalks, defining these public spaces. The landscaped setbacks and parkways will include droughttolerant plants featuring colorful shrubs and groundcovers, ornamental grasses and succulents, evergreen and deciduous trees, and species native to Southern California or naturalized to the arid Southern California climate to promote durable plant materials. The plant selection will complement the design theme of the Project site.

Parking lot landscaping will reduce associated heat buildup, improve aesthetics, and integrate into on-site landscape design and adjacent streetscapes. Swaled landscape areas will retain/infiltrate stormwater run-off to improve water quality and promote groundwater recharge.

Shade trees thoughtfully located near expanses of paving, building walls, roofs, and windows will reduce the impacts of heat gain. 528
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.10-13 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
CD2-11: Entry Statements. We
encourage the inclusion of amenities,
signage, and landscaping at the entry to
neighborhoods, commercial centers,
mixed use areas, industrial
developments, and public places that
reinforce them as uniquely identifiable
places.

Consistent. The Project SPA establishes design guidelines to ensure high-quality development and a sense of place. As discussed in Chapter 5.3, Landscape Design, Campus, Eucalyptus, Merrill and Sultana Avenues will feature landscaped setbacks adjacent to the Specific Plan Amendment area that will provide attractive entries to the site. An entry monument will be located at the northeast corner of Euclid Avenue and Merrill Avenuefor the Approved SP and SPA,to identify the Ontario Ranch area and/or the Ontario Ranch Business Park.

CD2-12: Site and Building Signage. We
encourage the use of sign programs that
utilize complementary materials, colors,
and themes. Project signage should be
designed to effectively communicate
and direct users to various aspects of the
development and complement the
character of the structure.

Consistent: The Project Specific Plan Amendment (Chapter 5.7, Signage) requires approval of a comprehensive sign program to address parcel identification, building identification and directional signage within the Project site. A comprehensive sign program will integrate Project signage with the overall design of the Project site and structures to create a unified visual statement. A comprehensive sign program provides flexible application of sign regulations to provide incentive and latitude in the design and display of multiple signs. Industrial uses on the site will also be appropriately signed to give direction to loading and receiving, visitor parking, and other special uses.

Goal CD3: Vibrant urban environments that are organized around intense buildings, pedestrian and transit areas, public plazas, and linkages between and within developments that are conveniently located, casually appealing, and safe during all hours.

CD3-1: 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.

Consistent:The SPA(Chapter 3.3, Circulation Plan) coordinates street, trail, and bikeway designs to serve on-site land uses and extend access to the surrounding area in compliance with TOP Mobility Element. The SPA specifies street improvements for Campus Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue, Merrill Avenue, and Sultana Avenue. The SPA streetscape design (Chapter 5.3, Landscape Design) provides an aesthetically pleasing view for pedestrians and motorists, screens parking and loading areas from the public right-of-way, and integrates the development into the surrounding community.

CD3-5: Paving. We require sidewalks and
road surfaces to be of a type and quality
that contributes to the appearance and
utility of streets and public places.

Consistent:The SPAdevelopment standards (Chapter 4, Land Use and Development Standards) require that design and materials for sidewalks and road surfaces within the Project sitebe approved by the City’s Engineering Department. Specific Plan Amendment design guidelines (Chapter 5) encourage the use of enhanced paving to mark major building entries and paving materials that possesses a high level of solar reflectivity to reduce the heat island effect.

Goal CD5: A sustained level of maintenance and improvement of properties, buildings, and infrastructure that protects the property values and encourages additional public and private investment.

CD5-1: Maintenance Buildings and
Property. We require all public and
privately owned buildings and property
(including trails and easements) to be
properly and consistency maintained.

Consistent: The Project SPA includes a Maintenance Responsibility Matrix in Chapter 6, Implementation, identifying the parties responsible for maintenance of roadways, parkways, trails, sidewalks, common areas, walls and monuments, infrastructure, and utilities within the Project site. Privately owned buildings will be maintained 529
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.10-14 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
as specified by the Property Owners Association (Chapter 6.10.2 of the SPA).

CD5-2: Maintenance of Infrastructure.

We require the continued maintenance
of infrastructure.

Consistent: The Project’s SPA includes a Maintenance Responsibility Matrix in Chapter 6, Implementation, identifying the parties responsible for maintenance of roadways, parkways, trails, sidewalks, common areas, walls and monuments, infrastructure, and utilities within the Project site.

Mobility Element
Goal M1: A system of roadways that meets the mobility needs of a dynamic and prosperous Ontario.

M1-1: Roadway Design and
Maintenance. We require our roadways
to:
• Comply with federal, state, and local
design and safety standards.
• Meet the needs of multiple
transportation modes and users.
• Handle the capacity envisioned in the
Functional Roadway Classification
Plan.
• Maintain a peak hour Level of Service
(LOS) E or better at all intersections.
• Be compatible with the streetscape
and surrounding land uses.
• Be maintained in accordance with
best practices and our Right-of-Way
Management Plan.

Consistent: The SPA main complies with the Functional Roadway Classification Plan of the Mobility Element and, therefore, aims to comply with federal, State, and local design and safety standards; meet the needs of multiple transportation modes and users; and maintain a Level of Service (LOS) of E or better at all intersections addressed in this Draft Subsequent EIR. SPAdesign strives to minimize the effects of truck traffic on nearby residential uses by locating truck entries and loading docks away from residential use.

M1-2: Mitigation of Impacts.We require
development to mitigate its traffic
impacts.

Consistent:The SPArequires in Chapter 6.3.4, Compliance with CEQA, that projects within the Project site comply with all mitigation measures, conditions, and project design features identified in this Draft Subsequent EIR. Chapter 5.1, Site Design, provides guidelines to ensure buildings, structures, and loading facilities will be designed so loading and unloading activities occur on-site without extending beyond the Project site.

Goal M2: A system of trails and corridors that facilitate and encourage bicycling and walking.

M2-1: We require development to
mitigate its traffic impact.

Consistent. The SPArequires in Chapter 6.3.4, Compliance with CEQA, that projects within the Project site comply with all mitigation measures, conditions, and project design features identified in this Draft Subsequent EIR. Chapter 5.1, Site Design, provides guidelines to ensure buildings, structures, and loading facilities will be designed so loading and unloading activities occur on-site without extending beyond the Project site.

M2-3: Pedestrian Walkways. We require
walkways that promote safe and
convenient travel between residential
areas, businesses, schools, parks,
Consistent: The SPA street sections, and streetscape designs (Chapter 3.1, Circulation Plan, and Chapter 5.3, Landscape Design) provide for construction of five-foot wide public pedestrian sidewalks for Campus Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue, Merrill Avenue, and Sultana Avenue to connect with adjacent existing and planned pedestrian 530
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.10-15 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
recreation areas, and other key
destination points.
circulation systems. Pedestrian sidewalks are separated from vehicular travel lanes by a landscaped parkway. Proposed improvements for the Project site’s streets are consistent with the City’s Ontario Ranch Streetscape Master Plan.

Goal M3: A public transit system that is a viable alternative to automobile travel and meets basic transportation needs of the transit dependent.

M3-2: Transit Facilities at New
Development. We require new
development to provide transit facilities,
such as bus shelters, transit bays and
turnouts, as necessary.

Consistent: The SPAdiscusses in Chapter 3.3.10, Transit, that the City is coordinating with regional transit agencies to implement Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service to target destinations and along corridors, including Euclid Avenue on the western boundary of the Approved SP.

Goal M4: An efficient flow of goods through the City that maximizes economic benefits and minimizes negative impacts.

M4-1: Truck Routes. We designate and
maintain a network of City truck routes
that provide for the effective transport
of goods while minimizing negative
impacts on local circulation and noisesensitive land uses, as shown in the Truck Routes Plan.

Consistent: The SPAis designed to enable easy vehicular access to the truck route network and to encourage its industrial users to implement effective goods movement strategies. The Land Use and Circulation Plans (Chapter 3, Development Plan) are designed to direct truck traffic away from nearby residential use in the City of Chino and focus trucks on the designated Merrill Avenue truck route.

Chapter 3.1, Site Design, of the Design Guidelines stipulates buildings, structures, and loading facilities will be designed to ensure that loading and unloading activities and maneuvering of freight vehicles occurs on-site without extending beyond the Project site.

Environmental Resources Element
Goal ER1: A reliable and cost-effectivesystem that permits the City to manage its diverse water resources and needs.

ER1-3: Conservation. We require
conservation strategies that reduce
water usage.

Consistent: The SPA incorporates water conservation strategies into its development plan and design guidelines. The use of recycled water to irrigate landscape areas is required consistent with the City of Ontario Recycled Water Master Plan (Chapter 3, Development Plan).

Landscape and irrigation plans are encouraged to use water conservation features such as drought-tolerant plant species native to the region and drip irrigation (Chapter 5, Design Guidelines). The SPA encourages the design and construction of energy efficient buildings to reduce air, water, and land pollution and environmental impacts from energy production and consumption.

ER1-5: Groundwater Management. We
protect groundwater quality by
incorporating strategies that prevent
pollution, require remediation where
necessary, capture and treat urban runoff, and recharge the aquifer.

Consistent: In Chapter 3.7, Storm Drainage Plans, the SPA stipulates that prior to issuance of grading or construction permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be prepared and approved by the City. The SWPPP will identify and detail appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent pollutant discharge into storm drain systems and natural drainages and aquifers. In addition to the preparation of a SWPPP, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will be prepared and approved that will enforce long-term BMPs to prevent pollutant discharges into storm drain systems, for the life of the project. Chapter 5.8.2, Water Quality, requires the 531
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.10-16 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
provision of on-site landscape swales to collect and treat stormwater run-off.

ER1-6: Urban Run-off Quantity. We
encourage the use of low impact
development strategies to intercept runoff, slow the discharge rate, increase infiltration and ultimately reduce
discharge volumes to traditional storm
drain systems.

Consistent: The SPA (Chapter 3.9, Storm Drainage Plan) incorporates low impact development strategies including landscape designs that promote water retention; permeable surface designs in parking lots and areas with low traffic; parking lots that drain to landscaped areas to provide treatment, retention, or infiltration; and limited soil compaction during grading.

ER1-7: Urban Run-off Quality. We
require the control and management of
urban run-off, consistent with Regional
Water Quality Control Board regulations.

Consistent: In Chapter 3.9, Storm Drainage Plan, the SPA states that prior to issuance of grading or construction permits, a WQMP is required to minimize stormwater runoff and provide on-site opportunities for groundwater recharge integrated into project design and amenities. The grading and drainage of the Project site will be designed to retain/infilter, harvest & re-use or biotreat surface runoff to comply with the current requirements of the San Bernardino County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Program's WQMP for significant new development projects.

ER1-8: Wastewater Management. We
require the management of wastewater
discharge and collection consistent with
waste discharge requirements adopted
by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board.

Consistent: In Chapter 3.6, Sewer Plan, the SPAprovides for design of a wastewater system consistent with City and Regional Water Quality Board requirements. The SPAincludes a network of new public sewer mains consistent with the City of Ontario’s Ultimate Sewer System Plan.

Goal ER3: Cost-effective and reliable energy system sustained through a combination of low impact building, site and neighborhood energy conservation and diverse sources of energy generation that collectively helps to minimize the region’s carbon footprint.

ER3-1: Conservation Strategy. We
require conservation as the first strategy
to be employed to meet applicable
energy-saving standards.

Consistent: The SPA incorporates energy-saving conservation strategies into its design guidelines (Chapter 5) by addressing lighting, bicycle parking, sustainable landscaping, and energy efficiency.

Sustainable design strategies (Chapter 5.8) include design and construction of energy efficient buildings to reduce air, water, and land pollution and environmental impacts from energy production and consumption.

ER3-3: Building and Site Design. Require
new construction to incorporate energy
efficient building and site design
strategies, which could include
appropriate solar orientation, maximum
use of natural daylight, passive solar and
natural ventilation.

Consistent: The SPA’s Sustainable Design Strategies (Chapter 5.8) include the use of passive design to improve building energy performance through skylights, building orientation, landscaping, and use of select colors.

Goal ER4: Improved indoor and outdoor air quality and reduced locally generated pollutant emissions.

ER4-4: Indoor Air Quality. We will comply
with State Green Building Codes relative
to indoor air quality.

Consistent: The SPArequires development projects in the Project site to comply with the California Building Code as adopted and implemented by the City. The SPA’s Sustainable Design Strategies 532
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.10-17 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
(Chapter 5.8) include the design and construction of energy efficient buildings to reduce air, water, and land pollution.

Goal ER5: Protected high value habitat and farming and mineral resource extraction activities that are compatible with adjacent development.

ER5-2: Entitlement and Permitting
Process. We comply with state and
federal regulations regarding protected
species.

Consistent. The SPAacknowledges that all projects within the Project site shall comply with any and all mitigation measures of this Draft EIR.

Safety Element
Goal S1: Minimized risk of injury, loss of life, property damage and economic and social disruption caused by earthquake-induced and other geologic hazards.

S1-1: Implementation of Regulations and
Standards. We require that all new
habitable structures be designed in
accordance with the most recent
California Building Code adopted by the
City, including provisions regarding
lateral forces and grading.

Consistent: The SPA requires all future development projects to comply with the California Building Code as adopted and implemented by the City.

S1-2: Entitlement and Permitting
Process. We follow state guidelines and
the California Building Code to
determine when development proposals
must conduct geotechnical and
geological investigations.

Consistent. The SPAacknowledges that all projects within the Project site shall comply with State guidelines and the California Building Code. Research of available maps indicates that the Projectsite is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Furthermore, there was no visible evidence of faulting during a geotechnical investigation (see Appendix E, Geotechnical Feasibility Study).

Goal S2: Minimized risk of injury, loss of life, property damage and economic and social disruption caused by flooding and inundation hazards.

S2-1: Entitlement and Permitting
Process. We follow State guidelines and
building code to determine when
development proposals require
hydrological studies prepared by a statecertified engineer to assess the impact that the new development will have on
the flooding potential of existing
development down gradient.

Consistent. The SPAacknowledges that all projects within the Project site shall comply with any and all applicable mitigation measures of this Draft EIR, State guidelines, and the California Building Code regarding flooding and inundation hazards.

Goal S3: Reduced risk of death, injury, property damage and economic loss due to fires, accidents and normal everyday occurrences through prompt and capable emergency response.

S3-8: Fire Prevention through
Environmental Design. We require new
development to incorporate fire
prevention consideration in the design
of streetscapes, sites, open spaces and
buildings.

Consistent: The SPAacknowledges that all projects within the Project site shall comply with the City’s development review process, which provides for review by the City’s Fire Department and potential redesign to incorporate fire prevention design elements within streetscapes, sites, open spaces, and buildings.

Goal S4: An environment where noise does not adversely affect the public’s health, safety, and welfare.

S4-1: Noise Mitigation. We utilize the
City’s Noise Ordinance, building codes
Consistent: The SPAacknowledges that all projects within the Project site shall comply with all mitigation measures of this Draft Subsequent 533
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.10-18 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
and subdivision and development codes
to mitigate noise impacts.

EIR, the City’s noise ordinance, subdivision and development codes, and the California Building Code to mitigate noise impacts.

Goal S5: Reduced risk of injury, property damage and economic loss resulting from windstorms and wind-related hazards.

S5-2: Dust Control Measures. We require
the implementation of Best
Management Practices for dust control
at all excavation and grading projects.

Consistent. The SPAacknowledges that all projects within the Project site shall comply with all mitigation measures of this Draft Subsequent EIR, the construction management plan, and any subdivision and development codes regarding dust control.

Goal S6: Reduced potential for hazardous materials exposure and contamination.

S6-9: Remediation of Methane. We
require development to assess and
mitigate the presence of methane, per
regulatory standards and guidelines.

Consistent. The SPAacknowledges that all projects within the Project site shall comply with all mitigation measures of this Draft Subsequent EIR. Per MM HAZ-1, Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall conduct further testing for the presence of methane on the Project site, in accordance with California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) methane assessment guidelines. The Project Applicant shall prepare a methane gas soil survey and implement grading activity recommendations to the satisfaction of the City Building Department. This shall include a postconstruction soil gas investigation and installation of methane gas mitigation systems where post-grading methane levels exceed 5,000 parts per million volume (ppmv), should any such levels occur.

Goal S7: Neighborhoods and commercial and industrial districts that are kept safe through a multi-faceted approach of prevention, suppression, community involvement and a system of continuous monitoring.

S7-4: Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design (CPTED). We
require new development to incorporate
CPTED in the design of streetscapes,
sites, open spaces and buildings.

Consistent: The SPA acknowledges that projects within the Project site shall comply with the City’s development review process, which provides for review by the City’s Police Department and potential redesign to incorporate crime prevention design elements in streetscapes, sites, open spaces, and buildings. Parcel lighting addresses illumination of parking lots, loading dock areas, pedestrian walkways, building entrances, signage, and architectural and landscape features. A key provision includes the installation of ground or low mounted fixtures to provide for safety and convenience along pedestrian walkways, entrances, activity areas, steps, ramps, and special features. The SPA also encourages delineation of pedestrian access to on-site buildings from adjacent streets and parking areas by marking building entrances with signage, prominent architectural features, and/or landscaping features.

Community Economics Element
Goal CE1: A complete community that provides for all incomes and stages of life.

CE1-1: Jobs-Housing Balance. We pursue
improvement to the Inland Empire’s
balance between jobs and housing by
promoting job growth that reduces the
regional economy’s reliance on outcommuting.

Consistent. The SPA anticipates the creation of jobs in warehousing, logistics, light manufacturing, and administration within the Project site, which helps improve the region’s jobs-housing balance. Actual job creation depends on the type of land uses ultimately developed on the site as a wide range of commercial, office, and industrial uses are permitted in the SPA. The Land Use Plan (Chapter 3.1) implements the vision of TOP by providing opportunities for employment in 534
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.10-19 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
manufacturing, distribution, research and development, service, and supporting retail at intensities designed to meet the demand of current and future market conditions.

CE1-5: Business Attraction. We
proactively attract new and expanding
businesses to Ontario in order to
increase the City’s share of growing
sectors of the regional and global
economy.

Consistent. In Chapter 3.1, Land Use Plan, the SPA provides for the construction of over 1.6 million square feet of industrial development in compliance with City and regional planning goals and strategies that facilitate goods movement throughout the SCAG region.

Goal CE2: A City of distinctive neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, where people choose to be.

CE2-1: Development Projects. We
require new development and
redevelopment to create unique, highquality places that add value to the community.

Consistent. The SPA contains design guidelines in Chapter 5 to guide future development, consistent with the vision for Ontario Ranch. The guidelines are intended to ensure high quality, cohesive and attractive development that complements and integrates into the community and adds value to the City. The SPA also establishes landscape setbacks along all roadways within the Project site to create safe and attractive streets for pedestrians and motorists.

CE2-2: Development Review. We require
those proposing new development and
redevelopment to demonstrate how
their projects will create appropriately
unique, functional, and sustainable
places that will compete well with their
competition within the region.

Consistent. The SPA establishes a land use plan (Chapter 3.1) and design guidelines (Chapter 5) addressing site design, building design, and landscape design that ensure high-quality, functional and sustainable development that is regionally competitive and appropriate for the Ontario Ranch community.

CE2-5: Private Maintenance. We require
adequate maintenance, upkeep, and
investment in private property because
proper maintenance on private property
protects property values.

CE2-6: Public Maintenance. We require
the establishment and operation of
maintenance districts or other vehicles
to fund the long-term operation and
maintenance of the public realm
whether on private land, in rights-ofway, or on publicly-owned property.

Consistent. The Project SPA includes a Maintenance Responsibility Matrix (Chapter 6.11) identifying the public, private, or utility providers responsible for maintenance of roadways, parkways, trails, sidewalks, common areas, walls and monuments, infrastructure, and utilities within the Project site. Right-of-way for public streets and infrastructure improvements within the Project site shall be dedicated to the City of Ontario for maintenance purposes. Landscape improvements and public streetlights within the public right-of-way shall be maintained through a landscape and lighting district or other special maintenance district established by the City. Dry utilities such as electricity, natural gas, and communication systems will be maintained by the appropriate utility company.

Sources: TOP 2010.
535
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.10-20 4.10 | Land Use and Planning
Ontario Development Code Consistency
Upon adoption of the Project, the development regulations and design standards within the Project would apply to the Project site and would establish the applicable zoning regulations and development standards. The SPA would become the land use implementation tool for the Project site. As stated in Ontario Development Code Section 1.01.035, in the event of any conflict between the requirements of the Development Code and the standards contained within an adopted project, the requirements of the project shall govern, and when the provisions of a project are silent on a specific matter, the regulations set forth in the Development Code shall apply. As such, the Project would not result in conflicts with the Ontario Development Code, and impacts would be less than significant.

Airport Environs Land Use Plan Consistency
The Project site is located immediately to the north of the Chino Airport and is approximately 3.8 miles south of the ONT and within the Airport Influence Areas for both airports. Airport operations and their potential noise and safety hazards require careful land use planning on adjacent and nearby lands to protect residents and land uses. Airport operations and their accompanying safety and noise hazards are discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 4.11, Noise.

The City is currently developing a Compatibility Plan for Chino Airport (Compatibility Plan) that relies upon the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (State of California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics) October 2011 (Handbook). As provided for in the Handbook “alternative process” the City functions as the Designated Agency in formulating airport land use compatibility plans for City properties. The Compatibility Plan is based on the Handbook Generic Safety Zones for General Aviation Airports.

The City anticipates adoption of the Chino Airport Compatibility Plan in 2022. Final site plans and development plans within the Project site would be subject to and required to comply with applicable standards and requirements of the Compatibility Plan as adopted by the City. Please refer also to related discussions presented in Section 4.8, Hazardsand Hazardous Materials, of this Draft Subsequent EIR.

The Project site is within the ONT ALUCP. However, it is not within a safety zone, a noise impact zone, or an airspace protection zone of the ONT. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur.

Conclusion
The Project would develop business park and industrial uses that would benefit from the Chino Airport to further develop the local economy and business. Although the proposed Project land uses are not consistent with current TOP land use designations, the City’s proposed TOP 2050 Update includes land uses designations that are consistent with the Project. Furthermore, the SPA would promote orderly development to coincide with adjacent land uses, including Chino Airport. The proposed Project SPA embodies the goals and policies in the applicable long-range planning documents. However, as noted above, the Project’s proposed land uses are inconsistent with current TOP land uses and as such, this represents a significant impact. This impact would be remedied upon the City’s adoption of TOP 2050 Update which is planned for August 2022.
536
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.10-21 4.10 | Land Use and Planning

4.10.6 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic context for this cumulative analysis includes the City in relation to the City’s TOP, as well as nearby projects in neighboring jurisdictions. Cumulative development would result in substantial changes to existing land use patterns through conversion of agricultural and dairy lands into urban uses pursuant to the General Plan land use designations. Cumulative development would be subject to sitespecific environmental and planning reviews that would address consistency with adopted General Plan goals, objectives, and policies, as well as with the City’s Development Code and ALUCP policies. As part of environmental review, projects would be required to provide mitigation for any inconsistencies with TOP and environmental policies that would result insignificant adverse environmental effects. The cumulative projects as a whole would continue the steady urbanization of the City, and in particular the continued development of this industrial corridor within the City.

Cumulative projects could include General Plan amendments and/or zone changes, modifications to existing land uses. However, such amendments do not necessarily represent an inherent negative effect on the environment, particularly if the proposed changes involve changes in types and intensity of uses, rather than eliminating application of policies that were specifically adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Determining whether any future project might include such amendments and determining the cumulative effects of any such amendments would be speculative since it cannot be known what applications that are not currently filed might request. As noted above the Project’s proposed land uses are inconsistent with the City’s current TOP, which represents a significant Project impact and potentially significant cumulative impact. Therefore, the Project represents a cumulatively considerable impact related to policy consistency. This Project and cumulative impact would be remedied upon the City’s adoption of TOP 2050 Update planned for August 2022.

4.10.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, impacts on 4.10-1 would be a significant and unavoidable impact due to conflict with current TOP land use designations:

4.10-1.

4.10.8 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures feasible. Should the City adopt TOP 2050 Update, there would be no mitigation measures necessary relative to land use and planning.

4.10.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Even with implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the Project would result in unavoidable significant impacts with respect to conflict with the City’s land use plan (Impact 4.10-1). This impact would be remedied upon the City’s planned approval of TOP 2050 Update scheduled for August 2022.
537
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.10-22 4.10 | Land Use and Planning

4.10.10 References
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (State of California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics) October 2011. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/aeronautics/documents/californiaairportlanduseplanninghandbook-a11y.pdf.

City of Chino. Rev. 2020. City of Chino General Plan Map. https://www.cityofchino.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10382578/File/City%20Hall/Department s/Community%20Development/Chino%20General%20Plan%20Map%20- %20Revised%20February%2013,%202020.pdf.

City of Chino. Rev. 2020. City of Chino Zoning Map.
https://www.cityofchino.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10382578/File/City%20Hall/Department s/Community%20Development/Chino%20Zoning%20Map%20-
%20Revised%20February%2014,%202020.pdf.

City of Ontario. 2010. The Ontario Plan, Policy Plan. https://www.ontarioplan.org/policy-plan/.

City of Ontario. Rev 2017. LU-02 Land Use Designations Summary Table. https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2020/11/LU-02-Land-Use-designtable_032017.pdf.

City of Ontario. Rev. 2018. Zoning Map. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/zoning(c)36x48_10_3_1_03292019.pdf.

City of Ontario. Rev. 2020. Exhibit LU-01 Land Use Plan. https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2020/12/TOPLUP_Map24x3610_6_20201221.pdf.

Los Angeles/Ontario International Airport. 2010. Map 2-1 Compatibility Policy Map: Airport Influence Area. https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/policy-map-2-1.pdf.

SCAG. 2020. 2020-2045 SCAG RTP/SCS Connect SoCal Goals. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176. 538
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-1 4.11 | Noise

4.11 NOISE
This section of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Project (Project) discusses the fundamentals of sound; examines federal, State, and local noise guidelines, policies, and standards; reviews noise levels at existing noise-sensitive receptor locations; and evaluates potential noise and vibration impacts associated with the Project; and provides mitigation to reduce noise impacts at sensitive receptor locations. This evaluation uses procedures and methodologies as specified by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and evaluates the potential for the proposed Project to result in noise and vibration impacts at nearby sensitive receptors. Appendix H of this Draft Subsequent EIR provides supplementary, Project-specific background information, construction noise calculation worksheets, and Project-generated traffic noise modeling results.

4.11.1 Environmental Setting
Sound Fundamentals
Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. It is described in terms of loudness or amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in Hertz [Hz] or cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by weighting frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Changes of 1 to 3 dBA are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions and changes of less than 1 dBA are usually indiscernible.

A 3 dBA change in noise levels is considered the minimum change that is detectable with human hearing in outside environments. A change of 5 dBA is readily discernable to most people in an exterior environment whereas a 10 dBA change is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the sound.

The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hz are not heard at all and are “felt” more as a vibration. Similarly, while people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off rapidly above about 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency dependent rating scale is usually used to relate noise to human sensitivity.

Noise is defined as unwanted sound and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the federal government, the State of California, and many local governments have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain humanactivities.

Technical Terminology
Noise is most often defined as unwanted sound. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people. People judge 539
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-2 4.11 | Noise
the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as “noisiness” or “loudness.” The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this section:
• Sound. A disturbance created by a vibrating object, which, when transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone.
• Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable. • Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale. • A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear.
• Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq); also called the Energy-Equivalent Noise Level. The value of an equivalent, steady sound level which, in a stated time period (often over an hour) and at a stated location, has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time-varying sound. Thus, the Leq metric is a single numerical value that represents the equivalent amount of variable sound energy received by a receptor over the specified duration.
• Statistical Sound Level (Ln). The sound level that is exceeded “n” percent of time during a given sample period. For example, the L50 level is the statistical indicator of the time-varying noise signal that is exceeded 50 percent of the time (during each sampling period); that is, half of the sampling time, the changing noise levels are above this value and half of the time they are below it. This is called the “median sound level.” The L10 level, likewise, is the value that is exceeded 10 percent of the time (i.e., near the maximum) and this is often known as the “intrusive sound level.” The L90 is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is often considered the “effective background level” or “residual noise level.” • Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn or DNL). The energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am.
• Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 5 dB added from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm and 10 dB from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am. For general community/environmental noise, CNEL and Ldn values rarely differ by more than 1 dB (with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive, that is, higher than the Ldn value). As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are interchangeable and are treated as equivalent in this assessment.
• Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). The peak signal value of an oscillating vibration velocity waveform usually expressed in inches per second(in/sec).
• Vibration Decibel (VdB). A unitless measure of vibration, expressed on a logarithmic scale and with respect to a defined reference vibration velocity. In the U.S., the standard reference velocity is 1 micro-inch per second (1x10-6 in/sec).
• Sensitive Receptor. Noise- and vibration-sensitive receptors include land uses where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment and public health and safety. Residences, schools, motels and hotels, libraries, religious institutions, hospitals, and nursing homes are examples. 540
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-3 4.11 | Noise
• RCNM. Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model.

Sound Measurement
Sound pressure is measured through the A-weighted measure to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. That is, an A-weighted noise level de-emphasizes low and very high frequencies of sound similar to the human ear’s de-emphasis of thesefrequencies.

Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing points on a sharply rising curve. On a logarithmic scale, an increase of 10 dBA is 10 times more intense than 1 dBA, while 20 dBA is 100 times more intense, and 30 dBA is 1,000 times more intense. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times greater than 0 dBA. The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud).

Sound levels are generated from a source and their decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. This phenomenon is known as “spreading loss.” For a single point source, sound levels decrease by approximately 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source. This drop-off rate is appropriate for noise generated by onsite operations from stationary equipment or activity at a project site. If noise is produced by a line source, such as highway traffic, the sound decreases by 3 dBA for each doubling of distance in a hard site environment. Line source noise in a relatively flat environment with absorptive vegetation decreases by

4.5 dBA for each doubling of distance.

Time variation in noise exposure is typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called Leq), or alternately, as a statistical description of the sound level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. For example, the L50 noise level represents the noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time. Half the time the noise level exceeds this level and half the time the noise level is less than this level. This level is also representative of the level that is exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L2, L8 and L25 values represent the noise levels that are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time, or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour. These “Ln” values are typically used to demonstrate compliance for stationary noise sources with a city’s noise ordinance, as discussed below. Other values typically noted during a noise survey are the Lmin and Lmax.

These values represent the minimum and maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over the measurement period.

Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, State law, the County, and the City require that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the CNEL or Day-Night Noise Level (Ldn). The CNEL descriptor requires that an artificial increment of 5 dBA be added to the actual noise level for the hours from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 10 dBA for the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The Ldn descriptor uses the same methodology except that there is no artificial increment added to the hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Both descriptors give roughly the same 24-hour level with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive (i.e., higher).
541
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-4 4.11 | Noise
Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise
Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA.

Exposure to high noise levels affects our entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, and thereby affecting blood pressure, functions of the heart and the nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA could result in permanent hearing damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear. This is called the threshold of pain. Table 4.11-1, Typical Noise Levelsshows typical noise levels from familiar noise sources.

Table 4.11-1: Typical Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities
Noise Level
(dBA) Common Indoor Activities
Onset of physical discomfort 120+
110 Rock Band (near amplification system)
Jet Flyover at 1,000 feet
100
Gas Lawn Mower at three feet
90 Diesel Truck at 50 feet, at 50 mph Food Blender at 3 feet 80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet
Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet
Commercial Area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy Traffic at 300 feet 60
Large Business Office
Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime
30 Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) 20 Broadcast/Recording Studio
10 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013.

Vibration Fundamentals
Vibration is an oscillating motion in the earth. Like noise, vibration is transmitted in waves, but in this case through the earth or solid objects. Unlike noise, vibration is typically of a frequency that is felt rather than heard.
542
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-5 4.11 | Noise
Vibration can be either natural as in the form of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, or man-made as from explosions, heavy machinery or trains. Both natural and man-made vibration may be continuous such as from operating machinery, or impulsive as from an explosion.

As with noise, vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Amplitude may be characterized in three ways including displacement, velocity, and acceleration. Particle displacement is a measure of the distance that a vibrated particle travels from its original position and for the purposes of soil displacement is typically measured in inches or millimeters. Particle velocity is the rate of speed at which soil particles move in inches per second or millimeters per second. Particle acceleration is the rate of change in velocity with respect to time and is measured in inches per second or millimeters per second.

Typically, particle velocity (measured in inches per second) and/or acceleration (measured in gravities) are used to describe vibration. Table 4.11-2, Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels presents the human reaction to various levels of peak particle velocity (PPV).

Table 4.11-2: Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels Vibration Level Peak
Particle Velocity (in/sec)
Human
Reaction
Effect on
Buildings

0.006–0.019 Threshold of perception, possibility of
intrusion
Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any
type

0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible
Recommended upper level of vibration to
which ruins and ancient monuments should
be subjected

0.10 Level at which continuous vibration
begins to annoy people
Virtually no risk of “architectural” (i.e., not
structural) damage to normal buildings

0.20 Vibrations annoying to people in
buildings
Threshold at which there is a risk to
“architectural” damage to normal dwelling
– houses with plastered walls and ceilings

0.4–0.6
Vibrations considered unpleasant by
people subjected to continuous
vibrations and unacceptable to some
people walking on bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than normally
expected from traffic, but would cause
“architectural” damage and possibly minor
structural damage
Source: California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013.

The way in which vibration is transmitted through the earth is called propagation. As vibration waves propagate from a source, the energy is spread over an ever-increasing area such that the energy level striking a given point is reduced with the distance from the energy source. This geometric spreading loss is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Wave energy is also reduced with distance as a result of material damping in the form of internal friction, soil layering, and void spaces. The amount of attenuation provided by material damping varies with soil type and condition as well as the frequency of the wave.

Existing Conditions
Mobile Noise Sources
Existing roadway noise levels were calculated for the roadway segments in the Project vicinity. This task was accomplished using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and existing traffic volumes from the Traffic Analysis Study (see Appendix I1). The noise prediction model 543
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-6 4.11 | Noise
calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (also referred to as energy rates) used in the FHWA model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The Caltrans data indicates that California automobile noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels. The average daily noise levels along roadway segments in proximity to the Project site are included in Table 4.11-3, Existing Traffic Noise Levels. As shown in Table 4.11-3, existing traffic noise levels in the Project vicinity range between 55.4 dBA CNEL and

74.9 dBA CNEL.

Table 4.11-3: Existing Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment ADT1 dBA CNEL2
Euclid Avenue
between Walnut Ave and SR 60 29,290 73.9
between Riverside Dr and Walnut Ave 31,777 74.2
between Chino Ave and Riverside Dr 28,828 73.3
between Schaefer Ave and Chino Ave 29,467 74.5
between Edison Ave and Schaefer Av 31,494 74.8
between Eucalyptus Ave and Edison Ave 32,338 74.9
between Merrill Ave and Eucalyptus Ave 32,600 74.9
Bon View Avenue
between Merrill Ave and Eucalyptus Ave 2,508 57.0
Grove Avenue
between Merrill Ave and Eucalyptus Ave 7,967 63.2
Walker Avenue
between Eucalyptus Ave and Edison Ave 1,685 55.4
Archibald Avenue
between Limonite Ave and Merrill Ave 25,110 74.4
between Merrill Ave and Eucalyptus Ave 26,427 74.2
between Eucalyptus Ave and Edison Ave 24,863 73.7
EucalyptusAvenue
between Euclid Ave and Bon View Ave 7,545 61.9
between Bon View Ave and Grove Ave 3,592 58.7
between Grove Ave and Walker Ave 3,592 58.7
Merrill Avenue
between Euclid Ave and Bon View Ave 11,663 68.7
between Bon View Ave and Grove Ave 12,133 68.9
between Grove Ave and Flight Ave 11,807 68.8
between Flight Ave and Van Vliet Ave 12,003 68.9
between Van Vliet Ave and Hellman Ave 12,081 68.9
between Hellman Ave and Carpenter Ave 13,217 69.3
between Carpenter Ave and Archibald Ave 11,885 68.8
Edison Avenue
between Euclid Ave and Walker Ave 17,782 71.3
between Walker Ave and Archibald Ave 18,110 71.4
between Archibald Ave and Turner Ave 19,604 71.9
544
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-7 4.11 | Noise
Roadway Segment ADT1 dBA CNEL2
Ontario Ranch Road
between Turner Ave and Haven Ave 19,931 72.2
between Haven Ave and Hamner Ave 29,922 73.8
between Hamner Ave and I-15 21,002 72.2
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL= Community Equivalent Noise Level Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline.

Source: Based on traffic data provided by Urban Crossroads (2021). Refer to Appendix H for traffic noise modeling results.

Chino Airport
The Project site is located directly north of the Chino Airport. Due to the orientation of the runways, the Project site falls outside the 55 dBA CNEL noise contour. 1 As shown in Table 4.11-3, existing traffic noise
exceeds the 55 dBA noise level generated by Chino Airport. Therefore, the Chino Airport would not be a significant source of noise for the Project site.

Ontario International Airport
The Project site is located five miles south of the Ontario International Airport. Due to the orientation of the runways, the Project site falls outside the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. 2 Therefore, the Ontario
InternationalAirport would not be a significant source of noise for the Project site.

Ambient Noise Measurements
The Project site currently contains land used for dairy farming. To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the Project area, Kimley-Horn conducted four short-term noise measurements on September 14, 2021; see Appendix H. The noise measurement sites were representative of typical existing noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the Project site. The 10-minute measurements were taken between 8:45 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. near potential sensitive receptors. Short-term Leq measurements are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day. The noise levels and sources of noise measured at each location are listed in Table 4.11-4, Existing Noise Measurements and shown on Figure 4.11-1, Noise Measurement and Sensitive Receptor Locations.

Table 4.11-4: Existing Noise Measurements
Monitoring
Location Description Leq
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA) Time
NM-1 Eucalyptus Ave and Bon View Ave 64.2 45.7 79.9 8:45-8:55 a.m.

NM-2 Chino Airport and Merrill Ave, east of Project 66.3 42.3 80.0 9:05-9:15 a.m.

NM-3 Stearman Dr and Merrill Ave, west of Project 69.1 49.6 90.3 9:20-9:30 p.m.

NM-4 Clemson St and Longwood Ave 52.7 46.6 68.3 9:35-9:45 a.m.

Source: Kimley-Horn, refer to Appendix H
1 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document (adopted September 2008) Map CH-3 2 Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (amended July 2018) Map 2-3: Noise Impact Zones 545
Merrill Avenue
Bon View Avenue
Euclid Avenue
Stearman
Drive

PROJECT
SITE
Longwood Ave
Clemson
Street !(
Eucalyptus Avenue !(
!( !(
!(
NM-3 NM-2
NM-1
NM-4
Source: ESRI World Imagery
FIGURE 4.11-1: Noise Measurement and Sensitive Receptor Locations Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Z:\RIV_GIS\195242002 - Ontario Ranch Buisiness Park\Noise.mxd 0 300 600
Feet
Nearest Sensitive Receptor
!( Noise Measurement
!(
Sultana Avenue Sultana Avenue Campus Avenue Campus Avenue Kimley>>> Horn 546
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-9 4.11 | Noise
Sensitive Receptors
The Project site is an existing dairy farm bounded by Eucalyptus to the north, MerrillAvenue to the south, an unimproved right-of-way of Sultana Avenue to the west, and Campus Avenue to the east. The nearest sensitive receptors are the single-family residences located across the street from the Project site, along the north side of Eucalyptus Avenue, approximately 82 feet (25 meters) from the Project site boundary.

4.11.2 Regulatory Setting
To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise.

Federal
While there are no federal regulations directly applicable to implementation of the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the federal government regulates occupational noise exposure common in the workplace through the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Such limitations would apply to the operation of construction equipment and would also apply to any proposed industrial warehouse land uses. Noise exposure of this type is dependent on work conditions and is addressed through a facility’s Health and Safety Plan, as required under OSHA, and is, therefore, not addressed further in this analysis.

State
General Plan Guidelines
The State, through its General Plan Guidelines, discusses how ambient noise should influence land use and development decisions and includes a table of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable uses at different noise levels expressed in CNEL. A conditionally acceptable designation implies new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use is made and needed noise insulation features are incorporated in the design. By comparison, a normally acceptable designation indicates that standard construction can occur with no special noise reduction requirements. Local municipalities adopt these compatibility standards as part of their General Plan and modify them as appropriate for their local environmental setting.

California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC), Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1, Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Section 1207.11.2, Allowable Interior Noise Levels, requires that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB in any habitable room. The noise metric is evaluated as either the day-night average sound level (Ldn) or the CNEL, consistent with the noise element of the local general plan.

The State of California’s noise insulation standards for nonresidential uses are codified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 11, California Green 547
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-10 4.11 | Noise
Building Standards (CALGreen) Code. The CALGreen Code noise standards apply to new or renovation construction projects in California to control interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources.

Proposed projects may use either the prescriptive method (Section 5.507.4.1) or the performance method (Section 5.507.4.2) to show compliance. Under the prescriptive method, a project must demonstrate transmission loss ratingsfor the wall and roof-ceiling assemblies and exterior windows when located within a noise environment of 65 dBA CNEL or higher. Under the performance method, a project must demonstrate that interior noise levels do not exceed 50 dBALeq(1hr).

Local Noise Standards
City of Ontario – The Ontario Plan Safety Element
The Safety and Land Use Elements of The Ontario Plan (TOP) set forth goals, policies, and land use guidelines to protect residential neighborhoods and noise-sensitive receptors from excessive noise levels.

The City uses the Noise Level Exposure and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines (shown in Table 4.11-5, Noise Level Exposure and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, below) when siting new development and making land use decisions.

Table 4.11-5: Noise Level Exposure and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines Land Use Categories Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) Category Use
s
Clearly
Acceptable1
Normally
Acceptable2
Normally
Unacceptable3
Clearly
Unacceptable4
Residential/Lodging
Single Family/Duplex <60 60-65 65-70 70-85
Multi-Family <60 60-65 65-75 75-85
Mobile Homes <60 60-65 - 65-85
Hotel/Motel <65 65-70 70-80 80-85
Public/Institutional
Schools/Hospitals <60 60-65 65-70 70-85
Churches/Libraries <60 60-65 65-70 70-85
Auditoriums/Concert
Halls <55 55-60 60-70 70-85
Commercial
Offices <65 65-75 75-80 80-85
Retail <70 70-75 75-80 80-85
Industrial
Manufacturing <70 70-75 75-85 -
Warehousing <70 70-80 80-85 -
Recreational/Open
Space
Parks/Playgrounds <65 65-70 70-75 75-85
Golf Course/Riding
Stables <65 65-70 70-75 75-85
Outdoor Spectator
Sports <60 60-65 65-70
Outdoor Music
Shells/Amphitheaters - <60 60-65 65-85
Livestock/Wildlife
Preserves <70 - 70-75 75-85
Crop Agriculture <55-85 - - -
Source: The Ontario Plan
1 No special noise insulation required, assuming buildings of normal conventional construction. 2 Acoustical reports will be required for major new residential construction. Conventional construction with closed windows and fresh air supply systems of air conditions will normally suffice
3 New construction should be discouraged. Noise/aviation easements required for all new construction. If new construction does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made, and necessary noise insulation features included. 4 No new construction should be permitted.
548
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-11 4.11 | Noise
The following goals and policies from TOP Safety Element are directly relevant to the proposed Project:

GoalS4 An environment where noise does not adversely affect the public’s health, safety, and welfare
GoalS4-1 Noise Mitigation. Utilize the City’s Noise Ordinance, building codes and subdivision and development codes to mitigate noise impacts.

GoalS4-2 Coordination with Transportation Authorities. Collaborate with airport owners, FAA, Caltrans, SANBAG, SCAG, neighboring jurisdictions, and other transportation providers in the preparation and maintenance of, and updates to transportation related plans to minimize noise impacts and provide appropriate mitigation measures.

GoalS4-4 Truck Traffic. Manage truck traffic to minimize noise impacts on sensitive land uses.

GoalS4-5 Roadway Design. Design streets and highways to minimize noise impacts.

Municipal Code Standards
The City enforces noise limits through the Municipal Code (MC) Chapter 29, Noise. Table 4.11-6, Exterior Noise Standards – City of Ontario,summarizes the City of Ontario’s noise limits.

Table 4.11-6: Exterior Noise Standards – City of Ontario Land Use
Allowed Equivalent Noise Level, Leq
7:00 am to 10:00 pm 10:00 pmto 7:00 am
Single-Family Residential 65 dBA 45 dBA
Multi-Family Residential, Mobile Home Parks 65 dBA 50 dBA Commercial Property 65 dBA 60 dBA
Residential Portion of Mixed Use 70 dBA 70 dBA
Manufacturing and Industrial, Other Uses 70 dBA 70 dBA
Source: City of Ontario Municipal Code, Chapter 29 Noise – Section 5-29.04 Exterior Noise Standards, 2020.

The noise limits summarized in Table 4.11-6 are subject to the following:
• The noise standard for the applicable zone for any 15-minute period; and • A maximum instantaneous (single instance) noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time (measured using A-weighted slow response). • In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the maximum allowable noise level under such category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. • The Noise Zone IV (residential portion of mixed use) standard shall apply to that portion of residential property falling within 100 feet of a commercial property or use, if the noise originates from that commercial property or use.
• If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply. 549
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-12 4.11 | Noise
• Section5-29.11, the noise standards assigned to Noise Zone I (single-family residential) also apply to the outdoor use area of any school, daycare center, hospital or similar health care institution, library or museum while it is in use.
• Section 5-29.06(e), noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition or grading of a public right-of-way is exempt from the provisions of the Municipal Code. • Section 5-29.09 addresses construction noise and states that no person, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition or any other related building activity, shall operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, or a Police or Code Enforcement Officer, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 am and 6:00 pm or on Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 9:00 am and 6:00 pm.

City of Chino
The City of Chino enforces noise limits through MC Chapter 9.40, Noise. Table 4.11-7, Exterior Noise Standards – City of Chino, summarizes the City of Chino’s noise limits for residential, school, and hospital (or similar health care institution) properties.

Table 4.11-7: Exterior Noise Standards – City of Chino
Time Period
Noise Level (dBA)
L501L252L8
3 L2
4 Lmax
5 7:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m. 55 60 65 70 75
10:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m. 50 55 60 65 70
Source: City of Chino Municipal Code, Chapter 9.40 Noise – Section 9.40.040 Exterior Noise Standards, Section 9.40.070 Schools, Churches, Libraries, Health Care Institutions – Special Provisions, 2020.

Note: A 5 dBA penalty shall be applied in the event of an alleged offensive noise such as impact noise, simple tones, speech, music, or any combination of thereof. The noise standards shall not exceed:
1 The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour; or 2 The noise standard plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour; or 3 The noise standard plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour; or 4 The noise standard plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour; or 5 The noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time.

The noise limits summarized in Table 4.11-7 are subject to the following:
• Each of the noise limits specified in Table 4.11-7 shall be reduced by 5 dBA for impulse or simple tone noises, or for noises consisting of speech or music; provided, however, that if the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient shall be the standard. • In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four noise limit categories above, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise category, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.
• If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply. • Construction activity is only permitted between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm Monday through Saturday, with no construction allowed on Sundays and federal holidays pursuant to Section 9.40.060 and Section 15.44.030 of the Chino MC. The construction noise standard is 65 550
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-13 4.11 | Noise
dBA plus the limits specified in Section 9.40.040(B) at the affected residential property line.

Construction noise levels when measured on any other property are not to exceed:
▪ 65 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour; or ▪ 70 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour; or ▪ 75 dBA for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; or ▪ 80 dBA for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or ▪ 85 dBA for any period of time.
• Section 9.40.110 of the Chino MC sets the threshold of vibration perception at no more than 0.05 in/sec root mean squared (RMS) vertical velocity (equivalent to 94 VdB).

4.11.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would result in:

N-1 Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

N-2 Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

N-3 For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, if the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

4.11.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP N-1 The proposed project shall comply with City of Ontario MC Chapter 29, Exterior Noise Standards and Section 5-29.09, which limits construction activities to weekdays between the hours of 7:00 am and 6:00 pm or on Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 9:00 am and 6:00 pm.

PPP N-2 The proposed project shall comply with City of Chino MC Chapter 9.40, Exterior Noise Standards, and Section 15.44.040, which limits construction activities between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm Monday through Saturday, with no construction allowed on Sundays and federal holidays.

4.11.5 Methodology
Construction Noise
City of Ontario
The City has not established noise limits for temporary construction activities. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, the 65 dBA threshold from the City of Chino, located directly adjacent to the southern Project site boundary, is used to analyze construction noise impacts to affected residences in the City. 551
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-14 4.11 | Noise
City of Chino
The City of Chino has set a noise limit to construction noise at 70 dBA at the affected residential property line.

Stationary Noise
City of Ontario
As discussed above in Section 4.11.2, Regulatory Setting, the City’s noise ordinance (Chapter 29, Noise, of the MC) establishes noise level standards at receiving residential, school, daycare, hospital, library and museum land uses (see Table 4.11-5). These noise limits are used as significance thresholds for stationary noise sources.

Vibration
Architectural Damage
The cities of Ontario and Chino do not have established vibration damage criteria, therefore the FTA criteria for acceptable levels of ground-borne vibration for various types of buildings is used for this analysis. Structures that amplify ground borne vibration and wood-frame buildings, such as typical residential structures, are more affected by ground vibration than heavier buildings. The level at which ground borne vibration is strong enough to cause architectural damage has not been determined conclusively. The most conservative estimates are reflected in the FTA standards shown in Table 4.11-8, Groundborne Vibration Criteria: Architectural Damage.

Table 4.11-8: Groundborne Vibration Criteria: Architectural Damage Building Category PPV (in/sec)
I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.

Vibration Annoyance
Section 9.40.110 of the Chino MC sets the threshold of vibration perception at no more than 0.05 in/sec RMS vertical velocity (equivalent to 94 VdB). Therefore, the potential for vibration annoyance is assessed using 94 VdB as a threshold in this analysis.

Construction
Construction noise levels were based on typical noise levels generated by construction equipment published by the FTA and FHWA. Construction noise is assessed in dBA Leq. This unit is appropriate because Leq can be used to describe noise level from operation of each piece of equipment separately, and levels can be combined to represent the noise level from all equipment operating during a given period.
552
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-15 4.11 | Noise
Construction noise modeling was conductedusing the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM).

Reference noise levels are used to estimate operational noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors based on a standard noise attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance (line-of-sight method of sound attenuation for point sources of noise). Noise level estimates do not account for the presence of intervening structures or topography, which may reduce noise levels at receptor locations. Therefore, the noise levels presented herein represent a conservative, reasonable worst-case estimate of actual temporary construction noise.

Operations
The analysis of the Without Project and With Project noise environments is based on noise prediction modeling and empirical observations. Reference noise level data are used to estimate the Project’s operational noise impacts from stationary sources. Noise levels are collected from field noise measurements and other published sources from similar types of activities are used to estimate noise levels expected with the Project’s stationary sources. The reference noise levels are used to represent a worst-case noise environment as noise level from stationary sources can vary throughout the day.

Operational noise is evaluated based on the standards within the City’s Noise Ordinance and TOP. The Without Project and With Project traffic noise levels in the Project vicinity were calculated using the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108).

Vibration
Groundborne vibration levels associated with construction-related activities for the Project were evaluated utilizing typical groundborne vibration levels associated with construction equipment, obtained from FTA published data for construction equipment. Potential groundborne vibration impacts related to building/structure damage and interference with sensitive existing operations were evaluated, considering the distance from construction activities to nearby land uses and typically applied criteria.

Construction vibration levels were calculated using the following formula:

PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
where: PPVequip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPVref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.

D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver

4.11.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.

Impact 4.11-1 Would the Project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? [Threshold N-1]
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact 553
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-16 4.11 | Noise
Construction
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels.

During construction, exterior noise levels could affect the residential neighborhoods surrounding the construction site. The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project construction area is an existing residence located approximately 82 feet from the Project site boundary, on the north side of Eucalyptus Avenue.

Project construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Such activities would require industrial saws, excavators, crushing equipment, and dozers during demolition; dozers and tractors during site preparation; excavators, graders, dozers, tractors, and scrapers during grading; cranes, forklifts, generators, tractors, and welders during building construction; pavers, rollers, and paving equipment during paving; and air compressors during architectural coating. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 to 4 minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. Typical noise levels associated with individual construction equipment are listed in Table 4.11-9: Typical Construction Noise Levels. Equipment noise levels at 50 feet and 82 feet (the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor) are included in Table 4.11-9.

Table 4.11-9: Typical Construction Noise Levels
Equipment
Typical Noise Level
(dBA) at 50 feet from
Source
Nearest Sensitive Receptor Noise Level (dBA) at
500 feet from Source Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 1
82 feet from Source1
Air Compressor 80 76 60
Backhoe 80 76 60
Compactor 82 78 62
Concrete Mixer 85 81 65
Concrete Pump 82 78 62
Concrete Vibrator 76 72 56
Crane, Mobile 83 79 63
Dozer 85 81 65
Generator 82 78 62
Grader 85 81 65
Impact Wrench 85 81 65
Jack Hammer 88 84 68
Loader 80 76 60
Paver 85 81 65
Pneumatic Tool 85 81 65
Pump 77 73 57
Roller 85 81 65
Saw 76 72 56
Scraper 85 81 65
Shovel 82 78 62
Truck 84 80 64
Note:

1. Calculated using the inverse square law formula for sound attenuation: dBA2 = dBA1+20Log(d1/d2) Where: dBA2 = estimated noise level at receptor; dBA1 = reference noise level; d1 = reference distance; d2 = receptor location distance Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. 554
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-17 4.11 | Noise
The City has not established noise limits for temporary construction activities. Chino’s City limits are adjacent to the southern boundary of the Project site. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, the City of Chino’s construction noise threshold of 65 dBA for noise generated for 30 minutes or more in an hour when measured at an affected residential property, is used to analyze construction noise impacts to affected residences in the City of Ontario. Chino’s MC Section 15.44.030 only permits construction to occur between 7:00 am and 8:00 pm Monday through Saturday. Constructionnoise levels cannot exceed 70 dBA for a period of fifteen minutes in an hour or 85 dBA for any period of time. As shown in Table 4.11-9, if construction equipment were located on the Project site boundary it would not exceed 85 dBA. However, if equipment nearest to a sensitive receptor were to remained stationary for over fifteen minutes, construction noise would exceed the City’s 70 dBA threshold. MM NOI-1 prohibits heavy construction equipment from remaining stationary for more than fifteen minutes when within 500 feet of sensitive receptors, as noise attenuates based on distance noise and levels would decrease as equipment moves away from sensitive receptors. As shown in Table 4.11-9, at 500 feet from receptors construction noise would not exceed 70 dBA. Therefore, MM NOI-2 would require all stationary equipment to be located a minimum of 500 feet from a sensitive receptor.

Following FTA’s methodology for quantitative construction noise assessments, FHWA’s RCNM was used to predict construction noise. The noise levels calculated in Table 4.11-10, Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptor, show estimated exterior construction noise. Following FTA methodology, when calculating construction noise, all equipment is assumed to operate at the center of the Project because equipment would operate throughout the Project site and not at a fixed location for extended periods of time. During each construction phases, the distance used in the RCNM model was 1,286 feet, measured from the center of the Project to the nearest sensitive receptor located to the north.

Table 4.11-10: Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptor Construction Phase
Modeled Exterior
Construction Noise
Level at Nearest
Residence (dBA Leq)
Noise Threshold
(dBA Leq)
Exceed Threshold?
Demolition 59.6 65 No
Site Preparation 59.4 65 No
Grading 60.0 65 No
Construction /Paving/ Painting1 58.8 65 No
1 Construction, paving, and architectural coating phases are anticipated to overlap, equipment from these phases have conservatively been combined and modeled as a worst-case scenario.

Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model, 2006. Refer to Appendix H for noise modeling results.

As shown in Table 4.11-10, construction noise would not exceed the 65 dBA threshold at residential properties. In addition, compliance with the Chino MC would minimize impacts from construction noise by limiting construction to daytime hours on weekdays and Saturdays. Construction activities would result in a less than significant noise impact.

Operations
Implementation of the proposed Project would create new sources of noise in the Project vicinity. The major noise sources associated with the Project that would potentially impact existing nearby residences include stationary noise equipment (i.e., trash compactors, air conditioners, etc.); truck and loading 555
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-18 4.11 | Noise
dock (i.e., slow moving truck on the site, maneuvering and idling trucks, equipment noise); parking areas(i.e., car door slamming, car radios, engine start-up, and car pass-by); and off-site traffic noise.

Mechanical Equipment
The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project site is the residence on the north side of Eucalyptus Avenue, approximately 82 feet from the Project site boundary. Potential stationary noise sources related to longterm operation of the Project would include mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] equipment) typically generates noise levels of approximately 52 dBA at 50 feet. Based on preliminary site plans, the nearest potential location for a HVAC unit would be on the roof of Building 10, approximately 200 feet from the nearest residential property. HVAC noise levels would attenuate by the distance to approximately 40 dBA, which is well below the City’s 65 dBA daytime and 45 dBA nighttime noise standards for residential uses (refer to Table 4.11-6, Exterior Noise Standards – City of Ontario). Operation of mechanical equipment would not increase ambient noise levels beyond the acceptable compatible land use noise levels.

Truck and Loading Dock Noise
During loading and unloading activities, noise would be generated by the trucks’ diesel engines, exhaust systems, and brakes during low gear shifting’ braking activities; backing up toward the docks; dropping down the dock ramps; and maneuvering away from the docks. The nearest loading/unloading activities to residential properties would occur along the northern perimeter of the Project site.

The proposed Project buildings include dock-high doors for truck loading/unloading and manufacturing/ light industrial operations. The nearest dock-high doors are located approximately 270 feet from the Project site boundary and 380 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor. The dock doors are oriented to the south, away from the residences to the north. Loading dock noise is approximately 68 dB at 30 feet. 3 Loading dock noise levels would be approximately 37.9 dBA at the nearest receptor after accounting for distance and the intervening structures. Furthermore, loading dock doors would be surrounded with protective aprons, gaskets, or similar improvements that, when a trailer is docked, would serve as a noise barrier between the interior warehouse activities and the exterior loading area. This would attenuate noise emanating from interior activities, and as such, interior loading and associated activities would be permissible during all hours of the day. Therefore, noise levels associated with truck loading/unloading activities would not exceed the City’s 65 dBA daytime and 45 dBA nighttime noise standards when measured at the nearest residential uses.

Parking Noise
Parking would be scattered throughout the site and located on the north, south, east, and west portions of the Project site and central areas between buildings. The proposed Project would provide 816 parking stalls, 288 trailers stalls, and 259 dock doors. Traffic associated with parking lots is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards, which are based on a time-averaged scale such as the CNEL scale. The instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine 3 Loading dock reference noise level measurements conducted by Kimley-Horn on December 18, 2018. 556
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-19 4.11 | Noise
starting up, and car pass-bys range from 53 to 61 dBA.4 Conversations in parking areas may also be an annoyance to adjacent sensitive receptors. Sound levels of speech typically range from 33 dBA at 50 feet for normal speech to 50 dBA at 50 feet for very loud speech. 5It should be noted that parking lot noises are instantaneous noise levels compared to noise standards in the hourly Leq metric, which are averaged over the entire duration of a time period. As a result, actual noise levels over time resulting from parking lot activities would be far lower than the reference levels identified above.

For the purpose of providing a conservative, quantitative estimate of the noise levels that would be generated from the vehicles entering and exiting the parking lot, the methodology recommended by FTA for the general assessment of stationary transit noise sources is used. Using the methodology, the Project’s peak hourly noise level that would be generated by the on-site parking levels was estimated using the following FTA equation for a parking lot:

Leq(h) = SELref + 10 log (NA/1,000) – 35.6
Where:

Leq(h) = hourly Leq noise level at 50 feet
SELref = reference noise level for stationary noise source represented in sound exposure level (SEL) at 50 feet
NA = number of automobiles per hour

35.6 is a constant in the formula, calculated as 10 times the logarithm of the number of seconds in an hour
Based on the peak hour trip generation rates in the Traffic Analysis (Appendix I), approximately 274 trips during peak a.m. hours and 323 trips during p.m. hours would be made to and from the Project site each day. Using the FTA’s reference noise level of 92 dBA SEL6 at 50 feet from the noise source, the Project’s highest peak hour vehicle trips would generate noise levels of approximately 51.5 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the parking lot. The nearest sensitive receptor is 150 feet from a parking area. Based strictly on distance attenuation, parking lot noise at the nearest receptor would be 42 dBA which is below the City’s nighttime residential noise standard of 45 dBA. Therefore, noise impacts from parking lots would be less than significant.

Off-Site Traffic Noise
Implementation of the Project would generate increased traffic volumes along nearby roadway segments.

According to the Traffic Analysis, the Project would generate 3,656 two-way daily trips which would result in noise increases on Project area roadways. In general, a traffic noise increase of less than 3 dBA is barely perceptible to people, while a 5-dBA increase is readily noticeable. Generally, traffic volumes on Project area roadways would have to approximately double for the resulting traffic noise levels to increase by 3 dBA. Therefore, permanent increases in ambient noise levels of less than 3 dBA are considered to be less than significant.
4 Kariel, H. G., Noise in Rural Recreational Environments, Canadian Acoustics 19(5), 3-10, 1991. 5 Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden. Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, July 6, 2010.
6 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. 557
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-20 4.11 | Noise
Traffic noise levels for roadways primarily affected by the Project were calculated using the FHWA’s Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Traffic noise modeling was conducted for conditions with and without the Project, based on traffic volumes from the Traffic Impact Analysis. Table 4.11-11, Phase 1 Opening Year and Opening Year Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels demonstrates that opening year Project traffic-generated noise levels on Project area roadways would range between 55.5 dBA CNEL and

75.8 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline, and the Project would result in a maximum increase of

0.9 dBA CNEL along Eucalyptus Avenue. Noise impacts from off-site traffic would be less than significant.

Table 4.11-11: Opening Year and Opening Year Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels Roadway Segment
Opening Year Opening Year
Plus Project
Project
Change
from No
Build
Conditions
Significant
Impact? ADT dBA
CNEL1 ADT dBA CNEL1
Euclid Avenue
between Walnut Ave and SR 60 33,964 74.5 34,804 74.8 0.3 No between Riverside Dr and Walnut Ave 36,486 74.8 37,268 75.1 0.3 No between Chino Ave and Riverside Dr 33,980 74.1 34,908 74.4 0.3 No between Schaefer Ave and Chino Ave 34,724 75.3 35,680 75.5 0.2 No between Edison Ave and Schaefer Av 36,809 75.5 38,113 75.8 0.3 No between Eucalyptus Ave and Edison Ave 37,177 75.5 37,551 75.8 0.3 No between Merrill Ave and Eucalyptus Ave 37,570 75.5 37,982 75.8 0.3 No Bon View Avenue
between Merrill Ave and Eucalyptus Ave 3,124 58.0 3,154 58.0 0.0 No Grove Avenue
between Merrill Ave and Eucalyptus Ave 11,705 64.9 11,995 65.0 0.1 No Walker Avenue
between Eucalyptus Ave and Edison Ave 1,753 55.5 1,753 55.5 0.0 No Archibald Avenue
between Limonite Ave and Merrill Ave 27,790 74.4 27,906 74.5 0.1 No between Merrill Ave and Eucalyptus Ave 30,741 74.9 31,281 75.0 0.1 No between Eucalyptus Ave and Edison Ave 29,200 74.4 29,408 74.5 0.1 No Eucalyptus Avenue
between Euclid Ave and Bon View Ave 8,067 62.1 8,097 62.1 0.0 No between Bon View Ave and Grove Ave 5,042 60.0 6,088 60.9 0.9 No between Grove Ave and Walker Ave 5,205 60.3 6,193 61.0 0.7 No Merrill Avenue
between Euclid Ave and Bon View Ave 15,476 69.9 16,370 70.7 0.8 No between Bon View Ave and Grove Ave 16,702 70.3 17,596 70.7 0.4 No between Grove Ave and Flight Ave 16,193 70.1 17,029 70.6 0.5 No between Flight Ave and Van Vliet Ave 16,154 70.2 16,930 70.6 0.4 No between Van Vliet Ave and Hellman Ave 16,959 70.3 17,735 70.8 0.5 No between Hellman Ave and Carpenter Ave 18,694 70.7 19,470 71.1 0.4 No between Carpenter Ave and Archibald Ave 16,756 70.3 17,532 70.7 0.4 No Edison Avenue
between Euclid Ave and Walker Ave 20,254 71.9 20,602 72.1 0.2 No between Walker Ave and Archibald Ave 22,249 72.3 23,009 72.6 0.3 No between Archibald Ave and Turner Ave 23,715 72.8 24,447 73.0 0.2 No Ontario Ranch Road
between Turner Ave and Haven Ave 23,642 73.0 24,344 73.2 0.2 No between Haven Ave and Hamner Ave 34,213 74.3 34,887 74.5 0.2 No between Hamner Ave and I-15 25,055 72.9 25,759 73.1 0.2 No ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL= Community Equivalent Noise Level

1. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline.

Source: Based on traffic data provided by Urban Crossroads (2021). Refer to Appendix H for traffic noise modeling results. 558
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-21 4.11 | Noise
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.

Impact 4.11-2 Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? [Threshold N-2]
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact Construction Vibration
Construction operations can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and equipment. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. Construction on the Project site would have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground-borne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the operations involved.

The FTA has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.2 in/sec) appears to be conservative. The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage.

Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. For example, for a building that is constructed with reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.20 in/sec is considered safe and would not result in any construction vibration damage.

Ontario City CouncilOctober 18, 2022

Ontario City Council
October 18, 2022