0.0021 µg/m3
, with a mitigated carcinogenic risk of 1 in one million. Future on-site sensitive receptors would be exposed to mitigated concentrations of 0.0006 µg/m3 , with a carcinogenic risk of 0.32 in one
million. The highest maximum chronic hazard index associated with DPM emissions from Phase II operations would be 0.0004 at off-site receptors and 0.0001 at on-site receptors. As a result, the carcinogenic risk would not exceed 10 in one million and non‐carcinogenic hazards would not exceed 1.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Project Buildout (Phase I and Phase II)
Construction LST and Operational LST
As shown in Table 4.3-15, 4.3-16, and 4.3-18, emissions for Phase I and Phase II individually do not exceed operational LSTs. Table 4.3-19: Project Buildout – Localized Operational Emissions shows the combined mitigated operational emissions for the entire Project. As noted above, LSTs are screening thresholds and are therefore conservative. The operational LST acreage is based on a maximum 5-acre site. Although the Project site is greater than five acres, the 5-acre operational LSTs are conservatively used as a screening evaluation. Project operations would occur over an approximately 78.1-acre site. Therefore, on-site emissions would disperse over a larger area, which would decrease the concentrations.
Table 4.3-19: Mitigated Project Buildout - Localized Operational Emissions Source Pollutants (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Phase I and Phase II On-Site and Mobile Source
Emissions Combined1 79.14 177.97 5.76 4.58
SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 4 acres at 33 meters) 247 2,109 5 2
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No Yes Yes
1. Includes all on-site and four percent of mobile source emissions.
2. Includes MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1 Refer to Appendix B1 for model outputs.
As shown above, Project buildout operational emissions generated on-site by the Project would exceed the threshold for PM10 and PM2.5. Therefore, PM10 and PM2.5 dispersion modeling has been conducted to determine if Project buildout operations would result in significant PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations at nearby sensitive receptors in accordance with SCAQMD LST methodology. Localized PM10 and PM2.5 construction emissions were estimated using AERMOD to determine the worst-case PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations. Due to the size of the site, receptors exposed to the greatest Phase I concentrations would differ from the receptors exposed to the greatest Phase II concentrations. Therefore, combined Phase I and Phase II concentrations are shown for the maximally exposed receptor for each phase. Table 4.3-20 shows on-site operational PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s 24-hour average PM10 and PM2.5 operational standards.8 Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant localized operational impact.
8 South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2019. Air Quality Significance Thresholds. 913
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-42 4.3 | Air Quality
Table 4.3-20: Buildout - Operational Dispersion Modeling Emissions Source PM10 (24-hour) (μg/m3) PM2.5 (24-hour) (μg/m3) Location of Maximum Concentration from Phase I Operations Phase I Mitigated Operations 0.0033 0.0033
Phase II Mitigated Operations 0.0025 0.0025
Total Project Buildout Operations 0.0058 0.0058
Location of Maximum Concentration from Phase II Operations Phase I Mitigated Operations 0.0007 0.0007
Phase II Mitigated Operations 0.0063 0.0063
Total Project Buildout Operations 0.0070 0.0070
Threshold1 2.5 2.5
Threshold Exceeded? No No
1. The PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are from South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Significance Thresholds, April 2019. The PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are incremental thresholds; therefore, the incremental concentration without background is compared to the threshold.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
As noted above, CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection with approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. Therefore, any project generating less than 100,000 vehicles per day would not exceed the CO standard. As such, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any vicinity intersections resulting from 8,820 additional vehicle trips attributable to Phase I and Phase II. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Construction-Related Diesel Particulate Matter
Construction of Phase I and Phase II would occur sequentially, and emissions would cease once construction is completed. That said, Phase I and Phase II construction would result in a combined mitigated construction-related cancer risk of 1.08 in one million at off-site sensitive receptors, which would still not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. Non-cancer hazards for DPM would be below SCAQMD threshold of 1.0, with a maximum chronic hazard index computed at 0.0008. Therefore, construction risk levels would be less than SCAQMD thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Diesel Particulate Matter
Health risks from the combined operations of both Phase I and Phase II were evaluated. The mitigated carcinogenic risk would not exceed 10 in one million and non‐carcinogenic hazards would not exceed 1 at off-site or future on-site sensitive receptors. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Combined Total Diesel Particulate Matter
Health risks from the combined construction and operations of both Phase I and Phase II were evaluated with results summarized in Table 4.3-21 and Table 4.3-22. Due to the size of the site, receptors exposed to the greatest Phase I concentrations would differ from the receptors exposed to the greatest Phase II concentrations. Therefore, combined Phase I and Phase II cancer risks and maximum concentrations are shown for the maximally exposed receptor for each phase. The mitigated carcinogenic risk would not exceed 10 in one million and non‐carcinogenic hazards would not exceed 1 at off-site or future on-site sensitive receptors. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 914
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-43 4.3 | Air Quality
Table 4.3-21: Combined Project Carcinogenic Risk
Exposure Scenario Cancer Risk
(Risk per Million) 1, 2
Significance Threshold
(Risk per Million)
Exceeds Significance
Threshold?
Unmitigated Emissions
Off-Site Receptors
Residential receptors at northeast corner
of Schaefer Avenue and Sultana Avenue 84.47 10 Yes
Residential Receptors at southeast corner
of Edison Avenue and Sultana Avenue 37.57 10 Yes
Future On-Site Receptors
Northwest corner of PA 3B 78.79 10 Yes
Northern portion of PA 3B 67.60 10 Yes
Mitigated Emissions
Off-Site Receptors
Residential receptors at northeast corner
of Schaefer Avenue and Sultana Avenue 1.16 10 No
Residential Receptors at southeast corner
of Edison Avenue and Sultana Avenue 3.15 10 No
Future On-Site Receptors
Northwest corner of PA 3B 0.71 10 No
Northern portion of PA 3B 0.73 10 No 1 Refer to Appendix A. 2 The reported cancer risk at the closest maximally exposed individual residents (MEIRs) for Phase I and Phase II.
Table 4.3-22: Project Chronic Hazard Assessment
Exposure Scenario
Construction
Concentration
(μg/m3) 1, 2
Operational
Concentration
(μg/m3)
Significance
Threshold
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold?
Unmitigated Emissions
Off-Site Receptors
Residential receptors at northeast corner
of Schaefer Avenue and Sultana Avenue 0.0001 0.0285 1.0 No Residential Receptors at southeast corner
of Edison Avenue and Sultana Avenue
0.0014 0.0074 1.0 No
Future On-Site Receptors
Northwest corner of PA 3B n/a 0.0215 1.0 No
Northern portion of PA 3B n/a 0.0166 1.0 No
Mitigated Emissions
Off-Site Receptors
Residential receptors at northeast corner
of Schaefer Avenue and Sultana Avenue 0.0001 0.0002 1.0 No Residential Receptors at southeast corner
of Edison Avenue and Sultana Avenue 0.0006 0.0004 1.0 No Future On-Site Receptors
Northwest corner of PA 3B n/a 0.0001 1.0 No
Northern portion of PA 3B n/a 0.0001 1.0 No 1 Refer to Appendix A. 2 The reported annual pollutant concentration combined at the closest maximally exposed individual residents (MEIRs) for Phase I and Phase II.
915
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-44 4.3 | Air Quality
Conclusion
Project construction and operations would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Construction and operations would not exceed SCAQMD LST thresholds, would not create a CO hotspot, and would not generate concentrations of DPM that would result in carcinogenic, chronic, or acute health risk effects. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
In addition, the recent adoption of South Coast AQMD’s proposed Rule 2305 (refer to SCAQMD under Section 4.3.3: Regulatory Setting) means that the Project operator could potentially be required to pay mitigation fee if the Project does not generate enough WAIRE Points. The Project operator may be required to implement additional emission reduction strategies. Conservatively, this EIR is not taking credit for these potential reductions. Compliance with proposed Rule 2305 would reduce emissions below what is currently analyzed. The impact is less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-7.
MM AQ-8 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Ontario that demonstrate that all off-road dieselpowered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets California Air Resources Board Tier 4 Final off-road emissions standards. Requirements for Tier 4 Final equipment shall be included in applicable bid documents and successful contractor(s) must demonstrate the ability to supply such equipment. A copy of each unit’s Best Available Control Technology (BACT) documentation (certified tier specification or model year specification), and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be provided to the City at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.
Impact 4.3-4: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Project Buildout (Phase I + Phase II)
Construction
During construction activities, construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt and architectural coatings would temporarily generate odors. Any construction-related odor emissions would be temporary and intermittent. Standard construction requirements and compliance with established regulations (Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Part 1926 – Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, Subpart H – Materials Handling, Storage Use and Disposal, et al.) addressing construction materials storage, use, and disposal would minimize odor impacts from construction activity.
Furthermore, short-term construction-related odors are expected to cease upon the drying or hardening of odor-producing materials. Therefore, impacts associated with construction-generated odors are considered less than significant.
916
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-45 4.3 | Air Quality
Operations
The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatment plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/ coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. The warehouses and office uses proposed under the Project would not result in these types of uses. In addition, the proposed Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 which prevents discharging nuisance odors. Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors.
Conclusion
The Project will comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules including Rule 402 which prevents discharging nuisance odors. In addition, the Project does not include any land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources. Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors and this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Cumulative Impacts
Regional
In accordance with SCAQMD’s methodology, any project that produces a significant project-level regional air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment contributes to the cumulative impact. Cumulative projects in the local area include new mixed-use and residential development and general growth in the surrounding area. The greatest source of emissions in the SCAB is mobile sources. Due to the extent of the area potentially impacted from cumulative project emissions (i.e., the SCAB), SCAQMD considers a project cumulatively significant when project-related emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds.
Construction
The SCAB is designated nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 under both the California and federal standards and nonattainment for PM10 and lead (Los Angeles County only) under the federal standards. O3 is created by chemical reactions between NOX and VOCs; thus, NOX and VOCs are precursor to O3. Construction of cumulative projects will further degrade the regional and local air quality. The Project would not make a cumulative considerable contribution to PM2.5 or PM10, but air quality from VOCs would potentially be impacted during construction activities. However, as discussed under Impact 4.3-2, implementation of MM AQ-1 would reduce Project-related construction emissions to below the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds on a Project and cumulative basis. Therefore, the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable with incorporation of mitigation.
Additionally, the Project cumulative construction impacts would be consistent with the findings of TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR.
917
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-46 4.3 | Air Quality
Operation
For operational air quality emissions, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily regional threshold values is not considered by SCAQMD to be a substantial source of air pollution and does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. Operation of the Project, after incorporation of mitigation, would still result in emissions in excess of the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds for ROGs and NOX. Therefore, the air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed Project would be cumulatively considerable and therefore significant and unavoidable. Additionally, the Project cumulative operation impacts would be consistent with the findings of TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR.
Localized
Under SCAQMD guidance, projects that exceed the project-specific significance threshold of 10 in a million are considered to be cumulatively considerable (SCAQMD 2003). Per the MATES IV study, the proposed Project is in an area that has an estimated cancer risk of about 898.83 in a million.9 Project-related construction activities would result in a cancer risk of 1.08 in a million to the maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR). Development and operation of the proposed Project would result in cancer risk of 2.07 in a million to the MEIR, which would be below 10 in a million. As a result, the Project would not cumulatively contribute to the overall elevated levels of DPM in the SCAB. Additionally, the Project would be pursuant to TOP 2050 and would represent a consistent and logical continuation of the existing and planned pattern of development in Ontario, specifically the Ontario Ranch area. The City has long anticipated that this area would transition from dairy/agricultural to urban uses, and the Project Specific Plan is implementing TOP 2050.10 Therefore, the Project’s contribution to health risk impacts in the SCAB is less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Significant Unavoidable Impacts
Even with implementation of regulatory requirements, standard conditions of approval and implementation of reasonable and feasible mitigation measures, the Project would result in unavoidable significant impacts with respect to air quality plan consistency (Impact 4.3-1) and operational emissions (Impact 4.3-2).
References
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Version 2022.1. Prepared by: BREEZE Software, A Division of Trinity Consultants in collaboration with South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Districts. https://www.caleemod.com/.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2023. Health Effects. https://oehha.ca.gov/air/criteria-pollutants.
9 South Coast Air Quality Management District. ND. MATES IV Estimated Risk. https://scaqmdonline.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=470c30bc6daf4ef6a43f0082973ff45f. (accessed April 2023). 10 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.3, Air Quality. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed April 2023).
918
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-47 4.3 | Air Quality
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/california-ambient-air-quality-standards.
California Air Resources Board. 2017. EMFAC2017, An Update to California On-Road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/mobile-sourceemissions-inventory/msei-modeling-tools-emfac-software-and.
California Air Resources Board (CARB), Hotspots Analysis and Report Program (HARP2), Risk Assessment Standalone Tool (RAST), Version 19044, 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/hotspots-analysis-reporting-program.
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Environmental Resources Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/aboutontario-ontario-plan-policy-plan/environmental-resources.
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.3, Air Quality. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
Kimley-Horn and Associates. 2023. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model Data. (Appendix B3) Kimley-Horn and Associates. 2023. Health Risk Assessment Data. (Appendix B2) Kimley-Horn and Associates. March 2023. Air Quality Emissions Model Data. (Appendix B1) South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysishandbook/ceqa-air-quality-handbook-(1993).
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1992. Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2022. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localizedsignificance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. Final Report Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin (MATES IV). https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/airquality/air-toxic-studies/mates-iv/mates-iv-final-draft-report-4-1-15.pdf?sfvrsn=7.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. ND. MATES IV Estimated Risk. https://scaqmdonline.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=470c30bc6daf4ef6a43f0082973ff45f. 919
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-48 4.3 | Air Quality
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, 2023. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-airquality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), SCAQMD High Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper Summary of Business Survey Results, 2014. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-ratestudy-for-air-quality-analysis/business-survey-summary.pdf/ South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2020. South Coast AQMD Public Notification Procedures for Facilities Under the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588) and Rule 1402. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/riskassessment/ab-2588-facility-prioritization-procedure.pdf?sfvrsn=26.
Urban Crossroads, Euclid Mixed-Use Specific Plan Traffic Analysis, 2023. (Appendix I1). 920
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-1 4.4 | Biological Resources
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4.1 Introduction
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) examines the existing biological resources and potential impacts that may result from the construction and operation of the proposed Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project (Project). The analysis in this section is based in part on the following resources:
• Cadre Environmental. October 2022. Biological Resources Technical Report for Euclid Mixed-Use Specific Plan. (Appendix C)
• The Ontario Plan 2050
• City of Ontario Municipal Code
• City of Ontario TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR
The Project site is anticipated to be developed in two phases within five planning areas (PAs), with only Phase I proposed at a project-level entitlement. Phase I would include PAs 1, 2A, and 3A, consisting of the construction of 13 business park buildings with ancillary office space, approximately 1,386,777 square feet (sf) of business park uses and designated open space. Future Development Areas associated with Phase II would be evaluated at a programmatic level in this Draft EIR. The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. The Applicant does not own the parcels within the Phase II area (PAs 2B and 3B) and does not have access to the Phase II area at this time. At the time of Phase II development, it will undergo its own site-specific CEQA analysis.
4.4.2 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
The Project site is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Ontario (City), immediately north of the City of Chino in San Bernardino County. The Project site is bounded by Schaefer Avenue to the north, Sultana Avenue to the east, Edison Avenue to the south, and Euclid Avenue to the west (refer to Section 3.0: Project Description, Figure 3-2: Local Vicinity Map and Figure 3-3: Project Boundary). The Project site consists of 18 existing parcels totaling 84.1 acres in the City. The Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) for this Project are 1053-071-01, -02, -03, -04; 1053-211-01, -02, -05; 1053-281-01, -02, -03, -04, - 05, -07, -08; 1053-081-01, -02, -03, -04. The 84.1-acre Project site is currently occupied by agricultural uses, including the raising of livestock, dairy farming activities, and a commercial nursery. The majority of the site exists as fallow or cultivated fields. Existing uses surrounding the Project site are similar to those on the site. Ongoing crop farming is located to the north of the Project site and a vacant property that was a former dairy farm is located to the east of the site. The property to the south is currently utilized for residential, farming, or trucking related uses. North across Schaefer Avenue is an existing dairy farm; south across Edison Avenue is an existing trucking facility; east across Sultana Avenue is vacant land and an existing trucking facility; west across Euclid Avenue, is the City of Chino with existing commercial and residential uses, and a truck/trailer storage (refer to Section 3.0: Project Description, Figure 3-4:
Surrounding Land Uses).
921
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-2 4.4 | Biological Resources
The City lies within the broad alluvial fan originating from the southern flank of the San Gabriel Mountains, and dips gradually southward to the confluence of San Antonio Channel, Cucamonga Channel/Mill Creek, and the Santa Ana River at the Prado Dam Flood Control Basin in Riverside County. The Santa Ana River flows to the south of the City and Cucamonga Creek and Deer Creek traverse north to south through the City. The Project site is generally flat, with a gentle slope and elevations ranging from approximately 730 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) in the northeast portion of the site to approximately 690 feet AMSL in the southwest portion of the site.
The entire Project site has been disturbed by the previous development and agriculture and farming uses.
Approximately portions of the Project Site continue to be utilized as an active dairy including dry lots, milking parlors/feed storage facilities, a nursery and agricultural residences. These areas are either devoid of vegetation or dominated by ornamental, ruderal non-native, and native species commonly detected in disturbed habitats. Furthermore, portions of the Project site continue to be actively farmed including the current production of pumpkin (Cucurbita sp.) and field corn (Zea mays). Disturbed portions of the Project Site are either devoid of vegetation (dirt roads and follow fields) or dominated by the following species including golden crown beard (Verbesina encelioides), London rocket (Sisymbrium irio), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata), big saltbush (Atriplex lentiformis), spiny cocklebur (Xanthium spinosum), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), common sow thistle (Sonchus oleraceus), and annual sunflower (Helianthus annus).1
The Project site occurs on the "Prado Dam" California USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map, Township 2 South, Range 7 West. Dairy farming and agriculture have been the primary uses of the Project site since before the 1930s. The majority of the Project site exists as fallow or cultivated fields. There is a private recreational vehicle storage facility in the southwestern portion of the site. Numerous single family residential structures, as well as agricultural related buildings and open structures, are located within the Project site. Two Southern California Edison (SCE) easements extend across the Project site. No structures are located within the SCE easements; however, they have been used for various agricultural uses historically. Projects proposed in the area that contain potentially suitable habitat to support sensitive biological resources must demonstrate to reviewing agencies (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG - currently Department of Fish and Wildlife or CDFW], County, and City) that potential Project-related impacts to sensitive biological resources are adequately addressed and mitigated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other environmental regulations as part of Project approval.
The biological resources report prepared by Cadre Environmental analyzed a 70.04-acre portion of the Project site that represents the Phase I development area, consisting of ten parcels of active dairy and agricultural land. The Assessor Parcel Numbers for the Phase I area are 1053-071-01, -02, -03, -04, 1053- 211-01, -02, 1053-281-08, 1053-081-01, -03, -04, as well as 10.06-acres of off-site assessment area (right of ways). This report includes a thorogouh literature review, field investigation, and biological resources recommendations for the proposed development (see Appendix C: Biological Resources Technical Report). Currently, the Applicant does not control the Phase II parcels therefore, a biological resources 1 Cadre Environmental. 2022. Biological Resources Technical Report. Page 6. See Appendix C. 922
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-3 4.4 | Biological Resources
report was not completed at this time. At the time of Phase II development, it will undergo its own sitespecific CEQA analysis.
Plant Communities/Habitat
As mentioned above, portions of the Project Site continue to be utilized as an active dairy including dry lots, milking parlors/feed storage facilities and housing (Venegas Family Farm). These areas are either devoid of vegetation or dominated by ornamental, ruderal non-native and native species commonly detected in disturbed habitats. Based on the field investigation of the Phase I area conducted by Cadre Environmental, these species include Palmer’s amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri), summer cypress (Bassia scoparia), horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), prostate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), castor bean (Ricinus communis), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli), goose grass (Eleusine indica), wild oat (Avena fatua), foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), Peruvian peppertree (Schinus molle), Bougainvillea (Bougainvillea sp.), pine (Pinus sp.), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), and jacaranda (Jacaranda sp.).2
Sensitive Biological Resources3
Discussed below are plant and wildlife species potentially present in the Project site that have been afforded special recognition by federal or State agencies. This discussion is based on species that would pose considerable constraints on the Project because of their high sensitivity status (listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered) with State and/or federal resource agencies. In addition, plants included on Lists 1, 2, 3, or 4 of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) inventory are also considered of special status. Vegetation communities that are unique, of relatively limited distribution, or of particular value to wildlife and considered sensitive by State and/or federal resource agencies are also generally discussed. There is a low probability of occurrence due to the Project’s site-specific factors (e.g., disturbance level, land use, etc.).
In general, those species presented in Table 4.4-1: Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity and Table 4.4-2: Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity that are “not expected” or that have a “low occurrence potential” generally correspond to “less than significant” under CEQA. As it relates to the occurrence potential of special-status plant species, “not detected” refers to perennial plants and shrubs that are identifiable year-round. Therefore, if they are not detected they are not present at any time. “No potential” addresses annual plants that are not detectable year-round. In Table 4.4-1, “no potential” is followed by justification of why they are not expected to occur onsite. The occurrence potential of special-status plant and wildlife species is primarily based on habitat types present, occurrence records of sensitive species from the site vicinity, and results of the onsite reconnaissance surveys. Because the disturbance level, land use, and other environmental factors are consistent between the Phase I and Phase II areas, occurrence potential of special-status plant and wildlife 2 Ibid. Page 6. 3 Ibid. Page 24 through Page 34.
923
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-4 4.4 | Biological Resources
species analyzed for the Phase I area is anticipated to be the same for the Phase II area. Additionally, no focused wildlife or botanical surveys were conducted within the Project site.
Special-Status Plant Species
No special-status plant species were detected within the Phase I area during the reconnaissance survey, and none are expected within the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat. Special-status plant species known from the region that potentially occur within the Project site are summarized below in Table 4.4-1:
Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity.
Table 4.4-1: Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State CRPR
Nevin’s barberry (Berberis
nevinii)
FE SE 1B.1 Perennial evergreen shrub which
generally blooms from February to June
within chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, and riparian scrub in sandy,
gravelly substrates.
Not Detected.
Coulter’s saltbush
Atriplex coulteri
Plummer’s mariposa-lily
(Calochortus plummerae)
-- -- 4.2 Perennial bulbiferous herb which
generally blooms from May to June within
chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, lower montane coniferous forest,
and grassland habitats with granite and
rocky substrates.
No Potential: Not expected to
occur on-site based on lack of
suitable undisturbed
vegetation or soils.
Lucky morning glory
(Calystegia felix)
-- -- 1B.1 Annual rhizomatous herb generally
blooming from March to September
within meadows, seeps and riparian scrub
habitat
No Potential: Not expected to
occur on-site based on lack of
suitable undisturbed
vegetation or soils.
Parry’s spineflower
(Chorizanthe parryi var.
parryi)
-- -- 1B.1 Annual herb which generally blooms from
April to June within chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub and grassland
habitats with sandy and/or rocky
openings.
No Potential: Not expected to
occur on-site based on lack of
suitable undisturbed
vegetation or soils.
Slender-horned spineflower
(Dodecahema leptoceras)
FE SE 1B.1 Annual herb which generally blooms from
April to June within chaparral, cismontane
woodland and coastal scrub (alluvial fan)
with sandy substrates.
No Potential: Not expected to
occur on-site based on lack of
suitable undisturbed
vegetation or soils.
Mesa horkelia (Horkelia
cuneata ssp. puberula)
-- -- 1B.1 Perennial herb which generally blooms
from February to September within
chaparral (maritime), cismontane
woodland and coastal scrub with sandy or
gravelly substrates.
Not Detected.
Robinson’s pepper-grass
(Lepidium virginicum var.
robinsonii)
-- -- 4.3 Annual herb which generally blooms from
January to July within chaparral and
coastal sage scrub habitats
No Potential: Not expected to
occur on-site based on lack of
suitable undisturbed
vegetation or soils.
Prostate vernal pool
navarretia (Navarretia
prostrata)
-- -- 1B.2 Annual herb generally blooming from
April to July within coastal scrub,
meadows and seeps, valley and foothill
grasslands and vernal pools
No Potential: Not expected to
occur on-site based on lack of
suitable undisturbed
vegetation or soils.
Brand’s star phacelia
(Phacelia stellaris)
-- -- 1B.1 Annual herb generally blooming from
March to June within coastal sage scrub
and dune habitats
No Potential: Not expected to
occur on-site based on lack of
suitable undisturbed
vegetation or soils.
White rabbit tobacco
(Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum)
-- -- 2B.2 Perennial herb generally blooming from
July to December within chaparral,
Not Detected.
924
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-5 4.4 | Biological Resources
Special-Status Wildlife Species
Two special-status wildlife species were directly observed within the Phase I area. The species observed were the Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) and the White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi). Additionally, several species observed during the survey were deemed to have a moderate occurrence potential (primarily as foragers). Most remaining potentially occurring sensitive wildlife species are not expected to occur onsite due to lack of suitable habitat. Sensitive wildlife species potentially occurring on the Project site are summarized below in Table 4.4-2: Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity.
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State CRPR
cismontane woodland, coastal scrub and
riparian woodland habitats
Salt spring checkerbloom
(Sidalcea neomexicana)
-- -- 2.2 Perennial herb which generally blooms
from March to June within chaparral,
coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous
forest, Mojavean desert scrub, and playas
within alkaline/mesic gravelly substrates
Not Detected.
San Bernardino aster
(Symphyotrichum
defoliatum)
-- -- 1B.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb generally
blooming from July to December within
various vegetation communities in
associating with wetland substrates
(ditches, streams and springs)
Not Detected.
Rigid fringepod
(Thysanocarpus rigidus)
-- -- 1B.2 Annual herb generally blooming from
February to May within pinyon and
juniper woodland habitats
No Potential: Not expected to
occur on-site based on lack of
suitable undisturbed
vegetation or soils.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS): California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) CRPR 1A – plants presumed extinct in California
CRPR 1B – plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere CRPR 2A – plants presumed extirpated in California but common elsewhere CRPR 2B – plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere CRPR 3 – plants about which we need more information, a review list CRPR 4 – plants of limited distribution, a watch list
.1 – Seriously endangered in California
.2 – Fairly endangered in California
3 – Not very endangered in California
Federal (USFWS) Protection and Classification
FE – Federally Endangered
FT – Federally Threatened
FC – Federal Candidate for Listing
State (CDFW) Protection and Classification
SE – State Endangered
ST – State Threatened
925
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-6 4.4 | Biological Resources
Table 4.4-2: Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State
Invertebrates
Crotch bumble bee
(Bombus crotchii)
-- SC Inhabits grasslands and shrublands and
requires a hotter and drier environment
than other bumblebee species.
No Potential: Not expected to occur
on-site based on lack of suitable
undisturbed vegetation or soils.
Delhi Sands flower-loving
fly (Rhaphiomidas
terminatus abdominalis)
FE -- Restricted to Delhi sand formations in
Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.
No Potential; No Delhi soils mapped
on-site
Reptiles and Amphibians
Western spadefoot (Spea
hammondii)
SSC Primary habitat for this species includes
suitable breeding habitat below 1500
meters (i.e., vernal pools or other
standing water that is free of exotic
species) with secondary habitats
including adjacent chaparral, sage scrub,
grassland, and alluvial scrub habitats.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed soils and continuous
agricultural activities conducted
throughout the Project Site.
Southern California legless
lizard (Anniella stebbinsi)
SSC Broadleaved upland forest, chaparral,
coastal dunes, and coastal scrub. Occurs
in sandy or loose loamy soils under
sparse vegetation, generally in moist,
loose soil.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed vegetation or soils.
California glossy snake
(Arizona elegans
occidentalis)
SSC Generalist reported from a range of
scrub and grassland habitats, often with
loose or sandy soils.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed vegetation or soils.
Coastal western whiptail
(Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri)
SSC The coastal western whiptail occurs in a
wide variety of habitats including coastal
sage scrub, desert scrub, Riversidean
alluvial fan scrub, woodlands, grasslands,
playas, and respective ecotones between
these habitats.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed vegetation or soils.
San Bernardino ringneck
snake (Diadophis
punctatus modestus)
-- -- Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, grassland,
riparian, and woodlands.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed vegetation or soils
Western pond turtle
(Actinemys marmorata)
-- SSC The western pond turtle inhabits slow
moving permanent or intermittent
streams, small ponds, small lakes,
reservoirs, abandoned gravel pits,
permanent and ephemeral shallow
wetlands, stock ponds, and sewage
treatment lagoons.
Not Detected. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed basking sites and
permanent water.
Coast horned lizard
(Phrynosoma blainvillii)
-- SSC Open areas of sandy soil with coastal sage
scrub, chaparral, grassland, riparian, and
washes and watercourses.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed vegetation or soils.
Coast patch-nosed snake
(Salvadora hexalepis
virgultea)
-- SSC The coast patch-nosed snake prefers
brushy coastal sage scrub/ chaparral
habitats.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed vegetation or soils.
Two-striped gartersnake
(Thamnophis
hammondii)
-- SSC Marsh and swamp, riparian scrub,
riparian woodland, and wetland. Highly
aquatic, found in or near permanent
fresh water. Often along streams with
rocky beds and riparian growth.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed vegetation, soils or
permanent water.
Birds
Cooper's hawk (Accipiter
cooperii)
-- SSC Cooper’s hawk is most commonly found
within or adjacent to riparian/oak forest
and woodland habitats. This uncommon
resident of California increases in
numbers during winter migration.
Low Potential – May occasionally
forage on-site and breed within the
mature Eucalyptus trees.
926
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-7 4.4 | Biological Resources
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State
Sharp-shinned hawk
(Accipiter striatus)
-- CWL Potential habitat for the sharp-shinned
hawk includes montane coniferous forest
for potential breeding areas and riparian
scrub, woodland, and forest habitat, oak
woodland and forest, chaparral, coastal
sage scrub, desert scrub, and Riversidean
alluvial fan sage scrub for foraging.
Low Potential – May occasionally
forage on-site.
Tri-colored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)
-- ST/SSC Marshes and grasslands. Breeding
colonies require nearby water, nesting
substrate, and open range foraging
habitat of natural grassland, woodland,
or agricultural cropland.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of nesting
habitat (cattail, rushes, and willows)
within or adjacent to the Project
Site.
Golden eagle (Aquila
chrysaetos)
-- CWL, SFP Within southern California, the species
prefers grasslands, brushlands (coastal
sage scrub and chaparral), deserts, oak
savannas, open coniferous forests, and
montane valleys.
Low Potential – May occasionally
forage on-site.
Great egret (Ardea alba) -- Nesting
Colony
Wet areas, fields, margins of open water. Moderate Potential – Expected to occasionally forage on-site but not
breed.
Great blue heron (Ardea
herodias)
-- Nesting
Colony
Wet areas, fields, margins of open water. Moderate Potential – Expected to occasionally forage on-site but not
breed.
Burrowing owl (Athene
cunicularia)
-- SSC The burrowing owl uses predominantly
open land, including grassland,
agriculture, playa, sparse coastal sage
scrub, desert scrub habitats. Some
breeding burrowing owls are year-round
residents and additional individuals from
the north may winter throughout the
region.
Low Potential – Suitable burrows
larger than 4 inches in diameter and
foraging habitat documented within
and east of the Project Site
Ferruginous hawk (Buteo
regalis)
-- CWL Grasslands and other open terrain of the
plains and foothills. Wintering species.
Primarily open fields with low vegetation.
Low Potential – May occasionally
forage on-site.
Swainson’s hawk (Buteo
swainsoni)
-- ST Grasslands and other open terrain. Low Potential – May occasionally forage on-site.
Mountain plover
(Charadrius montanus)
-- SSC Dry upland prairies and plains,
semidesert, bare dirt fields.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed vegetation.
Northern harrier (Circus
cyaneus)
-- SSC The northern harrier frequents open
wetlands, wet/lightly grazed pastures,
fields, dry uplands/prairies, mesic
grasslands, drained marshlands,
croplands, meadows, grasslands, open
rangelands, fresh and saltwater
emergent wetlands.
Observed
Western yellow-billed
cuckoo (Coccyzus
americanus occidentalis)
FT SE Riparian. Uncommon to rare summer
resident of valley foothill and desert
riparian habitats.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed riparian scrub, forest or
woodland vegetation.
Snowy egret (Egretta
thula)
-- Nesting
Colony
Wet areas, fields, margins of open water. Moderate Potential – Expected to occasionally forage on-site but not
breed.
White-tailed kite (Elanus
leucurus)
-- SFP The white-tailed kite is found in riparian,
oak woodlands adjacent to large open
spaces including grasslands, wetlands,
savannahs and agricultural fields. This
non-migratory bird species occurs
Low Potential – May occasionally
forage on-site.
927
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-8 4.4 | Biological Resources
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State
throughout the lower elevations of
California and commonly nests in coast
live oaks.
California horned lark
(Eremophila alpestris
actia)
-- CWL Variety of open habitats, usually where
trees and large shrubs are absent.
Moderate Potential – Expected to
occasionally forage and breed onsite.
Merlin (Falco
columbarius)
-- CWL Grasslands, coastal sage scrub and
estuaries, windrows, open fields.
Low Potential – May occasionally
forage on-site.
Prairie falcon (Falco
mexicanus)
-- CWL Habitat use of the prairie falcon includes
annual grasslands to alpine meadows.
The prairie falcon is associated primarily
with perennial grasslands, savannahs,
rangeland, some agricultural fields
during the winter season, and desert
scrub areas, all typically dry
environments of western North
American where there are cliffs or bluffs.
for nest sites.
Low Potential – May occasionally
forage on-site.
American peregrine falcon
(Falco peregrinus
anatum)
-- SFP Throughout the species' range, peregrine
falcons are found in a large variety of
open habitats, including tundra,
marshes, seacoasts, savannahs and high
mountains.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed vegetation.
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius
ludovicianus)
-- SSC This species of shrike hunts in open or
grassy areas and nests in large chaparral
shrubs such as ceanothus and lemonade
berry.
Low Potential – May occasionally
forage on-site.
California gull (Larus
californicus)
-- CWL Nearly all types of fresh and salt water,
cropland, landfills, refuse areas, open
lawns.
Moderate Potential – Expected to
occasionally forage on-site.
California black rail
(Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus)
-- ST/SFP Brackish marsh, freshwater marsh,
marsh and swamp, salt marsh, wetland.
Inhabits freshwater marshes, wet
meadows and shallow margins of
saltwater marshes bordering large bays.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats.
Long-billed curlew
(Numenius americanus)
-- CWL Coastal estuaries, upland herbaceous
areas,5 croplands, wet areas, open fields,
shores of open water.
Moderate Potential – Expected to
occasionally forage on-site.
Double-crested
cormorant
(Nannopterum auritum)
-- CWL Lakes, fresh, salt, and estuarine waters. Moderate Potential – Expected to occasionally forage on-site.
White-faced ibis (Plegadis
chihi)
-- CWL Freshwater marshes and brackish areas. Observed
Coastal California
gnatcatcher (Polioptila
californica californica)
FT SSC The coastal California gnatcatcher is a
nonmigratory bird species that primarily
occurs within sage scrub habitats in
coastal southern California dominated by
California sagebrush.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats including
coastal sage scrub and associations.
Mammals
Pallid bat (Antrozous
pallidus)
-- SSC Chaparral, coastal scrub, desert wash,
Great Basin grassland, Great Basin scrub,
Mojavean desert scrub, riparian
woodland, Sonoran desert scrub, upper
montane coniferous forest, and valley
and foothill grassland. Oak and grassland
ecotones. Prefers foraging in the open.
Roosts in attics or rock cracks; in the
open, near foliage at night.
Low Potential. Expected to
occasionally forage on-site
928
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-9 4.4 | Biological Resources
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State
Northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse
(Chaetodipus fallax
fallax)
-- SSC The northwestern San Diego pocket
mouse occurs in coastal sage, upland
sage scrubs, and alluvial fan sage scrub,
sage scrub/grassland ecotones,
chaparral, and desert scrubs at all
elevations up to 6,000 feet.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats including
coastal sage scrub and associations.
Townsend’s big-eared bat
(Corynorhinus
townsendii)
-- SSC A wide variety of habitats including
woodlands and arid grasslands. Roosts in
mines and caves.
Low Potential. Expected to
occasionally forage on-site.
San Bernardino kangaroo
rat (Dipodomys merriami
parvus)
FE SSC Prefers alluvial scrub, coastal sage scrub
habitats with sandy and gravelly
substrates.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats including
Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub
and associations.
Stephens' kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys stephensi)
Fe ST The Stephens' kangaroo rat is found
almost exclusively in open grasslands or
sparse shrublands with cover of less than
50 percent during the summer.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats.
Western mastiff bat
(Eumops perotis
californicus)
-- SSC Roosts in rocky areas and forages in
grassland, shrublands, and woodlands.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats.
Western yellow bat
(Lasiurus xanthinus)
-- SSC Roosts in the skirts of palm trees and
forages in adjacent habitats. forests and
meadows.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats.
San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit (Lepus
californicus bennettii)
-- SSC The San Diego blacktailed jackrabbit in
open habitats, primarily including
grasslands, sage scrub, alluvial fan sage
scrub, and Great Basin sage scrub.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats.
Western small-footed
myotis (Myotis
ciliolabrum)
-- -- Feeds among trees or over brush. Roosts
in caves, mines, and in cliff or rock
openings.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats.
Yuma myotis (Myotis
yumanensis)
-- -- Water and wooded canyon bottoms.
Roosts in caves and abandoned
buildings.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats.
San Diego desert woodrat
(Neotoma lepida
intermedia)
-- SSC Riversidean and coastal sage scrub,
chaparral and nonnative grasslands. Shrub
and desert habitats, primarily associated
with rock outcroppings, boulders, cacti, or
areas of dense undergrowth.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats.
Pocketed free-tailed bat
(Nyctinomops
femorosaccus)
-- SSC Desert habitats. Roosts in rock crevices in
cliffs.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats.
Big free-tailed bat
(Nyctinomops macrotis)
-- SSC Desert habitats. Roosts in rock crevices in
cliffs.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats.
Los Angeles pocket mouse
(Perognathus
longimembris
brevinasus)
SSC Low elevation grassland alluvial sage
scrub and coastal sage scrub habitats.
No Potential. Not expected to occur
on-site based on a lack of suitable
undisturbed habitats.
Federal (USFWS) Protection and Classification
FE – Federally Endangered
FT – Federally Threatened
FC – Federal Candidate for Listing
State (CDFW) Protection and Classification
SE – State Endangered
SSC – State Species of Special Concern
CWL – California Watch List
SFP – State Fully Protected
SC – State Candidate for Listing
929
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-10 4.4 | Biological Resources
Special-Status Habitats
Special-status habitat types are vegetation communities that support concentrations of sensitive plant or wildlife species, are of relatively limited distribution, or are of particular value to wildlife. Although sensitive habitats are not necessarily afforded legal protection unless they support protected species, potential impacts to them may increase concerns and mitigation suggestions by resources agencies.
Sensitive habitat types known from the Project site vicinity (mostly associated with Prado Dam and the Santa Ana River) include Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, Southern California Arroyo Chub/Santa Ana Sucker Stream, Southern Coast Live Oak Forest, Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, Southern Interior Cypress Forest, Southern Riparian Forest, Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland, and Southern Willow Scrub. No sensitive or undisturbed native habitats were documented within the Phase I area. As mentioned above, no sensitive or undisturbed native habitats are expected within the Phase II area because the disturbance level, land use, and other environmental factors are consistent between the Phase I and Phase II areas.
Sensitive Habitats in the Project Vicinity
The consultant did not document any sensitive or undisturbed native habitats within the Project site. The Project Site is characterized as 84.1 acres of heavily disturbed active dairy and agricultural facilities. All of the active retention ponds are devoid of wetland vegetation including but not limited to riparian scrub, forest, or woodland habitat. The nearest known habitats (as mentioned above) that would support sensitive biological resources would be the Santa Ana River and Prado Dam areas located approximately
3.5 miles south of the Project site. The species associated with these sensitive biological resource areas would not be expected to occur on-site due to lack of suitable habitat.
Jurisdictional Resources
The Project site is located within the Chino Basin between the Chino Hills to the southwest and San Gabriel Basin to the north. The presence of wetland hydrology was evaluated throughout the Project site by recording the extent of observed surface flows, depth of inundation, depth to saturated soils, and depth to free water in the soil pits. Indicators of wetland or riverine hydrology were then recorded, such as water marks, drift lines, rack, debris, and sediment deposits. Additionally, indicators of hydric soils, such as redoximorphic features, buried organic matter, organic streaking, reduced soil conditions, gleied or lowchroma soils, or sulfidic odor were recorded. The on-site active dairy/effluent pond would not be subject to federal wetland regulatory requirements and would not be considered a freshwater pond.
Furthermore, the active dairy/effluent pond is not connected to a natural stream and does not divert natural flow from any river, stream, or lake. Since these waters are not a part of a natural stream, river, or lake, they would not be considered jurisdictional under the CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. The program states: “An entity shall not substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake….” Furthermore, the active dairy/effluent pond is an isolated feature and is not tributary to, nor has a significant nexus (biological, chemical, or physical connection) to traditional navigable waters of the United States. Therefore, the artificial basins on the Project site would not be considered federally jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act (CWA). 930
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-11 4.4 | Biological Resources
Based on the field investigation conducted, no wetlands or jurisdictional resources regulated by the United State Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), CDFW, or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCD) were documented within the Phase I area. Similarly, the Phase II area contains an artificial basin that would not be considered federally jurisdictional.
Additionally, Project construction and operation would be subject to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the San Bernardino County Regional Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) code provisions. Refer to Section 4.10: Hydrology for additional information.
Wildlife Movement Corridors
The Project site is surrounded by various forms of existing development. The Project Site is completely bordered by high traffic roads, commercial/residential development, active dairy/agricultural facilities and does not represent a wildlife movement corridor or route between open space habitats. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the Project site occupies an important location relative to regional wildlife movement.
4.4.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), as amended, protects, and conserves any species of plant or animal and their habitats that are threatened or endangered with extinction. The “take” of endangered species is prohibited under FESA Section 9. The term “take” in this instance means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” FESA Section 7 requires federal agencies to consult with the USFWS on proposed federal actions that may affect any endangered, threatened, or proposed species or critical habitat that may support the species.
FESA Section 4(a) requires that critical habitat be designated by the USFWS “to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, at the time a species is determined to be endangered or threatened.” This provides guidance for planners/managers and biologists by indicating locations of suitable habitat and where preservation of a species has high priority. FESA Section 10 provides the regulatory mechanism for incidental take of a listed species by private interests and nonfederal government agencies during lawful activities. Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) for the impacted species must be developed in support of incidental take permits to minimize impacts to the species and formulate viable mitigation measures.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA; 16 United States Code [USC] Section 703-712 et seq.) is a federal statute that affirms and implements four international conservation treaties that the United States entered into with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia. This treaty is intended to protect shared migratory bird resources and ensures the sustainability of populations. The MBTA governs the transportation of migratory birds, their eggs, their parts, and their nests. It also prohibits the sale, purchase, barter, or 931
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-12 4.4 | Biological Resources
offering of these items, except under a valid permit or as permitted in the implementing regulations.
USFWS administers permits concerning migratory birds in accordance with the MBTA. According to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), one can locate this list of protected migratory bird species under CFR Title 50 Part 10.13 (10.13 list). The 10.13 list was last updated in 2020, incorporating the most current scientific information on taxonomy and natural distribution.
Clean Water Act, Section 404
The USACE regulates discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands under the CWA. Activities in waters of the United States regulated under this program include fill for development, water resource projects, infrastructure development and mining projects. A permit is required before dredged or fill material may be discharged into waters of the United States, which entails assessment of potential adverse impacts to USACE wetlands and jurisdictional waters and any mitigation measures that the USACE requires unless the activity is exempt from Section 404 regulation (e.g., certain farming and forestry activities). Section 7 consultation with USFWS may be required for impacts to a federally-listed species. If cultural resources may be present, Section 106 review may also be required. When a Section 404 permit is required, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification is also required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
Clean Water Act, Section 401 and 402
Section 401(a)(1) of the CWA specifies that any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in any discharge into navigable waters shall provide the federal permitting agency with a certification, issued by the state in which the discharge originates, that any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of the CWA. In California, the applicable RWQCB must certify that the Project will comply with water quality standards. Permits requiring Section 401 certification include USACE Section 404 permits and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 402 of the CWA. NPDES permits are issued by the applicable RWQCB. The City of Ontario is in the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB (Region 8).
State
California Fish and Game Code, Section 1600
The California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Section 1600 requires a Project proponent to notify the CDFW of any proposed alteration of streambeds, rivers, and lakes. The intent is to protect habitats that are important to fish and wildlife. CDFW may review and place conditions on the Project, as part of a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA), that address potentially significant adverse impacts within CDFW’s jurisdictional limits.
California Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5, 3511, 3515,3800 Section 3503.5 of the CFGC states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Activities 932
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-13 4.4 | Biological Resources
that result in the abandonment of an active bird of prey nest may also be considered in violation of this code. In addition, CFGC, Section 3511 prohibits the taking of any bird listed as fully protected, and CFGC, Section 3515 states that it is unlawful to take any non-game migratory bird protected under the MBTA.
Section 3800 states that it is unlawful to take any nongame bird except as provided in this code or in accordance with regulations of the commission or, when relating to mining operations, a mitigation plan approved by the department.
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA), enacted in 1970 and amended in 1984, is a California law that conserves and protects plant and animal species at risk of extinction. It generally parallels the main provisions of the FESA and is administered by the CDFW. Plant and animal species may be designated threatened or endangered under CESA after a formal listing process by the CFGC. With already approximately 250 species currently listed, a CESA-listed species, or any part or product of the plant or animal, may not be imported into the state, exported out of the state, “taken” (i.e., killed), possessed, purchased, or sold without proper authorization. Implementation of CESA has reduced and avoided impacts to California’s most imperiled plants and animals, has protected hundreds of thousands of acres of vital habitat, and has led to a greater scientific understanding of California’s incredible biodiversity.
Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though they were already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the Fish and Game Commission. Unlike the FESA, CESA does not include listing provisions for invertebrate species. Under certain conditions and if the take is incidental to otherwise lawful activities, CESA has provisions for take through Incidental Take Permits (ITP) or memorandum of understanding (MOU). In addition, some sensitive mammals and birds are protected by the State as “fully protected species.” California “species of special concern” are species designated as vulnerable to extinction due to declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats. This list is primarily a working document for the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), which maintains a record of known and recorded occurrences of sensitive species. Informally listed taxa are not protected per se but warrant consideration in the preparation of biological resources assessments.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act provides for statewide coordination of water quality regulations. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) was established as the Statewide authority and nine separate RWQCBs were developed to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis.
The SWRCB is the primary agency responsible for protecting water quality in California. As discussed above, the RWQCBs regulate discharges to surface waters under the CWA. In addition, the RWQCBs are responsible for administering the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the state is given authority to regulate waters of the state, which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters. As such, any person proposing to discharge waste into a water body that could affect its water quality must first file a Report of Waste Discharge if Section 404 of the CWA is not required for the activity. “Waste” is partially defined as any waste substance associated with human habitation, including fill material discharged into water bodies.
933
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-14 4.4 | Biological Resources
Natural Community Conservation Planning Act
In 1991, the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCP Act; CFGC Section 1900 et seq.) was approved and the NCCP Coastal Sage Scrub program was initiated in southern California.
California law (CFGC Section 2800 et seq.). The Act established the NCCP program “to provide for regional protection and perpetuation of natural wildlife diversity while allowing compatible land use and appropriate development and growth.” The NCCP Act encourages preparation of plans that address habitat conservation and management on an ecosystem basis rather than one species or habitat at a time.
CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Program
The Lake and Streambed Alteration Program requires that an entity shall not substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake.
Local
City of Ontario General Plan – The Ontario Plan 2050
The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Environmental Resources Element defines the ethic to guide management of the City’s environmental resources; establishes goals for Environmental Infrastructure; maps environmental justice areas; and establishes policies that support system integration, resource conservation and regeneration, energy independence, environmental justice, and healthy communities.
Included in TOP 2050 is the Policy Plan, which is a framework that would guide the City’s future growth through the application of policies and goals. The following goals of TOP 2050 relate to visual and scenic resources. The TOP 2050 Environmental Resources Element contains policies which pertain to biological resources.
The following policy contained in the Environmental Resources Element is relevant to the Project:
Environmental Resources Element4
Goal ER5 Protected high value habitat and farming and mineral resource extraction activities that are compatible with adjacent development.
Policy ER5-1 Habitat Conservation Areas. We support the protection of biological resources through the establishment, restoration, and conservation of high-quality habitat areas.
Policy ER5-2 Entitlement and Permitting Process. We comply with state and federal regulations regarding protected species.
Policy ER5-4 Transition of Farms. We protect both existing farms and sensitive uses around them as agricultural areas transition to urban uses.
4 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Environmental Resources Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policyplan/environmental-resources. (accessed March 2023). 934
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-15 4.4 | Biological Resources
City of Ontario Municipal Code
Municipal Code, Section 6.05.020
Section 6.05.020, Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures, of the Ontario Development Code establishes policies and measures that would further the preservation, protection, and maintenance of established and healthy heritage trees within the City. A Heritage Tree is one that is designated for preservation as a tree of historic or cultural significance, or a tree of importance to the community due to any one of the following factors:
• It is one of the largest or oldest trees of species located within the City and has a trunk diameter of 18 inches or greater when measured at 54 inches above grade; • It has a historical significance due to association with a historic building, site, street, person, or event;
• It is a defining landmark or significant outstanding feature of a neighborhood or district, typical of early Ontario Landscapes. This includes Camphor Tree (Cinnamomum camphora), Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara), London Planetree (Platanus acerifolia), Cork Oak (Quercus suber), Holly Oak (Quercus ilex), and California Pepper (Schinus molle);
• It is a Native Tree. This means that it is one of the following California native tree species with a trunk diameter of more than 8 inches, measured at 54 inches above natural grade: California Sycamore (Platanus racemose), Torrey Pine (Pinus torreyana), Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Engelmann Oak (Quercus engelmannii), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), or California Bay (Umbellularia californica).
Healthy Heritage Trees that are approved for removal shall be replaced with new trees with a total trunk diameter equal to the tree(s) removed, or as deemed appropriate by the Approve Authority based on lot size and available planting space. Replacement trees are to be in addition to the quantity of trees required for landscaping. The Approving Authority is responsible for reviewing the landscape plan and approving appropriate species for tree replacement (The Ontario Plan 2022).
Several blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) and red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) are located adjacent to the northeast and western Project Site boundaries, although these are not known to be Heritage Trees meeting the criteria set forth above.
Municipal Code, Volume II, Chapter 2
The City’s Municipal Code (MC), Volume II, Chapter 2 contains a provision for “Parkway Tree Regulations” (Ordinance 1664), to preserve parkway trees and to regulate the maintenance and removal of such trees.
Parkway is defined as “…that portion of any public street right-of-way between the right-of-way boundary line and the curb line, and also the area enclosed within the curb lines of a medial divider.” The property owner abutting upon public rights-of-way (ROW) is responsible to water any tree located in the parkway and for trimming that can be done from the ground to preserve the neat appearance and non-obstructed use of the parkway, while the City is responsible for all major pruning. Removal or relocation of any parkway tree requires prior authorization from the Public Works Agency of the City through a permit process, and planting of a replacement tree, wheneverfeasible, shall be a condition included in any permit 935
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-16 4.4 | Biological Resources
issued by the City for the removal of any parkway tree. Alternatively, a cash-in-lieu deposit may be accepted by the City as an alternate to the actual planting of any required parkway tree based on a fair value established by the Public Facilities Manager.
City of Ontario Biological Resources Habitat Mitigation Fee5 Since the Settlement Agreement, the City has established a habitat mitigation fee to cover potential environmental impacts to the Burrowing Owl, Delhi sands flower-loving-fly (DSFLF), raptor foraging, loss of open space, and agricultural lands. Development impact fees for new development in Ontario Ranch were adopted on June 23, 2003, by the City Council. The Ontario Ranch development impact fees include a habitat mitigation fee of $4,320 per net acre for proposed residential, commercial, hotel and restaurant, office, and industrial development. Mitigation fees have been collected by the City and have been deposited into a trust fund to be used for the acquisition, restoration, rehabilitation, and maintenance of lands deemed to have long-term conservation value. Up to $500 of the fees may be used for DSFLF. In addition, current City procedure is to require a habitat assessment to determine existing habitat and biological resources on proposed development sites. If the assessment determines that there is potential habitat for sensitive species, focused protocol surveys are required. If potential DSFLF habitat is present, two-year (consecutive) protocol surveys per the USFWS Interim General Survey Guidelines for DSFLF are required.
The City has approved a Memorandum of Agreement with Inland Empire Resource Conservation District to administer the Greater Prado Basin Habitat Conservation Program and associated Ontario Ranch Habitat Mitigation Fees.
4.4.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
According to Appendix G of the state CEQA Guidelines, a project would a have significant effect on the biological resources if the project would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; • Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service;
• Have substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; or
• Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
5 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.4, Biological Resources. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed March 2023).
936
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-17 4.4 | Biological Resources
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Methodology
The Project and associated Plans, Program, and Policies in Section 4.4.5 are evaluated as to the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, to determine the potential level of significance of any impact concerning biological resources. This analysis considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or reduce the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.
Biological Resource Survey
Consultant conducted a field survey of the Phase I area on October 7, 2022. The purpose of the field survey was to document the existing habitat conditions, obtain plant and animal species information, view the surrounding uses, assess the potential for state and federal waters, assess potential for wildlife movement corridors, and if critical habitat is present, assess for the presence of constituent elements.
Aerial imagery, topographic maps, as well as vegetation and rare plant maps were previously prepared for the region and were used to determine community types and other physical features that could support sensitive plants or wildlife within or adjacent to the Project site.
A general plant survey was conducted throughout the Phase I area and all plants observed were either identified in the field or collected and later identified using taxonomic keys. All animals identified during the reconnaissance survey by sight, call, tracks, scat, or other characteristic sign were documented. In addition to species actually detected, expected use of the site by other wildlife was derived from the analysis of habitats on the site, combined with known habitat preferences of regionally occurring wildlife species. Currently, the Applicant does not control the Phase II parcels therefore, a biological resources report was not completed at this time. At the time of Phase II development, it will undergo its own sitespecific CEQA analysis. However, because the disturbance level, land use, and other environmental factors are generally consistent between the Phase I and Phase II areas, occurrence potential of special-status plant and wildlife species analyzed for the Phase I area is anticipated to be the same for the Phase II area.
Burrowing Owl Survey
The BUOW (SSC) uses predominantly open land, including grassland, agriculture, playa, sparse coastal sage scrub, and desert scrub habitats. The consultant concluded there would be a low potential for BUOW within the Project site. Suitable habitat including burrows larger than 4-inches in diameter, which is suitable habitat for the BUOW, was observed within and adjacent to the east of the Project site. 937
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-18 4.4 | Biological Resources
4.4.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP BIO-1 The Project shall comply with the Federal Endangered Species Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
PPP BIO-2 The Project shall comply with the California Endangered Species Act and Fish and Game Code.
4.4.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance.
Impact 4.4-1 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Phase I Project) and Significant and Unavoidable (Phase II Only) Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction
A substantial adverse effect to special-status species would occur if the Project would:
1) Reduce the population size or reduce the area of occupied habitat of a rare, threatened, or endangered species; or
2) Reduce the population size or reduce the area of occupied habitat of a locally uncommon species.
A substantial adverse effect on a special-status wildlife species occurs if the Project would:
1) Increase predation of a species, leading to population reduction; 2) Reduce habitat availability sufficiently to affect potential reproduction; or 3) Reduce habitat availability sufficiently to constrain the distribution of a species and not allow for natural changes in distributional patterns over time.
Project Implementation would cover a total of 84.1 acres within the City on 18 parcels allowing for a business park and mixed-use development. Furthermore, the Phase I area within the Project Specific Plan is mostly comprised of heavily disturbed active dairy and agricultural facilities.
Sensitive Plants
Refer to Table 4.4-1: Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity above. A total of thirteen sensitive plant species have potential to occur within the Project vicinity, however of these 13 plant species, eight were deemed to have no potential to occur, and five were not detected during the reconnaissance survey for the Phase I area. Lack of suitable habitat within the Project vicinity would make it difficult for these plant species to survive. Long-standing use of the Phase I area for agricultural uses 938
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-19 4.4 | Biological Resources
and other anthropogenic disturbances have likely altered soil chemistry and other substrate characteristics such that on-site soils are not likely capable of supporting those sensitive plant species known from the Project vicinity. Phase I area development would not eliminate significant amounts of habitat for potentially occurring special-status plant species, nor reduce population size of sensitive plant species below self-sustaining levels on a local or regional basis (if present). Therefore, the development of the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any plant specifies identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulation or by the CDFW or USFWS in the Phase I area. Hence, no significant impact to special-status plant species or their habitat would occur.
Sensitive Wildlife
Two special-status wildlife species were directly observed in the Phase I area. The species observed were the Northern harrier (SCC) and the White-faced ibis (CWL). Additionally, several species observed during the survey were deemed to have a moderate occurrence potential (primarily as foragers). Most remaining potentially occurring sensitive wildlife species are not expected to occur on-site due to lack of suitable habitat. Impacts to agricultural-related habitats could amount to an incremental reduction of potential foraging habitat for certain species that may be considered locally adverse. However, development would not eliminate significant amounts of habitat for these species, nor reduce population size below selfsustaining levels on a local or regional basis, and impacts would be less than significant.
Nesting Birds
Most native bird species are protected under the federal MBTA and CDFG Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 which prohibit take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests, or eggs. If it were later determined that active nests of any of special-status or native species would be lost or indirectly impacted as a result of site-preparation, it could result in adverse impacts and would be in conflict with these regulations. If construction activities (e.g., site disturbances) are proposed during the nesting season, a nesting bird survey(s) may be required prior to development. Development activities performed outside of the avian breeding season (generally September 1 to December 31) usually eliminates the need to conduct pre-activity nesting surveys for most native species known from the site vicinity and ensure that there were no constraints to construction relative to the MBTA/CDFG Code. Compliance with the MBTA/CDFG Code would be necessary prior to development; however, no special permit or approval is typically required in most instances where BUOW are not present. Development activities performed outside of the avian breeding season would generally eliminate the need to conduct pre-activity nesting surveys for most common native species (other than BUOW) known from the Project site vicinity, and likely ensure that there were no constraints to construction relative to the MBTA/CDFG codes.
Suitable foraging and nesting habitat for the Cooper’s hawk (SSC), sharp-shinned hawk (CWL), golden eagle (CWL,SFP), great egret(Nesting Colony), great blue heron (Nesting Colony), ferruginous hawk (CWL), snowy egret (Nesting Colony), white-tailed kite (SFP), California horned lark (CWL), Swainson’s hawk (ST), merlin (CWL), prairie falcon (CWL), loggerhead shrike (SSC), California gull (CWL), long-billed curlew (CWL), and double crested cormorant (CWL) was observed in the Phase I area within the agricultural fields and the artificially created unvegetated dairy effluent retention ponds. The Project would adhere to the required Ontario Ranch development impact fees which include a habitat mitigation fee of $4,320 per net 939
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-20 4.4 | Biological Resources
acre for proposed residential, commercial, hotel and restaurant, office, and industrial development. These paid mitigation fees would then be collected by the City and be deposited into a trust fund to use for the acquisition, restoration, rehabilitation, and maintenance of lands deemed to have long-term conservation value. As stated in Section 4.4.3: Regulatory Setting, the City has approved a Memorandum of Agreement with Inland Empire Resource Conservation District to administer the Greater Prado Basin Habitat Conservation Program and associated Ontario Ranch Habitat Mitigation Fees. Additionally, MM BIO-1 would require a qualified biologist to conduct a nesting bird survey(s) to be reviewed by the City to reduce impacts to nesting birds to less than significant levels.
Many North American bat species tend to congregate at preferred roosting sites or at isolated water sources, several field methods are available to identify species and broad habitat associations (e.g., tree cavities, exfoliating bark, bark fissures, crevices, cliff faces, and/or dense foliage). Suitable foraging and roosting habitat for the pallid bat(SSC), Townsend’s big-eared bat (SSC), and the western mastiff bat (SSC) was observed within the Phase I area. Potential impacts to foraging habitat for these species would be mitigated to a level of less than significant level with implementation of MM BIO-2. MM BIO-2 would require a qualified biologist to determine whether potential roosting sites for bats may be affected through exit counts and acoustic surveys that would be performed prior to ground disturbance activities.
If the results of the bat survey find a total of one single roosting individual of a special status bat species or 25 or more individuals of a non-special status bat species with potential to be present in the Phase I area (i.e., western Mastiff bat, big free-tailed bat, or pallid bat), a Bat Management Plan shall be developed to ensure mortality to bats does not occur. The plan would be reviewed and approved by the CDFW.
Although there is suitable foraging and nesting habitat located on the Project site for the aforementioned species, suitable habitat for breeding was not documented within the Project site, and mitigation would reduce potential impacts to these species to less than significant levels. Furthermore, the biological assessment prepared did not document any sensitive or undisturbed native habitats within the Project site.
Burrowing Owl (BUOW)
Furthermore, suitable habitat including burrows larger than 4-inches in diameter, which is suitable habitat for the BUOW, was observed within and adjacent to the east of the Project site. Although there is suitable habitat for the BUOW, potential impacts to refugia, nesting and foraging habitat for this species would be mitigated to a level of less than significant following implementation of MM BIO-3 which would ensure BUOW surveys are completed prior to construction. MM BIO-3 would implement focused and preconstruction surveys to ensure potential impacts to refugia, nesting, and foraging habitat for the BUOW would be reduced to less than significant levels. Upon arrival at the survey area and prior to initiating the walking surveys, the biologist would use binoculars and/or spotting scope to scan suitable habitat. A total of four (4) surveys would be conducted with at least one site visit between February 15th and April 15th, and a minimum of three surveys at least three weeks apart between April 15th and July 15th.
Furthermore, one site visit will occur after June 15th.
BUOW is a CDFW Species of Special Concern. The BUOW uses predominantly open land, including grassland, agriculture, playa, sparse coastal sage scrub, and desert scrub habitats. Suitable burrows larger than 4 inches in diameter and foraging habitat for the BUOW were documented within and adjacent to 940
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-21 4.4 | Biological Resources
the east of the Phase I area. However, despite that fact that the site has been exposed to long-standing disturbances, the BUOW (low-occurrence potential) often occur in less than optimal and/or disturbed conditions. While this species is not protected by state or federal endangered species acts, BUOW (and other native avian species) are protected under the MBTA and CDFG Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 which prohibits take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests, or eggs (in particular raptor species such as BUOW). If it were later determined that active nests of BUOW (or other native species) would be lost as a result of Project site-preparation, it could result in significant adverse impacts and would be in conflict with these regulations. Specific BUOW survey and mitigation guidelines were developed and described in the 2012 CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation in order to reduce project-related impacts to BUOW (MM BIO-3). If Project site-preparation activities occur within potential BUOW habitat, a pre-construction BUOW / Initial Take Avoidance Survey conducted no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities using the recommended methods described in the 2012 Staff Report is required by CDFG to determine if active nests of species protected by the MBTA and/or CDFG codes are present in the construction zone for CEQA compliance and to subsequently evaluate appropriate measures that may reduce potential adverse project-related impacts. Therefore, implementation of MM BIO-3 would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Operations
Operations of the Project would not have a significant effect on sensitive plants, animals, or their habitat.
Once construction activities for the Project are completed, no additional impacts would occur with Project operations as it relates to sensitive species. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no further mitigation would be required.
Specific Plan – Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
Refer to Phase I discussion above. The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. Upon commencement of project-level CEQA review for the Phase II area, a focused biological resources assessment and site reconnaissance survey would be conducted, similar to that of the Phase I analysis. During future development of the Phase II area, existing vegetation and habitat would be removed by grading, excavation, and other construction activities. Note that, in its current state, the Project site is devoid of vegetation or dominated by ornamental, non-native and native species commonly detected in disturbed habitats. These disturbed habitats would be removed upon implementation of Phase II. Similar to Phase I, development occurring within the Phase II area would be subject to MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-3 to reduce potential impacts to special status wildlife species. However, in the absence of focused biological surveys, impacts within the Phase II area are not fully known and could be potentially significant. At the time of the project-level CEQA analysis and associated biological resources assessment of the Phase II area, unforeseen site conditions could be discovered that warrant a finding of potentially significant impact. In that case, a subsequent CEQA analysis, in the form of a subsequent EIR or EIR Addendum, may be required pursuant to Sections 15162(a) and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines. This determination will be made by City staff at the time of future Phase II area site-specific development applications. 941
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-22 4.4 | Biological Resources
A focused biological resources assessment and impact analysis would be conducted for future development areas prior to approval of any development in this region to ensure potential adverse effects to sensitive species and resources would be minimized. Furthermore, any focused surveys and required mitigation measures would be implemented prior to Project approval and construction initiation (refer to MM BIO-4 below). Future development would modify the existing habitat when Planning Areas 2B and 3B are completed; however, impacts on sensitive species due to habitat modifications would be minimized with mitigation incorporated along with compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050. 6 Furthermore, the proposed Project
Specific Plan land use designations are the same land use designations as contained in TOP 2050. As mentioned above, a subsequent CEQA analysis may be required should the new information presented by the focused surveys or focused biological resources assessment indicate that the Project will have significant impacts relating to biological resources.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project is not anticipated to significantly impact sensitive species. The proposed Project Specific Plan proposes the same land uses as contained in the City’s TOP 2050. MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-4 would be required to reduce impacts. For the Phase I portion of the Project, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. However, because the extent of impacts within the Phase II area cannot be known at this time, Project impacts relating to biological resources within the Phase II area are considered potentially significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of recommended mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1 Nesting Bird and Raptor Preconstruction Survey. Regulatory requirement for potential direct/indirect impacts to nesting common and sensitive bird and raptor species will require compliance with the CDFG Code Section 3503. Construction outside the nesting season (between September 1st and January 31st) do not require pre-removal nesting bird surveys. If construction is proposed during nesting season (February 1st and August 31st), a qualified biologist will conduct a nesting bird survey(s) no more than three (3) days prior to initiation of grading to document the presence or absence of nesting birds within or directly adjacent (200 ft -500 ft for raptors) to the Project site.
The survey(s) will focus on identifying any raptors and/or bird nests that are directly or indirectly affected by construction activities. If active nests are documented, the qualified biologist will prepare and implement specific measures to prevent abandonment of the active nest. At a minimum, grading in the vicinity of a nest will be postponed until the young birds have fledged. The perimeter of the nest setback zone will be fenced or adequately demarcated with stakes and flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction personnel and activities will be restricted from the area. 6 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.4, Biological Resources. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed March 2023).
942
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-23 4.4 | Biological Resources
The biologist shall establish a no-disturbance buffer around each active nest. The buffer area will be determined by the biologist based on the species present, surrounding habitat, and type of construction activities proposed in the area. The survey report will be submitted by the qualified biologist to the City of Ontario for review and approval prior to initiation of grading in the nest-setback zone.
Additionally, the qualified biologist will serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. A final monitoring report of the findings, prepared by a qualified biologist, will be submitted to the City of Ontario documenting compliance with the CDFG Code. Any nest permanently vacated for the season would not warrant protection pursuant to the CDFG Code.
MM BIO-2 Focused Bat Survey. Prior to implementation of Project activities, a qualified biologist shall be retained to determine whether potential roosting sites for bats may be affected. For large ornamental trees suitable for bat roosting/nursery, exit counts and acoustic surveys shall be performed prior to initial ground disturbance, vegetation or structure removal to determine whether the Project Site and a 300-foot buffer supports a nursery or roost, and by which species. This work will occur between late -spring and late summer and/or in the fall (generally mid-March through late October).
If the results of the bat survey find a total of a single roosting individual of a special status bat species or 25 or more individuals of a non-special status bat species with potential to be present in the Project Site (i.e., western Mastiff bat, big free-tailed bat, or pallid bat), a Bat Management Plan shall be developed to ensure mortality to bats does not occur. For each location confirmed to be occupied by bats, the plan will provide details both in text and graphically where exclusion devises/and or staged tree removal will need to occur, the timing for exclusion work and the timeline and methodology needed to exclude the bats. The plan will need to be reviewed and approved by CDFW prior to disturbance of the roost(s).
MM BIO-3 Focused and Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Surveys. Focused surveys for burrowing owl will be conducted in accordance with the March 7, 2022, CDFG staff report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Specifically, A total of 4 surveys will be conducted: 1) at least one site visit between February 15th and April 15th, and 2) a minimum of three (3) surveys, at least three weeks apart, between April 15th and July 15th, with at least one visit after June 15th. A report of the findings prepared by a qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City of Ontario prior to any permit or approval for ground disturbing activities.
A 14-day burrowing owl preconstruction survey will also be conducted immediately prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing construction to ensure protection for this species. The survey will be conducted in compliance with CDFW guidelines (CDFW 2012). A report of the findings prepared by a qualified biologist shall be 943
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-24 4.4 | Biological Resources
submitted to the City of Ontario prior to any permit or approval for ground disturbing activities.
If burrowing owls are detected on-site during the focused surveys or 14-day preconstruction survey efforts, during the breeding season (February 1st to August 31st) then construction activities shall be limited to beyond 300 feet of the active burrows until a qualified biologist has confirmed that nesting efforts are compete or not initiated. In addition to monitoring breeding activity, if construction is proposed to be initiated during the breeding season or active relocation is proposed, a burrowing owl relocation plan will be developed and approved by the City of Ontario, CDFW and USFWS.
MM BIO-4 Programmatic Assessment Area CEQA Analysis. The Programmatic Assessment Area located within the southwest region of the Specific Plan Boundary, including APN’s 1053-281-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, 07 and – 08, was not evaluated for biological resources as part of this analysis. To ensure that potential adverse effects to sensitive species and resources are reduced to a less than significant level, a focused biological resources assessment and impact analysis shall be conducted in the un-surveyed portion of the Specific Plan Boundary prior to approval of development within this region. In addition to completing CEQA review, any focused surveys and required mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to project approval and initiation of construction.
Impact 4.4-2 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Phase I Project) and Significant and Unavoidable (Phase II Only) Specific Plan - Phase I
Construction and Operations
As previously mentioned, the Phase I area is heavily disturbed and mostly consists of active dairy and agricultural facilities. A total of 70.04 acres of vegetation communities would be directly impacted as a result of project implementation as summarized in Table 4.4-3: Project Site Vegetation Community Impacts. However, no riparian, sensitive, or undisturbed native/natural habitats were documented during the biological assessment. In addition, no riparian scrub, forest, or woodland habitat was observed within the artificially created dairy effluent retention ponds located within the Phase I area. Furthermore, the adherence to the City’s Biological Resources habitat mitigation fee, described previously, would reduce potential impacts to Burrowing Owl, raptor foraging, loss of open space, and agricultural lands to a less than significant level.
944
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-25 4.4 | Biological Resources
Table 4.4-3: Project Site Vegetation Community Impacts
Vegetation Community On-site Acres Off-site Acres Total/Impacted Active Dairy 31.17 2.69 33.86
Active Agriculture 25.71 1.62 27.33
Disturbed 3.02 4.04 7.06
Developed -- 1.18 1.18
Ornamental 0.08 0.53 0.61
Total 59.98 10.06 70.04
Source: Cadre Environmental. 2022. Biological Resources Technical Report. Page 7. See Appendix C.
Specific Plan – Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
Refer to Phase I discussion above. The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. Furthermore, the proposed Project Specific Plan land use designations are the same land use designations as contained in TOP 2050. When Phase II Planning Areas 2B and 3B are completed, impacts to riparian habitat would be minimized with compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.7 However, in the absence of focused biological surveys, impacts within the Phase II area are not fully known and could be potentially significant. At the time of the project-level CEQA analysis and associated biological resources assessment of the Phase II area, unforeseen site conditions could be discovered that warrant a finding of potentially significant impact. In that case, subsequent CEQA analysis, in the form of a subsequent EIR or EIR Addendum, may be required pursuant to Sections 15162(a) and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines. This determination will be made by City staff at the time of future Phase II area site-specific development applications.
A focused biological resources assessment and impact analysis would be conducted for Future Development Areas area prior to approval of any development in this region to ensure potential adverse effects to sensitive species and resources would minimized. Furthermore, any focused surveys and required mitigation measures would be implemented prior to Project approval and construction initiation (refer to MM BIO-4 located above in Impact 4.4-1). As mentioned above, a subsequent CEQA analysis may be required should the new information presented by the focused surveys or focused biological resources assessment indicate that the Project will have significant impacts relating to biological resources.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project is not anticipated to significantly impact any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Adherence to the City’s habitat mitigation fee would be required to reduce impacts to less significant levels. For the Phase I portion of the Project, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. However, because the extent of impacts within the Phase II area cannot be known at this time, Project impacts relating to biological resources within the Phase II area are considered potentially significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of recommended mitigation. 7 Ibid.
945
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-26 4.4 | Biological Resources
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-4 would apply.
Impact 4.4-3 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Level of Significance: Less than Significant (Phase I Project) and Significant and Unavoidable (Phase II Only)
Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction and Operations
Jurisdictional Resources
The presence of wetland hydrology was evaluated throughout the Phase I area by recording the extent of observed surface flows, depth of inundation, depth to saturated soils, and depth to free water in the soil pits. Indicators of wetland or riverine hydrology were then recorded, such as watermarks, drift lines, rack, debris, and sediment deposits. Additionally, indicators of hydric soils, such as redoximorphic features, buried organic matter, organic streaking, reduced soil conditions, gleied or low-chroma soils, or sulfidic odor were recorded. Based on the field investigation of the Phase I area conducted by Cadre Environmental, no wetlands or jurisdictional resources regulated by the USACE, CDFW, or RWQCB were documented within the Phase I area.
8 The on-site active dairy/effluent pond would not be subject to federal wetland regulatory requirements and would not be considered a freshwater pond. Furthermore, the active artificially created, unvegetated, dairy effluent retention ponds are devoid of wetland, riparian scrub, forest, and/or woodland habitats.
The active dairy/effluent pond is not connected to a natural stream and does not divert natural flow from any river, stream, or lake. Since these waters are not a part of a natural stream, river, or lake, they would not be considered jurisdictional under the CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. The program states: “An entity shall not substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake….” Furthermore, the active dairy/effluent pond is an isolated feature and is not tributary to, nor has a significant nexus (biological, chemical, or physical connection) to traditional navigable waters of the United States. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
Specific Plan – Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
Refer to Phase I discussion above. The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. Furthermore, the proposed Project Specific Plan land use designations are the same land use designations as contained in TOP 2050. Phase II would be located on Planning Areas 2B and 3B. Furthermore, any focused surveys and required mitigation measures 8 Cadre Environmental. 2022. Biological Resources Technical Report. Page 39. See Appendix C. 946
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-27 4.4 | Biological Resources
would be implemented prior to Project approval and construction initiation (refer to MM BIO-4 located above in Impact 4.4-1) However, because the extent of impacts within the Phase II area cannot be known at this time, Project impacts relating to biological resources within the Phase II area are considered potentially significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of recommended mitigation.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project is not anticipated to significantly impact federally protected wetlands, as no federally protected wetlands exist in the Project area. For the Phase I portion of the Project, impacts would be less than significant. However, because the extent of impacts within the Phase II area cannot be known at this time, Project impacts relating to biological resources within the Phase II area are considered potentially significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of recommended mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM BIO-4.
Impact 4.4-4 Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Phase I Project) and Significant and Unavoidable (Phase II Only) Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction
Wildlife Movement Corridors
The Phase I area is currently developed with manmade structures and is surrounded by development including high traffic roads, commercial/residential development, active dairy/agricultural facilities, and therefore, it is highly unlikely that the Phase I area occupies an important location relative to regional wildlife movement. As such, Project implementation would not have any substantial effect on local or regional wildlife movement. The Phase I area is separated from regional wildlife movement corridors associated with the Prado Dam Flood Control Basin and Santa Ana River. Therefore the Phase I area does not function as a wildlife movement corridor.
Furthermore, although vegetation, including trees and shrubs would provide nesting habitat for raptors and migratory birds protected under the CDFG Codes are present within the Phase I area, the Project would comply with CDFG Code Section 3503 and implementation of MM BIO-1 would require a qualified biologist to conduct a nesting bird and raptor survey(s) no more than three (3) days prior to initiation of grading. Furthermore, construction activities outside of the nesting season (between September 1st and January 31st) would not require any preconstruction nesting bird survey(s).
The Phase I area does not represent a wildlife movement corridor or route between open space habitats.
Additionally, the Phase I area is separated from regional wildlife movement corridors associated with the Prado Damn Flood Control Basin and Santa Ana River. Therefore, the Phase I area does not function as a 947
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-28 4.4 | Biological Resources
wildlife movement corridor. With implementation of MM BIO-1, Project development would not impede on any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species and would not be located in a migratory wildlife corridor. Therefore, with mitigation incorporated, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Operations
The Phase I area does not function as a wildlife movement corridor. As previously stated, the Phase I area has been previously disturbed for agricultural use with multiple manmade structures present. Operation of the Project would involve mixed-use and business park infrastructure within the Phase I area. This usage would be consistent with previous uses of the site in that both would reduce the area’s ability to act as a natural wildlife corridor. Therefore, operation of the Project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Thus, operation of the Project would not create a significant impact.
Specific Plan – Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
Refer to Phase I discussion above. Similar to the Phase I area, the Phase II area has been previously disturbed for agricultural use with multiple manmade structures present. Operation of the Project would involve mixed-use and business park infrastructure within the Phase II area. This usage would be consistent with previous uses of the site in that both would reduce the area’s ability to act as a natural wildlife corridor. Additionally, the Project site (both the Phase I and II areas) is separated from regional wildlife movement corridors associated with the Prado Dam Flood Control Basin and Santa Ana River.
Therefore, the Phase II area does not function as a wildlife movement corridor. Therefore, development of the Phase II area would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species.
The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. Furthermore, the proposed Project Specific Plan land use designations are the same land use designations as contained in TOP 2050. In consideration of the above, when the development of Phase II Planning Areas 2B and 3B are completed, impacts to wildlife corridors are anticipated to remain less than significant with mitigation and compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.9 A focused biological resources assessment and impact analysis would be conducted for Future Development Areas prior to approval of any development in this region to ensure potential adverse effects to sensitive species and resources would be reduced to a less than significant level. Furthermore, any focused surveys and required mitigation measures would be implemented prior to Project approval and construction initiation (refer to MM BIO-4 located above in Impact 4.4-1). As mentioned above, a subsequent CEQA analysis may be required should the new information presented by the focused surveys 9 Ibid.
948
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-29 4.4 | Biological Resources
or focused biological resources assessment indicate that the Project will have significant impacts relating to biological resources.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project is not anticipated to significantly impact any established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, nor impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.MM BIO-1 is required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. For the Phase I portion of the Project, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. However, because the extent of impacts within the Phase II area cannot be known at this time, Project impacts relating to biological resources within the Phase II area are considered potentially significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of recommended mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-4 would apply.
Impact 4.4-5 Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Phase I Project) and Significant and Unavoidable (Phase II Only) Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction and Operations
A Heritage Tree is one that is designated for preservation as a tree of historic or cultural significance, or a tree of importance to the community. As noted above, the majority of the site is occupied by agricultural operations, associated access roads and agricultural residential uses. The site has sparse mature trees other than ornamental landscaping and the existing nursery located along Euclid Avenue. The nursery will be relocated prior to Project site construction activities. None of the trees on-site are known to meet the City’s Heritage Tree policy (they are not known to be the oldest or largest of their kind, are not known to have any historic significance, are not known to be a defining landmark or significant outstanding feature of the area, and are not known to include any of the listed native trees with trunk diameter greater than eight inches).
As previously mentioned, several blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) and red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) are located in the northeast and western portions of the Project Site boundaries, although these trees do not meet the City’s Heritage Tree policy criteria. Prior to any site clearing or grading, a tree inventory would be prepared to ensure compliance with Ontario MC Section 6.05.020, Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures (refer to MM BIO-5). This policy would ensure healthy Heritage Trees that are approved for removal would be replaced with new trees with a total trunk diameter equal to the trees removed, or as deemed appropriate by the Approve Authority. With implementation of MM BIO-5, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. 949
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-30 4.4 | Biological Resources
Specific Plan – Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
Refer to Phase I discussion above. The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. Furthermore, the proposed Project Specific Plan land use designations are the same land use designations as contained in TOP 2050. When Phase II Planning Areas 2B and 3B are completed, impacts to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would be minimized with mitigation incorporated and would comply with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.10 However, in the absence of focused biological surveys, impacts within the Phase II area are not fully known and could be potentially significant. At the time of the project-level CEQA analysis and associated biological resources assessment of the Phase II area, unforeseen site conditions could be discovered that warrant a finding of potentially significant impact. In that case, subsequent CEQA analysis, in the form of a subsequent EIR or EIR Addendum, may be required pursuant to Sections 15162(a) and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
This determination will be made by City staff at the time of future Phase II area site-specific development applications.
A focused biological resources assessment and impact analysis would be conducted for the Phase II area prior to approval of any development in this region to ensure potential adverse effects to biological resources would minimized. The site-specific biological resources studies would include a Heritage Tree survey prior to approving any future development within the Project’s Phase II area (refer to MM BIO-5).
As mentioned above, a subsequent CEQA analysis may be required should the new information presented by the focused surveys or focused biological resources assessment indicate that the Project will have significant impacts relating to biological resources.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project is not anticipated to significantly impact an established Tree Preservation Policy. The proposed Project Specific Plan proposes the same land uses as contained in the City’s TOP 2050. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, along with compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050. MM BIO-5 is required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. For the Phase I portion of the Project, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. However, because the extent of impacts within the Phase II area cannot be known at this time, Project impacts relating to biological resources within the Phase II area are considered potentially significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of recommended mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-5 Tree Inventory. Prior to implementation of Project site clearing or grading, a qualified biologist shall provide a tree inventory to ensure compliance with Ontario MC Section
6.05.020, Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures. Healthy Heritage Trees that are approved for removal shall be replaced with new trees with a total trunk 10 Ibid.
950
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-31 4.4 | Biological Resources
diameter equal to the tree(s) removed, or as deemed appropriate by the Approving Authority based on lot size and available planting space. Replacement trees are to be in addition to the quantity of trees required for landscaping. The Approving Authority is responsible for reviewing the landscape plan and approving appropriate species for tree replacement (The Ontario Plan 2050).
Impact 4.4-6 Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Specific Plan - Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The Project is not located within or adjacent to a Conservation Program Area. The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time.
Furthermore, the proposed Project Specific Plan land use designations are the same land use designations as contained in TOP 2050. Phase II future development area is not located within or adjacent to a Conservation Program Area. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in a conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan and no impact would occur. Therefore, no mitigation is required or proposed.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would not significantly impact an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The proposed Project Specific Plan proposes the same land uses as contained in the City’s TOP 2050. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.11 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
4.4.7 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative study area for biological resources includes the southwestern San Bernardino County. This area consists of a variety of land uses that includes agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The agricultural areas may include sensitive habitats which may contain special-status plants, migratory bird species, and jurisdictional resources. However, as discussed above the Project would implement mitigation measures to reduce impacts to the identified species to less than significant levels.
Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant contribution to cumulative impacts to these resources, and impacts would be less than cumulatively significant. 11 Ibid.
951
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-32 4.4 | Biological Resources
Project development would not involve the removal of critical habitat and would not make a considerable contribution to the decline of wildlife species. The Project would remove potential raptor foraging habitat through development of the mixed-use and business park structures. Although the existing agriculture may provide foraging habitat for raptors, it is not expected to be valuable, as the lands are actively maintained to minimize use by small mammals (prey for raptors) and active ground squirrel management programs are continually implemented. This loss of potential raptor foraging habitat would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the regional decline of raptors.
Mitigation has been incorporated into the Project that would avoid direct impacts to any potentially sensitive wildlife species that may occur on-site. Therefore, the mitigation measures for the Project would mitigate the potential of the Project to cumulatively combine with other projects; and the Project Specific Plan would not contribute to the cumulative loss of any special status wildlife species.
Additionally, MM BIO-3 would ensure focused surveys for BUOW would be conducted and potential BUOW impacts to less than significant levels.
The types of birds affected are common to the region and the number of individuals would be limited given the type of vegetation proposed for removal (i.e., agriculture, ornamental plantings). Based on the types of species and expected limited number of nesting pairs affected, development of the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the regional decline of native nesting bird populations. However, because native birds are protected by MBTA, mortality to a single native bird due to the Project would be in violation of the MBTA, CESA or FESA. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to nesting birds would be less than cumulatively significant.
The Biological Resource Assessment also indicated that the Project would not impact CDFW jurisdictional waters and riparian habitats. Thus, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the regional decline of jurisdictional waters.
Additionally, the Project would be pursuant to TOP 2050 and would represent a consistent and logical continuation of the existing and planned pattern of development in Ontario, specifically the Ontario Ranch area. The City has long anticipated that this area would transition from dairy/agricultural to urban uses, and the Project Specific Plan is implementing TOP 2050.12
4.4.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable biological resources impacts have been identified for Phase I of the Project.
However, the Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. Impacts within the Phase II area are not fully known and could be potentially significant. At the time of the project-level CEQA analysis and associated biological resources assessment of the Phase II area, unforeseen site conditions could be discovered that warrant a finding of potentially significant impact. In that case, a subsequent CEQA analysis, in the form of a subsequent EIR or EIR Addendum, may be required pursuant to Sections 15162(a) and 15164 of the State CEQA 12 Ibid.
952
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.4-33 4.4 | Biological Resources
Guidelines. This determination will be made by City staff at the time of future Phase II area site-specific development applications.
4.4.9 References
Cadre Environmental. October 2022. Biological Resources Technical Report for Euclid Mixed-Use Specific Plan. City of Ontario, California. (Appendix C)
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Environmental Resources Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/aboutontario-ontario-plan-policy-plan/environmental-resources.
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR. Section 5.4, Biological Resources. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf.
City of Ontario. 2020. Ontario Municipal Code.
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ontarioca/latest/ontario_ca/0-0-0-35678.
Code of Federal Regulations for MBTA. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?SID=b85587342ebe4f607983dfb6d1e07461&mc=true&node=se50.1.10_113&rgn=div8.
EPA. 2022. Exemptions to Permit Requirements under CWA Section 404. https://www.epa.gov/cwa404/exemptions-permit-requirements-under-cwa-section-404. 953
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-1 4.5 | Cultural Resources
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5.1 Introduction
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzes the potential impacts of the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project (Project) on the surrounding cultural resources on a regional and local level, within the City of Ontario (City). Cultural resources comprise of buildings, sites, structures, or objects that may have historic, architectural, archaeological, cultural, and/or scientific importance. Historical resources are cultural resources that are considered significant and eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Refer to Section 4.5.6: Impacts and Mitigation, for legal definitions and significance thresholds associated with cultural resources. Paleontological resources, which are the fossilized remnants of plants and animals, are analyzed in Section 4.7: Geology and Soils, and Tribal Cultural Resources are analyzed in Section 4.16: Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR. The evaluation of the Project area and the potential impact on cultural resources is largely based on the following sources:
• BCR Consulting LLC. August 2023. Cultural Resources Assessment Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. (Appendix D1) • Structural Focus. November 2023. Relocation of Milking Parlors – Feasibility Study Venegas Farm (13813 Euclid Ave) and Drake Farm (7275 Schaefer Ave) Ontario, California. (Appendix D2) • The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental EIR
• City of Ontario Municipal Code
4.5.2 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
The 84.1-acre Project site is bounded by Schaefer Avenue on the north, Sultana Avenue on the east, Edison Avenue on the south, and Euclid Avenue on the west, in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County (County), California. The Project area consists of 18 parcels, identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 1053-071-01, -02, -03, -04; 1053-211-01, -02, -05; 1053-281-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -07, -08; 1053- 081-01, -02, -03, -04. Existing uses surrounding the Project site are similar to those on the site. Ongoing crop farming is located to the north of the Project site and a vacant property that was a former dairy farm is located to the east of the site. The property to the south of the Project site is currently utilized for residential, farming, or trucking related uses. North across Schaefer Avenue is an existing dairy farm. South across Edison Avenue is an existing trucking facility. East across Sultana Avenue is vacant land and an existing trucking facility. West across Euclid Avenue is the City of Chino with existing commercial and residential uses and a truck/trailer storage.
The Project site is located in the Chino Valley, which is bounded on the west by the San Jose Hills, on the south by the Chino Hills, on the north by the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, and on the east by La Sierra and the Jurupa Mountains. The Project site and immediate surroundings exhibits a gradual southerly slope and lies on a flood plain that feeds the Santa Ana River approximately five miles to the south. The native, historic biology of the region is difficult to reconstruct due to recent and historical 954
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-2 4.5 | Cultural Resources
agricultural, municipal, and industrial impacts. However, the Project site is situated in the Upper Sonoran Life Zone, which is locally present between approximately 500 and 5,000 feet above mean sea level (asml).
This zone typically comprises cismontane valleys and low mountain slopes dominated by mixed coastal sage scrub and chaparral vegetation communities.
Cultural Setting
Prehistoric Context
The Project site is located within the traditional boundaries of the Gabrielino. The Gabrielino likely first encountered Europeans when Spanish explorers reached California's southern coast during the 15th and 16th centuries. The first documented encounter, however, occurred in 1769 when Gaspar de Portola's expedition crossed Gabrielino territory. The Gabrielino name has been attributed by association with the Spanish mission of San Gabriel and refers to a subset of people sharing speech and customs with other Cupan speakers (such as the Juaneño/Luiseño/Ajachemem) from the greater Takic branch of the UtoAztecan language family. Gabrielino villages occupied the watersheds of various rivers (locally including the Santa Ana) and intermittent streams. Chiefs were usually descended through the male line and often administered several villages. Gabrielino society was somewhat stratified and is thought to have contained three hierarchically ordered social classes which dictated ownership rights and social status and obligations. Plants utilized for food were heavily relied upon and included acorn-producing oaks, as well as seed-producing grasses and sage. Animal protein was commonly derived from rabbits and deer in inland regions, while coastal populations supplemented their diets with fish, shellfish, and marine mammals.
Historical Setting
Historic-era California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish or Mission Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican or Rancho Period (1821 to 1848), and the American Period (1848 to present).
Spanish Period. The Spanish period began in 1769 with Captain Gaspar de Portolá’s land expedition and ended in 1821 with Mexican Independence. During the Spanish Period, the establishment of the Mission San Gabriel Arcángel (1771) was influential throughout the surrounding regions, using the area for cattle grazing. An asistencia was established within the area nearby in Redlands in 1819 and helped facilitate the Mission’s control of the surrounding area. However, after control of the area shifted to Mexico, secularization began throughout the area and the missions and their associated ranches began to decline.
The Mexican government proceeded to push settlements of Mexican populations from the south by deeding large grants to individuals who promised to employ settlers.
Mexican Period. In 1821, Mexico overthrew Spanish rule, and the missions began to decline. By 1833, the Mexican government passed the Secularization Act, and the missions, reorganized as parish churches, lost their vast land holdings and released their neophytes.
American Period. The American Period (1848–Present) began with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The Gold Rush of 1849 would see tremendous influx of Americans and Europeans flooding into Southern California. In 1850, California was accepted into the Union of the United States primarily due to the 955
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-3 4.5 | Cultural Resources
population increase created by the Gold Rush of 1849. The cattle industry reached its greatest prosperity during the first years of the American Period. Mexican Period land grants had created large pastoral estates in California, and demand for beef during the Gold Rush led to a cattle boom that lasted from 1849–1855. However, beginning about 1855, the demand for beef began to decline due to imports of sheep from New Mexico and cattle from the Mississippi and Missouri Valleys. When the beef market collapsed, many California ranchers lost their ranchos through foreclosure. A series of disastrous floods in 1861–1862, followed by a significant drought further diminished the economic impact of local ranching.
This decline combined with ubiquitous agricultural and real estate developments of the late 19th century, set the stage for diversified economic pursuits that continue to this day.
Ontario. In 1839, the Mexican government granted the 12,000-acre Rancho de Cucamonga to Tiburcio Tapia. In the 1840s, Americans began settling in California in large numbers due to the Gold Rush, and California’s statehood in 1850 accelerated settlement. In 1881, George and William Chaffey purchased part of Rancho Cucamonga in order to develop Etiwanda, where they tested their ground-breaking irrigation and town planning ideas. That same year, the Chaffeys purchased 6,000 acres (along with water rights) west of Etiwanda, which became the cities of Ontario and Upland. In 1883, the Chaffeys added the Kincaid Ranch at the mouth of San Antonio Canyon to their holdings. They established the Ontario Land Company and subdivided the land into 10-acre farm lots, all of which had street frontage.
The Chaffeys set aside a town site for Ontario as well as land for an agricultural college, making water available to each parcel to encourage farmers to settle there. George Chaffey laid out a boulevard named Euclid, which stretched from the Southern Pacific Depot to the mesa at the north end of their holdings.
The Chaffey brothers sold off their land and left California for Australia in 1886. Charles Frankish had moved to Ontario from Riverside that same year to participate in the Chaffeys’ “Model Colony,” and invested in undeveloped land along Euclid Avenue. He recruited a group of investors and formed the Ontario Land and Improvement Company, which bought the Chaffey brothers’ land holdings in 1886.
Frankish acted as Manager and later President, and actively participated in the sale of real estate as well as planning and developing Ontario. Frankish extended Euclid past the depot to the south end of the company’s holdings, platting the street grid and planting trees. In 1887, he organized the Ontario and San Antonio Heights Railroad Company (O&SA) as a subsidiary of the land company. In the 1890s, the O&SA constructed a hydro-electric plant at the mouth of San Antonio Canyon and electrified the system, making it the first electrified trolley west of Chicago. Ontario officially incorporated as a city in 1891. In 1912, Frankish bought the land company’s Ontario-area assets and formed the Frankish Company. Frankish installed electric streetlights in Ontario, established its first bank, and was involved in local commerce and planning until his abrupt departure from the area in 1927.
Aviation interests were introduced to Ontario in 1923 when Waldo Waterman and Archie Mitchell established Latimer Field in the City limits. As more people moved to Ontario, its urban growth forced aviators eastward until they established an airport at the current location of Ontario International Airport.
During World War II, Ontario’s airport brought many to the area for its pilot training facilities. It was about this time that the citrus industry that had contributed to Ontario’s nascent years of growth started to experience a broad decline. Land values increased as more Americans began moving westward and settling in the area. In subsequent years and decades, farmers sold their land to incoming residential 956
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-4 4.5 | Cultural Resources
developers. The population of Ontario swelled, and by the late 1950s, the City’s residential area had expanded south and east. Manufacturing, defense, and dairy industries began to take the place of citrus as the local economic staples drawing in new residents. By the late twentieth century, manufacturing had waned and was replaced by service industries and warehousing. Today, the City has expanded to a population of more than 166,000 people living within a 50 square-mile area. The City’s economic base is now heavily dependent on industrial and manufacturing, and with three freeways, three major railroads, and Ontario International Airport, the region is rich in transportation resources.
Local Dairies. Ontario and Chino are located in the Chino Valley basin of southwestern San Bernardino County. Dairy cows came to California with American settlers during the Gold Rush, and by 1876, a State Dairyman’s Association had been organized. Dairies were first established in Chino Valley in the 1890s.
The first dairy was most likely the Steel and Green Dairy, comprised of adobe buildings on the site of the Battle of Chino. The industry was based on free grazing during this era, and the availability of large tracts of fertile and inexpensive pastureland drew dairy farmers from Los Angeles County. However, most dairies in the region remained closer to Los Angeles population centers for several decades and citrus groves dominated the landscape through the end of the 1940s. Through 1930, the dairies in the region were small family businesses. Yet, by 1915, milk shipments already totaled over 6,000 pounds out of Chino. As Los Angeles County grew in population, so did the regional dairy industry. In the 1920s, many Dutch immigrants started dairy farms near Los Angeles. In the 1930s, to optimize milk production, dairies began switching from free grazing to dry-lot dairying and mechanized milking.
In the early years, the milking equipment was sanitized with steam tanks heated by oil burners. By 1920, dairy health and sanitation laws were established. Milk was originally filtered through cloth into the cans it was shipped in. The new laws required that a milk house had to be at least sixty feet from the barn, milkers must wear clean clothes before each milking, and milk house drains were constantly flushed with water. New ammonia colling systems were also created. After World War I, many cows in California had tuberculosis, thus pasteurization became a requirement. The Dairy Herd Improvement Association (DHIA), formerly the Cow Testing Association, was also created to improve the quality of the milk cattle. The association was first started in the United States in 1906 by Danish immigrant, Helmer Rabild, and a small group of dairy farmers in Michigan. The Diary Division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture was the biggest supporter of the DHIA. By 1926, over one-hundred associations were established across the country.
During and after World War II, the Los Angeles Basin grew as a metropolitan area, pushing dairy farms to peripheral areas such as the Chino Valley. In 1949, Chino dairies produced one-third of the total dairy production in San Bernardino County. In 1950, there were 79 dairies with an average of 145 cows to a herd in the Chino area. Suburbanization in Los Angeles County allowed dairymen, many of whom were Dutch, to purchase larger acreage and build bigger homes in Chino Valley. During this era, dry lot operations (which purchased all feed) began to replace traditional dairy farms, which grew some or all cattle feed. By 1957, there were more than 135 dairies in Chino Valley. The late 1950s and early 1960s dairies established in Chino Valley were the most technologically sophisticated in the US, capable of milking 450 cows a day for each worker. Herringbone milking parlors, in which cows were raised on a platform so milkers did not have to kneel, became popular during this era to control labor costs. In 1960, 957
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-5 4.5 | Cultural Resources
an agricultural dairy preserve was established to protect the land from development, and by 1965, there were around 350 dairies in Chino Valley. In 1979, sixty percent of milk produced in California was from Chino Valley. Dairy products became California's number one agricultural commodity in 1993, and the state continued to lead the country in milk production throughout the twenty-first century.
Cultural Resource Assessment
A Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix D1 of this Draft EIR) was prepared for the Project site. The Cultural Resource Assessment includes a thorough literature review, an intensive-level cultural resources field survey field investigation, and cultural resources recommendations for the proposed development (see Appendix D1). Currently, the Applicant does not own or control the Phase II (Planning Areas 2B and 3B) parcels therefore, these inaccessible parcels (1053-281-01, -02,-03, -04, -05, and -07) were photographed from the public right of way, and as a result, built environment resources could be assessed and evaluated on these properties.
Research
Records Search. On November 17th, 2022, a records search was conducted at the South-Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton. This archival research reviewed the status of all recorded historic and prehistoric cultural resources, and survey and excavation reports completed within one half-mile of the project site. Additional resources reviewed included the NRHP, the CRHR, and documents and inventories published by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP).
These include the lists of California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, Listing of National Register Properties, and the Inventory of Historic Structures.
Additional Research. BCR Consulting performed additional research through City of Ontario permit records, the Robert E. Ellingwood Model Colony History Room of the Ontario Library, the San Bernardino County Historical Archives, and through various internet resources. The research focused on land-use history, and on acquiring and consulting primary and secondary sources such as building permits, property title documents, census records, birth and death records, newspaper articles, scholarly journal articles, and biographical sources.
Field Survey
An intensive-level cultural resources field survey of the Project site was conducted on October 31, 2022, February 8, 2023, and on May 22, 2023. The survey was conducted by walking parallel transects spaced approximately 15 meters apart across the accessible Project site. The following Assessor Parcel Numbers were not accessible: 1053-281-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, and -07. Also, inaccessible areas such as fenced yards, building interiors, and livestock enclosures and feeding areas were not subject to systematic survey.
However, inaccessible parcels were photographed from the public right of way, and as a result, built environment resources could be assessed and evaluated on these properties. Cultural Resources were recorded on DPR 523 forms. Digital photographs were taken at various points within the project site.
These included overviews as well as detail photographs of all cultural resources. Cultural resources were recorded per the California OHP Instructions for Recording Historical Resources in the field using:
• Detailed note taking for entry on DPR Forms
958
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-6 4.5 | Cultural Resources
• Hand-held Garmin Global Positioning systems for mapping purposes • Digital photographic overviews and photographs of all cultural resources Results of the Cultural Resource Assessment are discussed below under Section 4.5.4.
4.5.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
National Register Bulletin 381
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.
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
1 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service – Interagency Resources Division. 1992. National Register Bulletin 38. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB38-Completeweb.pdf (accessed April 2023). 959
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-7 4.5 | Cultural Resources
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. 2 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;
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 60.43 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 associated with 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 2 United States Army Corps of Engineers. ND. 33 SFR 325 Appendix C – Procedures for the Protection of Historic Properties. https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Portals/64/docs/regulatory/Coordination/33%20CFR%20325%20Appendix%20C.pdf. (accessed April 2023). 3 Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR). 2019. Title 36, Chapter I, Part 60, Section 60.4 – Criteria for evaluation. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-36/chapter-I/part-60/section-60.4. (accessed April 2023). 960
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-8 4.5 | Cultural Resources
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;
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 15.4 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, 4 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service – Cultural Resources Division, National Register of History and Education. 1995. National Register Bulletin 15. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf (accessed April 2023). 961
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-9 4.5 | Cultural Resources
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 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 962
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-10 4.5 | Cultural Resources
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 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, as there are no anticipated federal actions or approvals that would be required and 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; 963
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-11 4.5 | Cultural Resources
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.
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 964
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-12 4.5 | Cultural Resources
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)).
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.”
However, if a resource is identified as both a historical resource and a “unique archaeological resource,” then it would undergo the provisions outlined for historical resources (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and PRC § 21084.1 and 21083.2(l)).
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 965
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-13 4.5 | Cultural Resources
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.
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. 966
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-14 4.5 | Cultural Resources
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.
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 area), 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.
967
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-15 4.5 | Cultural Resources
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.
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 968
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-16 4.5 | Cultural Resources
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.”5
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 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.
5 State of California. ND. Health and Safety Code, Division 13 – Part 2.7, Sections 18950 to 18962 of the California Historic Building Code. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&division=13.&title=&part=2.7.&chapter=&article=. (accessed April 2023).
969
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-17 4.5 | Cultural Resources
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.”6
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 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§ionNum=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.
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.
6 State of California. 1987. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC§ionNum=7050.5. (accessed April 2023). 970
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-18 4.5 | Cultural Resources
Local
City of Ontario General Plan – The Ontario Plan 2050
The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Community Design Element articulates design qualities that will create locally and regionally significant places and utilizes community design to help achieve the Vision in the areas of economic development, land use, housing, community health, infrastructure, and transportation.
Included in TOP 2050 is the Policy Plan, which is a framework that would guide the City’s future growth through the application of policies and goals. The following goals of TOP 2050 relate to cultural and historic resources.
The following policy contained in the Land Use Element is relevant to the Project:
Community Design Element7
Goal CD-4 Historic buildings, streets, landscapes, and neighborhoods, as well as the story of Ontario’s people, businesses, and social and community organizations, have been preserved and serve as a focal point for civic pride and identity.
Policy CD-4.1 Cultural Resource Management. We update and maintain an inventory of historic sites and buildings, professional collections, artifacts, manuscripts, photographs, documents, maps, and other archives.
Policy CD-4.2 Collaboration with Property Owners and Developers. We educate and collaborate with property owners and developers to implement strategies and best practices that preserve the character of our historic buildings, streetscapes, and unique neighborhoods.
Policy CD-4.3 Collaboration with Outside Agencies. We pursue opportunities to team with other agencies, local organizations, and nonprofits in order to preserve and promote Ontario’s heritage.
Policy CD-4.4 Incentives. We use the Mills Act and other federal, state, regional and local programs to assist property owners with the preservation of select properties and structures.
Policy CD-4.5 Adaptive Reuse. We actively promote and support the adaptive reuse of historic sites and buildings to preserve and maintain their viability.
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 7 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Community Design Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policyplan/community-design. (accessed April 2023). 971
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-19 4.5 | Cultural Resources
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
• 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.
972
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-20 4.5 | Cultural Resources
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 the New Model Colony Area8 and address impacts to historical resources. Therefore, this analysis of the resources on the Project area considers the contextual aspects of the NMC Historic Context with an analysis of the Project.
The City Development Code Article 26, Historic Preservation9 , 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 area would comply with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, ensuring all historicallysignificant findings within the City, including the Project area, would align with the above standards. 8 Galvin and Associates. 2004. The City of Ontario’s Historic Context for the New Model Colony Area. Prepared for City of Ontario Planning Department. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/Historic_Preservation/the_dairy_industry.pdf. (accessed April 2023). 9 City of Ontario. 2011. Development Code, Article 26. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Historic_Preservation/historic_preservation_ordinance_0.pdf (accessed April 2023). 973
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-21 4.5 | Cultural Resources
4.5.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions concerning cultural resources. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been utilized as significance criteria in this section.
Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5;
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5; or
• Disturb any human remains, including those interred outsides of dedicated cemeteries.
Historical Resources
State CEQA Guidelines §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 the 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 a determination of eligibility for listing on an ongoing basis as part of the implementation of the certified historic preservation program.
Methodology and Assumptions
Cultural Resource Assessment Results
As discussed previously, a Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix D1 of this Draft EIR) was prepared for the Project site. The Cultural Resource Assessment includes a thorough literature review, an intensivelevel cultural resources field survey field investigation, and cultural resources recommendations for the proposed development. The results are discussed herein. 974
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-22 4.5 | Cultural Resources
Records Search
Data from the SCCIC revealed that 10 previous cultural resources studies have taken place and two cultural resources have been recorded within one half-mile of the Project site. Two of the previous studies have assessed small portions of the Project site for cultural resources resulting in one cultural resource (a transmission alignment designated P-36-25440) previously recorded within its boundaries. Records search results are summarized in Table 4.5-1: Cultural Resources and Reports Within One Half-Mile of the Project Site below.
Table 4.5-1: Cultural Resources and Reports Within One Half-Mile of the Project Site Field Survey
BCR Consulting conducted the field survey on October 31, 2022, February 8, 2023, and on May 22, 2023.
The Project site has been completely disturbed by historic-period and modern dairy and agricultural developments, and by the installation of public utility alignments. Vegetation at the time of survey included a seasonal pumpkin patch on the northern portion of the project site and seasonal grasses were seen throughout the Project area. Average visibility was approximately 50 percent and sediment comprised sandy silt with very few rocks. Two historic-period dairies and one historic-period transmission alignment were recorded during the survey and are discussed below.
Significance Criteria and Evaluation Results
California Register of Historical Resources. The CRHR criteria are based on NRHP criteria. For a property to be eligible for inclusion on the CRHR or as a City Landmark, one or more of the following criteria must be met:
1. It is associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the U.S.;
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or U.S. history;
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values; and/or
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the CRHR requires that sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals USGS 7.5 Min Quad Cultural Resources Within One Half-Mile of Project Site
Studies W/in One HalfMile
Ontario (1981),
Prado Dam (1981),
California
P-36-25440: Historic-Period Chino-Mira Loma No.1
Transmission Alignment (Crosses Project Site)
P-36-26725: Historic-Period Building (1/2 Mile SW)
SB-1499, 2623, 2678,
3012, 3688, 4402, 4404*,
6095*, 7898, 7968
Source: Appendix D1.
Notes: *Previously assessed a portion of the Project site. 975
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-23 4.5 | Cultural Resources
associated with the resources.” (CCR Section 4852 [d][2]). The CRHR also requires that a resource possess integrity. This is defined as the ability for the resource to convey its significance through seven aspects:
location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
In addition to evaluation for NRHP and CRHR listing eligibility, the City of Ontario Development Code Article 26: Historic Preservation (Section 9-1.2615) provides the following designation criteria for a property to qualify as a City Historic Landmark:
a) It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s history; b) It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; c) It is representative of the work of a notable builder, designer, architect, or artist; d) It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction;
e) It is a noteworthy example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; f) It embodies elements that represent a significant structural, engineering, or architectural achievement or innovation;
g) It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City; or
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.
California Register of Historical Resources Results
During the research and field survey, six resources were identified, recorded, and evaluated for CRHR listing eligibility (i.e., significance under CEQA). These include the historic-period Grant Dairy at 13813 Euclid Avenue, a historic-period rural-residential property at 14095 Euclid Avenue, an unnamed historicperiod dairy at 7275 Schaefer Avenue, a historic-period rural-residential property at 7218 & 7226 Edison Avenue, an unnamed historic-period dairy at 7244 & 7260 Edison Avenue, and a historic-period transmission alignment designated P-36-25440. CRHR listing eligibility recommendations are summarized in the below Table 4.5-2: Historic-Period Resources; see Appendix D1 of the Draft EIR for additional detail.
Table 4.5-2: Historic-Period Resources
Property Type Address California Register of Historic
Resources Eligibility
Historic-Period Grant Dairy 13813 Euclid Avenue Recommended Eligible Historic-Period Rural
Residential
14095 Euclid Avenue Recommended Not Eligible
Historic-Period Dairy 7275 Schaefer Avenue Recommended Eligible Historic-Period Rural
Residential
7218 & 7226 Edison Avenue Recommended Not Eligible
Historic-Period Dairy 7244 & 7260 Edison Avenue Recommended Eligible Historic-Period Transmission P-36-25440 Recommended Not Eligible 976
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-24 4.5 | Cultural Resources
City of Ontario Criteria Results
13813 Euclid Avenue City of Ontario Designation Criteria. The Historic-Period Grant Dairy at 13813 Euclid Avenue comprises a Streamline Moderne-style milk parlor, two residences and several ancillary buildings, and other dairy features; refer to Appendix D1 for information regarding Streamline Moderne-style milk parlors. The dairy is recommended eligible for CRHR listing under Criterion 1, 2, and 3. The property is therefore considered a “historical resource” under CEQA. However, the two residences, ancillary buildings, and other features have been modified outside the historic period. They do not contribute to the overall significance of the Grant Dairy and as such do not warrant preservation. The milk parlor is an excellent example of a Streamline Moderne milk parlor, which has been previously identified in a historic context statement as an important local property type. It features design elements such as the rounded corners of the facades, a shaped parapet, glass block windows, and a flat clay tile roof. The Streamline Moderne milk parlor warrants preservation.
The property meets the requirements for designation under the following criteria:
a) The property exemplifies/reflects special elements of the City’s dairy history. b) It is identified with Austin Grant-a pioneer in the dairy industry. d) The milk parlor embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics. h) The milk parlor is one of the few remaining examples in the region of its type. 14095 Euclid Avenue CRHR Evaluation. This property was never used as a dairy and therefore has no associations with the New Model Colony.
14095 Euclid Avenue City of Ontario Designation Criteria. The property does not meet any of the eight City Designation Criteria, and as such does not qualify as a City Historic Landmark. 7275 Schaefer Avenue City of Ontario Designation Criteria. The historic-period dairy at 7275 Schaefer Avenue comprises a Streamline Moderne-style milk parlor, a second milk parlor (c1965), and two residences as well as outbuildings, several goat barns, hay storage structures, and an effluent pond to the south. Of these elements, only the Streamline Moderne-style milk parlor is eligible because it is an important local property type under Criterion 3 of the CRHR. It has been previously identified in a historic context statement as an important local property type. It features design elements such as the rounded corners of the facades, a shaped parapet, glass block windows that curve around a corner, and a flat clay tile roof. The property is therefore considered a “historical resource” under CEQA, based on the significance of the milk parlor (which warrants preservation or mitigation). The other buildings lack significance and do not warrant preservation or mitigation under CEQA.
Property Type Address California Register of Historic
Resources Eligibility
Alignment
Source: Appendix D1.
977
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-25 4.5 | Cultural Resources
The property meets the requirements for designation under the following criteria:
a) The property exemplifies/reflects special elements of the City’s dairy history. d) The milk parlor embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics. h) The milk parlor is one of the few remaining examples in the region of its type. 7218 & 7226 Edison Avenue CRHR Evaluation. This property was never used as a dairy and therefore has no associations with this local historic context.
7218 & 7226 Edison Avenue City of Ontario Designation Criteria. The property does not meet any of the eight City Designation Criteria, and as such does not qualify as a City Historic Landmark. 7244 & 7260 City of Ontario Designation Criteria. The historic-period dairy at 7244 & 7260 Edison Avenue comprises a historic-period residence to the west, a historic-period residence to the east, and a historicperiod Streamline Moderne-style milking parlor at the center. This dairy is recommended eligible for CRHR listing under Criterion 1, 2, and 3. The property is therefore considered a “historical resource” under CEQA.
However, the two residences do not contribute to the overall significance of the historic-period dairy and as such do not warrant preservation. The milk parlor is an excellent example of a Streamline Modernestyle milk parlor, which has been previously identified in a historic context statement as an important local property type. It features design elements such as the smooth stucco finish, projecting center volume, rounded corners, shaped parapet, and decorative clay tile roof, and it warrants preservation under CEQA.
The property meets the requirements for designation under the following criteria:
a) The property exemplifies/reflects special elements of the City’s dairy history. b) It is identified with Floris Ykema-a prominent leader in the dairy industry. d) The milk parlor embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics. h) The milk parlor is one of the few remaining examples in the region of its type.
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 area 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.
978
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-26 4.5 | Cultural Resources
4.5.5 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-5 If human remains are discovered within a project area, disturbance of the site must stop until the coroner has investigated and made recommendations for the treatment and disposition of 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).
4.5.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.5-1 Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Specific Plan – Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas Construction and Operation
Under CEQA, 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” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1)). 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 (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2)).
BCR Consulting conducted the Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix D1) for the Project. As stated previously, during the research and field survey, six resources were identified, recorded, and evaluated for CRHR listing eligibility (i.e., significance under CEQA). These include the historic-period Grant Dairy at 13813 Euclid Avenue, a historic-period rural-residential property at 14095 Euclid Avenue, an unnamed historic-period dairy at 7275 Schaefer Avenue, a historic-period rural-residential property at 7218 & 7226 Edison Avenue, an unnamed historic-period dairy at 7244 & 7260 Edison Avenue, and a historic-period transmission alignment designated P-36-25440.
Based on the results of the Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix D1), the historic-period rural residential property at 14095 Euclid Avenue, the historic-period rural residential property at 7218 & 7226 Edison Avenue, and the transmission alignment designated P-36-25440 have been evaluated and are recommended not eligible for CRHR eligibility. They do not warrant further consideration. However, as stated above, potential historical resources in the Project study area consist of the historic-period Grant 979
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-27 4.5 | Cultural Resources
Dairy at 13813 Euclid Avenue, the historic-period Dairy at 7275 Schaefer Avenue, and the historic-period dairy at 7244 & 7260 Edison Avenue. As proposed, these buildings would be demolished to facilitate development of the Project.
Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to historical resources under CEQA.
Based on results of the current study, the Art Deco Milk Parlor located at the Grant Dairy merits preservation. If preservation of the Art Deco Milk Parlor is feasible, no other cultural resources work, or monitoring is recommended for the portions of the project site that have been subject to inventory. The significance of a historical resource is impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for the CRHR. If an impact on a historical or archaeological resource is significant, CEQA requires feasible measures to minimize the impact (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 (a)(1)). Mitigation of significant impacts must lessen or eliminate the physical impact that the project will have on the resource. Where preservation is not an option, a data collection mitigation program has been developed in which potential adverse effects of any proposed demolition would be reduced. Preservation in place is considered infeasible in regard to the three potential historic resources, identified above. Preserving these buildings in place would inhibit the attainment of basic Project objectives, as described in Section 6.0: Alternatives. Therefore, it is required to assess the feasibility of relocating the three historic milk parlors. However, relocation would not mitigate impacts to historic resources to less than significant levels.
A Feasibility Study (Appendix D2) for the relocation of two historic milk parlors, located on the Venegas Farm (13813 Euclid Avenue) and the Drake Farm (7275 Schaefer Avenue), was conducted by Structural Focus in November 2023. The Feasibility Study makes determinations on the feasibility of relocation for the two milk parlors located within the Phase I area of the Project site. The findings are based on visual observations made while on both milk parlor sites on October 25, 2023. Structural Focus observed that the Drake Farm Milk Parlor is in relatively good condition and is currently functioning as a working parlor.
The Venegas Farm Milk Parlor is also functioning as a working parlor, but the wood and corrugated metal roof of the back portion is in bad condition. Additionally, approximately 20 feet at the back of the building has been demolished, and the back 20 feet of the existing building is severely deteriorated and in danger of collapse. Based on these observations, the Feasibility Study presents the following findings related to the relocation of the two historic milk parlors:
• Venegas Farm Milk Parlor – The roof of the front portion of the building could be lifted and relocated. It is not feasible to relocate the remainder of the front portion and the entire back portion of the building.
• Drake Farm Milk Parlor – It is feasible to relocate the building in its entirety (with the exception of the stem walls in the front and back portion of the parlor and the animal stalls in the back portion of the parlor).
Prior to any project-related impacts to significant resources, the City would complete or require the completion of Historic American Building Survey (HABS) style photographic documentation of the subject property. While the photographs would meet HABS standards, only local curation (and no federal curation 980
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-28 4.5 | Cultural Resources
or involvement) would be necessary. The photographic documentation will be provided to the City (and any required local repositories) for curation. However:
In most cases the use of drawings, photographs, and/or displays does not mitigate the physical impact on the environment caused by demolition or destruction of an historical resource (14 CCR § 15126.4(b)). However, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation be undertaken even if it does not mitigate below a level of significance. In this context, recordation serves a legitimate archival purpose. The level of documentation required as a mitigation should be proportionate with the level of significance of the resource (http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21727).
Through this mitigation measure, impacts to the Project site would be reduced. However, it may not be possible to reduce impacts of demolition below a level of significance.
Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant (impacts to residences and/or dairy properties) and mitigation would be required. The application of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-8 would ensure that every effort would be made to reduce impacts to the historical resources on-site to the extent feasible. MM CUL-1 ensures that every effort would be made to relocate the eligible historic buildings on the Project site, including offering relocation for the historical buildings off-site at no cost; and advertisements notifying the public of the opportunity to relocate the buildings would be placed on-site with temporary signage, in at least three local publications (newspapers, magazines, local organization newsletters), and on local bulletin boards (realtor’s offices, local business), for a minimum of 45 days. MM CUL-2 would require full documentation of the historical buildings following Historic American Buildings Survey standards, of the historical resource be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval and subsequent release to the Ovitt Family Community Library, Model Colony History Room prior to issuance of demolition building permit. MM CUL-3 ensures a mitigation fee payment is made to the Planning Department, pursuant to Section 7.01.030 of the Ontario Development Code. MM CUL-4 requires that the Planning Department determine whether items within or on the historical resource should be salvaged. The applicant shall be responsible for the removal, relocation and donation of such items selected for salvaging. An inventory of salvaged items shall be provided by the applicant to the Planning Department prior to be to issuance of demolition permit. MM CUL-5 requires the applicant to obtain a building permit prior to any demolition, relocation, or construction.
In the absence of a relocation feasibility study for the historic milk parlor located in the Phase II area, impacts within the Phase II area are not fully known. Thus, MM CUL-6 would apply. MM CUL-6 requires that a feasibility study of the relocation and adaptive reuse be completed for the milk parlorlocated within the Phase II area (at 7244 and 7260 Edison Avenue), such as that conducted for the Phase I area historic resources (at 13813 Euclid Avenue and 7275 Schaefer Avenue; refer to Appendix E3). Should relocation be deemed infeasible, MM CUL-1 would apply to the milk parlor within the Phase II area. Further, MM CUL-7 would require that a comparative study of other dairy areas within California be conducted to further understand the significance of dairy farming at a local, regional, and statewide level.
Finally, MM CUL-8 would require the creation of a 12-15 minute documentary that focuses on the dairy history, themes, site, building, and stories gathered from new and archived oral interviews, dairy context 981
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-29 4.5 | Cultural Resources
and recent dairy surveys. Implementation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-8 would reduce impacts to historic resources, however impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts pertaining to historical resources. The proposed Project Specific Plan proposes the same land uses as contained in the City’s TOP 2050. Implementation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-8 is required, in addition to compliance with applicable plans, policies, and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.10 Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 Prior to issuance of a demolition building permit, every effort shall be made to relocate the Milk Parlor (front portion). The building shall be offered at no cost for those who can relocate off site. Advertisements notifying the public of the opportunity to relocate the building shall be placed for a minimum of 30 days: on-site with temporary signage, in at least three local publications (newspapers, magazines, local organization newsletters), and on local bulletin boards.
MM CUL-2 Full documentation, including but not limited to as built drawing, historical narrative, and Historic American Building Survey (HABS) photographs of the historic resource pursuant to HABS Level 3 standards shall be submitted to the Planning Department for subsequent release to the Ovitt Family Community Library, Model Colony History Room prior to issuance of demolition building permit.
MM CUL-3 A mitigation fee pursuant to Section 7.01.030 of the Ontario Development Code shall be paid to the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permit for demolition. Mitigation fee is equal to 30% of the price per square foot construction cost as established in the most current International Code Council Building Valuation Data. The fee amount will be provided by the Planning Department at the time of payment. Funds will be deposited into the City’s Historic Preservation Trust Fund.
MM CUL-4 A determination whether items within or on the resource should be salvaged shall be made by the Planning Department. The applicant shall be responsible for the removal, relocation and donation of such items selected for salvaging. An inventory of salvaged items shall be provided by the applicant to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permit.
MM CUL-5 The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any demolition, relocation, or construction.
MM CUL-6 A feasibility study of the relocation and adaptive reuse shall be completed by a qualified architect and structural engineer who specializes in historic buildings in consultation with contractors who specialize in moving buildings for the Milk Parlor 10 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.5, Cultural Resources. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed April 2023).
982
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-30 4.5 | Cultural Resources
located within the area identified as Phase II. MM CUL-1 shall be implemented if determined relocation is feasible.
MM CUL-7 Conduct a comparative study of other dairy areas within California such as the San Joaquin Valley, Arcata Bottoms in Humboldt County, and the Fresno region to further understand the significance of dairy farming at a local, regional, and statewide level.
MM CUL-8 Produce a short video documentary on the operations of a functioning dairy located within the Ontario Ranch area. The 12-15 minute documentary should focus on the dairy history, themes, site, building, and stories gathered from new and archived oral interviews, dairy context and recent dairy surveys.
Impact 4.5-2 Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Specific Plan – Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas Construction and Operation
One purpose of the Cultural Resources Assessment was to determine whether significant archaeological deposits were present within the proposed Project area. Although none were identified during the records search and field survey, ground-disturbing activities have the potential to reveal buried deposits not observed on the surface. 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 application of mitigation measures MM CUL-9 and MM CUL-10 below requiring Cultural Awareness training for all construction and field personnel and ensure the proper treatment of undiscovered archaeological resources that may be encountered during grading would reduce the impacts to less than significant levels.
Following the completion of construction of the Project and disturbances to the site, the Project operation will not include further ground disturbing activities, and it is not anticipated to cause a substantial or adverse change in the significant of an archaeological resource since construction will be completed and mitigation measures applied. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated pertaining to archaeological resources. The proposed Project Specific Plan proposes the same land uses as contained in the City’s TOP 2050. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of MM CUL-9 and MM CUL-10 below, in addition to applicable plans, policies, and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.11
11 Ibid.
983
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-31 4.5 | Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-8 above.
MM CUL-9 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits for the Project area, a Cultural Awareness Training Program shall be provided to all construction managers and construction personnel prior to commencing any ground disturbance work within the Project area.
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.
MM CUL-10 Should any cultural resources be discovered during Project implementation; the City Planning Department and a Qualified Archaeologist shall be notified to assess the nature and significance of the find. Should any cultural resources be deemed significant, the Qualified Archaeologist shall draft a treatment plan for review and approval by the City Planning Department. Tribes listed on the City’s contact list for the Project shall be notified of any significance discovery that is Native American in origin and be given the opportunity to comment on the treatment plan prior to implementation. All final site records, reports, etc. associated with the discovery, evaluation, and treatment of cultural resources discovered during Project implementation shall be submitted to the South-Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC).
Impact 4.5-3 Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outsides of dedicated cemeteries?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Specific Plan – Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas Construction and Operation
No cemeteries or similar uses exist on the Project area. As well, no uses on the Project site would include the preservation, containment, or burial of human remains. Despite the lack of human remains on the Project area, there is still a remote possibility of encountering human remains buried since the existing uses were established in 1963. As the records search and field survey did not reveal any resources known to contain human remains within or near the Project area, the Cultural Resources Assessment conducted for the Project concluded that the potential presence of archeological deposits, which include human remains, would be low. However, though none were identified during the records search and field survey, ground-disturbing activities have the potential to reveal buried remains not observed on the surface. If discovered, impacts to human remains would be potentially significant. 984
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-32 4.5 | Cultural Resources
In order to maintain a conservative consideration of potential impacts to human remains, the Project would comply with the mandates provided by State regulations, including Health and Safety Code (HSC) Sections 7050.5-7055, PRC Section 5097.94, and PRC Section 5097.98-5097.99. HSC Sections 7050.5-7055 describe the general provisions for process for discovery and treatment of human remains. Specifically, HSC Section 7050.5 prescribes the requirements for the treatment of any human remains that are accidentally discovered during excavation of a Project area. HSC §7050.5 requires that all activities cease within the vicinity of the find and the County Coroner be contacted immediately to inspect the remains.
As set forth in HSC Section 7050.5 and PRC §5087.98, for Native American human remains, the County Coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), who would then designate the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of the unearthed human remains. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., HSC Sections 7050.5-7055, PRC Section 5097.94, and PRC Sections 5097.98-5097.99), the Project’s impacts concerning potential to disturb human remains, would be reduced to less than significant.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would result in a less than significant impact pertaining to the disturbance of human remains. The proposed Project Specific Plan proposes the same land uses as contained in the City’s TOP 2050. No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies, and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
4.5.7 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 area, no significant cultural resources were identified that could combine with the effects of the Project to result in a cumulatively significant impact to cultural resources.
However, cultural resources investigations would be required for other projects before the City of Ontario would permit ground disturbances or demolition or substantial alteration of existing structures. Such investigations would identify resources on the affected Project areas 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 Project includes mitigation measures to ensure proper identification, treatment, and preservation of cultural resources on the Project. Therefore, cumulative impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant.
The Project could resultin potential site-specific impacts to currently unknown archaeological and cultural 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 state, federal, 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 985
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-33 4.5 | Cultural Resources
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 through MM CUL-10 would reduce Project-specific impacts to the extent feasible. However, despite implementation of all applicable mitigation measures, Project-specific impacts relating to historic resources would be significant and unavoidable. Additionally, the Project would be pursuant to TOP 2050 and would represent a consistent and logical continuation of the existing and planned pattern of development in Ontario, specifically the Ontario Ranch area. The City has long anticipated that this area would transition from dairy/agricultural to urban uses, and the Project Specific Plan is implementing TOP 2050.12 Therefore, in consideration of the findings of the TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
4.5.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
The Project area consists of three cultural resources; the historic-period Grant Dairy at 13813 Euclid Avenue, an unnamed historic period dairy at 7275 Schaefer Avenue, and an unnamed historic-period dairy at 7244 & 7260 Edison Avenue, which were found to be significant and eligible for listing in the CRHR.
These findings are consistent with the information provided by the City. As proposed, the Project will lead to significant impacts to this historical resource, as the buildings would be demolished to facilitate development of the Project. As mentioned above, every effort would be made to relocate the historic milk parlors, when feasible based on the structural integrity of the buildings. However, relocation does not mitigate impacts to a less than significant level and impacts to historic resources would be significant and unavoidable. This unavoidable significant impact is consistent with findings of the City’s TOP 2010 Certified EIR and TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR, which implemented the interim Agricultural Overlay District in anticipation of future development for the site. Even with implementation of regulatory requirements, standard conditions of approval, and consideration of mitigation, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts.
4.5.9 References
City of Ontario. 2011. Development Code, Article 26.
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Historic_Preservation/historic_preservation_ordinance_0.pdf City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Community Design Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontarioontario-plan-policy-plan/community-design.
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.5, Cultural Resources. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf.
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. 2019. Title 36, Chapter I, Part 60, §60.4 – Criteria for evaluation. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi12 Ibid.
986
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-34 4.5 | Cultural Resources
bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=d43e4082493a66fe58adb0225f620703&ty=HTML&h=L&r=SECTION &n=36y1.0.1.1.26.0.45.4.
Galvin and Associates. 2004. The City of Ontario’s Historic Context for the New Model Colony Area.
Prepared for City of Ontario Planning Department.
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Historic_Preservation/the_dairy_industry.pdf State of California. 2010. PRC §5097.98.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=5097.98.&lawC ode=PRC.
State of California. 1947. GC Chapter 10.
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. ND. Health and Safety Code, Division 13 – Part 2.7, Sections 18950 to 18962 of the California Historic Building Code.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&division=13.&ti tle=&part=2.7.&chapter=&article=.
State of California. 1987. Health and Safety Code §7050.5. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC§ionNum= 7050.5.
State of California. 2011. PRC §5097.99.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=5097.99.&lawC ode=PRC.
State of California. 2016. PRC §27491.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=27491.&lawCo de=GOV.
State of California. 2019. PRC §5097.94.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=5097.94.&lawC ode=PRC.
Structural Focus. November 2023. Relocation of Milking Parlors – Feasibility Study Venegas Farm (13813 Euclid Ave) and Drake Farm (7275 Schaefer Ave) Ontario, California. (Appendix D2) United States Army Corps of Engineers. ND. 33 SFR 325 Appendix C – Procedures for the Protection of Historic Properties.
https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Portals/64/docs/regulatory/Coordination/33%20CFR%20325%2 0Appendix%20C.pdf.
United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service – Cultural Resources Division, National Register of History and Education. 1995. National Register Bulletin 15. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf 987
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.5-35 4.5 | Cultural Resources
United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service – Interagency Resources Division. 1992.
National Register Bulletin 38. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB38- Completeweb.pdf.
988
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.6-1 4.6 | Energy
4.6 ENERGY
4.6.1 Introduction
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates potential impacts related to energy resources associated with the Euclid Mixed-Use Specific Plan 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.
This Section and environmental discussion use information from the following City documents:
• The Ontario Plan 2050
• City of Ontario Municipal Code
• City of Ontario TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR
Additionally, the following analysis is based in part on information obtained from:
• Kimley-Horn and Associates. April 2023. Energy Calculations. (Appendix B4)
4.6.2 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 1 US Energy Information Agency (USEIA). 2019. California State Energy Profile. https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA. (accessed April 2023).
989
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.6-2 4.6 | Energy
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 County on the north. Total electricity consumption in SCE’s service area was 103,045 GWh in 2021.2 Sources of electricity sold by SCE in 2021, the latest year for which data are available, were:
• 32 percent renewable, consisting mostly of solar and wind • 2 percent large hydroelectric
• 22 percent natural gas
• 9 percent nuclear
• 35 percent unspecified sources – that is, not traceable to specific sources3 The Project site generates electricity demand for the day-to-day operations of the agricultural and residential uses on-site. Existing use of electricity on-site includes lighting, heating and cooling, ventilation, and milking equipment, such as pumps and cooling systems.
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 6,755 million therms in 2021. 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. 2 California Energy Commission. 2016. Electricity Consumption by Planning Area. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyplan.aspx. (accessed April 2023). 3 Southern California Edison. 2022. 2021 Power Content Label, Southern California Edison. https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/customfiles/Web%20files/2021%20Power%20Content%20Label.pdf. (accessed April 2023). 4 California Energy Commission. 2016. Gas Consumption by Planning Area. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyplan.aspx. (accessed April 2023).
990
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.6-3 4.6 | Energy
4.6.3 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 keyways:
• 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 9 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 4.8: 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 991
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.6-4 4.6 | Energy
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 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, for a discussion of AB 32 and SB 32). Part of the effort in meeting 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.
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 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which took effect on January 1, 2023, promote photovoltaic (PV) systems in newly constructed buildings, electric ready requirements in new homes, and new electric heat pump requirements for buildings. 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
992
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.6-5 4.6 | Energy
• 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 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’slocation 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 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 993
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.6-6 4.6 | Energy
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 most recent CALGreen Code was adopted in 2022 and went into effect January 1, 2023.
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 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.
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 increases the 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. 994
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.6-7 4.6 | Energy
Local
City of Ontario Climate Action Plan
The City adopted the Community Climate Action Plan (CAP) in August 2022. The primary purpose of the City’s Community CAP is to design a feasible strategy is to establish the long-term framework for action on climate change to ensure greenhouse gas pollution is reduced while boosting low-carbon innovation.
The City implemented a Development Screening Table and that is used to determine the significance of a project's GHG impacts. The CAP includes a specific target for GHG reductions for 2030, 2040, and 2050.
The targets are consistent with broader State and federal reduction targets and will reflect contemporary scientific understanding of GHG reductions required by 2050.
City of Ontario General Plan – The Ontario Plan 2050
The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Environmental Resources Element defines the ethic to guide management of the City’s environmental resources; establishes goals for Environmental Infrastructure; maps environmental justice areas; and establishes policies that support system integration, resource conservation and regeneration, energy independence, environmental justice, and healthy communities.
Included in TOP 2050 is the Policy Plan, which is a framework that would guide the City’s future growth through the application of policies and goals. The following goals of TOP 2050 relate to visual and scenic resources. The TOP 2050 Environmental Resources Element contains policies which pertain to existing farms and improving the transition of farms to urban uses.
The following policy contained in the Environmental Resources Element is relevant to the Project:
Environmental Resources Element5
Goal ER-3 Cost-effective and reliable energy system sustained through a combination of low impact buildings, site and neighborhood energy conservation, and diverse sources of energy generation that collectively helps to minimize the region’s carbon footprint.
Policy ER-3.1 Conservation Strategy. We require conservation as the first strategy to be employed to meet applicable energy-saving standards.
Policy ER-3.2 Green Development – Communities. We encourage the use of the LEED Neighborhood Development rating system, or similar mechanism, to guide the planning and development of all new communities.
Policy ER-3.3 Building and Site Design. We require new construction to incorporate energy efficient building and site design strategies, which could include appropriate solar orientation, maximum use of natural daylight, passive solar, and natural ventilation.
Policy ER-3.4 Green Development – Public Buildings. We require all new and substantially renovated City buildings in excess of 10,000 square feet achieve a LEED Silver Certification standard, as determined by the U.S. Green Building Council.
5 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Environmental Resources Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policyplan/environmental-resources. (accessed April 2023). 995
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.6-8 4.6 | Energy
Policy ER-3.5 Fuel Efficient and Alternative Energy Vehicles and Equipment. We require purchase and use vehicles and equipment that are fuel efficient and meet or surpass state emissions requirements and/or use renewable sources of energy.
Policy ER-3.6 Generation – Renewable Sources. We promote the use of renewable energy sources (e.g., solar, wind, biomass) in public and private sector development.
4.6.4 Impact Thresholds of Significance Criteria
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 potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. • Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
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 energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation 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 2022 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 EMFAC2021, Version 1.0.2, and on vehicle trip generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) data provided Urban Crossroads (see Appendix I2: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis).
• Off-Road Equipment Fuel Usage: Fuel usage for construction-related off-road equipment are based on fuel usage data obtained from OFFROAD2021, Version 1.0.4, and on the equipment mix and operations anticipated for the Project (see Table 4.6-1: Construction-Related Fuel Usage, for details regarding the anticipated construction schedule and equipment). 996
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.6-9 4.6 | Energy
4.6.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP E-1 New buildings are required to achieve the current CBEES (Title 24, Part 6) and the CALGreen Code (Title 24, Part 11). The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards were effective starting January 1, 2023. The Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the CALGreen Code are updated tri-annually with a goal to achieve 100 percent clean carbon neutrality by 2050 within the State.
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, SN 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 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 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 reduction requirements of AB 32, California's global warming bill enacted in 2006, and SB 32. 997
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.6-10 4.6 | Energy
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 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, and use of high-performance dual pane window glazing in office storefronts.
4.6.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 4.6-1 Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Project Buildout (Phase I + Phase II)
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 (2023 through 2026) was calculated using the CalEEMod, Version 2022.1 computer model, and the results are shown in Table 4.6-1: Construction-Related Fuel Usage.
Table 4.6-1: Construction-Related Fuel Usage
Project Component Gasoline (Gallons) Diesel (Gallons)
Construction Worker Commute 195,564 0
Construction Hauling/Vendor Trips 0 129,044
Construction Off-Road Equipment 0 123,815
Total 195,564 252,859
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1;
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 be 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., 998
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.6-11 4.6 | Energy
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 vehiclesthat 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 Project site is centrally located and is served by numerous regional freeway systems (e.g., Interstate 10 [I-10], Interstate 15 [I-15], State Route 83 [SR 83], 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.
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. 999
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.6-12 4.6 | Energy
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, strip mall, restaurant, residential use, and associated parking lot are shown in Table 4.6-2: Electricity Consumption.
Table 4.6-2: Electricity Consumption
Land Use Electricity (kWh/year)
Warehouse (Unrefrigerated) 4,493,153
Industrial Park 3,339,907
Apartment 2,011,332
Strip Mall 99,472
Fast Food with Drive-Thru 350,667
Fast Food without Drive-Thru 350,667
Parking Lot 1,831,610
Proposed Project Total 12,904,184
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1
Notes: kWh = kilowatt hour
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 12,904,184 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 4.6-3: Natural Gas Consumption. As seen in the table, natural gas demand would total 31,234,353 kBTU/year with the Project. Because the Project would be built to meet the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, it would not result in wasteful or unnecessary natural gas demands. Therefore, operation of the Project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to natural gas usage. 1000
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.6-13 4.6 | Energy
Table 4.6-3: Natural Gas Consumption
Land Use Natural Gas (kBTU/year)
Warehouse (Unrefrigerated) 18,493,912
Industrial Park 5,251,416
Apartment 5,143,326
Strip Mall 60,281
Fast Food with Drive-Thru 1,142,709
Fast Food without Drive-Thru 1,142,709
Parking Lot 0
Proposed Project Total 31,234,353
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1
Notes: kBTU = kilo-British thermal unit
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 and for the commercial uses. As seen in Table 4.6-4: Operation-Related Fuel Usage, the VMT for the Project is estimated to be 43,183,549. However, the Project would involve the construction of an industrial and business park and retail uses 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. 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 transportationrelated 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 4.6-4: Operation-Related Fuel Usage
Vehicle Type Gasoline Diesel
VMT Gallons VMT Gallons
Passenger Vehicles 34,330,921 1,589,395 0 0
Light/Medium Trucks 0 0 7,773,039 451,921
Heavy Trucks 0 0 1,079,589 176,982
Total 34,330,921 1,589,395 8,852,628 628,903
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1
Impact 4.6-2 Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State or Local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
1001
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.6-14 4.6 | Energy
Project Buildout (Phase I + Phase II)
City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan (CAP)
As discussed in the Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 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 CARB 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 relate to the energy efficiency of projects within the City. As shown in Table 4.8-8: Community CAP Consistency, the Project would comply and would not conflict with the measures and goals established by the City’s Community CAP. Therefore, implementation of the project would not be inconsistent with the energy efficiency and renewable energy standards of a City’s local plan.
City of Ontario TOP
Table 4.6-5: 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 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 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. Therefore, overall, the Project would be consistent and would not interfere with the City of Ontario TOP.
Table 4.6-5: 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 from energy production
and consumption.
Policy ER3-2
Green Development – Communities:
Encourage the use of LEED Neighborhood
Development rating system, or similar
mechanism, 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, passive
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
1002
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.6-15 4.6 | Energy
Goal/Policy No. Goal/ Policy Consistency
solar and natural ventilation. land uses accommodated under the proposed Project would also be designed in compliance with
the CALGreen Code.
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.
Not Applicable: This policy is applicable to Cityowned vehicles and equipment.
Policy ER3-6
Generation – Renewable Sources: Promote
the use of renewable energy sources to serve
public and private sector development.
Consistent: The buildings developed under the
Project would have rooftops that can support 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: City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Environmental Resources Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policyplan/environmental-resources. (accessed April 2023).
The state’s electricity grid is transitioning to renewable energy under California’s RPS Program. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The statewide RPS requirements do not directly apply to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as SCE, whose compliance with RPS requirements would contribute to the State of California objective of transitioning to renewable energy. SCE's Pathway 2045 concludes that reaching California’s 2045 GHG goals requires the decarbonization of electricity, electrification of transportation, electrification of buildings, and utilization of low carbon fuels.6 Achieving 100 percent renewable energy would be feasible with continued technical advances including the following:7 • Better weather forecasting technology is making it much easier for grid operators to know precisely how much wind or solar generation we can depend on at any given time. • The cost of zero-carbon generation sources like wind and solar have dramatically decreased in the past decade and continue to decline.
• The cost of energy storage technologies, which will help us be able to use renewables when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining, also continues to decline. • New advancements in the ability of large and small electricity users to shift usage towards times when electricity is cheaper and when the supply of renewables is most abundant are helping to make the grid more flexible and able to accommodate very high levels of renewable energy. 6 Southern California Edison. 2023. Carbon Neutrality by 2045. https://www.edison.com/our-perspective/pathway-2045. (accessed April 2023). 7 SB 100. 2023. 100% Clean Energy FAQs. https://focus.senate.ca.gov/sb100/faqs. (accessed April 2023). 1003
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.6-16 4.6 | Energy
• Grid operators around the western United States are coordinating to gain access to larger markets for renewables and other carbon-free flexible grid resources. • Targeting energy efficiency during times of the day when renewables are less abundant (after the sun sets) will also help the grid operate more efficiently.
As discussed herein, the Project would comply with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, the CALGreen Code, and energy efficiency measures implemented by the City CAP. Consistent with the CAP, the buildings developed under the Project would have rooftops that can support 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. Therefore, implementation of the Project would support the statewide goal of decarbonization by 2045.
4.6.7 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 4.6.2: Environmental Setting. Other projects would generate increased electricity 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 CALGreen Code, which would contribute to minimizing wasteful energy consumption. Additionally, the Project would be pursuant to TOP 2050 and would represent a consistent and logical continuation of the existing and planned pattern of development in Ontario, specifically the Ontario Ranch area. The City has long anticipated that this area would transition from dairy/agricultural to urban uses, and the Project Specific Plan is implementing TOP 2050.8 Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
4.6.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable aesthetic impacts have been identified.
4.6.9 References
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2022. Building Energy and Efficiency Standards. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiencystandards.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2016. Electricity Consumption by Planning Area. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyplan.aspx.
California Energy Commission. 2016. Gas Consumption by Planning Area. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyplan.aspx
8 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.6, Energy Resources. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed April 2023).
1004
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.6-17 4.6 | Energy
City of Ontario. 2022. Community Climate Action Plan.
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Applications/Community%20Climate%20Action%20Plan%20- %20Appendix%20B.pdf.
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Environmental Resources Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/aboutontario-ontario-plan-policy-plan/environmental-resources. (accessed April 2023).
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.6, Energy Resources. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf.
SB 100. 2023. 100% Clean Energy FAQs. https://focus.senate.ca.gov/sb100/faqs Southern California Edison. 2022. 2021 Power Content Label, Southern California Edison. https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/customfiles/Web%20files/2021%20Power%20Content%20Label.pdf.
Southern California Edison. 2023. Carbon Neutrality by 2045. https://www.edison.com/ourperspective/pathway-2045.
Urban Crossroads. 2019. Euclid Mixed-Use Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis.
US Energy Information Agency (USEIA). 2019. California State Energy Profile. https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA.
1005
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-1 4.7 | Geology and Soils
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.7.1 Introduction
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies and analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project (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 Section and environmental discussion use information from the following City documents:
• The Ontario Plan 2050
• City of Ontario Municipal Code
• City of Ontario TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR
Additionally, the following analysis is based in part on information obtained from:
• Converse Consulting. March 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Organic Soil/Manure Evaluation Report for the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project. (Appendix E1) • Converse Consulting. October 2022. Geotechnical Evaluation Report of Soil Stockpile. (Appendix E2)
The Projectis anticipated to be developed in two phases within five planning areas (PAs), with only Phase I proposed at a project-level entitlement. Phase I would include PAs 1, 2A, and 3A, proposing the construction of 13 buildings with ancillary office space and commercial uses, approximating 1,386,776 square feet (sf) of business park uses and designated open space. The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time.
The preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared by Converse Consulting analyzed the Phase I area only, which covers 59.6 acres of active dairy and agricultural land located on the southeast corner of Euclid Avenue and Schaefer Avenue. Currently, the Applicant does not control the Phase II parcels therefore, a geotechnical investigation was not completed at this time. At the time of Phase II development, it will undergo its own site-specific CEQA analysis. This investigation evaluated the current nature and engineering properties of the subsurface soils and groundwater conditions and provided geotechnical recommendations for the proposed residential development. The geotechnical evaluation prepared by Converse Consulting evaluated the soil stockpile located in the center of the analyzed 59.6-acre Phase I area (refer to Figure 4.7-1: Analyzed Site and Stockpile). The soil stockpile is approximately 420 to 430 feet long, 70 to 85 feet wide, and 5 to 10 feet high.
1006
Not to scale
FIGURE 4.7-1: Analyzed Site and Stockpile
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Euclid Avenue
Schaefer Avenue
LEGEND
Test Pit Location
Limits of Stockpile
Limits of Project Site
1007
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-3 4.7 | Geology and Soils
4.7.2 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
The Project is located at the southeast corner of Euclid Avenue and Schaefer Avenue within the City. The Project site (Phases I and II) consists of approximately 84.1 acres on 18 existing parcels, (refer to Section 3.0: Project Description, Figure 3-2: Local Vicinity Map and Figure 3-3: Project Boundary). The Project site is bounded by Schaefer Avenue to the north, Euclid Avenue to the west, and existing active and abandoned dairy farms and agricultural uses to the east and south. The October 2021 Geotechnical Evaluation analyzed the Phase I area of the Project, which evaluated a stockpile located in the center of the 59.6 acres of active dairy and agricultural land (refer to Figure 4.7-1: Soil Stockpile Located in the Phase I Area). The soil stockpile was approximately 420 to 430 feet long, 70 to 85 feet wide, and 5 to 10 feet high. Ground surface on and surrounding the stockpile consisted of some weeds and grasses and some scattered localized debris and trash.
The Phase I area is currently occupied by agricultural uses, including the raising of livestock, dairy farming activities, and a commercial nursery. The majority of this area consists of fallow or cultivated fields. There is a private recreational vehicle facility in the southwestern portion of the site and a scrap yard at the intersection of Euclid Avenue and Edison Avenue. Numerous single family residential structures, as well as agricultural related buildings and open structures are located within the Phase I area. Two Southern California Edison (SCE) easements extend across the Phase I area. No permanent structures, besides the transmission towers, are located within the SCE easements; however, they have been used for various agricultural uses historically.
Based on visual observations made at the time of the subsurface investigation and from elevation information obtained from Google Earth, the overall site topography slopes gently from the northeast to the southwest and south. Drainage appears to flow south and southwest. Site elevations range from approximately 730 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the northeast portion of the site to approximately 690 feet amsl in the southwest portion of the site.
A Geotechnical Investigation of the Phase I area was prepared in March 2022 by Converse Consultants (see Appendix E1), which reviewed the existing site soil characteristics and geotechnical feasibility of implementation of the Project. The majority of the information provided in this section uses the updated 2022 Geotechnical Evaluation (Geotechnical Evaluation). The data from the previous 2021 evaluation is included in the Geotechnical Evaluation. This Geotechnical Evaluation concluded the Phase I area is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, based on field investigation and laboratory testing, to support Project development. Additionally, the Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level based on available information from The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. At the time of Phase II development, it will undergo its own sitespecific CEQA analysis.
Near- and Sub-surface Conditions
Based on the field exploration and laboratory test results, the subsurface soil at the Phase I area consisted primarily of manure, organic artificial fill soil, topsoil, alluvium, and older alluvium. 1008
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-4 4.7 | Geology and Soils
Manure and Highly Organic Soil
Manure and highly organic soils partially cover the Phase I area within the fill berm located on the central eastern portion of the site. Approximately 16 ft to 23 ft of manure and highly organic soils are located onsite due to the site’s history of being an active dairy farm.1 This manure and highly organic soils would be removed from the site prior to Project construction.
Organic Artificial Fill
Based on the exploratory excavations of the Phase I area conducted by Converse Consultants, artificial fill soils were encountered on the Phase I area due to the current dairy and agricultural use of the majority of the ground surface. Approximately 0.9 ft to 10 ft of partially organic artificial fill soil is located on the ground surface of the Phase I area.
2 This material was encountered within some of the exploratory excavations and was generally comprised of fine to coarse-grained silty sands, and some gravel of 1.5 inches maximum dimensions with occasional scattered cobbles to 10 inches maximum dimension, trace clay, some desiccation, some localized debris, and some roots and rootlets. The fill stockpile area, located in the central portion of the site, consists of artificial fill soils that are generally comprised of a mixture of silty sand, clayey sand, sandy silt and sandy clay and silty clay, which are fine to coarse grained. These artificial fill soils also contain traces of manure, which is loose to medium dense, and moist.
Topsoil
Based on the exploratory excavations of the Phase I area conducted by Converse Consultants, topsoil was encountered at the surface and below the artificial fill soil within some of the exploratory excavations at depths ranging from approximately 4 ft to 8 ft below ground surface (bgs).3 These soils are comprised of silty sand and sandy silt, which is fine to coarse grained with scattered gravel of a one inch maximum in dimension, trace clay, and a few organics, and some roots and rootlets. Topsoil ranged from up to about 2 ft to 5 ft thick.
Alluvium
Based on the exploratory excavations of the Phase I area conducted by Converse Consultants, Holocene alluvium was encountered below the artificial fill and topsoil in the majority of the exploratory excavations at depths ranging from approximately 0.9 ft to 7.5 ft bgs.4 The alluvium observed on site was generally comprised of sand, silty sand, clayey sand, sandy silt and some sandy clay, which was fine to mediumgrained with trace gravel with a one-inch maximum dimension. This material experienced some oxidation staining, and some pinhole pores. Based on some of the exploratory borings, the alluvium ranged from up to about 6.0 ft to 16.5 ft thick. Portions of the upper 0.5 ft to 2.0 ft are low in density. 1 Converse Consultants. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Organic Soil/Manure Evaluation Report for the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project. Page 6. See Appendix E1. 2 Ibid. Page 6. 3 Ibid. Page 7. 4 Ibid. Page 7. 1009
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-5 4.7 | Geology and Soils
Older Alluvium
Early Holocene to late Pleistocene older alluvium was encountered at depths ranging from approximately
11.0 ft to 15.0 ft bgs. Where observed, this material was generally comprised of sand, silty sand and sandy clay, which was fine to coarse-grained, with trace of few gravel to a one-inch maximum dimension, slightly to very desiccated, moderate oxidation staining, medium dense to very dense/medium stiff to stiff and various shades of brown, orange, and red.
Groundwater
The National Water Information System was reviewed for current and historical groundwater data from all sites within an approximately one-mile radius of the Phase I area. 5 No groundwater was identified.
Additionally, the California Department of Water Resources database was reviewed for historical groundwater data from sites within an approximately one-mile radius of the Phase I area as well. One site (CHINO-1208672: Station 340045N1176407W001), located approximately 1,650 ft east of the Phase I area, was identified and reported groundwater at depths ranging from 137.01 ft to 145.74 ft bgs between 2011 and 2021. The historical high groundwater level and the current groundwater level is estimated to be deeper than 137 ft bgs, and groundwater is not expected to be encountered during Project construction activities.6
The groundwater conditions of the Phase II future development area is expected to be similar to the anticipated groundwater depth of the Phase I area.
Faulting and Seismicity
The Project site is located within the Chino Basin between the Chino Hills to the southwest and San Gabriel Basin to the north. The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no evidence of faulting within the Phase I area was identified during the Geotechnical Investigation.
Additionally, there are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zones within the proximity of the Project site.
The nearest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone is located approximately 3.5 miles southwest from the Project site boundary. The Elsinore Fault Zone is located approximately 4.0 miles southwest of the Project site. This fault is a north to northwest trending reverse fault that dips steeply towards the southwest. The Chino-Central Avenue Fault acts as a groundwater barrier along the western margin of the Chino Basin.7 The Chino-Central Avenue Fault is located along the southwest-facing mountain front of the Puente Hills(also referred to as Chino Hills). This fault follows CA Highway 71 north for approximately five miles and then continues to the Los Serranos Country Club area and into the Chino/Pomona region of Los Angeles (approximately 12 miles).
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. 5 Ibid. Page 8. 6 United States Geological Survey. ND. National Water Information System: Mapper. https://maps.waterdata.usgs.gov/mapper/index.html. (accessed April 2023). 7 Converse Consultants. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Organic Soil/Manure Evaluation Report for the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project. Page 11. See Appendix E1.
1010
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-6 4.7 | Geology and Soils
Surface Fault Rupture
No portion of the Project site located within a currently designated State of California or San Bernadino County Earthquake Fault Zone.
8 The potential for surface rupture resulting from the movement of nearby or distant faults is not known with certainty but is considered very low.
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.
The Project site is situated in a seismically active region and ground shaking resulting from earthquakes associated with nearby and more distant faults may occur at the Project site. The most prominent of the nearby fault zones include the San Jacinto, Cucamonga, and San Andreas Fault Zones. The Project site is located within the Chino Basin between the Chino Hills to the southwest and San Gabriel Basin to the north. The Elsinore Fault Zone is located approximately 4.0 miles southwest of the Project site. This fault is a north to northwest trending reverse fault that dips steeply towards the southwest. The Chino-Central Avenue Fault acts as a groundwater barrier along the western margin of the Chino Basin. The ChinoCentral Avenue Fault is a northern fault strand that merges into the Elsinore Fault Zone. The maximum magnitude recorded for this portion of the Chino Fault was 6.8. The Geotechnical Investigation indicated that the seismic hazard for the Project site is high.
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. Based on the exploratory excavations of the Phase I area conducted by Converse Consultants, the depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact surface improvements is 8 California Geological Survey. 2015. Fault Activity Map of California. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/. (accessed March 2023). 1011
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-7 4.7 | Geology and Soils
generally identified as the upper 50 feet bgs.9 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.
Based on review of hazard maps, the Project site is not located within a State of California or San Bernadino County designated zone of liquefaction susceptibility.10,11 Based on groundwater being deeper than approximately 137 feet bgs, it is estimated that the liquefaction induced settlement of the Project site is negligible.
Earthquake-Induced Landslides
Seismically induced landslides and slope failures are common occurrences during or soon after large earthquakes. There are no slopes on or near the Project site that would cause earthquake-induced landslides.
Settlement
Dynamic dry settlement may occur in loose, granular, unsaturated soils during a large seismic event. Based on dense soil conditions, site-specific boring logs, soil types, soil conditions and blow counts, dry seismic settlement is expected to be minimal.
Lateral Spreading
Seismically induced lateral spreading involves primarily lateral movement of earth materials over underlying materials which are liquefied due to ground shaking. It differs from the slope failure in that complete ground failure involving large movement does not occur due to the relatively smaller gradient of the initial ground surface. Lateral spreading is demonstrated by near-vertical cracks with predominantly horizontal movement of the soil mass involved. Generally due to the negligible risk for liquefaction and flat nature of the Project site, the risk of lateral spreading is considered low.
Shrinkage/Subsidence
The volume of excavated and recompacted soils decreases as a result of grading. The shrinkage would depend on, among other factors, the depth of cut and/or fill, the grading method, and the equipment used. The Geotechnical Investigation concluded shrinkage factors for various units of earth material from the Phase I area would range from approximately 0 to 14 percent for the upper 15 feet of soils.12 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.
Subsidence would depend on the construction methods and the type of equipment used. Ground 9 Converse Consultants. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Organic Soil/Manure Evaluation Report for the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project. Pages 13-14. See Appendix E1. 10 California Geological Survey. 2020. Seismic Hazards Program: Liquefaction Zones. https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/cadoc::cgs-seismichazards-program-liquefaction-zones-1/explore?location=35.720844%2C-119.759465%2C8.10. (accessed March 2023). 11 County of San Bernardino. 2020. Countywide Plan Policy Map HZ-2 Liquefaction and Landslides. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5864a434814c4e53adc74101b34b1905. (accessed July 2023). 12 Converse Consultants. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Organic Soil/Manure Evaluation Report for the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project. Page 12. See Appendix E1.
1012
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-8 4.7 | Geology and Soils
subsidence for the Phase I area is estimated to be approximately 0.20 foot to 0.25 foot. The consultant recommends that field-testing using the actual grading equipment and techniques be conducted.
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume changes (shrink or swell) due to variations in moisture content. Changes in soil moisture content can result from precipitation, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other factors and may result in unacceptable settlement or heave of structures or concrete slabs supported on grade.
Depending on the extent and location below finish subgrade, expansive soils can have a detrimental effect on structures.
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 the upper 5 to 9 feet of the general site soils had a very low expansion potential (Expansion Index = 0 to 4), and the stockpiled soils possess a medium expansion potential (Expansion Index = 53 to 79).13 Corrosive Soils
The results of laboratory testing indicate that the tested samples of the near surface soils possess resistivity values ranging between 300 to 1,703 ohms centimeter (ohm-cm). This indicates that the soils tested are corrosive to severely corrosive to ferrous metals in contact with the soil. The proposed concrete structures would not be exposed to external sources of chlorides, such as deicing chemicals, salt, brackish water, or seawater, according to the Geotechnical Investigation.14 Tsunamis
Tsunamis are large waves generated in open bodies of water by fault displacement or major ground movement. Due to the inland location of the Project site, tsunamis are not considered to be a risk.
Seiches
Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. There are no enclosed bodies of water near the Project site, therefore, seiching is not considered to be a risk during construction or operation.
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.15 The Project site is within the Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province of California, which is 13 Converse Consultants. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Organic Soil/Manure Evaluation Report for the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project. Page 15. See Appendix E1.
14 Ibid. Page 31. 15 California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2015. Geologic Map of California. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/gmc/. (accessed April 2023).
1013
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-9 4.7 | Geology and Soils
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.”16
Paleontological Resources
Archaeological, paleontological, and historical sites are protected under a wide variety of state policies and regulations in the California Public Resources Code (PRC). In addition, cultural and paleontological resources are recognized as nonrenewable resources and receive protection under the PRC and CEQA.
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 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 Phase I area 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.
4.7.3 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. 16 California Geological Survey. 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/CGSNotes/CGS-Note-36.pdf. (accessed April 2023). 1014
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-10 4.7 | Geology and Soils
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 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
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), includes regulations for how buildings are designed and constructed, and are intended to ensure the maximum structural integrity and safety of private and public buildings. The CBSC, which applies to all applications for building permits, consists of 12 parts that contain CBSC administrative regulations for all State agencies that implement or enforce building standards. Local agencies must ensure the development complies with the CBSC standards. Cities and counties can adopt additional standards beyond the CBSC including CBSC Part 2, named the California Building Code (CBC). 1015
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-11 4.7 | Geology and Soils
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.
Local
City of Ontario General Plan – The Ontario Plan 2050
The TOP 2050 Safety Element 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.
Included in TOP 2050 is the Policy Plan, which is a framework that would guide the City’s future growth through the application of policies and goals. The following goals of TOP 2050 relate to geology and soils.
The following policy contained in the Safety Element is relevant to the Project:
Safety Element17
Goal S-1 Minimized risk of injury, loss of life, property damage, and economic and social disruption caused by earthquake-induced and other geologic hazards.
Policy S-1.1 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 S-1.2 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 2022 CBC by Ordinance NO. 3227, which incorporates the 2021 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 1803A of the 2022 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. 17 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Safety Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policy-plan/safety. (accessed April 2023).
1016
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-12 4.7 | Geology and Soils
The geotechnical investigation must be prepared by registered professionals (i.e., California Registered Civil Engineer or Certified Engineering Geologist).
4.7.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:
• 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.)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. iv) Landslides.
• Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. • 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.
• 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. • 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. • Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
Methodology
The Phase I area was analyzed based on site-specific technical studies (refer to Appendix E) while the Phase II area was analyzed programmatically based upon TOP 2050 and other available references. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and organic soil/manure evaluation prepared for 59.6 acres of the active dairy and agricultural uses of the Phase I area evaluated the current nature and engineering properties of the subsurface soils and groundwater conditions. Grading at the Phase I area is anticipated to have cuts and fills of approximately 5 to 10 feet or less. Six exploratory borings (BH-01 through BH-06) were drilled using a truck-mounted CME 75 drill rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow-stem augers to investigate the subsurface conditions on January 20, 2022. The borings were drilled to depths ranging from 16.5 feet to 51.5 feet bgs. In addition, 8 exploratory test pits (TP-01 through TP-8) were previously excavated using a backhoe equipped with 24-inch-wide bucket to solely investigate the subsurface conditions of a soil stockpile on July 28, 2021, and obtain samples for organic content, expansion potential and corrosivity tests. The test pits were excavated from approximately 9.0 feet to 12.0 feet bgs. 1017
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-13 4.7 | Geology and Soils
Representative samples of the stockpiled soils were tested in the laboratory to aid in evaluating the suitability of the use of the soil for future development.
Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources within the Phase I area were analyzed based on available references including TOP 2050.
4.7.5 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, which 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.
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’ own activities, 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 area, disturbance of the site must stop until the coroner has investigated and made recommendations for the treatment and disposition of 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).
4.7.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.7-1 Would the Project 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 AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area 1018
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-14 4.7 | Geology and Soils
or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Specific Plan - Phase I
Construction and Operations
The Phase I area is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone and there are no Alquist-Priolo fault zones within the immediate surrounding area of Phase I. The nearest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone is approximately 3.5 miles southwest from the Phase I area. The nearest fault to the Phase I area is the Elsinore Fault located approximately four miles south. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, there was no evidence of faulting identified during the investigation of the Phase I area. The Phase I area’s distance from the nearest fault line would minimize risks attributed to ground rupture and gapping.
Therefore, the impacts associated with the rupture of a known fault would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.
Specific Plan – Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
Refer to Phase I discussion above. The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. Furthermore, the proposed Project Specific Plan land use designations are the same land use designations as contained in TOP 2050. The Phase II future development area is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone and there are no Alquist-Priolo fault zones within the vicinity of the Phase II area. The nearest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone is approximately 3.5 miles southwest from the Phase II area. The nearest fault to the Phase I area is the Elsinore Fault located approximately four miles south. Phase II would not be located within an AlquistPriolo Earthquake fault zone when Planning Areas 2B and 3B are completed, and impacts concerning rupture of a known earthquake fault would remain less than significant. No mitigation would be required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies, and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.18
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would not result in significant impacts concerning the rupture of a known earthquake fault. The proposed Project Specific Plan proposes the same land uses as contained in the City’s TOP 2050. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies, and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
18 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.7, Geology and Soils. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed April 2023).
1019
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-15 4.7 | Geology and Soils
Impact 4.7-2 Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Specific Plan - Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
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. Furthermore, the Project site is not located within a currently designated State of California or San Bernardino County Earthquake Fault. 19 Therefore, the
potential for surface rupture resulting from the movement of nearby or distant faults is considered very low.
Ground Shaking
Southern California is considered a seismically active region and the regional vicinity of the Phase I area contains a number of known earthquake faults. Therefore, the subject property would be exposed to moderate to strong ground shaking. However, the Project site is not located within a currently mapped State of California or San Bernadino County Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture. As part of the Geotechnical Investigation, 2022 CBC Seismic Design Parameters were generated for future structural improvements within the Project site. Structures for human occupancy must be designed to meet or exceed the most current 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 2022 CBC Seismic Design Parameters generated as part of the Geotechnical Investigation, which would reduce impacts from seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level.
Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction generally occurs in submerged granular soils and non-plastic silts during or after strong ground shaking events. In order for liquefaction to occur, the soils must be submerged and loose to medium-dense, ground motion must be intense, and the duration of ground shaking must be sufficient enough for the soils to lose shear resistance. Based on review of hazard maps, the Project site is not located within a State of California or San Bernadino County designated zone of liquefaction 19 California Department of Conservation. 2021. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. (accessed July 31, 2023). 1020
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-16 4.7 | Geology and Soils
susceptibility.20,21 Based on groundwater being deeper than approximately 137 feet bgs, it is estimated that the liquefaction induced settlement of the Project site is negligible.
Landslides
Seismically induced landslides and slope failures are common occurrences during or soon after large earthquakes, however the Phase I area is relatively flat with no extreme elevation differences that would potentially lead to landslide effects. According to the San Bernardino County Geologic Hazard map, the Phase I area and the immediate area are not within a zone of generalized landslide susceptibility.22 The relatively flat topography of the Project site along with its location outside of identified landslide susceptibility and rockfall/debris-flow hazard areas would lead to a less than significant impact from occurring due to landslides.
The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. Furthermore, the proposed Project Specific Plan land use designations are the same land use designations as contained in TOP 2050. Phase II is not located within a currently designated State of California or San Bernardino County Earthquake Fault Zone and would adhere to 2022 CBC Seismic Design Parameters; therefore, impacts would continue to be less than significant. No mitigation is required except compliance with applicable plans, policies, and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.23
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would not result in a significant impact concerning strong seismic ground shaking or seismic-related ground failure. The proposed Project Specific Plan proposes the same land uses as contained in the City’s TOP 2050. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies, and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.7-3 Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Phase I Project) and Significant Unavoidable (Phase II Only)
20 California Geological Survey. 2020. Seismic Hazards Program: Liquefaction Zones. https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/cadoc::cgs-seismichazards-program-liquefaction-zones-1/explore?location=35.720844%2C-119.759465%2C8.10. (accessed March 2023). 21 County of San Bernardino. 2020. Countywide Plan Policy Map HZ-2 Liquefaction and Landslides. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5864a434814c4e53adc74101b34b1905. (accessed July 2023). 22 County of San Bernardino. 2010. San Bernardino County Land Use Plan General Plan Geologic Hazard Overlays. San Bernardino, CA: County of San Bernardino. http://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/lus/hazmaps/fh27b.pdf. (accessed March 2023). 23 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.7, Geology and Soils. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed April 2023).
1021
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-17 4.7 | Geology and Soils
Specific Plan - Phase I
Construction
Topsoil was encountered at the surface and below the artificial fill soil within the exploratory excavations at depths ranging from 4.0 feet to 8.0 feet during the Geotechnical Investigation for the Phase I area. Due to the current dairy and agricultural use the surface of the majority of the Phase I area is generally partially covered by up to approximately 0.9 foot to 10.0 feet of partially organic artificial fill soil. The Phase I area was found to contain organic artificial fills at depths of up to five feet bgs. The organic artificial fill soils that were encountered were found to possess various levels of strength and density under testing.
The construction of the Project would involve excavation activities that would affect surface and nearsurface soils. The Phase I area is generally underlain by approximately 3.0 to 9.0 feet of potentially compressible soils (artificial fill, topsoil, and the upper low-density portions of the alluvium), and locally as much as 10.0 feet to 17.0 feet in fill stockpile areas, which may be prone to future settlement under the surcharge of foundation, improvements and/or fill loads. Therefore, these materials would be overexcavated to competent alluvium, within all areas of proposed structures and other improvements, and replaced with compacted fill soils. Within the entire level portions of the building pad areas, overexcavations should also extend at least 5.0 feet below proposed pad grade, or at least 3.0 feet below the lowest proposed footings, within the proposed building areas, whichever is deeper. Within any proposed wall footings areas over-excavation should also be a minimum of 5.0 feet below proposed pad grade or
2.0 feet below the proposed wall footings areas, whichever is deeper. All over-excavations should extend at least 5.0 feet or equal to the depth of over-excavation, whichever is greater, outside the entire level portions of the building pad area.24 In addition to the excavation and removal of the fill material, the development of the Project would require grading preparation, excavation, trenching and paving activities that could result in soil erosion if exposed to periods of high wind or storm-related events. MM GEO-1 would be implemented to ensure future structure stability and guide over excavation and fill activities.
Dust control measures such as watering would be utilized to control the potential for erosion to occur.
Construction contractors would also be required to implement a dust control plan in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 to reduce wind erosion (further information about dust control can be found in Section 4.2: Air Quality of this EIR).
Construction activities such as excavation and grading would be minimal given that the Phase I area is relatively flat. No major grading or excavation would be needed to substantially alter the slope of the site, create, or remove steep slopes, create retaining walls, or make other landform modifications.
Nevertheless, grading and earthwork activities during construction would expose soils to potential shortterm erosion by wind and water. During construction, the Phase I area would be required to comply with erosion and siltation control measures. This would include measures such as sand-bagging, placement of silt fencing, erosion control blankets, straw wattles, mulching, etc., to reduce runoff from the site and to hold topsoil in place during all grading activities. As mass grading proceeds, finish grading commences, and construction begins the erosion measures would be removed or relocated as necessary. Additionally, the construction on the Phase I area would be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge 24 Converse Consultants. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Organic Soil/Manure Evaluation Report for the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project. See Appendix E1.
1022
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-18 4.7 | Geology and Soils
Elimination System (NPDES); refer to Section 4.10: Hydrology and Water Quality for discussion of the anticipated NPDES permitting process. Construction impacts on the Phase I area would be minimized through compliance with the Construction General Permit (CGP). The NPDES permit requires development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control and sediment-control Best Management Practices (BMPs). The BMPs would be required to meet or exceed measures required by the CGP to control potential construction-related pollutants and would comply with the OMC Title 6, Chapter 6 – Stormwater Drainage System.25 Erosion-control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized. All required permits and the erosion control plan would be verified by the City prior to initiation of any construction and prior to the issuance of any grading permit.
Conformance to these requirements and verification by the City as part of the development approval process for the Phase I area would ensure that potential impacts from construction are less than significant.
Operations
Operation of the Project would not involve procedures which would result in substantial soil erosion.
Following construction of the Project, the Phase I area would be covered with hardscape which would not contribute to erosion. The Phase I area also would contain some landscaping, but these areas would include ground covers to reduce erosion and/or loss of on-site soils post-construction. This would ensure that operation of the Phase I area would not result in the loss of topsoil or sedimentation into local drainage facilities and water bodies; refer to Section 4.10: Hydrology and Water Quality. In addition, a network of storm drains and gutters would be installed, upgraded if needed, and maintained as necessary throughout the developed site. Therefore, the potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil is considered less than significant.
Specific Plan – Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
Refer to Phase I discussion above. The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. Upon commencement of project-level CEQA review for the Phase II area, a geotechnical would be conducted, similar to that of the Phase I analysis.
During future development of the Phase II area, existing vegetation and habitat would be removed by grading, excavation, and other construction activities. Note that, in its current state, the Project site is devoid of vegetation or dominated by ornamental, non-native and native species commonly detected in disturbed habitats. These disturbed habitats would be removed upon implementation of Phase II. Similar to Phase I, development occurring within the Phase II area would be subject to MM GEO-1 to reduce potential geological impacts. However, in the absence of a geotechnical investigation for Phase II, impacts within the Phase II area are not fully known and could be potentially significant. At the time of the projectlevel CEQA analysis and associated geotechnical investigation of the Phase II area, unforeseen site conditions could be discovered that warrant a finding of potentially significant impact. In that case, a subsequent CEQA analysis, in the form of a subsequent EIR or EIR Addendum, may be required pursuant 25 City of Ontario. 2022. Ontario Municipal Code. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ontarioca/latest/ontario_ca/0-0-0-42829. (accessed March 2023).
1023
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-19 4.7 | Geology and Soils
to Sections 15162(a) and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines. This determination will be made by City staff at the time of future Phase II area site-specific development applications.
A geotechnical investigation and impact analysis would be conducted for future development areas prior to approval of any development in this region to ensure potential adverse effects to geological resources would be minimized. Furthermore, any geotechnical investigation and required mitigation measures would be implemented prior to Project approval and construction initiation (refer to MM GEO-1 below).
However no major grading or excavation would be needed to substantially alter the slope of the site, create, or remove steep slopes, create retaining walls, or make other landform modifications.
Furthermore, construction on the Phase II area would be required to comply with the NPDES permitting process. Future development would modify the existing conditions when Planning Areas 2B and 3B are completed; however, geological impacts would be minimized with mitigation incorporated along with compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050. Furthermore, the proposed Project Specific Plan land use designations are the same land use designations as contained in TOP 2050. As mentioned above, a subsequent CEQA analysis may be required should the new information presented by the geotechnical investigation indicate that the Project will have significant impacts relating to geological resources.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project is not anticipated to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil with mitigation incorporated. The proposed Project Specific Plan proposes the same land uses as contained in the City’s TOP 2050. MM GEO-1 would be required to reduce impacts. For the Phase I portion of the Project, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. However, because the extent of impacts within the Phase II area cannot be known at this time, Project impacts relating to geological resources within the Phase II area are considered potentially significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of recommended mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1 As specified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Organic Soil/Manure Evaluation Report for the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project by Converse Consulting, cut/fill transitions should be eliminated from all level portions of the building pad areas. This should be accomplished by over excavating the entire “cut” portion of the building pad area by at least 5.0 feet below proposed grade and replacing the excavated materials as properly compacted fill, so that all footings for structures and walls are founded into engineered fill with a minimum of 3.0 feet of fill below footings for proposed structures and 2.0 feet below footings for proposed walls.
No fill should be placed until excavations and/or natural ground preparation have been observed by the geotechnical consultant. The native soils encountered within the project sites are generally considered suitable for re-use as compacted fill.
Excavated soils should be processed, including removal of roots and debris, removal 1024
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-20 4.7 | Geology and Soils
of oversized particles, mixing, and moisture conditioning, before placing as compacted fill. On-site soils used as fill should meet the following criteria. No particles larger than 8 inches in largest dimension. Rocks larger than 4 inches should not be placed within the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils.
Free of all significant organic matter, debris, or other deleterious material. Expansion index of 50 or less.
Sand Equivalent greater than 15 (greater than 30 for pipe bedding). Contain less than 30 percent by weight retained in 3/4-inch sieve. Contain less than 40 percent fines (passing #200 sieve).
Impact 4.7-4 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? Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Specific Plan - Phase I
Construction and Operations
As discussed under Impact 4.5-1, above, liquefaction and landslides are not considered to be a design concern for the Project, and potential for lateral spreading would be low. Seismically induced lateral spreading involves primarily lateral movement of earth materials over underlying materials which are liquefied due to ground shaking. It differs from the slope failure in that complete ground failure involving large movement does not occur due to the relatively smaller gradient of the initial ground surface. Lateral spreading is demonstrated by near-vertical cracks with predominantly horizontal movement of the soil mass involved. Generally due to the negligible risk for liquefaction and flat nature of the Phase I area, the risk of lateral spreading is considered low.
The major cause of ground subsidence is the excessive withdrawal of groundwater. However, the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the Phase I area determined that groundwater is not expected to be encountered during Project construction activities. 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 volume of excavated and recompacted soils decreases as a result of grading. The shrinkage would depend on, among other factors, the depth of cut and/or fill, the grading method, and the equipment used. The Geotechnical Investigation concluded shrinkage factors for various units of earth material from the Phase I area would range from approximately 0 to 14 percent for the upper 15 feet of soils. 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. Subsidence would depend on the construction methods and the type of equipment used. Ground subsidence for the Phase I area is estimated to be approximately 0.20 foot to 0.25 foot. 1025
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-21 4.7 | Geology and Soils
Furthermore, collapse potential was tested on two representative samples in accordance with the ASTM Standard D4596. Based on the laboratory test result a collapse potential of 0.1 percent at a depth of
3.0 feet bgs in boring BH-03 was measured. A collapse potential of 0.2 percent at a depth of 2.5 feet bgs in boring BH-04 was measured. A collapse potential of 0.1 percent at a depth of 5.0 feet bgs in boring BH02 was measured. No collapse potential at a depth of 8.0 feet bgs in boring BH-08 was measured. These indicate only a slight problem at the site. Collapse potential distress is typically considered a concern when collapse potential is over 2 percent, therefore the test results indicated a slight collapse potential. The consultant recommends that field-testing using the actual grading equipment and techniques be conducted. Additionally, the Project would be in compliance with all federal, State, and local policies and regulations including the CBC, and therefore impacts would be less than significant.
Specific Plan – Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
Refer to Phase I discussion above. The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. As discussed under Impact 4.5-1 and Phase I discussion, above, liquefaction and landslides are 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. However, based on groundwater monitoring wells and groundwater boring conducted near to the Phase II area, groundwater is not expected to be encountered during Project construction activities. Therefore, based on anticipated groundwater depths, it is not expected that groundwater would affect excavations for the foundations and utilities. Additionally, the Project would be in compliance with all federal, State, and local policies and regulations including the CBC, and therefore impacts would be less than significant.
Furthermore, the proposed Project Specific Plan land use designations are the same land use designations as contained in TOP 2050. Phase II would result in less than significant impacts to landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse when Planning Areas 2B and 3B are completed.
Liquefaction and landslides are not considered to be a design concern for the Project, and potential for lateral spreading would be low due to the geologic setting of the surrounding area. No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies, and programs, including the proposed Specific Plan and TOP 2050.26
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would not 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, and would not result in a significant impact. The proposed Project Specific Plan proposes the same land uses as contained in the City’s TOP 2050. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies, and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050. 26 Ibid.
1026
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-22 4.7 | Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.7-5 Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Phase I Project) and Significant Unavoidable (Phase II Only)
Specific Plan - Phase I
Construction and Operations
Expansive soils are soils that expand and contract depending on their moisture level. This change can occur seasonally as water levels and precipitation changes throughout the year. These soils normally occur within the first five feet below the surface. Expansive soils can lead to structural damage as their compositions and volume changes dramatically. The composition of the near surface soils at the Phase I 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 the upper 5 to 9 feet of the general site soils had a very low potential (Expansion Index = 0 to 4), and the stockpiled soils possess a medium expansion potential (Expansion Index = 53 to 79).27 MM GEO-2 would be implemented to further reduce expansion potential. Corrosive soils present on-site can pose additional risk to structures and infrastructure, particularly those composed of ferrous metals that are in context with the soils. MM GEO-3 would be implemented to reduce impacts associated with corrosive soils. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur with mitigation incorporated.
Specific Plan – Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
Refer to Phase I discussion above. The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. Based on available soil data, soils within the Phase II future development area are anticipated to be similar to those within the Phase I area.28 Therefore, expansive and corrosive soil characteristics are expected to be similar throughout the entire Project site. Upon commencement of project-level CEQA review for the Phase II area, a geotechnical investigation would be conducted, similar to that of the Phase I analysis. During future development of the Phase II area, existing vegetation and habitat would be removed by grading, excavation, and other construction activities. Note that, in its current state, the Project site is devoid of vegetation or dominated by ornamental, non-native and native species commonly detected in disturbed habitats. These disturbed habitats would be removed upon implementation of Phase II. Similar to Phase I, development occurring within the Phase II area would be subject to subject to MM GEO-2 and MM GEO-3, which would reduce 27 Converse Consultants. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Organic Soil/Manure Evaluation Report for the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project. See Appendix E1.
28 United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. ND. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. (accessed August 3, 2023). 1027
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-23 4.7 | Geology and Soils
impacts associated with soil expansion potential and corrosive soils. However, in the absence of a geotechnical investigation for Phase II, impacts within the Phase II area are not fully known and could be potentially significant. At the time of the project-level CEQA analysis and associated geotechnical investigation of the Phase II area, unforeseen site conditions could be discovered that warrant a finding of potentially significant impact. In that case, a subsequent CEQA analysis, in the form of a subsequent EIR or EIR Addendum, may be required pursuant to Sections 15162(a) and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines. This determination will be made by City staff at the time of future Phase II area site-specific development applications.
A geotechnical investigation and impact analysis would be conducted for future development areas prior to approval of any development in this region to ensure potential adverse effects to geological resources would be minimized. Furthermore, any geotechnical investigation and required mitigation measures would be implemented prior to Project approval and construction initiation (refer to MM GEO-2 and MM GEO-3 below). Future development would modify the existing conditions when Planning Areas 2B and 3B are completed; however, geological impacts would be minimized with mitigation incorporated along with compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050. As mentioned above, a subsequent CEQA analysis may be required should the new information presented by the geotechnical investigation indicate that the Project will have significant impacts relating to geological resources.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would result is not anticipated to result in impact to expansive soils with mitigation incorporated. The proposed Project Specific Plan proposes the same land uses as contained in the City’s TOP 2050. MM GEO-2 and MM GEO-3 would be required to reduce impacts. For the Phase I portion of the Project, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. However, because the extent of impacts within the Phase II area cannot be known at this time, Project impacts relating to geological resources within the Phase II area are considered potentially significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of recommended mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-2 Stockpiled fill soils would be placed in deeper fills (at least 5 feet below proposed grade), landscaped areas, or non-structural fills, or blended with sandier soils on site outside of the subject fill stockpile in order to reduce the expansion potential of the stockpiled soils. The expansion potential of the finish-grade soils shall be tested at grading completion.
Slabs-on-grade shall have a minimum thickness of 5 inches for support of nominal live loads and be reinforced with No. 3 bars spaced 24 inches or less on-centers both ways. Slab reinforcement shall be supported on concrete chairs so that the desired placement is properly placed per the design engineer. Structural design elements of slabs-on-grade, including but not limited to thickness, reinforcement, and joint spacing of more heavily loaded slabs shall be dependent upon the anticipated loading 1028
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-24 4.7 | Geology and Soils
conditions and the modulus of subgrade reaction (200kcf) of the supporting materials and shall be designed by a structural engineer.
Subgrade for slabs-on-grade shall be firm and uniform. All loose or disturbed soils, including under-slab utility trench backfill shall be recompacted. Prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils below all floor slabs shall be pre-watered to achieve a moisture content that is equal to 100 percent of the optimum moisture content of the subgrade soils. The moisture content should penetrate to a minimum depth of 12 inches. This should promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the development of shrinkage cracks.
MM GEO-3 Corrosive Materials. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Director of the City Public Works Department, or designee, shall verify that the Project Applicant/Developer has retained the services of a licensed corrosion engineer to provide detailed corrosion protection measures. Where steel may come in contact with on-site soils, project construction shall include the use of steel that is protected against corrosion. Corrosion protection may include, but is not limited to, sacrificial metal, the use of protective coatings, and/or cathodic protection. Additional site testing and final design evaluation regarding the possible on-site presence of significant volumes of corrosive soils shall be performed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant to refine and enhance these recommendations. On-site inspection during grading shall be conducted by a qualified corrosion consultant and City of Director of Public Works/City Engineer, or designee, to ensure compliance with geotechnical specifications as incorporated into Project plans.
Impact 4.7-6 Would the Project 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?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Specific Plan - Phase I
Construction and Operations
No septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed. From a geotechnical standpoint, any seepage pits, other private sewage systems, and/or other subsurface structures that may be encountered should be located, mapped on the grading plans, removed and/or properly abandoned.
Seepage pits, if abandoned in-place, would be pumped clean, backfilled with gravel or clean sand jetted into place, and then capped with a minimum of 2 feet of a 2-sack or greater slurry or concrete for a minimum distance of 2 feet outside the edge of the seepage pit. The top of the slurry or concrete cap would be at a minimum 10 feet below proposed grade. Water and wastewater systems and their development are further discussed in Section 4.17: Utilities and Service Systems of this EIR. A less than significant Impact would occur.
1029
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-25 4.7 | Geology and Soils
Specific Plan – Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
Refer to Phase I discussion above. The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. The same impact analysis for the Phase I area would also apply to the Phase II future development area. No septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed within the Phase II area. Furthermore, the proposed Project Specific Plan land use designations are the same land use designations as contained in TOP 2050. Phase II would not propose septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems when Planning Areas 2B and 3B are completed. No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies, and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.29 Conclusion
As noted above, the Project does not propose the use of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems and would not result in a significant impact. The proposed Project Specific Plan proposes the same land uses as contained in the City’s TOP 2050. No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies, and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.7-7 Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
Specific Plan - Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The Project site currently operates with agricultural uses and is frequently disturbed by human and machine activity. A paleontological resource overview was prepared for the Project to review the susceptibility of subsurface geologic units to provide paleontological resources as well as review records for fossil localities near the Project site.
30 Additionally, no paleontological resources or unique geologic formations were identified on the Phase I area 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 Phase I area boundaries.
The City of Ontario is underlain by deposits of Quaternary and upper-Pleistocene sediments deposited during the Pliocene and early Pleistocene. Quaternary Older Alluvial sediments may contain significant, nonrenewable, paleontological resources and are therefore considered to have high sensitivity. Older Pleistocene alluvial sediments may contain fossil remains found at 10 ft bgs or greater depths. The 29 Ibid. 30 BCR Consulting LLC. April 2023. Cultural Resources Assessment Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. (Appendix D)
1030
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-26 4.7 | Geology and Soils
San Bernardino County Museum, Division of Geological Sciences, conducted the paleontological records search at the time of the 2010 Certified EIR and discovered one paleontological locality for the City area.
This locality contained the remains of a mammoth located approximately 20 ft below the ground surface.
Therefore, the possibility of discovering additional paleontological resources within City boundaries is moderate to high at depths of 10 ft bgs or greater depths.
Development of the Project would include grading and other ground disturbing activities that could potentially disturb paleontological resources or unearth previously recorded resources. Therefore, the implementation of MM GEO-4 would reduce the impact of Project development on paleontological resources or unique geologic features to less than significant impact levels with mitigation incorporated.
Because fossils may be present at depths greater than 10 feet below the existing ground surface, paleontological spot-checking/monitoring in these areas is required. MM GEO-4 would require a paleontological monitor to ensure that any paleontological finds are properly collected and recorded, and that construction is relocated to assess the find for significance. With the implementation of MM GEO-4 potential impacts associated with paleontological resources would be less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to paleontological resources have been identified.
Refer to Phase I discussion above. The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. Furthermore, the proposed Project Specific Plan land use designations are the same land use designations as contained in TOP 2050. Phase II would potentially unearth paleontological resources; however, mitigation would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels when Planning Areas 2B and 3B are completed. Impacts affecting paleontological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, in addition to compliance with applicable plans, policies, and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.31 Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would have a less than significant impact to paleontological resources with mitigation incorporated. The proposed Project Specific Plan proposes the same land uses as contained in the City’s TOP 2050. The Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, in addition to compliance with applicable plans, policies, and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.
Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-4 In areas of documented or inferred archaeological and/or paleontological resource presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the presence/absence of such resources. On properties where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan based on the recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert. Additionally, a paleontological resource monitoring plan (PRMP) would be prepared and 31 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.7, Geology and Soils. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed April 2023).
1031
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-27 4.7 | Geology and Soils
implemented. Periodic paleontological spot checks would be conducted when excavation exceeds depths of 5 feet to determine if older, paleontologically sensitive sediments are present. If present, 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 five feet in depth. The monitor would 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.
4.7.7 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.
Lastly, the Project would be pursuant to TOP 2050 and would represent a consistent and logical continuation of the existing and planned pattern of development in Ontario, specifically the Ontario Ranch 1032
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-28 4.7 | Geology and Soils
area. The City has long anticipated that this area would transition from dairy/agricultural to urban uses, and the Project Specific Plan is implementing TOP 2050.32
4.7.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts were identified for Phase I of the Project. However, the Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. Impacts within the Phase II area are not fully known and could be potentially significant. At the time of the project-level CEQA analysis and associated geotechnical investigation of the Phase II area, unforeseen site conditions could be discovered that warrant a finding of potentially significant impact. In that case, a subsequent CEQA analysis, in the form of a subsequent EIR or EIR Addendum, may be required pursuant to Sections 15162(a) and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines. This determination will be made by City staff at the time of future Phase II area site-specific development applications.
4.7.9 References
BCR Consulting LLC. April 2023. Cultural Resources Assessment Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. (Appendix D) California Department of Conservation. 2015. Geologic Map of California. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/gmc/.
California Department of Conservation. 2021. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. (accessed July 31, 2023).
California Geological Survey. 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/CGS-Notes/CGS-Note-36.pdf.
California Geological Survey. 2015. Fault Activity Map of California. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/
California Geological Survey. 2020. Seismic Hazards Program: Liquefaction Zones. https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/cadoc::cgs-seismic-hazards-program-liquefaction-zones1/explore?location=35.720844%2C-119.759465%2C8.10.
City of Ontario. 2022. Ontario Municipal Code.
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ontarioca/latest/ontario_ca/0-0-0-42829.
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR. Section 5.7, Geology and Soils. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. 32 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR. Section 5.7, Geology and Soils. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed April 2023)
1033
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.7-29 4.7 | Geology and Soils
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Safety Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontarioplan-policy-plan/safety.
City of Ontario. Areas of Liquefaction Susceptibility Map. https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/areas-of-liquefaction.pdf.
Converse Consulting. March 27, 2023. Updated Geotechnical Seismic Design Parameters. (Appendix E1).
Converse Consulting. March 30, 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Organic Soil/Manure Evaluation Report for the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project. (Appendix E2).
Converse Consulting. October 20, 2021. Geotechnical Evaluation Report of Soil Stockpile for Arteval Property. (Appendix E1).
County of San Bernardino. 2020. Countywide Plan Policy Map HZ-2 Liquefaction and Landslides. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5864a434814c4e53adc74101b34b 1905.
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. ND. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
United States Geological Survey. ND. National Water Information System: Mapper. https://maps.waterdata.usgs.gov/mapper/index.html.
1034
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-1 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.8.1 Introduction
This section of the Draft EIR evaluates the potential for implementation of the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan (proposed 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 2022.1, the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) EMFAC2021, Version 1.0.2, and CARB’s OFFROAD2021 (Orion Web Database), Version 1.0.1. Model outputs are in Appendix B1: Air Quality Emissions Model Data, of this Draft EIR.
This Section and environmental discussion use information from the following City documents:
• The Ontario Plan 2050
• City of Ontario Municipal Code
• City of Ontario TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR
Additionally, the following analysis is based in part on information obtained from:
• Kimley-Horn and Associates. 2023. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model Data. (Appendix B3)
4.8.2 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 1035
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-2 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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, 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 4.8-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases describes the primary GHGs attributed to global climate change, including their physical properties.
Table 4.8-1: 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 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 Global Warming Potential of 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 Global Warming Potential is 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 Global Warming Potential 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, 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, 2013. http://www.climatechange2013.org/ images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf. 1036
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-3 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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 Global Warming Potential of SF6 is 23,900.
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(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 global warming potential 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.
4.8.3 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 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.
1037
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-4 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
It should be noted that the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2022 has been proposed by the United States Senate. The plan would build upon the EISA of 2007 and would include additional requirements for the United States to achieve energy independence by 2024.
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.
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. 1038
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-5 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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.
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.
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 CO2e in the world and produced 369 million gross metric tons (MMT) of CO2e in 2020. The transportation sector is the State’s largest emitter of GHGs, followed by industrial operations such as manufacturing and oil and gas extraction.
The State of California 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 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 legislation related to GHG emissions reduction.
Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) AB 32 instructs the CARB to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 also directed CARB 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.
1039
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-6 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CARB Scoping Plan
Adopted December 15, 2022, CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. To achieve the targets of AB 1279, the 2022 Scoping Plan relies on existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, as well as carbon capture and storage. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on zero-emission transportation; phasing out use of fossil gas use for heating homes and buildings; reducing chemical and refrigerants with high GWP; providing communities with sustainable options for walking, biking, and public transit; displacement of fossil-fuel fired electrical generation through use of renewable energy alternatives (e.g., solar arrays and wind turbines); and scaling up new options such as green hydrogen.
The 2022 Scoping Plan sets one of the most aggressive approaches to reach carbon neutrality in the world.
Unlike the 2017 Scoping Plan, CARB no longer includes a numeric per capita threshold and instead advocates for compliance with a local GHG reduction strategy (i.e., Climate Action Plan) consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5.
The key elements of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan focuses on transportation. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan aims to rapidly move towards zero-emission transportation (i.e., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and trucks), which constitutes California’s single largest source of GHGs. The regulations that impact the transportation sector are adopted and enforced by CARB on vehicle manufacturers and are outside the jurisdiction and control of local governments. The 2022 Scoping Plan accelerates development of new regulations as well as amendments to strengthen regulations and programs already in place.
Included in the 2022 Scoping Plan is a set of Local Actions (2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D) aimed at providing local jurisdictions with tools to reduce GHGs and assist the state in meeting the ambitious targets set forth in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan includes a section on evaluating plan-level and project-level alignment with the State’s Climate Goals in CEQA GHG analyses. In this section, CARB identifies several recommendations and strategies that should be considered for new development in order to determine consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan. Notably, this section is focused on Residential and Mixed-Use Projects. CARB specifically states that Appendix D does not address other land uses (e.g., industrial). However, CARB plans to explore new approaches for other land use types in the future.
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.
With SB 32, the Legislature passed companion legislation, AB 197, which provides additional direction for developing the Scoping Plan. On December 12, 2022, CARB adopted a third update to the Scoping Plan.
The 2022 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 2022 Scoping Plan are to 1040
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-7 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
provide direct GHG emissions reductions; support climate investment in disadvantaged communities; and support the Clean Power Plan and other Federal actions.
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 passenger vehicles sand light duty truck model years 2009 to 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 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 1041
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-8 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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.
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.
SB 1078, AB107, and SBX1-2 (Renewable Electricity Standards) SB 1078 (2002) required California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 107 (2006) changed the due date to 2010 instead of 2017. On November 17, 2008, Executive Order S-14-08 established a Renewable Portfolio Standard 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. SB X1-2 codified the 33 percent by 2020 goal.
AB 1346 (Air Pollution: Small Off-Road Engines)
Signed into Law in October 2021, AB 1346 requires CARB, to adopt cost-effective and technologically feasible regulations to prohibit engine exhaust and evaporative emissions from new small off-road engines, consistent with federal law, by July 1, 2022. The bill requires CARB to identify and, to the extent feasible, make available funding for commercial rebates or similar incentive funding as part of any updates to existing applicable funding program guidelines to local air pollution control districts and air quality management districts to implement to support the transition to zero-emission small off-road equipment operations.
AB 1279 (The California Climate Crisis)
AB 1279 establishes the policy of the State to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045; to maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter; and to ensure that by 2045 statewide 1042
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-9 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced at least 85 percent below 1990 levels. The bill requires CARB to ensure that Scoping Plan updates identify and recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality, and to identify and implement policies and strategies that enable CO2 removal solutions and carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies.
SB 1020 (100 Percent Clean Electric Grid)
Signed on September 16, 2022, SB 1020 provides additional goals for the path to the 2045 goal of 100 percent clean electricity retail sales. It creates a target of 90 percent clean electricity retail sales by 2035 and 95 percent clean electricity retail sales by 2040.
SB 905 (Carbon Sequestration Program)
Signed on September 16, 2022, SB 905 establishes regulatory framework and policies that involve carbon removal, carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration. It also prohibits the injecting of concentrated carbon dioxide fluid into a Class II injection well for the purpose of enhanced oil recovery.
AB 1757 (Nature-Based Solutions)
Signed on September 16, 2022, AB 1757 requires State agencies to develop a range of targets for natural carbon sequestration and nature-based climate solutions that reduce GHG emissions to meet the 2030, 2038, and 2045 goals which would be integrated into a scoping plan addressing natural and working lands.
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 greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels. • By 2020, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. • By 2050, reduce greenhouse gas 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 1043
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-10 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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 Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 33 percent by 2020. This builds upon SB 1078 (2002), which established the California RPS program, 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.
1044
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-11 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Executive Order B-79-20
Signed in September 2020, Executive Order N-79-20 establishes as a goal that where feasible, 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. The executive order sets a similar goal requiring that all medium and heavy-duty vehicles will be zero-emission by 2045 where feasible. 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 zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) “towards the target of 100 percent.” The executive order directs the California Environmental Protection Agency, the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), and the California Natural Resources Agency to transition and repurpose oil production facilities with a goal toward meeting carbon neutrality by 2045. Executive Order N-79-20 builds upon the CARB Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, which was adopted by CARB in July 2020.
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 energy efficient technologies and methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The California Energy Commission (CEC) adopted the 2022 Energy Code on August 11, 2021, which was subsequently approved by the California Building Standards Commission for inclusion into the California Building Standards Code.
The 2022 Title 24 standards will result in less energy use, thereby reducing air pollutant emissions associated with energy consumption across California. For example, the 2022 Title 24 standards will require efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric-ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, and strengthens ventilation standards.
Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11 code) commonly referred to as CALGreen, 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 standards require new residential and nonresidential buildings to comply with mandatory measures under 1045
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-12 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
the topics of planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency/conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local governments may adopt that encourage or require additional measures in the five green building topics. The latest CALGreen Code took effect on January 1, 2023 (2022 CALGreen). The 2022 CALGreen standards has improved upon the 2019 standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings.
CARB Advanced Clean Truck Regulation
CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Truck Regulation in June 2020 requiring truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every new truck sold in California is required to be zero-emission. This rule directly addresses disproportionate risks and health and pollution burdens and puts California on the path for an all zero-emission short-haul drayage fleet in ports and railyards by 2035, and zero-emission “last-mile” delivery trucks and vans by 2040. The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation accelerates the transition of zero-emission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8. The regulation has two components including a manufacturer sales requirement, and a reporting requirement:
• Zero-Emission Truck Sales: Manufacturers who certify Class 2b through 8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines are required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales need to be 55 percent of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75 percent of Class 4 – 8 straight truck sales, and 40 percent of truck tractor sales. • Company and Fleet Reporting: Large employers including retailers, manufacturers, brokers and others would be required to report information about shipments and shuttle services. Fleet owners, with 50 or more trucks, would be required to report about their existing fleet operations.
This information would help identify future strategies to ensure that fleets purchase available zero-emission trucks and place them in service where suitable to meet their needs.
Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The following SCAQMD rule related to GHG emissions is required of 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. 1046
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-13 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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 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).
1047
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-14 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Local
Ontario Community Climate Action Plan
The City adopted the Community Climate Action Plan (CAP) in August 2022. 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 40 percent under year 1990 levels by 2030.
This goal is consistent with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, which was developed to implement AB 32 and provide a recommended GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels to local communities by the year 2030.
As part of the previous CAP, the City published a guidance document titled “Greenhouse Gas Emissions, CEQA Thresholds and Screening Tables” (December 2014) (Screening Tables).2 As part of this guidance, a 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 developed an interim Development Screening Table, and the latest draft was revised on May 1, 2018. The 2022 CAP is continuing to update the screening tables and is still currently using the screening tables to evaluate a project’s GHG impact.
4.8.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
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. 2 City of Ontario. 2022. Community Climate Action Plan, Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Applications/Community%20Climate%20Action%20Plan%20-%20Appendix%20B.pdf. (Accessed April 3, 2023). 1048
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-15 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Ontario Community Climate Action Plan
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 using the Greenhouse Reduction Measures Screening Threshold Table to mitigate project GHG emissions that exceed the threshold level. The Screening Tables provide a menu of options that both ensures implementation of the reduction strategies and flexibility for projects to reduce GHG emissions to levels that align with the City’s reduction goals.
4.8.5 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 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards become effective on January 1, 2023. The Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen Code are updated triannually with a goal to achieve 100 percent clean carbon neutrality by 2050 within the State.
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).
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 1049
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-16 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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 GHG-7 SB 375 requires the reduction of GHG emissions from light trucks and automobiles through land use and transportation efforts that will reduce VMT. 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 reduction requirements of AB 32, California's global warming bill enacted in 2006, and SB 32.
PPP GHG-8 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-9 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 heavyduty 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.
Project Design Features
PDF GHG-1 Indoor material handling equipment used throughout the Project area shall be 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.
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 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 1050
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-17 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CO2 per year to nearly 49 GtCO2 per year.3 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 2022.1 (CalEEMod). Details of the modeling assumptions and emission factors are provided in Appendix B1: Air Quality 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 I1: Traffic Analysis) prepared by Urban Crossroads (January 2023). Project trip generation from the Trip Generation Analysis is based on the following Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) land use categories:
• ITE Land Use 130: Industrial Park
• ITE Land Use 150: Warehousing
• ITE Land Use 220: Multifamily Low-Rise Residential
• ITE Land Use 822: Strip Retail
• ITE Land Use 933: Fast-Food Restaurant Without Drive-Through • ITE Land Use: 934: Fast-Food Restaurant With Drive-Through The ITE Trip Generation Manual does not contain trip generation rates for truck/trailer parking lots.
Therefore, the traffic study developed rates with data from other truck/trailer parking facilities located in the surrounding area. 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.
4.8.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts.
3 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2013 Mitigation of Climate Change Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013. 1051
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-18 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 4.8-1: Would the Project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that could have a significant impact on the environment?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Construction associated with 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. Construction-related emissions are only temporary and would cease once construction is complete.
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. 4 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.
Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction
The total GHG emissions generated during construction of Phase I are combined and are shown in Table 4.8-2: Phase I Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Table 4.8-2: Phase I Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Category MTCO2e
2023 Construction 400
2024 Construction 1,591
2025 Construction 780
Total Construction Emissions 2,771
30-Year Amortized Construction 92
Source: CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.
As shown in Table 4.8-2, Phase I would result in the generation of approximately 2,771 MTCO2e over the course of construction. The amortized Project construction emissions would be 92 MTCO2e per year.
Operations
Operational GHG emissions associated with the Phase I are summarized in Table 4.8-3: Phase I - Operational GHG Emissions. Table 4.8-3 shows that the unmitigated Project would generate approximately 24,271 MTCO2e per year.
Mitigation measures have been identified in Section 4.3: Air Quality that would reduce GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible and are shown in Table 4.8-3 under “mitigated.” MM AQ-2 requires the use of electrical off-road equipment such as forklifts and hostlers/yard trucks that would also reduce GHG 4 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). 1052
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-19 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
emissions from combustion engines. MM AQ-3 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage transit. MM AQ-4 requires the buildings to be designed to accommodate electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure. MM AQ-5 prohibits idling when engines are not in use to reduce GHG emissions from trucks.
Table 4.8-3: Phase I - Operational GHG Emissions
Source MTCO2e Per Year
Unmitigated
Area 20
Energy 3,256
Mobile 14,211
Generators 274
Off-Road Equipment1 1,825
Solid Waste 311
Water 702
Refrigerants 3,579
Construction-Amortized 92
Total Emissions 24,271
Mitigated
Area 20
Energy 3,256
Mobile 14,211
Generators 274
Off-Road Equipment2 342
Solid Waste 311
Water 702
Refrigerants 3,579
Construction-Amortized 92
Total Emissions 22,787
Source: CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.
Notes: Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 1 Unmitigated off-road equipment includes emissions from diesel powered forklifts and yard trucks/hostlers. 2 Mitigated off-road equipment includes the energy emissions necessary to power electric forklifts and yard trucks/hostlers as required by mitigation measure AQ- 2 With the implementation of MM AQ-2 through AQ-6, Phase I would generate approximately 22,787 MTCO2e annually from both construction and operations. It should be noted that emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards and the Project has no control over these standards.
To ensure that the Project reduces emissions by the maximum amountfeasible, MM GHG-1 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 score of 100 points are considered less than significant. At the time of this analysis, the Project is in the design phase, where project design features needed to achieve consistency with the Screening Tables are being considered and implemented. A preliminary set of the screening tables has been completed to show that the Project can feasibly achieve 100 points (refer to Appendix B). The applicant must complete and submit a final set of screening tables showing the achievement of the required 100 points prior to issuance of the building 1053
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-20 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
permit, as required by MM GHG-1. Therefore, with the implementation of MM AQ-2 through AQ-6 and MM GHG-1, the Project impact is considered less than significant with mitigation.
Specific Plan – Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction
The total GHG emissions generated during construction of Phase II are combined and are shown in Table 4.8-4: Phase II Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Table 4.8-4: Phase II Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Category MTCO2e
2025 Construction 594
2026 Construction 1,001
Total Construction Emissions 1,595
30-Year Amortized Construction 53
Source: CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.
As shown in Table 4.8-4, the Phase II would result in the generation of approximately 1,595 MTCO2e over the course of construction. The amortized Project construction emissions would be 53 MTCO2e per year.
Operations
Total GHG emissions associated with the Phase II are summarized in Table 4.8-5: Phase II - Operational GHG Emissions. Table 4.8-5 shows that the unmitigated Project would generate approximately 13,660 MTCO2e per year.
Mitigation measures have been identified in Section 4.3: Air Quality that would also reduce GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible and are shown in Table 4.8-5 under “mitigated.” MM AQ-2 requires the use of electrical off-road equipment such as forklifts and hostlers/yard trucks that would also reduce GHG emissions from combustion engines. MM AQ-3 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage transit. MM AQ-4 requires the buildings to be designed to accommodate electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure. MM AQ-5 prohibits idling when engines are not in use to reduce GHG emissions from trucks and MM AQ-6 prohibits the installation of wood-burning and natural gas devices.
Table 4.8-5: Phase II - Operational GHG Emissions
Source MTCO2e Per Year
Unmitigated
Area 12
Energy 1,532
Mobile 10,523
Off-Road Equipment1 385
Solid Waste 231
Water 197
Refrigerants 727
Construction-Amortized 53
Total Emissions 13,660
1054
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-21 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source MTCO2e Per Year
Mitigated
Area 12
Energy 1,532
Mobile 10,523
Off-Road Equipment2 67
Solid Waste 231
Water 197
Refrigerants 727
Construction-Amortized 53
Total Emissions 13,342
Source: CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.
Notes: Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 1 Unmitigated off-road equipment includes emissions from diesel powered forklifts and yard trucks/hostlers. 2 Mitigated off-road equipment includes the energy emissions necessary to power electric forklifts and yard trucks/hostlers as required by mitigation measure AQ- 2 With the implementation of MM AQ-2 through AQ-6 Phase II would generate approximately 13,342 MTCO2e annually from both construction and operations. It should be noted that emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards and the Project has no control over these standards.
To ensure that the Project reduces emissions by the maximum amount feasible, MM GHG-1 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 score of 100 points are considered less than significant. A preliminary set of the screening tables can be found in Appendix B for reference. However, at the time of this analysis, the Project is in the design phase, where project design features needed to achieve consistency with the Screening Tables are being considered and implemented.
A preliminary set of the screening tables has been completed to show that the Project can feasibly achieve 100 points (refer to Appendix B). The applicant must complete and submit a final set of screening tables showing the achievement of the required 100 points prior to issuance of the building permit, as required by MM GHG-1. Therefore, with the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 and MM GHG-1, the Project impact is considered less than significant with mitigation.
Project Buildout (Phase I + Phase II)
Construction
The total GHG emissions generated during construction of Phase I and Phase II are combined and are shown in Table 4.8-6: Project Buildout - Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 1055
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-22 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 4.8-6: Project Buildout - Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Category MTCO2e
2023 Construction 400
2024 Construction 1,591
2025 Construction 1,374
2026 Construction 1,001
Total Construction Emissions 4,366
30-Year Amortized Construction 146
Source: CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.
As shown in Table 4.8-6, Project Buildout would result in the generation of approximately 4,366 MTCO2e over the course of construction. The amortized Project construction emissions would be 146 MTCO2e per year.
Operations
Total GHG emissions associated with the Project Buildout are summarized in Table 4.8-7: Project Buildout Operational GHG Emissions. Table 4.8-7 shows that the unmitigated Project would generate approximately 37,992 MTCO2e per year.
Mitigation measures have been identified in Section 4.3: Air Quality that would also reduce GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible and are shown in Table 4.8-7 under “mitigated.” MM AQ-2 requires the use of electrical off-road equipment such as forklifts and hostlers/yard trucks that would also reduce GHG emissions from combustion engines. MM AQ-3 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage transit. MM AQ-4 requires the buildings to be designed to accommodate electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure. MM AQ-5 prohibits idling when engines are not in use to reduce GHG emissions from trucks and MM AQ-6 prohibits the installation of wood-burning and natural gas devices.
Table 4.8-7: Project Buildout Operational GHG Emissions Source MTCO2e Per Year
Unmitigated
Phase I GHG Emissions 24,271
Phase II GHG Emissions 13,660
Total Emissions 37,931
Mitigated
Phase I GHG Emissions 22,787
Phase II GHG Emissions 13,342
Total Emissions 36,129
Source: CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.
Notes: Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 1 Unmitigated off-road equipment includes emissions from diesel powered forklifts and yard trucks/hostlers. 2 Mitigated off-road equipment includes the energy emissions necessary to power electric forklifts and yard trucks/hostlers as required by mitigation measure AQ- 2 With the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 the Project would generate approximately 36,129 MTCO2e annually from both construction and operations of Phase I and Phase II. It should be noted that emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards and the Project has no control over these standards.
1056
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-23 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
To ensure that the Project reduces emissions by the maximum amount feasible, MM GHG-1 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 score of 100 points are considered less than significant. At the time of this analysis, the Project is in the design phase, where project design features needed to achieve consistency with the Screening Tables are being considered and implemented. A preliminary set of the screening tables has been completed to show that the Project can feasibly achieve 100 points (refer to Appendix B). The applicant must complete and submit a final set of screening tables showing the achievement of the required 100 points prior to issuance of the building permit, as required by MM GHG-1. Therefore, with the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 and MM GHG-1, the Project impact is considered less than significant with mitigation.
Conclusion
As shown in Table 4.8-7, Project Buildout would generate approximately 36,129 MTCO2e per year with the implementation of operational air quality MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6. Since the majority 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. 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. MM GHG-1 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 score of 100 points are considered less than significant. At the time of this analysis, the Project is in the design phase, where project design features needed to achieve consistency with the Screening Tables are being considered and implemented. A preliminary set of the screening tables has been completed to show that the Project can feasibly achieve 100 points (refer to Appendix B). The applicant must complete and submit a final set of screening tables showing the achievement of the required 100 points prior to issuance of the building permit, as required by MM GHG-1. Therefore, even with the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 and MM GHG-1, this Project impact is less than significant.
The Project would be pursuant to TOP 2050 and would represent a consistent and logical continuation of the existing and planned pattern of development in Ontario, specifically the Ontario Ranch area. The City has long anticipated that this area would transition from dairy/agricultural to urban uses, and the Project Specific Plan is implementing TOP 2050.5 Pursuant to TOP 2050, implementation of the Project Specific Plan would represent a consistent and logical continuation of the existing and planned pattern of development in Ontario, specifically the Ontario Ranch area. Therefore, although Project emissions are conservatively considered to be significant and unavoidable, emissions have been included in the emissions forecasts for TOP 2050.
5 City of Ontario. (2022). TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR. Section 5.3, Air Quality. Retrieved from:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed April 2023)
1057
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-24 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM AQ-2 through AQ-6 in Section 4.3: Air Quality.
MM GHG-1 Project development proposals with building permit applications on file with the City 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. At the discretion of the City, measures that provide GHG reductions equivalent to GHG emissions reductions achieved via the Screening Table Measures may be implemented. Multiple development proposals may, at the discretion of the City, be allowed to collectively demonstrate achievement of at least 100 points per the Screening Tables.
Impact 4.8-2: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions?
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact Project Buildout (Phase I + Phase II)
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 4.8-8: 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 4.8-8, the Project would not conflict with the goals of the Community CAP. 1058
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-25 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 4.8-8: Community CAP Consistency
CAP Measure
Name Measure Description Consistency
Energy
Energy –
Strategy 1
Building electrification. Promote and incentivize
the phase-out of gas appliances in new and
existing homes and businesses throughout the
community to advance GHG reductions, increase
energy efficiency, and protect public safety and
environmental health.
Consistent This measure is to be taken at the City
level.
Energy –
Strategy 2
Onsite solar energy for existing residential
development. Continue to support and facilitate
installation of rooftop solar photovoltaic and
onsite solar energy systems in existing
residential development.
N/A This measure only applies to existing
residential development.
Energy –
Strategy 3
Onsite Solar Energy Systems for Nonresidential
Development: Ensure new large non-residential
development, including City facilities, includes
onsite renewable energy to support the site's
energy needs by requiring solar photovoltaic
panels or other appropriate onsite renewable
energy generation systems for the following
types of projects:
• New commercial and office buildings, or
existing commercial and office building
expansions greater or equal to 45,000
square feet in size.
• New industrial or existing industrial buildings
expansions greater or equal to 100,000
square feet in size.
Consistent
The proposed Project would promote
renewable energy sources including
passive solar collection, subject to the City
of Ontario policies and development
regulations, within the Business Park and
Mixed-Use Districts. The residential
buildings on-site would be prewired for
the future installation of solar collection
improvements.
Energy –
Strategy 4
Green roofs. Promote and incentivize residents
and business owners to install green roofs to
conserve energy and reduce surface water
runoff.
N/A This measure is to be taken at the City
level.
Energy –
Strategy 5
Urban Cooling: Maintain and expand the City's
existing tree canopy, with a goal of planting 500
trees annually through 2050 and promote the
use of pervious concrete and cool pavement for
pavement projects.
Consistent
The Proposed project would include
provisions for planting street parkway and
median trees and would provide
landscape installation, including trees,
within all neighborhood edges. The
project would also incorporate pervious
surfaces and shade trees in surface
parking lots consistent with Policy CD2.10 of TOP 2050.
Energy –
Strategy 6
Energy efficiency retrofits for low-income
households. Promote and incentivize voluntary
energy efficiency retrofits of homes to reduce
natural gas and electricity usage, with the goal
of retrofitting 9,000 low-income homes by 2050.
Partner with community services agencies to
fund energy efficiency projects, including
heating, ventilation, air conditioning, indoor
lighting, water heating equipment, insulation,
and weatherization for low-income residents.
N/A This measure is not applicable to the
proposed Project.
1059
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-26 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CAP Measure
Name Measure Description Consistency
Energy –
Strategy 7
Energy efficiency retrofits. Promote and
incentivize voluntary energy efficiency retrofits
to reduce in natural gas and electricity usage.
Partner with regional agencies to expand access
to existing energy efficiency and conservation
opportunities, incentives, and technical
assistance for residents and businesses.
Consistent
The Project would include tolerant
landscaping, skylights in warehouse areas,
high performance dual glazing in office
storefronts, and LED products for energy
efficient site lighting.
Energy –
Strategy 8
Smart Growth and Infill. Encourage
revitalization of neighborhoods through higherdensity, mixed-use, infill development and creative reuse of underutilized sites within the
urban core.
N/A This measure is not applicable to the
proposed Project.
Transportation
Transportation
– Strategy 9
Transit-Oriented Development: Encourage
development of compact, mixed-use, and
transit-oriented development to improve the
regional jobs-housing balance, especially on
corridors served by high-ridership transit and
bus rapid transit, such as Holt Avenue.
Consistent
The proposed Project would provide a
mixed-use development along a highvolume corridor, Euclid Avenue. Transit turnouts would be constructed within the
Specific Plan Area.
Transportation
– Strategy 10
Increase Transportation Ridership. Ensure a
reliable and responsive transit system with
dedicated and secure funding and resources to
support increased ridership.
N/A This measure is to be taken at a City level.
Transportation
– Strategy 11
Traffic signal synchronization and roadway
management. Implement traffic and roadway
management strategies to improve mobility and
efficiency and reduce associated emissions.
N/A This measure is to be taken at the City
level.
Transportation
– Strategy 12
Community vehicle electrification. Promote and
incentivize the adoption of electric vehicles (EV)
citywide, including light-duty and heavy-duty
vehicles, for municipal, commercial, and
residential uses.
N/A This measure is to be taken at the City
level.
Transportation
– Strategy 13
Active Transportation Networks: Work with
transit agencies, school districts, and employers
to facilitate 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.
Consistent
The proposed Project would provide
multipurpose trails along Euclid and
Schaefer Avenues and public accessible
sidewalks along Euclid, Schaefer, Sultana,
and Edison Avenues. Transit turnouts
would be constructed within the Specific
Plan Area.
Transportation
– Strategy 14
Vehicle Idling: Limit idling of heavy-duty trucks.
Support the SCAMQD and CARB anti-idling
requirements and provide signage in key areas
where idling that is not consistent with SCAMQD
or CARB requirements might occur.
Consistent
Per MM AQ-5, all truck access gates and
loading docks within the Project site shall
have a sign posted that states that truck
drivers shall turn off engines when not in
use or after five minutes of continuous
idling operation pursuant to Title 13 of
the California Code of Regulations Section
2485.
Transportation
– Strategy 15
Parking policy and event parking. Adopt a
comprehensive parking policy that encourages
carpooling and the use of alternative
transportation, including providing parking
N/A This measure is to be taken at a City level.
1060
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-27 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CAP Measure
Name Measure Description Consistency
spaces for car-share vehicles at convenient
locations with access to public transportation.
Off-road Equipment
Off-Road
Equipment –
Strategy 16
Electrification of construction and landscaping
equipment. Promote and incentivize the
transition to electric construction and
landscaping equipment.
Consistent This measure is to be taken at the City
level.
Off-Road
Equipment –
Strategy 17
Idling Ordinance for Construction Equipment:
Limit idling of heavy-duty off-road construction
equipment to reduce air pollution and GHG
emissions from construction activity.
Consistent:
Construction would be required to comply
with California Code of Regulations
Section 2485 and 2499 which would limit
the idling of heavy-duty construction
equipment to no more than five minutes.
Waste
Waste -
Strategy 18
Methane capture at landfills. Support efforts to
reduce methane emissions from regional
landfills.
N/A This measure is not applicable to the
proposed Project.
Waste -
Strategy 19
Waste Diversion: Exceed waste diversion goals
recommended by AB 939 and CALGreen by
adopting a citywide diversion target of at least
75 percent of waste.
Consistent:
The proposed Project would be subject to
all applicable local, State, and federal
waste diversion requirement.
Waste –
Strategy 20
Construction and Demolition Waste Recovery
Ordinance: Increase the amount of waste
recycled during construction and demolition of
buildings.
Consistent:
The proposed Project is anticipated to
recycle and reuse leftover or unused
building materials.
Water
Water –
Strategy 21
Indoor water efficiency. Encourage waterefficient retrofits of new and existing buildings by working with water providers and regional
agencies.
Consistent
Coordination with water providers and
regional agencies would be taken at the
City level. However, the Project plans to
connect to the recycled water system for
indoor use.
Water –
Strategy 22
Water Efficient Landscapes and Water
Recycling: Promote drought-tolerant and firewise landscaping. Encourage increased use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation,
agricultural, and industrial use.
Consistent
The proposed Project plans to incorporate
native drought tolerant landscaping and
would use recycled water to irrigate
landscape areas as required by the City of
Ontario Recycled Water Master Plan.
Water –
Strategy 23
Water system and wastewater operations
efficiency. Maximize efficiency at drinking water
treatment, pumping, and distribution facilities,
including development of off-peak demand
schedules for heavy commercial and industrial
users.
N/A This measure is not applicable to the
proposed Project.
Water –
Strategy 24
Methane capture for wastewater treatment.
Work with Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA),
the local wastewater treatment provider, to
increase methane capture rate.
N/A This measure is not applicable to the
proposed Project.
Other
Strategy 25 Methane capture for dairy operations.
Encourage and incentivize local dairy operations N/A This measure is not applicable to the proposed Project. 1061
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-28 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CAP Measure
Name Measure Description Consistency
to reduce methane emissions through methane
capture technology.
Strategy 26
Climate change awareness and education.
Promote climate change awareness and GHG
reduction community-wide through a variety of
mechanisms, including through support of
climate change education in schools or
community colleges.
N/A This measure is to be taken at the City
level
Strategy 27
Carbon sequestration. Establish a citywide
carbon sequestration project and sequestration
goal of 5,000 MT CO2 per year.
N/A This measure is to be taken at the City
level
Strategy 28
Green jobs. Support green job training and
opportunities to create sustainable, living wage,
quality employment opportunities.
N/A This measure is to be taken at the City
level
Source: City of Ontario, 2022. Community Climate Action Plan. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Applications/Community%20Climate%20Action%20Plan%20-%20Appendix%20B.pdf. (accessed April 2023).
The CAP establishes a city 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 4.8-9: GHG Reduction Measures Screening Table for Industrial Development identifies potential design features and their associated scores. 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. Since the Project contains both residential and industrial/commercial developments, both the residential and industrial/commercial screening tables must be filled out. A proportion of the points identical to the proportion of the multiple uses would be used to determine the total number of points for the development. For the Project, approximately 90 percent of the total area is industrial/commercial and approximately 10 percent is residential. Therefore, a 0.9 multiplier would be used for the industrial/commercial screening table points and a 0.1 multiplier would be used for the residential screening table. Table 4.8-9 shows that the proposed Project has the potential to achieve 100 points on the CAP’s screening tables.
Table 4.8-9: GHG Reduction Measures Screening Table for Ontario Development Feature Description Assigned
Point Value
Residential
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
1062
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-29 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Feature Description Assigned
Point Value
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 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 1063
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-30 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Feature Description Assigned
Point Value
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 Cloths Washing 4
Building Placement North/South alignment of building or other building placement such that the orientation of the buildings optimizes natural heating, cooling, and lighting. 5 Energy Star Homes EPA Energy Star for Homes (version 3 or above) 25 Irrigation and Landscaping
Water Efficient
Landscaping
Eliminate conventional turf from landscaping 0
Only moderate water using 3
Only low water using plants 4
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 Bicycle Master Plan
Bicycle Provide bicycle path linkages between residential and other land uses. 2 1064
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-31 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Feature Description Assigned
Point Value
Infrastructure Provide bicycle path linkages between residential and transit. 5 Industrial
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 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 1065
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-32 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Feature Description Assigned
Point Value
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 Cloths 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
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 1066
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-33 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Feature Description Assigned
Point Value
Commercial
Laundry Washers Water Efficient Washing Machine (Water factor < 5.5) 1 Source: City of Ontario 2018. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Screening Threshold Table Directions. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/Applications/Greenhouse%20Gas%20- %20Threshold%20%26%20Screening%20Tables.pdf. (accessed April 2023).
The Project would have the opportunity to receive more points for additional measures including renewable energy installments, EV recharging stations, and land use-based trips and VMT reductions. As noted above, a preliminary set of the screening tables has been completed to show that the Project can feasibly achieve 100 points (refer to Appendix B). The applicant must complete and submit a final set of screening tables showing the achievement of the required 100 points prior to issuance of the building permit, as required by MM GHG-1. This measure would ensure that future Project development is consistent with the City’s Community CAP and would reduce impacts to less than significant.
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 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 4.8-10: 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Consistency. 1067
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-34 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 4.8-10: 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 SR 83, and
Interstate (I)-10 and 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.
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 warehouse use
and includes housing. The project site is located
near to bus stops located at the intersections of
Euclid Avenue and Edison Avenue, and Euclid
Avenue and Schaefer Avenue
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. 2020. Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176. (accessed April 2023). 1068
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-35 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As shown in Table 4.8-10, 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 2022 Scoping Plan sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. The transportation, electricity, and industrial sectors are the largest GHG contributors in the State. The 2022 Scoping Plan plans to achieve the AB 1279 targets primarily through zero-emission transportation (e.g., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and trucks). Additional GHG reductions are achieved through decarbonizing the electricity and industrial sectors.
Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the latest 2022 Scoping Plan include implementing SB 100, which would achieve 100 percent clean electricity by 2045; achieving 100 percent zero emission vehicle sales in 2035 through Advanced Clean Cars II; and implementing the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation to deploy zero-electric vehicle buses and trucks. Additional transportation policies include the Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean OffRoad Fleet Recognition Program, and Amendments to the In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation. The 2022 Scoping Plan would continue to implement SB 375. GHGs would be further reduced through the Cap-and-Trade Program carbon pricing and SB 905. SB 905 requires CARB to create the Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program to evaluate, demonstrate, and regulate carbon dioxide removal projects and technology.
As shown previously, a majority of the Project’s GHG emissions are from energy and mobile sources which would be further reduced by the 2022 Scoping Plan measures described above. It should be noted that the City has no control over vehicle emissions. However, these emissions would decline in the future due to statewide measures discussed above, as well as cleaner technology and fleet turnover. Several of the State’s plans and policies would contribute to a reduction in mobile source emissions from the Project.
These include the following:
• CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation: Adopted in June 2020, CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation requires truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zeroemission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every new truck sold in California is required to be zero-emission. The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation accelerates the transition of zero-emission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8. • Executive Order N-79-20: 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 zeroemission 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.” 1069
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-36 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy: CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy takes an integrated planning approach to identify the level of transition to cleaner mobile source technologies needed to achieve all of California’s targets by increasing the adoption of ZEV buses and trucks. • CARB’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan: The 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: 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 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. The Project would not obstruct or interfere with efforts to increase ZEVs or State efforts to improve system efficiency.
Compliance with applicable State standards (e.g., continuation of the Cap-and-Trade regulation; CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy, Sustainable Freight Action Plan, and Advanced Clean Truck Regulation; Executive Order N-79-20; SB 100/renewable electricity portfolio improvements that require 60 percent renewable electricity by 2030 and 100 percent renewable by 2045, etc.) would ensure consistency with State and regional GHG reduction planning efforts, including the 2022 Scoping Plan. It should also be noted that the Project would convert Natural and Working Lands (NWL). However, as mentioned previously, the Project is consistent with the City’s TOP EIR and Agricultural Overlay District, which is an interim overlay while this area transitions to urban development.
The Project does not conflict with the applicable plans that are discussed above, would not conflict with statewide measures to obtain carbon neutrality by the year 2045, and therefore with respect to this particular threshold, the Project does not have a significant impact.
The state’s electricity grid is transitioning to renewable energy under California’s RPS Program. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The statewide RPS requirements do not directly apply to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as SCE, whose compliance with RPS requirements would contribute to the State of California objective of transitioning to renewable energy. SCE's Pathway 2045 concludes that reaching California’s 2045 GHG goals requires the decarbonization of electricity, electrification of transportation, electrification of buildings, and utilization of low carbon fuels.6 Achieving 100 percent renewable energy would be feasible with continued technical advances including the following:7 • Better weather forecasting technology is making it much easier for grid operators to precisely how much wind or solar generation we can depend on at any given time. 6 Southern California Edison. 2023. Carbon Neutrality by 2045. https://www.edison.com/our-perspective/pathway-2045. (accessed April 2023). 7 SB 100. ND. 100% Clean Energy FAQs. https://focus.senate.ca.gov/sb100/faqs. (accessed April 2023). 1070
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-37 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• The cost of zero-carbon generation sources like wind and solar have dramatically decreased in the past decade and continue to decline.
• The cost of energy storage technologies, which will help us be able to use renewables when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining, also continues to decline. • New advancements in the ability of large and small electricity users to shift usage towards times when electricity is cheaper and when the supply of renewables is most abundant are helping to make the grid more flexible and able to accommodate very high levels of renewable energy. • Grid operators around the western United States are coordinating to gain access to larger markets for renewables and other carbon-free flexible grid resources. • Targeting energy efficiency during times of the day when renewables are less abundant (after the sun sets) will also help the grid operate more efficiently.
As discussed herein, the Project would comply with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, the CALGreen Code, and energy efficiency measures implemented by the City CAP. Consistent with the CAP, the buildings developed under the Project would have rooftops that can support solar panels (i.e., solarready) which will comply with solar ready requirements of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which would enable future tenants to install a PV system. Therefore, implementation of the Project would support the statewide goal of decarbonization by 2045.
Conclusion
As seen in Table 4.8-9 and Table 4.8-10 and above, the Project would be consistent with applicable plan goals. In addition, the Project would include several sustainable design features as required by MM GHG-1 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.
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 4.3: Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, MM AQ-2 through 1071
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-38 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
MM AQ-6 would reduce mobile source emissions and would support the State’s transition to ZEVs. 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 CAP establishes a city 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. As discussed above, both Phase I and Phase II of the Project can feasibly achieve 100 points individually, based on the completion of preliminary Screening Tables (see Appendix B). Achieving 100 points ensures that the Project would not impede California’s statewide GHG reduction goals for 2030 and 2050. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 in Section 4.3: Air Quality and MM GHG-1 (refer to Impact Threshold 4.8-1).
4.8.7 Cumulative Impacts
Project-related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide.
Therefore, impacts under Impact Threshold 4.8-1 are not Project-specific impacts, but the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative GHG impact. As discussed previously, incorporation of mitigation would minimize emissions and both Phase I and Phase II of the Project can achieve 100 points on the CAP Screening Tables. 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. Additionally, the Project would be pursuant to TOP 2050 and would represent a consistent and logical continuation of the existing and planned pattern of development in Ontario, specifically the Ontario Ranch area. The City has long anticipated that this area would transition from dairy/agricultural to urban uses, and the Project Specific Plan is implementing TOP 2050.8 Therefore, Project-related GHG emissions and their contribution to global climate change would not be cumulatively considerable, and GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant. Pursuant to TOP 2050, implementation of the Project Specific Plan would represent a consistent and logical continuation of the existing and planned pattern of development in Ontario, specifically the Ontario Ranch area. The City has long anticipated that this area would transition from dairy/agricultural to urban uses, and the Project Specific Plan is implementing TOP 2050. 8 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR. Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed April 2023).
1072
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-39 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.8.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
With implementation of regulatory requirements, standard conditions of approval, and reasonable and feasible mitigation, the Project would result less than impacts with respect to consistency with GHG plans and GHG emissions, on an individual and cumulative basis.
4.8.9 References
California Air Resources Board, California’s 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan, 2022.
City of Ontario. 2022. Community Climate Action Plan.
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Applications/Community%20Climate%20Action%20Plan%20- %20Appendix%20B.pdf
City of Ontario 2018. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Screening Threshold Table Directions. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Applications/Greenhouse%20Gas%20- %20Threshold%20%26%20Screening%20Tables.pdf.
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR. Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf.
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.
SB 100. ND. 100% Clean Energy FAQs. https://focus.senate.ca.gov/sb100/faqs.
Southern California Association of Governments. 2020. Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176.
Southern California Edison. 2023. Carbon Neutrality by 2045. https://www.edison.com/ourperspective/pathway-2045.
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.
State of California, Code of Regulations Section, 2023.
U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016, 2018. 1073
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.8-40 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
U.S. EPA, Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission from Natural Sources, 2010.
U.S. EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases, 2018.
Urban Crossroads, Euclid Mixed-Use Specific Plan Traffic Analysis, 2023. (Appendix I) 1074
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-1 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.9.1 Introduction
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing regulatory and environmental conditions related to hazards and hazardous materials in the vicinity of the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project (Project), within the City of Ontario (City). This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies potential impacts that could result from the Project. This chapter discusses the changes to existing hazards and hazardous materials that would occur upon implementation of the Project, and as necessary, recommends mitigation measures to avoid and/or reduce the significance of impacts. Impacts are discussed in terms of the changes that would result from Project implementation and includes analysis of the Project’s potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; to cause a significant hazard to the public or the environment if located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites; result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area due to its location within or proximity to an airport land use plan; impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
This Section and environmental discussion use information from the following City documents:
• The Ontario Plan 2050
• City of Ontario Municipal Code
• City of Ontario TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR
Additionally, the following analysis is based in part on information obtained from:
• Converse Consultants. July 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. (Appendix F1) • Converse Consultants. October 2021. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report. (Appendix F2)
4.9.2 Environmental Setting
Current Uses of Property
The 84.1-acre Project site is currently occupied by agricultural uses, including the raising of livestock, dairy farming activities, and a commercial nursery. Dairy farming and agriculture have been the primary uses of the Project site since before the 1930s. The majority of the Project site exists as fallow or cultivated fields.
There is a private recreational vehicle facility in the southwestern portion of the site and a scrap yard at the intersection of Euclid Avenue and Edison Avenue. Numerous single family residential structures, as well as agricultural related buildings and open structures are located within the Project site. Two Southern 1075
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-2 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials California Edison (SCE) easements extend across the Project site. No structures are located within the SCE easements; however, they have been used for various agricultural uses historically.
Existing uses surrounding the Project site are similar to those on the site. Ongoing crop farming is located to the north of the Project site and a vacant property that was a former dairy farm is located to the east of the site. The property to the south is currently utilized for residential, farming, or trucking related uses.
North across Schaefer Avenue is an existing dairy farm; south across Edison Avenue is an existing trucking facility; east across Sultana Avenue is vacant land and an existing trucking facility; and west across Euclid Avenue, is the City of Chino with existing commercial and residential uses, and a truck/trailer storage (see Figure 3-4: Surrounding Land Uses).
Historical Uses of Property
According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report (ESA), a review of historical photographs and records showed that the Project site was generally occupied by agricultural uses, including the raising of livestock, dairy farming activities, and a commercial nursery, as early as the 1930s. Historically, as early as 1987 the Project site was undeveloped land. From as early as 1933, structures were evident along the northeastern and western boundaries of the Project site, which were associated with agricultural operations by 1938. Between 1946 and the present, the Project site was used agriculturally, including one dairy operation on the western portion of the Project site, and another dairy operation on the northeastern portion of the Project site. The current day nursery operation on the southwestern portion of the Project site has been established since as early as 2006.1 Adjoining properties to the Project site vicinity appeared generally undeveloped in 1897. By 1902, apparent residential structures were noted on adjoining properties. From as early as 1938, agricultural uses were noted as well, including row crops. Commercial developments were noted as early as 1959. By 1975, most of the north and east adjoining land was occupied by dairy farms, and commercial uses were concentrated to the southwest and west. Commercial, as well as residential uses, remain to the west along Euclid Avenue until the present day, whereas north and east adjoining land remains for agricultural use.
Part of this land is currently fallow/vacant.
Environmental Site Assessment
A Phase I ESA Report and Limited Phase II ESA Report were conducted for the approximately 60-acre Phase I development area of the Project site on July 29, 2021, and October 8, 2021, respectively. The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level based on available information from The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. The Applicant does not own the parcels within the Phase II area (PAs 2B and 3B) and does not have access to the Phase II area at this time. At the time of Phase II development, it will undergo its own site-specific CEQA analysis.
The Phase I ESA was conducted in accordance with: (1) the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 312) and (2) guidelines established by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) in the 1 Converse Consultants. July 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, page 20. (Appendix F1). 1076
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-3 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process/ Designation E 1527 13 (ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-13).
ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-13 defines a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) as 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. A Controlled REC (CREC) is as defined as,”…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).” A Historical REC (HREC) is defined as, “a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property 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 property to any required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls).”
The limited Phase II subsurface investigation was conducted, which included soil and soil gas sampling to identify potential contamination from unknown but probable former onsite sources, or from the existing service station to the north. The objective was to determine the current representative subsurface conditions in targeted areas of the Project site.
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 ongoing Cleanup Program Site (CPS) is the Chino Airport, located at 7000 Merrill Avenue, approximately 1.2 miles 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.
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 RECs. 1077
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-4 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials 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).
A 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.
Non-ASTM Scope Considerations
The Project site contains buildings that 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, LBPs, 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, one test was conducted within the 91762-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.2 2 Ibid. Page A-15.
1078
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-5 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials According to the Phase I ESA, two on-site water wells, associated with dairy operations, were observed. A third well, located near the northeastern portion of the Project site, was decommissioned. Per Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06071C8620H and 06071C9335H, the Project site and adjacent properties are located within areas in which flood hazards are undetermined but possible (Zone D).3 According to the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) database, wetland areas identified as a Freshwater Ponds, are located within the Project site.4 The artificially created unvegetated dairy effluent retention ponds are isolated located in uplands and currently rotated in use resulting in a wet (inundated) and dry phase. However, no wetlands or jurisdictional resources regulated by the United State Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, or Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) were documented within the Project Site.5
Airport-Related Hazards
The Project site is located approximately 1.2 miles north of the Chino Airport and is approximately
3.7 miles southwest of the Ontario International Airport (ONT). The Project site is within the Chino Airport Influence Area and is within the Zone E compatibility zone, as depicted in Figure 4.9-1: Chino Airport Compatibility Zones.
6 Within Compatibility Zone E, generally, there is no concern with regard to any object up to 100 feet tall unless it is located on high ground or it is a solitary object (e.g., an antenna) more than 35 feet above the ground. 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. Additionally, the Project site is not within the Ontario International Airport or the Chino Airport Safety Zones, depicted in Figure 4.9-2: Airport Safety Zones. Additionally, Figure 4.9-3: 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. 3 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2021. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06071C8620H and 06071C9335H. https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd&extent=- 117.81426821289033,33.99346556420189,-117.48193178710954,34.1356709592875. (accessed March 2023). 4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife. ND. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper. https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlandsinventory/wetlands-mapper. (accessed March 2023). 5 Cadre Environmental. 2022. Biological Resources Technical Report. Page 15. See Appendix C 6 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. 2008. Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Volume 1 Policy Document. Pages 3-10a – 3-11. https://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/PDFGeneral/plan/newplan/09-%20Vol.%201%20Chino.pdf. (accessed March 2023). 1079
Not to scale
FIGURE 4.9-1: Chino Airport Compatibility Zones
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Source: Riverside Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document, Map CH-1 Compatibility Map Chino Airport, 2008.
-**2
!"
!"
#
$% &""#"& '
!"
!"(
!"
!"#
#
"
)"
& )"
)
!"*
&
)" Project Site
1080
Not to scale
FIGURE 4.9-2: Airport Safety Zones
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Source: The Ontario Plan 2050, 2022, Figure 5.9-2, Airport Safety Zones %&'(
%&'(
%&'(
|ÿ
|ÿ
%&'(
County of
San Bernardino
County of Riverside
60 60
10 15
15 10
CITY OF
MONTCLAIR
CITY OF
UPLAND
CITY OF
FONTANA
CITY OF CHINO
CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
S EUCLID AVE
S CAMPUS AVE
N HAVEN AVE
S SULTANA AVE
S GROVE AVE
N MILLIKEN AVE
S ARCHIBALD AVE
E RIVERSIDE DR
E G ST
W D ST
N VINEYARD AVE
N SAN ANTONIO AVE S SAN ANTONIO AVE
N SULTANA AVE
N GROVE AVE
S ETIWANDA AVE
S MOUNTAIN AVE
E PHILADELPHIA ST
W FOURTH ST
N CAMPUS AVE
N MOUNTAIN AVE
N BENSON AVE
E D ST
W MISSION BLVD
N EUCLID AVE
W G ST
E FOURTH ST
S HAVEN AVE
S MILLIKEN AVE
W PHILADELPHIA ST
E EIGHTH ST
S TURNER AVE
W FRANCIS ST
S VINEYARD AVE
E JURUPA ST
E AIRPORT DR
S BENSON AVE
E INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
E MISSION BLVD
N ETIWANDA AVE
S SUMNER
S WINEVILLE AVE
S VINTAGE AVE
E EDISON
E SANTA ANA
E HOLT
S HAMNER
E EUCALYPTUS
E SCHAEFER
E CHINO
E MERRILL EASTVALE
JURUPA VALLEY
Ontario City Boundary
County Boundary
Ontario International Airport Safety
ZONE-1
ZONE-2
ZONE-3
ZONE-4
ZONE-5
Chino Airport Safety Zones
Safety Zone 1
Safety Zone 2
Safety Zone 3
Safety Zone 4
Safety Zone 6
Project Site
1081
Not to scale
FIGURE 4.9-3: Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Source: The Ontario Plan (2011), Map 2-1 Compatibility Policy Map: Airport Influence Area Project Site
1082
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-9 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.9.3 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 1083
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-10 4.9 | 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 LBP hazards.
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 onsite 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:
1084
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-11 4.9 | 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, RWQCB, California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (known as CalRecycle 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 1085
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-12 4.9 | 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.
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 has the responsibility of overseeing and regulating hazardous materials, generators, transporters, and facilities that may use, generate, store, transport, or recycle, hazardous materials. 1086
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-13 4.9 | Hazards and 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.
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 CUPAs to 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.
1087
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-14 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials 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 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 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 1088
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-15 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials 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 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) 1089
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-16 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials 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 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 San Bernardino County Fire Department (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
Hazardous Materials Business Plan
The San Bernardino County Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) program was established in 1986.
The purpose of this CUPA program is to prevent or minimize the damage to public health and safety and the environment, from a release or threatened release of hazardous materials. It also satisfies community right-to-know laws. The HMBP provides information regarding hazardous materials at facilities to emergency responders and to the general public.
Businesses that handle hazardous materials (including hazardous waste) or extremely hazardous substances are required to submit an HMBP via the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS), if using, handling or storing hazardous materials in quantities equal to or greater than:
• 55 gallons of a liquid,
• 500 pounds of a solid, or
1090
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-17 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials • 200 cubic feet of compressed gas, or
• Extremely hazardous substances above the threshold planning quantity • Facilities in this jurisdiction must also report any amount of hazardous waste via the California Environmental Reporting System.
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
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 1091
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-18 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials 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 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 Ontario Plan 2050
The TOP 2050 Safety Element states that the City’s role as a transportation hub and manufacturing center make the City susceptible to spills of toxic materials and vulnerable to the byproducts generated in industrial areas, especially if exacerbated by earthquakes, fires, floods, and strong winds. The Safety Element policies ensure that the City is prepared for and would effectively deal with hazards and hazardous materials. Included in TOP 2050 is the Policy Plan, which is a framework that would guide the 1092
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-19 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials City’s future growth through the application of policies and goals. The following goals of TOP 2050 relate to geology and soils.
The following policy contained in the Safety Element is relevant to the Project:
Safety Element7
Goal S-6 Reduced potential for hazardous materials exposure and contamination.
Policy S-6.1 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 transport.
Policy S-6.2 Response to Hazardous Materials Releases. We respond to hazardous materials incidents and coordinate these services with other jurisdictions.
Policy S-6.4 Safe Storage and Maintenance Practices. We require that the users of hazardous materials be adequately prepared to prevent and mitigate hazardous materials releases.
Policy S-6.5 Location of Hazardous Material Facilities. We regulate facilities that will be involved in the production, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials, pursuant to federal, state, county, and local regulations, so that impacts to the environment and sensitive land uses are mitigated. We prohibit new hazardous waste facilities in close proximity to sensitive land uses and environmental justice areas.
Policy S-6.9 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 7-3.07.8 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 9-1.3330.9 Environmental Performance Standards that require: “The use, handling, storage, and transportation of combustibles and explosives shall comply with applicable provisions of the Uniform 7 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Safety Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policy-plan/safety. (accessed March 2023). 8 City of Ontario. ND. Ontario Municipal Code, Title 7. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ontarioca/latest/ontario_ca/0-0-0-45840. (accessed March 2023). 9 City of Ontario. ND. Ontario Development Code, Chapter 1.0: Development Code Enactment and General Provisions. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Documents/Planning%20Documents/Development%20Code/Chapter%201.0%20Development%20Code%20Enactment%20an d%20General%20Provisions.pdf. (accessed March 2023).
1093
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-20 4.9 | 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 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 Project Specific Plan boundary shall be required to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the ALUCP for Chino Airport.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
A Phase I ESA was completed in July 2021 for the Phase I development area; see Appendix F1: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level based on available information from The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. The Applicant does not own the parcels within the Phase II area (PAs 2B and 3B) and does not have access to the Phase II area at this time. At the time of Phase II development, it will undergo its own site-specific CEQA analysis. The Project site and its adjoining properties were crossreferenced with the following environmental databases: Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database (HIST UST), Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS UST), Facility Inventory Database (CA FID UST), Waste Discharge System (WDS), California Environmental Reporting System (CERS), California Environmental Reporting System (CERS HAZ WASTE), Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS), 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 following regulatory databases: CERS, HWTS, CERS HAZ WASTE, ENF, CIWQS, and San Bernardino County Permit. Violations were noted regarding hazardous material reporting and housekeeping practices at the Property; refer to Appendix F1 for further information. An underground storage tank (UST) on the northern portion of the Project site, operated by a historical occupant, was removed and received regulatory closure in 2011. From observations and interviews during Phase I ESA reconnaissance, current on-site petroleum product storage is limited to one, 300-gallon aboveground storage tank (AST) for diesel at Art Venegas Dairy. De minimis ground staining was observed on the concrete floor in the general area. The Drake Family Farm operation only stores petroleum product in 1094
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-21 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials one to three-gallon containers. The Phase I ESA identifies the following, additional existing conditions within the Project site.
• Art Venegas Dairy, located at 13835 Euclid Avenue within the Project site, currently disposes of manure on-site as part of ongoing agricultural operations. Five manure piles were observed throughout the corrals on the central and western portions of the Project site. • Five or six septic tanks of unknown capacity are located on the Project site. Three known tanks are associated with the Venegas Dairy buildings (milk barn and two known residential structures), and two tanks are located at the Drake Dairy facility.
• Each of the two dairies features one active water well. A decommissioned water well is found near the northeastern corner of the Project site.
• Catch basins for dairy runoff are located on the Project site. Observed chemicals inside production areas for both on-site dairies included 55-gallon poly drums of acid/base cleaners and disinfectants, and five-gallon containers of medicated ointments/dips for animals. Compressed gas cylinders for welding gases, car/equipment batteries, and tires were stored in maintenance areas, mainly on the central-west portion of the Project site (Venegas Dairy). Abandoned vehicles/equipment were noted in the same general area, and also in storage areas on the northeastern portion of the Project site.
Adjoining property regulatory database listings included, but were not limited to LUST, CERS HAZ WASTE, CORTESE, CERS TANKS, San Bernardino County Permit, and CERS database listings. Pertinent historical Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) cases on adjoining properties all received regulatory closure.
All cases were limited to soil contamination only. Regulatory compliance inspections by the San Bernardino County Fire Department were noted for all hazardous material handlers/hazardous waste generators.
10 The Phase I ESA identified the following Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) in connection with the Project site:
• Agricultural use from as early as 1938 is a REC due to potential residual contamination from agricultural chemical use.
• On-site dairy operations and associated chemicals, manure, and equipment, from as early as 1946 are RECs.
The Phase I recommended the following:
• Soil sampling over the Site. Areas to be assessed should include the farmland catch basins, maintenance areas, aboveground storage tank (AST; and drain underneath the AST) & underground storage tank (UST) areas, and livestock/manure areas. • Containers of hazardous materials, equipment, and tires should be removed in accordance with applicable regulations.
10 Converse Consultants. 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Page 39-40. (Appendix F1). 1095
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-22 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials • A methane assessment in accordance with the City of Ontario requirements should be conducted.
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report
Based on the recommendations contained in the Phase I ESA, a Phase II ESA was completed in October 2021; see Appendix F2: Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report. The Project area for Phase II is being evaluated only at a programmatic level based on available information from The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. The Applicant does not own the parcels within the Phase II area (PAs 2B and 3B) and does not have access to the Phase II area at this time. At the time of Phase II development, it will undergo its own site-specific CEQA analysis. The Phase II ESA included borings taking at nine locations and an analysis of soil and soil vapors. The Phase II ESA identified the following findings:
• All reported metals concentrations were less than their respective screening levels for both residential and commercial land use scenarios, or applicable regional background concentrations.
All reported values were less than their respective hazardous waste disposal criteria. • Total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) are generally described hydrocarbons derived from crude oil and can contaminate a site through accidental release such as through spilled oil, gasoline fumes, or certain pesticides and other chemicals that contain TPH components as solvents. These chemicals may have toxic affects to those exposed. TPH in the diesel range was reported in four (4) samples at the former UST location. The concentration in sample UST-1-15 was above the screening level for residential and commercial land use. The concentration in sample UST-2-15 was above the screening level for residential land use, but equal to the screening level for commercial land use. UST-1-15 and UST-2-15 are located in the northern portion of the Project site (APN 1053-081-01) at a depth of 15 ft bgs. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and TPH in the gasoline and heavy oil ranges were not reported in any of the samples analyzed. VOCs are compounds that are emitted as gases from certain volatile solids or liquids and are a concern as both indoor and outdoor air pollutants that have the potential to adversely impact the health of people that are exposed. VOCs may be mitted by a variety of products that contain organic solvents including paint supplies, cleaning supplies, pesticides, and certain building materials.
• All detected organochlorine pesticide concentrations were less than their respective screening levels for residential land use, and applicable hazardous waste disposal criteria. A total of 15 VOCs were detected in soil vapor sample AST-1-10, located and a total of 12 VOCs were detected in soil vapor sample UST-1-10. AST-1-10 is located in the central portion of the Project site (APN 1053-071-01) at a depth of 10 ft bgs, and UST-1-10 is located in the northern portion of the Project site (APN 1053-081-01) at a depth of 15 ft bgs. Except for benzene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes, the maximum concentrations of reported VOCs detected were below their screening levels for both residential and commercial land uses.
Benzene and ethylbenzene were detected at concentrations in excess of the respective screening levels for residential land use, and for commercial land use at both the current AST location, and the former UST location. 1096
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-23 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials Concentrations of meta- (m-) and para- (p-) xylenes were reported in soil vapor sample AST-1-10 at 3,400 micrograms per cubic meter air (µg/m3), which is more than the residential screening level of 3,300 µg/m3, but less than the commercial screening level of 15,000 µg/m3. The impacts from m,p-xylenes are therefore considered to be relatively minor and limited.
Based on the findings of the Phase II concluded the following:
• No impacts were identified associated with former agricultural uses of the Project site. • Both the soil and soil vapor appear to be impacted in the vicinity of the current AST and former UST used for diesel.
The impacts to the soil appear to be relatively limited. Although TPH diesel was reported in excess of the commercial screening level at a depth of 15 feet below ground surface (bgs) in boring UST-1, located within the northern portion of the Project site (APN 1053- 081-01), it was not detected in the samples from depths of 10 or 20 feet bgs. In boring UST-2 TPH diesel was only reported in the sample from 15 feet bgs, and the concentration was equal to the commercial screening level.
Concentrations of benzene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes were detected in both soil vapor samples at concentrations in excess of screening levels. The screening levels that these concentrations exceed are based on potential impacts to occupants from vapor intrusion.
The current impact to the Project site from these concentrations is considered to be minimal based on the lack of future occupied structures in the vicinity of the AST and UST areas. The impacted area would not contain residential uses based on the current development plan and land use plan for the Phase I area; refer to Section 3.0: Project Description.
Based on the findings of the Phase II ESA, the Project site has been impacted from the diesel storage tanks (former UST and current AST).11 The impacts to the soil are considered to be relatively minor. The elevated concentrations of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylene (BTEX) in soil vapor samples are not considered to pose a significant risk to occupied structures because no residential uses are proposed to be located over these impacted soils. However, further testing is recommended to be conducted if Project site uses change and structures are planned to be developed in the vicinity of the AST or former UST.
4.9.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions concerning hydrology and water quality. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
11 Converse Consultants. 2021. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. Page 18. (Appendix F2). 1097
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-24 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials • 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; • Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; • 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;
• 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; • Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or
• Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
Methodology and Assumptions
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.
The Phase I ESA includes the following recommendations:
• Soil sampling over the Property. Areas to be assessed should include the farmland, catch basins, maintenance areas, AST (and drain located underneath the AST) & UST areas, and livestock/manure areas.
1098
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-25 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Containers of hazardous materials, equipment, and tires should be removed from the Property prior to Project construction and will be disposed of in accordance to applicable regulations. (see MM HAZ-3).
• A methane assessment in accordance with the City of Ontario requirements should be conducted. (see MM HAZ-4).
4.9.5 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); Caltrans standards; and the Cal/OSHA standards.
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.
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)
1099
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-26 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials 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
4.9.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.9-1 Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Phase I Project) and Significant and Unavoidable (Phase II Only) Specific Plan – Phase I
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.12 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 MM HAZ-1.
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, with implementation of MM HAZ-1, 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 12 Ontario Fire Department. 2021. Hazardous Material Information Packet. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Fire/hazardous_material_information_packet.pdf. (accessed March 2023). 1100
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-27 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials constituents to accumulate in the ponds and become trapped in the sediment (i.e., pesticides, heavy metals, or chemicals).
Contaminated soils encountered during grading would be required to be removed and disposed of offsite 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. MM HAZ-5 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 would be required to remove the septic tank(s). MM HAZ-2 and HAZ-3 would be applied to these activities prior to the commencement of construction activities.
MM HAZ-2 requires a Soil Management Plan that details procedures and protocols for on-site management of soils containing potentially hazardous materials, to be implemented during grading activities on-site to ensure that soils containing residual levels of hydrocarbons or arsenic are properly identified, monitored, and managed during construction. MM HAZ-3 would require the proper removal and disposal of all ASTs and USTs, such as by a State licenses contractor in compliance with SBCFD regulations, and, in the even that contaminated soils are encountered, a SMP shall be prepared to management contaminated soils during redevelopment.
The historic and current use of the Project site as various agricultural operations – including a dairy-farm and the raising of livestock – may produce methane gas in the subsurface from animal wastes. A methane assessment should be conducted to assess subsurface methane levels across the site. MM HAZ-4 would 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 LBP coming 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-6 would 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.