The potential exposure of construction workers to ACMs, PCBs, LBP, or mercury is a potentially significant impact. Through MM HAZ-6, a survey of existing structures prior to demolition will characterize the 1101
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-28 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials potential exposure and further reduce impacts from the potential release of these materials. Additionally, PPP HAZ-5 would reduce the potential of demolition activities to expose construction workers and/or the public to LBP through compliance with Cal/OSHA regulations, CFR Title 40 and 29, U.S. EPA regulations regarding LBP, and Sections 402/404 and 403, and Title IV of the TSCA.
Operations
Operation of the Project would involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials, such as industrial and household cleansers, greases, and oils for cleaning and maintenance purposes as well as the storage and periodic application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, and use of toxic fuels and solvents. The use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be governed by existing regulations of several agencies, including the U.S. EPA, U.S. Department of Transportation, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, and the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. Additionally, the Project would also be operated with strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District. Mandatory compliance with laws and regulations, would ensure that operational impacts would be less than significant.
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 future development areas are comprised of Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 1053-281-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -07, and 1053-211-05 which are characterized by agricultural uses and urban development consisting of a private recreational vehicle facility and a scrap yard. The Phase II future development areas have not been previously subject to a Phase I of the Project. In the absence of a Phase I ESA for the Phase II area, 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 site 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.
Similar to the Phase I area, potential future development under Phase II could result in impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, no specific development is proposed at this time. Any potential future development within the Phase II future development areas would be subject to the City’s standard discretionary review process and existing local, state, and federal regulations as described under Regulatory Setting above, including the City Municipal Code and CEQA compliance. In consideration of the above, and with implementation of MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-6 and compliance with applicable plans, policies, and programs, including the proposed Specific Plan and TOP 2050, potential impacts would be minimized. However, in the absence of a Phase I ESA, current site 1102
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-29 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials conditions relating to hazards and hazardous materials are yet unknown, and impacts could be potentially significant. As mentioned above, a subsequent CEQA analysis may be required should the new information from the Phase I ESA for Phase II show that the Project will have significant impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials. However, because the extent of impacts within the Phase II area cannot be known at this time, Project impacts relating to hazardous materials 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 the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials with mitigation incorporated.
However, because the extent of impacts within the Phase II area cannot be known at this time, Project impacts relating to hazardous materials within the Phase II area are considered potentially significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of recommended mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-1 Construction period testing. Construction at the Project site shall be conducted under a Project-specific Construction Risk Management Plan (CRMP) to protect construction workers, the general public, and the environment from subsurface hazardous materials previously identified and to address the possibility of encountering unknown contamination or hazards in the subsurface. The CRMP shall summarize soil and groundwater analytical data collected on the Project sites during past investigations and during site investigation activities; delineate areas of known soil and groundwater contamination, if applicable; and identify soil and groundwater management options for excavated soil and groundwater, in compliance with local, state, and federal statutes and regulations. The CRMP shall:
Provide procedures for evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil and groundwater during Project excavation and dewatering activities, respectively.
Require the preparation of a Project-specific Health and Safety Plan that identifies hazardous materials present, describes required health and safety provisions and training for all workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials in accordance with State and Federal worker safety regulations, and designates the personnel responsible for Health and Safety Plan implementation.
Require the preparation of a contingency plan that shall be applied should previously unknown hazardous materials be encountered during construction activities. The contingency plan shall include provisions that require collection of soil and/or groundwater samples in the newly discovered affected area by a qualified environmental professional prior to further work, as appropriate. The analytical results of the sampling shall be reviewed by the qualified environmental professional and submitted to the appropriate regulatory agency.
The environmental professional shall provide recommendations, as applicable, regarding soil/waste management, worker health and safety training, and 1103
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-30 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials regulatory agency notifications, in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. Work shall not resume in the area(s) affected until these recommendations have been implemented under the oversight of the County or regulatory agency, as appropriate.
Designate personnel responsible for implementation of the CRMP. The CRMP shall be submitted to the County for review and approval prior to the issuance of construction and demolition permits.
MM HAZ-2 Soil Management Plan. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant to prepare a Soil Management Plan that details procedures and protocols for on-site management of soils containing potentially hazardous materials. The SMP would be implemented during grading activities on-site to ensure that soils containing residual levels of hydrocarbons or arsenic are properly identified, monitored, and managed on-site, and include the following:
A certified hazardous waste hauler shall remove all potentially hazardous soils. In addition, sampling of soil shall be conducted during excavation to ensure that all petroleum hydrocarbon and arsenic impacted soils are removed, and that Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for non-residential uses are not exceeded.
Excavated materials shall be transported per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to a landfill permitted by the State to accept hazardous materials. Any subsurface materials exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall require immediate cessation of excavation activities. Soils suspected of contamination shall be tested for potential contamination. If contamination is found to be present per the Department of Toxic Substances Control Screening Levels for industrial/commercial land use (DTSCSLi) and the U.S. EPA Regional Screening Levels for industrial/commercial land use (EPARSLi), it shall be transported and disposed of per state regulations to an appropriately permitted landfill.
The SMP shall include a Health and Safety Plan (HSP) that addresses potential safety and health hazards and includes the requirements and procedures for employee protection; each contractor will be required to have their own HSP tailored to their particular trade that addresses the general project safety requirements. The HSP shall also outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction.
The SMP shall be prepared and executed in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1166, Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Decontamination of Soil. The SMP shall require the timely testing and sampling of soils so that contaminated soils can be separated from inert soils for proper disposal. The SMP shall specify the testing parameters and sampling frequency. Anticipated testing includes total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), 1104
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-31 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). During excavation, Rule 1166 requires that soils identified as contaminated shall be sprayed with water or another approved vapor suppressant or covered with sheeting during periods of inactivity of greater than an hour, to prevent contaminated soils from becoming airborne. Under Rule 1166, contaminated soils shall be transported from the project site by a licensed transporter and disposed of at a licensed storage/treatment facility to prevent contaminated soils from becoming airborne or otherwise released into the environment.
All SMP measures shall be printed on the construction documents, contracts, and project plans prior to issuance of grading permits.
The SMP would also include procedures for the safe handling and transportation of soils on the Project Site that may impact sensitive receptors such as schools.
MM HAZ-3 Prior to the commencement of any construction-related site activities (clearing, demolition, grading etc.), all above-ground storage tanks (ASTs) and underground storage tanks (USTs) shall be removed. ASTs storing diesel shall be disposed of by a State of California licensed contractor and in compliance with the required San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD) Hazardous Materials Division regulations for tank removals. For stained soils in the vicinity of diesel containing ASTs, as identified in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) dated July 29, 2021 soil samples shall be collected, as directed by the SBCFD inspector, for chemical analysis at a laboratory licensed by the State of California. If contaminated soils are encountered, a soil management plan shall be prepared to manage the stained soils during redevelopment. USTs shall be removed through reviewing available files at the SBCFD and ensuring the proper removal of the UST and a subsurface investigation to determine if the UST had impacted the subsurface.
MM HAZ-4 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project applicant shall conduct testing for the presence of methane on the Project site, in accordance with DTSC methane assessment guidelines. The Project applicant shall prepare a methane gas soil survey and implement grading activity recommendations to the satisfaction of the City Building Department. This survey and recommendation shall include a postconstruction soil gas investigation and installation of methane gas mitigation systems where post-grading methane levels exceed 5,000 ppmv, should any such levels occur.
MM HAZ-5 Following drainage of the on-site ponds, the Project applicant shall conduct a limited Phase II subsurface assessment of sediments to evaluate the sediments for chemical risks to human health and the environment. If contamination from dairy and animalrelated wastes is encountered at a level above Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for non-residential uses, the appropriate environmental agency (Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substance Control, South Coast Air Quality Management District) shall be notified. Any contamination identified as a result of such testing/sampling shall be investigated and removed or remediated to the satisfaction of the environmental agency and established Regional Screening 1105
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-32 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials Levels with evidence provided to the City, such that there are no residual significant impacts following mitigation. Prior to allowing the commencement of any soil removal or hauling activities at the Proposed Project, the City will review and/or evaluate potential air quality impacts (criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants from equipment exhaust, earthmoving, and other on-site remedial activities, as applicable) to verify that impacts are properly assessed and disclosed in accordance with CEQA.
MM HAZ-6 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any buildings or structures on-site, the Project applicant shall conduct comprehensive ACM and mercury contamination surveys to identify the locations and quantities of ACM and mercury in above-ground structures. The Project applicant shall retain a licensed or certified asbestos consultant to inspect buildings and structures on-site. The consultant’s report shall include requirements for abatement, containment, and disposal of ACM, if encountered, in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1403.
Prior to issuance of a demolition permit of the onsite structure, preparation of a demolition plan for the safe dismantling and removal of building components and debris including a plan for lead and asbestos abatement shall be required. The demolition plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to commencement of construction activities.
Impact 4.9-2 Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Phase I Project) and Significant and Unavoidable (Phase II Only) Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction
The construction of new developments such as the Project site could result in hazards to the public or the environment through the accidental upset or release of hazardous materials caused by accidental spillage of hazardous materials used during construction phases, or as a result of the exposure of contaminated soil during grading activities. Database searches did not reveal any active USTs. The Project site itself is not on a Cortese list. The closest UST that is listed is a site 1.2 miles away, located at the Chino Road Yard at 7000 Merrill Avenue, Chino, CA 91710, which is currently under military evaluation and the status remains inactive. Additionally, the Project site has been cited or issued violation notices by applicable environmental regulatory agencies for improper use or disposal of hazardous materials; as stated above in Section 4.9.2: Environmental Setting. However, the majority of the violations incurred within the Project site have been brought up to compliance as of 2018. For those that are potentially out of compliance, implementation of MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-6 would reduce the potential for accidental upset conditions incurred by any present hazards.
1106
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-33 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials Compliance with applicable laws and regulations concerning 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 regulations, such as RCRA, for the clean-up 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 under SCAQMD Rule 1166. Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by San Bernardino County Fire Protection District would be required through the duration of the Project construction phase. Project construction workers would also be required to conduct safe handling of hazardous materials as proposed in MM HAZ-1. Implementation of MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-6 will further reduce the potential for accidental upset conditions by conducting additional site investigations to quantify, manage and mitigate hazardous materials conditions on the site. As a result, with the implementation of mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.
Operations
Operation of the Project site would involve typical hazardous materials and chemicals such as solvents and cleaning products associated with operation of business park, commercial, and residential development. Hazardous chemicals such as pesticides and herbicides would be associated with landscaping activities. As discussed in Impact 4.9-1 above, any routine transport, use, and disposal of these materials during business park operations must adhere to Federal, State, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Prior to Project approval, a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (MBP) may also be required for approval to show conformance with all applicable materials handling protocols. Adherence to these regulations is overseen and enforced by the SBCFD.
Furthermore, routine cleaners and solvents contain such low quantities of liquid and material that they do not pose a significant threat related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Additionally, the Project would require various outdoor landscape maintenance activities. These demands would include the storage of, and periodic application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. If equipment needed for landscaping are used and housed on-site, the Project may require the storage and of fuels and solvents on-site. Use of this type of equipment and listed materials are common to such facilities and compliance with existing regulations regarding their use would be sufficient to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant. Compliance with the applicable regulatory framework would ensure Project operations would not create a significant hazard due to the use of routine hazardous materials such as cleaners, solvents, and pesticides related to landscaping. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
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. These potential impacts are anticipated to be similar to that described above for the Project site. The Phase II future development areas would be 1107
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-34 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials subject to MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-6, as well as other applicable local, state, and federal regulations as described in the Regulatory Setting section, including the City’s standard discretionary review process, the City’s municipal code, and CEQA compliance. However, in the absence of a Phase I ESA, current site conditions relating to hazards and hazardous materials are yet unknown, and impacts could be potentially significant. As mentioned above, a subsequent CEQA analysis may be required should the new information from the Phase I ESA for Phase II show that the Project will have significant impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials. However, because the extent of impacts within the Phase II area cannot be known at this time, Project impacts relating to hazardous materials 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 create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions with incorporation of MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-6 and compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Reference MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-6 above.
Impact 4.9-3 Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impacts with Mitigation Incorporated (Phase I Project) and Significant and Unavoidable (Phase II Only) Specific Plan – Phase I
There are existing schools within one-quarter mile of the Project site. Blue Ribbon Academy located at 7041 Schaefer Avenue is located approximately 158 feet west of the Project site, Options for Youth Charter School located at 7011 Schaefer Avenue approximately 422 feet west of the Project site, and Fern Academy Educational Childcare located at 6921 Schaefer Avenue approximately 950 feet west of the Project site. All nearby educational facilities are within the City of Chino. Euclid Avenue and the Euclid Avenue right-of-way lie between the Project site and these educational facilities.
Construction
The transport of hazardous substances or materials to-and-from the Project site during construction and long-term operational activities would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations intended to reduce public safety hazards. Implementation of MM HAZ-2 would implement a Soil Management Plan that details procedures and protocols for on-site management of soils containing potentially hazardous materials. The SMP would be implemented during grading activities on-site to ensure that soils containing residual levels of hydrocarbons or arsenic are properly identified, monitored, and managed on-site, and would also include procedures for the safe handling and transportation of soils 1108
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-35 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials on the Project Site that may impact sensitive receptors such as schools. As a result, with the implementation of mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.
Operations
Operation of the Project would involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials, such as industrial and household cleansers, greases, pesticides related to landscaping, and oils for cleaning and maintenance purposes. As discussed in Impact 4.9-2 above, 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. Due to the nature of the proposed land uses, the Project would not emit hazardous emissions or include the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, and/or wastes within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Refer to Section 4.3: Air Quality for analysis pertaining to human health risks associated with the Project’s air pollutant emissions. As concluded in Section 4.3, the Project’s toxic air contaminant emissions (and their associated health risks) would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated to all sensitive receptors, including school children near the Project site and the primary truck travel routes to/from the Project site.
Specific Plan – Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
Refer to Phase I discussion above regarding potential impacts. The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. No existing or proposed schools are located within one-quarter mile of the Phase II future development areas. The nearest existing school is Options for Youth, a charter school located at 7011 Schaefer Avenue, Chino approximately 0.28-miles northwest of the Phase II future development areas. The Phase II future development areas would be subject to applicable local, state, and federal regulations as described in the Regulatory Setting section, including the City’s standard discretionary review process, the City’s municipal code, and CEQA compliance. In consideration of the above, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
However, in the absence of a Phase I ESA, current site conditions relating to hazards and hazardous materials are yet unknown, and impacts could be potentially significant. As mentioned above, a subsequent CEQA analysis may be required should the new information from the Phase I ESA for Phase II show that the Project will have significant impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials. However, because the extent of impacts within the Phase II area cannot be known at this time, Project impacts relating to hazardous materials 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 emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. 1109
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-36 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation and compliance with applicable plans, policies, and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.13 Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM HAZ-2.
Impact 4.9-4 Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The Project site was not identified on the WDS database as an agricultural facility with designated/influent or solid wastes that pose a significant threat to water quality (dairy waste ponds). As noted in Impact 4.91, the Project Applicant shall perform a Phase II subsurface assessment, pursuant to MM HAZ-5 of the sediments after the ponds have been drained. If the Phase II subsurface assessment detects chemical risks to human health and the environment due to sediments in the ponds, the Project Applicant is required to prepare a soils management plan, and any engineering or administrative controls or long‐term operations and maintenance plan that is required by DTSC. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction and Operations
The Project site contains areas with artificial, intermittent retention ponds. These dairy effluent ponds are devoid of wetland, riparian scrub, forest, and/or woodland habitats and are not connected or diverted to a natural stream; as discussed in Section 4.4: Biological Resources. However, as an agricultural facility with designated/influent or solid wastes, this can pose a significant threat to water quality (dairy waste ponds). Therefore, with implementation of MM HAZ-5, the Project site shall have a Phase II subsurface assessment performed of the sediments after the ponds have been drained. If the Phase II subsurface assessment detects chemical risks to human health and the environment due to sediments in the ponds, the Project applicant is required to prepare a soils management plan, and any engineering or administrative controls or long‐term operations and maintenance plan that is required by DTSC. The Project site was not identified on the Waste Discharge System database as a site that would pose a significant threat to water quality.14 Furthermore, this site is not listed to have any Cortese List items. The nearest active facility to the Project site listed under the DTSC Cortese List is located approximately
1.9 miles north.15 Lastly, according to the SWRCB Geotracker for leaking underground storage tanks, the Project site is approximately one mile north from an open Clean-up Program Site dedicated to 13 Ibid. 14 State Water Resources Control Board. 2023. Geotracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?myaddress=California&from=header&cqid=5045819938. 15 Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor. 2016. Sunshine Cleaners – Driftwood Village (60002433). https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report?global_id=60002433. 1110
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-37 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials remediation.16 Therefore, with incorporation of MM HAZ-5, the Project site would not create a significant impact to the public environment.
Specific Plan – Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
The Project site was not identified on the Waste Discharge System database as a site that would pose a significant threat to water quality.17 Furthermore, this site is not listed to have any Cortese List items. The nearest active facility to the Project site listed under the DTSC Cortese List is located approximately
1.9 miles north.18 Lastly, according to the SWRCB Geotracker for leaking underground storage tanks, the Project site is approximately one mile north from an open Clean-up Program Site dedicated to remediation.19 Therefore, with incorporation of MM HAZ-5, the Project site would not create a significant impact to the public environment.
Refer to discussion for Phase I. The same policies, ordinances, and codes described above would apply to Phase II. As noted above, the Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. Impacts would be less than significant. 20 Conclusion
As noted above, the Project is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to being located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation and compliance with applicable plans, policies, and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.21
Mitigation Measures
Reference MM HAZ-5 above.
Impact 4.9-5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
16 State Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker. (2021). Retrieved from:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?myaddress=California&from=header&cqid=5045819938 17 State Water Resources Control Board. 2023. Geotracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?myaddress=California&from=header&cqid=5045819938. 18 Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor. 2016. Sunshine Cleaners – Driftwood Village (60002433). https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report?global_id=60002433. 19 State Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker. (2021). Retrieved from:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?myaddress=California&from=header&cqid=5045819938 20 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed April 2023). 21 Ibid.
1111
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-38 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials As stated previously, the Project site is within the ONT and Chino Airport’s airport influence area.
However, the Project site is not within the Chino Airport’s safety zone, noise impact zone, or airspace protection zone. Additionally, the Project site is not within the ONT safety zone, noise impact zone, or airspace protection zone. Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area and impacts would be less than significant.
Specific Plan – Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
As discussed previously and shown in Figures 4.9-1 and 4.9-2 the Project site is within the ONT and Chino Airport’s airport influence area. In addition, the Project area is within Zone E of the Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones. Zone E is categorized as other airport environs and prohibits only hazards to flight. Zone E places no requirements on open land, no limit on residential densities, and discourages major spectator-oriented facilities such as sports stadiums, amphitheaters, and concert halls beneath principal flight tracks. In addition, airspace review is required for objects that exceed 100 feet tall. Zone E requirements align with the Project Specific Plan. Furthermore, the maximum building height for the Project is 45 feet in the Business Park district and 55 feet in the Mixed-Use district and the Project does not require ALUCP review. In the San Bernardino County Chino Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the Project site is not within a Safety Zone of the Chino Airport Overlay (Generic Safety Zones for General Aviation Airports from the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics – California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook). Therefore, Project implementation is not required to comply with the criteria of the Chino Airport final composite safety zones.
As noted 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 Project site is not within a ONT safety zone, noise impact zone, or airspace protection zone. Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area and impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project is not anticipated to result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation and compliance with applicable plans, policies, and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.22
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
22 Ibid.
1112
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-39 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 4.9-6 Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction and Operations
The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities, nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. During construction and long-term operation of the Project, adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles would be maintained along public streets that abut the Project site. Access roads to the site would be constructed throughout the Project site for construction staff/inspectors, construction equipment and materials delivery/removal, and emergency response vehicles. The access roads would be kept or maintained in such condition to allow for the safe passage for emergency response vehicles as discussed in Section 4.15: Transportation and Traffic. The City, as part of its discretionary review process, reviewed the Project’s application materials to ensure that appropriate emergency ingress and egress would be available to-and-from the Project site and that circulation on the Project site was adequate for emergency vehicles.
The City has adopted an Emergency Operations Plan to identify evacuation routes, emergency facilities, and City personnel and equipment available to effectively deal with emergency situations. No revisions to the adopted Emergency Operations Plan would be required as a result of the Project.
The nearest fire station is the Chino Valley Fire Department Station 63, located approximately 2 miles south of the site at 7550 Kimball Ave, Chino, CA 91708. Response times at this station would not be impaired by Project implementation because primary access to all major roads would be maintained during construction and operation of the Project.
Because both Project construction and operations would not disrupt or interfere with emergency access to nearby roadways, would not interfere with the City’s emergency response plan, and would comply with design standards for emergency services, 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. During Phase II construction and long-term operation, adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles would be maintained along public streets that abut the future development areas. Access roads to the site would be constructed throughout the Project site for construction staff/inspectors, construction equipment and materials delivery/removal, and emergency response vehicles. The access roads would be kept or maintained in such condition to allow for the safe passage for emergency response vehicles; as discussed in Section 4.15: Transportation and Traffic. While the structures and associate operations would alter the existing circulation of the site, impacts regarding emergency response plans would be less than significant, as the Project site does not contain any emergency facilities, nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. No mitigation is 1113
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-40 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.23
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project is not anticipated to significantly impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation and compliance with applicable plans, policies, and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.24
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.9-7 Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Specific Plan – Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The Project site is not located within a State Responsibility Area or a very high fire hazard severity zone; see Section 7.4: Wildfire for additional information. Neither the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) nor the County of San Bernardino identify the Project site within an area susceptible to wildland fires. The Project site generally consists of agricultural, industrial and/or residential uses, which are generally not associated with wildland fire hazards. Additionally, Project development would remove the existing agriculture and vegetation on site, reducing the risk of any potential fire outbreak. Thus, wildfire is not anticipated to occur on-site that would expose Project occupants, employees, or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. The Project would comply with all applicable local and state regulations related to fire safety, as evaluated through the City’s standard development review process. Impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project is not anticipated to expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation and compliance with applicable plans, policies, and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.25
23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid.
1114
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-41 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
4.9.7 Cumulative Impacts
Hazards and hazardous waste impacts are typically unique to each site and do not usually contribute to cumulative impacts. Cumulative development projects would be required to assess potential hazardous materials impacts on the development site prior to grading. The Project and other cumulative projects would be required to comply with laws and regulations governing hazardous materials and hazardous wastes used and generated as described previously. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant after regulatory compliance.
The areas considered for cumulative airport-related hazards impacts are the airport influence areas of ONT and Chino Airport. Some related projects may be proposed within the safety compatibility zones of the ONT and Chino airport influence areas, and thus could expose the nearby population to potential hazards such as aircraft crashes. Airport land use planning agencies for ONT and Chino Airport regulate development within their safety compatibility zones. Related projects proposed within safety compatibility zones would be required to comply with each safety zone’s respective land use regulations set forth by the affected agencies. 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 2050.26 After regulatory compliance, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
4.9.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials 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, and associated ESA report 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 Section 15162(a) and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
The determination will be made by City staff at the time of future Phase II area site-specific development applications.
4.9.9 References
Cadre Environmental. 2022. Biological Resources Technical Report. (Appendix C) Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. 2011. California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook Chapter 4, Developing Airport Land Use Compatibility Policies. Section 4.4.5, pg. 4-32. Retrieved from:
26 Ibid.
1115
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.9-42 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/aeronautics/documents/californiaairportlanduseplanninghandbook-a11y.pdf.
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%20 Development%20Code%20Enactment%20and%20General%20Provisions.pdf City of Ontario. ND. Ontario Municipal Code, Title 7.
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ontarioca/latest/ontario_ca/0-0-0-45840 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Safety Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontarioplan-policy-plan/safety.
City of Ontario. (2022). TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR, Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf.
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)
Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2016. EnviroStor. Sunshine Cleaners – Driftwood Village (60002433). https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report?global_id=60002433.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2021. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06071C8620H and 06071C9335H. https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa 9cd&extent=-117.81426821289033,33.99346556420189,-
117.48193178710954,34.1356709592875.
Ontario Fire Department. 2021. Hazardous Material Information Packet. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Fire/hazardous_material_information_packet.pdf.
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.
State Water Resources Control Board. (2021). Geotracker. Retrieved from:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?myaddress=California&from=header&cqid=50458 19938.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife. ND. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper. https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory/wetlands-mapper. 1116
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-1 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.10.1 Introduction
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing regulatory and environmental conditions related to hydrology and water quality 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 hydrological conditions and water quality that would occur upon implementation of the Project, and as necessary, recommends mitigation measures to avoid and/or reduce the significance of impacts. Hydrology deals with the distribution and circulation of water, both on land and underground. Water quality deals with the quality of surface water and groundwater. Surface water includes lakes, rivers, streams, and creeks; groundwater is under the earth’s surface. Impacts are discussed in terms of the changes that would result from Project implementation and includes analysis of potential violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality; adverse effects on groundwater supplies or substantial interference with groundwater recharge; substantial alterations to existing drainage patterns that result in adverse effects (i.e., substantial erosion or siltation, runoff, or redirected stormflows); increased risk of pollutants due to project inundation; or adverse conflicts with or obstructions to the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
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 29, 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. (Appendix F1)
• JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2023. Hydrology and Hydraulic Report. (Appendix G1)
• JLC Engineering and Consulting Inc. March 16, 2023. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). (Appendix G2)
• JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. May 10, 2023. Hydraulic Report in Support of Euclid Avenue Storm Drain (EULD-XIV-1). (Appendix G3)
• JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. May 10, 2023. Hydraulic Report in Support of Euclid Avenue Storm Drain (EULD-XIV-4). (Appendix G4)
• Ontario Municipal Utilities Company. May 2023. Water Supply Assessment and Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply for the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan (File No. PSP22-001). (Appendix J)
1117
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-2 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
4.10.2 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
Regional Drainage
The City is within the Chino Creek Watershed, which is part of the larger Santa Ana River Watershed. The Chino Creek Watershed encompasses parts of San Bernardino County (County), Riverside County, and Los Angeles County and includes the cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Upland, Montclair, Ontario, Fontana, Chino, and Chino Hills. It drains a basin of approximately 218 square miles from the San Gabriel Mountains to the Santa Ana River near Corona. The watershed is intensely developed for residential, industrial, and agricultural use. As a result, the creek and its tributaries are highly polluted and receive effluent from multiple wastewater treatment plants, storm drains, and agricultural runoff.
Local Drainage
The City is divided into two distinct areas: Old Model Colony (OMC) and New Model Colony, now known as Ontario Ranch (OR). The two areas are generally divided by Riverside Drive. The City presently owns and maintains over 136 miles of storm drains, mostly serving the OMC area of the City. In addition to the City-owned storm drains there are the State-owned storm drains along California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Interstate 10 (I-10) and State Route 60 (SR 60) corridors. All the City and State storm drain facilities discharge to regional backbone facilities owned and operated by San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) that are tributary to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Prado Flood Control Basin.
The City lies in the western portion of the Santa Ana River’s watershed, upstream of the Prado Flood Control Basin. It is in a 277-square-mile area referred to as Zone 1 by SBCFCD. Zone 1 generally slopes towards the south. Four major regional channel systems traverse Zone 1 in a north-south direction; they include San Antonio Channel, Cucamonga Channel, Day Creek Channel, and San Sevaine Channel.
Site Hydrology
The Project site is located in the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin, Chino Subbasin (No. 8-2.01) as determined by the California Department of Water Resources.1 The subbasin is bounded by the impermeable rocks of the San Gabriel Mountains and the Cucamonga fault to the north; the Rialto- Colton fault to the east; the contact with impermeable rocks forming the Jurupa Mountains and low divides connecting the exposures to the southeast; the contact with impermeable rocks of the Puente Hills and the Chino fault to the south; and the San Jose fault to the west. San Antonio Creek and Cucamonga Creek drain the surface of the subbasin southward to join the Santa Ana River.
The water-bearing units include the alluvial-fan deposits from the Holocene age and the interfingering finer, alluvial-fan deposits and coarser, fluvial deposits from the Pleistocene age. Groundwater recharge occurs by direct infiltration or precipitation on the subbasin floor, by infiltration of surface flow, and by underflow of groundwater from adjacent basins. The five recharge facilities include Deer Creek, Day Creek, 1 California Department of Water Resources. 2006. Chino Subbasin. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/WebPages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-Basin-Descriptions/8_002_01_ChinoSubbasin.pdf. (accessed April 2023).
1118
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-3 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
East Etiwanda Creek, San Sevaine Channel, and Victoria Basin. Regional groundwater flow direction was estimated toward the south.
2 The Project site currently consists of numerous single-family residential structures, an operational dairy farm and irrigated cropland. There are large existing retention ponds that collect surface waste from the dairy farming practices. Current drainage for the southeast portion of the site surface is southerly to a dirt swale adjacent to Merrill Avenue, then westerly to a set of four corrugated steel pipes, then southerly to an earthen channel (Airport Channel) adjacent to Euclid Avenue in the City of Chino. The 25-year and 100-year existing condition peak flow rates from this area are approximately 49.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 85.1 cfs, respectively.
Surface Water Quality
Section 303(d) of the 1972 federal CWA requires states to identify water bodies that do not meet water quality objectives and are not supporting their beneficial uses. Each state must submit an updated list, called the 303(d) list, to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) every two years. In addition to identifying the water bodies that are not supporting beneficial uses, the list also identifies the pollutant or stressor causing impairment and establishes a priority for developing a control plan to address the impairment. The list also identifies water bodies where 1) a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) has been approved by the U.S. EPA and an implementation plan is available, but water quality standards are not yet met, and 2) water bodies where the water quality problem is being addressed by an action other than a TMDL and water quality standards are not yet met.
Currently, stormwater from the Project site discharges to the Airport Channel, which eventually discharges into Prado Park Lake (Prado Basin). This basin is currently listed on the California 303(d) list as a Category 5 water body which is defined as “a water segment where standards are not met and a TMDL is required, but not yet completed, for at least one of the pollutants listed.”3 The water quality impairments listed for the Prado Basin are nutrients and indicator bacteria (pathogens). The available information from the Regional Board 8 indicates a TMDL completion date of 2019 for nutrients. The TMDL for pathogens was approved in 2007.4
Groundwater
The City obtains its groundwater from the Chino Groundwater Basin (Chino Basin).5 The Chino Basin is one of the largest groundwater basins in southern California and consists of approximately 220 square miles, where 80 percent of the basin lies within San Bernardino County, 15 percent within Riverside County, and five percent within Los Angeles County.6
Due to its sprawling geographical area that extends
across multiple jurisdictions, and because groundwater from the Chino Basin is the principal water supply 2 Converse Consultants. 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Page 16. 3 State Water Resources Control Board. 2017. Category 5, 2014 and 2016 303(d) List. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/category5_report.shtml. (accessed April 2023). 4 State Water Resources Control Board. 2019. Final California 2014 and 2016 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305 (b) Report). https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/00483.shtml#34603. (accessed April 2023). 5 City of Ontario 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed April 2023). 6 Chino Basin Water Conservation District. 2021. The Chino Groundwater Basin. https://cbwcd.org/387/The-Chino-Groundwater-Basin. (accessed April 2023).
1119
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-4 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
for 20 municipal agencies and approximately 400 agricultural and dairy operations, the Chino Basin serves as an integral part of the regional and Statewide water supply system.7 The Chino Basin has approximately
five million acre-feet of water in storage and an estimated one million acre-feet of additional unused storage capacity. Prior to 1978, the Chino Basin was in overdraft. After 1978, the Chino Basin was managed via adjudication by the Chino Basin Watermaster.8
Groundwater quality in Chino Basin is generally good with better quality in the northern portion of the basin where recharge occurs. Generally, salinity, measured as total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeds 500 milligrams per liter (mg/l) and nitrate concentrations exceed 50 mg/l south of Riverside Drive.9 There also are several groundwater contamination plumes that affect the City of Ontario’s groundwater supply.
The Project site is not within any of the groundwater contamination plumes.10 The Project site is currently agricultural land use, including dairy operations and field crops. The Project site is not connected to the City’s water supply and uses an on-site groundwater well for irrigation of crops and other agricultural-related uses.11 The use of this water supply would cease upon implementation of the Project, and the Project would be connected to the City’s municipal water supply.
Flood and Dam Inundation Zones
The Project site is within Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) Flood Zone D, as per the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Map No. 06071C8620H and 06071C9335H, effective August 28, 2008. 12 Zone D is an area where there are possible but undetermined flood hazards, as no analysis of flood hazards has been conducted. There are no nearby water bodies or streams that would result in flooding at the Project site.
The site is also located within the dam inundation area for San Antonio Dam, which is a flood control and debris dam on San Antonio Creek. The dam is owned and operated by the USACE.13 Seiche
A seiche is an oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin such as a reservoir, harbor, lake, or storage tank. The Project site is not located near any water storage tanks or reservoirs that would be at risk of seiche during seismic activity. The nearest body of water is the San Antonio Dam, approximately 12 miles to the north. A seiche at San Antonio Dam would cover a much smaller area than 7 Bureau of Reclamation. Chino Basin Water Bank Strategic Plan. 2018. https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/watermarketing/docs/applications/2018/Inland%20Empire%20Utilities%20Agency.pdf. (accessed April 2023). 8 Chino Basin Watermaster. 2021. http://www.cbwm.org/. (accessed April 2023). 9 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed April 2023). 10 Chino Basin Watermaster. 2016. Delineation of Groundwater Contamination Plumes and Point Sources of Concern. https://www.cbwm.org/docs/engdocs/maps/Exhibit%205-12%20Contamination%20Plumes.pdf. (accessed April 2023). 11 Converse Consultants. 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. (accessed April 2023). 12 Federal Emergency Management Act. 2020. National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer. https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd&extent=- 117.81426821289033,33.99346556420189,-117.48193178710954,34.1356709592875. (accessed April 2023). 13 City of Ontario. 2018. Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 4-24: Dam Inundation Areas in Ontario. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Emergency-Management/ReadyOntario/city_of_ontario_2018_hmp.pdf. (accessed April 2023).
1120
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-5 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
a catastrophic failure of the dam and it is highly unlikely that any flood waters would reach the Project site.
Tsunami
A tsunami is a great sea wave produced by undersea disturbances such as tectonic displacement or large earthquakes. The Project site is approximately 30 miles from the ocean and is therefore not at risk of flooding from a tsunami.
4.10.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Clean Water Act and National Pollution Elimination Discharge System The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes regulations to control the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulates water quality standards for surface waters (U.S. Code, Title 33 Section 1251 et seq.). Under the act, the U.S. EPA is authorized to set wastewater standards and runs the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Under the NPDES program, permits are required for all new developments that discharge directly into waters of the United States.
The federal CWA requires wastewater treatment of all effluent before it is discharged into surface waters.
NPDES permits for such discharges in the Project region are issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the principal federal law intended to ensure safe drinking water to the public, was enacted in 1974 and has been amended several times since it came into law. The Act authorizes the U.S. EPA to set national standards for drinking water, called the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, to protect against both naturally occurring and man-made contaminants. These standards set enforceable maximum contaminant levels in drinking water and require all water providers in the United States to treat water to remove contaminants, except for private wells serving fewer than 25 people. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) conducts most enforcement activities. If a water system does not meet standards, it is the water supplier’s responsibility to notify its customers.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to provide subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations limiting development in floodplains. FEMA also issues FIRMs that identify which land areas are subject to flooding. These maps provide flood information and identify flood hazard zones in the community. The design standard for flood protection is established by FEMA. FEMA’s minimum level of flood protection for new development is the 100-year flood event, also described as a flood that has a 1-in-100 chance of occurring in any given year. The Project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain.
1121
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-6 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Water Code Section 13000 et seq.), which was passed in California in 1969 and amended in 2013, the SWRCB has authority over State water rights and water quality policy. This Act divided the state into nine regional basins, each under the jurisdiction of a RWQCB to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis at the local and regional level. RWQCBs engage in a number of water quality functions in their respective regions. RWQCBs regulate all pollutant or nuisance discharges that may affect either surface water or groundwater. The Project site and the City of Ontario are within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB.
State Water Resources Control Board Construction General Permit The SWRCB has adopted a Statewide Construction General Permit (CGP) (Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ) for stormwater discharges associated with construction activity. These regulations prohibit the discharge of stormwater from construction projects that include one acre or more of soil disturbance. Construction activities subject to this permit include clearing, grading, and other disturbance to the ground, such as stockpiling or excavation, which results in soil disturbance of at least one acre of total land area. Individual developers are required to submit Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) to the SWRCB for coverage under the NPDES permit prior to the start of construction. The PRDs include a Notice of Intent (NOI), risk assessment, site map, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee, and a signed certification statement. The PRDs are submitted electronically to the SWRCB via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) website.
The NPDES CGP requires all dischargers to (1) develop and implement a SWPPP, which specifies best management practices (BMPs) to be used during construction of the project; (2) eliminate or reduce nonstormwater discharge to stormwater conveyance systems; and (3) develop and implement a monitoring program of all specified BMPs. The two major objectives of the SWPPP are to (1) help identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that affect the water quality of stormwater discharges and (2) to describe and ensure the implementation of BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater as well as non-stormwater discharges.
State Water Resources Control Board Trash Amendments
On April 7, 2015, the SWRCB adopted an Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan) to Control Trash and Part 1 Trash Provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (ISWEBE Plan). Together, they are collectively referred to as "the Trash Amendments." The purpose of the trash amendments is to reduce trash entering waterways Statewide, provide consistency in the SWRCB’s regulatory approach to protect aquatic life and public health beneficial uses, and reduce environmental issues associated with trash in State waters. There are two compliance tracks:
• Track 1: Permittees install, operate, and maintain a network of certified Full Capture Systems (FCS) to capture trash in storm drains, located in priority land use areas for municipal systems, and the entire facility for industrial and commercial permit holders 1122
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-7 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
• Track 2: Permittees install, operate, and maintain any combination of controls (structural and/or institutional) anywhere in their jurisdiction as long as they demonstrate that their system performs as well as Track 1
The Trash Amendments provide a framework for permittees to implement its provisions. Full compliance must occur within 10 years of the permit and permittees must also meet interim milestones such as average load reductions of 10 percent per year.
Senate Bill 92
On June 27, 2017, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 92 into law, which set forth new requirements focused on dam safety. As part of this legislation, dam owners must now submit inundation maps to the Department of Water Resources (DWR). After the maps are approved, the dam owner must submit an emergency action plan to the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). The dam owner must submit updated plans and inundation maps every 10 years, or sooner under certain conditions. Cal OES will review and approve the emergency action plans. This legislation set forth additional provisions for the emergency action plans including compliance requirements, exercises of the plan, and coordination with local public safety agencies (Cal OES 2019).
California Water Code Section 13751
In 1949, the California Legislature concluded that collecting information on newly constructed, modified or destroyed wells would be valuable in the event of underground pollution, and would also provide geologic information to better manage California’s groundwater resources. Section 13751 of the Water Code requires Well Completion Reports (WCR) forms to be filed with DWR within 60 days from the date that construction, alteration, abandonment, or destruction of a well is completed. Completed WCR forms are sent to the DWR Region Office whose boundaries include the area where the well is located.
Regional
Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) The Basin Plan establishes water quality standards for the ground and surface waters of the region and includes an implementation plan describing the actions by the Santa Ana RWQCB and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain the water quality standards. The Santa Ana RWQCB regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region’s ground and surface water.
Permits are issued under various programs and authorities. The terms and conditions of these discharge permits are enforced through a variety of technical, administrative, and legal means. Water quality problems in the region are listed in the Basin Plan, along with the causes of the water quality problems, if known. For waterbodies with quality below the levels necessary to allow all the beneficial uses of the water to be met, plans for improving water quality are included. The latest update for the 1995 Basin Plan was issued in February 2016.
San Bernardino County Regional Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) Permit Within the San Bernardino County area of the Santa Ana River Basin, management and control of the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) is shared by a number of agencies, including the SBCFCD, 1123
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-8 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
San Bernardino County, and the cities of Big Bear Lake, Chino, Chino Hills, Colton, Fontana, Grand Terrace, Highland, Lom a Linda, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Rialto, San Bernardino, Upland, and Yucaipa.
On January 29, 2010, the Santa Ana RWQCB issued an area wide MS4 permit to the County and municipalities in San Bernardino County. Waste discharge requirements for stormwater entering municipal storm drainage systems are set forth in the MS4 permit, Order No. R8-2010-0036, NPDES No.
CAS618036. This permit expired on January 29, 2015. On August 1, 2014, the SBCFCD submitted a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) on behalf of San Bernardino County and the 16 incorporated cities within San Bernardino County. The submitted ROWD serves as the permit renewal application for the fifth term MS4 permit for San Bernardino County.
San Bernardino County Stormwater Program
The Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) for the Santa Ana Region of San Bernardino County is the guidance document for the Project’s stormwater design in compliance with Santa Ana RWQCB requirements for Priority Projects or Transportation Projects. The MS4 Permit requires that a preliminary project-specific WQMP be prepared for review early in the project development process and that a Final WQMP be submitted prior to the start of construction. A projectspecific WQMP is required to address the following:
• Develop site design measures using Low Impact Development (LID) principles • Establish project-specific design capture volume (DCV) and applicable Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOC) requirements
• Evaluate feasibility of on-site LID BMPs
• Maximum hydrologic source control, infiltration, and biotreatment BMPs • Select applicable source control BMPs
• Address post-construction BMP maintenance requirements Local
City of Ontario Standard Conditions of Approval for New Development • SC 3.66: A hydrology study and drainage analysis, prepared in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual and the City of Ontario's Standards and Guidelines, and signed by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California, shall be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to Grading Plan approval. Additional drainage facilities may be required as a result of the findings of the study.
• SC 3.68: Prior to Grading Plan approval and the issuance of a grading permit, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Engineering Department. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented by the Project during construction in order to reduce the discharge of sediment and other pollutants into the City's storm drain system. 1124
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-9 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
• SC 3.69: Prior to Grading Plan approval and the issuance of a grading permit, a completed WQMP shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Engineering Department. The WQMP shall be submitted using the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program's model template and shall identify all Post Construction, Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control BMPs that will be incorporated into the Project, in order to minimize the adverse effects on receiving waters.
City of Ontario Master Plan of Drainage
The City of Ontario’s Master Plan of Drainage (MPD) is a planning level drainage study that includes the following:
• Update and evaluation of inventory and capacities of the existing City-owned storm drain facilities.
• Preparation of hydrology studies to quantify peak flow rates for runoffs during major storm events, which are based on built-out conditions as per the Land Use Plan adopted by City Council on January 27, 2010, and the Ontario Plan.
• Identification and quantification of upgrades to existing City-owned storm drain systems to provide adequate flood protection and mitigate development impacts, based on the City’s latest policies and goals.
• Evaluation of alternatives to eliminate drainage deficiencies using the existing facilities to the maximum extent.
• Development of a master plan that establishes preliminary alignment and sizes for recommended future backbone drainage facilities that will ensure adequate flood protection. • Development of project costs and prioritization for the implementation of the recommended master plan facilities.
City of Ontario General Plan – The Ontario Plan 2050
The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050) Environmental Resources and Safety Elements contains policies and goals addressing stormwater infrastructure.
The following policy contained in the Environmental Resources Element is relevant to the Project:
Environmental Resources Element14
Goal ER-1 A reliable and cost-effective system that permits the City to manage its diverse water resources and needs.
Policy ER-1.4 Supply-Demand Balance: We require that available water supply and demands be balanced.
Policy ER-1.6 Urban Run-off Quantity: We encourage the use of low impact development strategies to intercept run-off, slow the discharge rate, increase infiltration and ultimately reduce discharge volumes to traditional storm drain systems. 14 City of Ontario. (2022). TOP 2050 Environmental Resources Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policyplan/environmental-resources. (accessed April 2023). 1125
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-10 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality Policy ER-1.7 Urban Run-off Quality: We require the control and management of urban run-off, consistent with Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations.
The following policy contained in the Safety Element is relevant to the Project:
Safety Element15
Goal S-2 Minimized risk of injury, loss of life, property damage and economic and social disruption caused by flooding and inundation hazards.
Policy S-2.1 Entitlement and Permitting Process: We follow State guidelines and building code to determine when development proposals require hydrological studies prepared by a State-certified engineer to assess the impact that the new development will have on the flooding potential of existing development down-gradient.
Policy S-2.5 Stormwater Management: We maintain the storm drain system to convey a 100-year storm, when feasible, and encourage environmental site design practices to minimize flooding and increase groundwater recharge, including natural drainage, green infrastructure, and permeable ground surfaces.
Policy S-2.6 Use of Flood Control Facilities: We encourage joint use of flood control facilities as open space or other types of recreational facilities.
4.10.4 Impact Thresholds and Significant 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:
• Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality;
• Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin; • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run-off in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Create or contribute run-off water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; 15 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Safety Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policy-plan/safetys. (accessed March 2023).
1126
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-11 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality Create or contribute run-off water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or Impede or redirect flood flows.
• In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation; or • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Methodology
A Hydrology and Hydraulics Report (see Appendix G1) and Preliminary WQMP (see Appendix G2) were prepared for the entire 84.1-acre Project site. Hydrology calculations were computed using San Bernardino County Rational Method program (by AES Software). The soil type is "B" per the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual.16 The San Bernardino County Small Area Unit Hydrograph Model (also by AES Software) was used for detention calculations.
4.10.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP HYD-1 The Project will be constructed and operated in accordance with the City’s Standard Condition SC 3.66 that requires a hydrology study and drainage analysis be prepared and signed by a California registered civil engineer in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual and the City of Ontario’s Standards and Guidelines. Additional drainage facilities may be required after review of the studies by the City.
PPP HYD-2 Any construction shall be regulated by the SWRCB in a manner pursuant to and consistent with applicable requirements contained in the General Permit No.
CAS000002, SWRCB Order Number 2009-0009-DWQ. This includes preparation of a SWPPP and an Erosion Sediment and Control Plan, as per the City of Ontario’s requirements.
PPP HYD-3 The Project will be constructed and operated in accordance with the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit (Order No. R8-2010-0036, NPDES No. CAS618036 as renewed by the ROWD submitted on August 1, 2014). The MS4 Permit requires new development and redevelopment projects to prepare a preliminary WQMP and a final WQMP to:
Develop site design measures using LID principles
Establish Project-specific DCV and applicable HCOC requirements Evaluate feasibility of on-site LID BMPs
Maximize hydrologic source control, infiltration, and biotreatment BMPs Select applicable source control BMPs
16 County of San Bernardino. 1986. San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. https://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/DPW/docs/HydrologyManual.pdf. (accessed April 2023).
1127
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-12 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality Address post-construction BMP maintenance requirements PPP HYD-4: On-site wells shall be abandoned in compliance with DWR standards and San Bernardino County well permit requirements.
4.10.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.10-1 Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction
Clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with the Project have the potential to impact water quality through soil erosion and increasing the amount of silt and debris carried in runoff.
Additionally, the use of construction materials, such as fuels, solvents, and paints may present a risk to surface water quality. Finally, the refueling and parking of construction vehicles and other equipment onsite during construction may result in oil, grease, or related pollutant leaks and spills that may discharge into the storm drain system.
To minimize these potential impacts, development of the Project would require compliance with the CGP Water Quality Order 2009-0009-DWQ (as amended by Order No. 2010 0014-DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ), which requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. A SWPPP requires the incorporation of BMPs to control sediment, erosion, and hazardous materials contamination of runoff during construction and prevent contaminants from reaching receiving water bodies. The SWRCB mandates that projects that disturb one or more acres of land must obtain coverage under the Statewide CGP. As required by the CGP, prior to the start of construction activities, the Project Applicant must file PRDs with the SWRCB, which includes a NOI, risk assessment, site map, annual fee, signed certification statement, SWPPP, and postconstruction water balance calculations. The construction contractoris always required to maintain a copy of the SWPPP at the site and implement all construction BMPs identified in the SWPPP during construction activities. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant would be required to provide proof of filing of the PRDs with the SWRCB, which include preparation of SWPPP. Categories of potential BMPs that would be implemented for this Project are described in Table 4.10-1: Construction BMPs. 1128
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-13 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality Table 4.10-1: Construction BMPs
Category Purpose Examples
Erosion Controls and
Wind Erosion Controls
• Use project scheduling and
planning to reduce soil or
vegetation disturbance (particularly
during the rainy season).
• Prevent or reduce erosion potential
by diverting or controlling drainage.
• Prepare and stabilize disturbed soil
areas.
Scheduling, preservation of existing vegetation,
hydraulic mulch, hydroseeding, soil binders,
straw mulch, geotextile and mats, wood
mulching, earth dikes and drainage swales,
velocity dissipation devices, slope drains,
streambank stabilization, compost blankets, soil
preparation/roughening, and non-vegetative
stabilization.
Sediment Controls Filter out soil particles that have been detached and transported in water.
Silt fence, sediment basin, sediment trap,
check dam, fiber rolls, gravel bag berm,
street sweeping and vacuuming, sandbag
barrier, straw bale barrier, storm drain inlet
protection, manufactured linear sediment
controls, compost socks and berms, and
biofilter bags.
Wind Erosion Controls Apply water or other dust palliatives to prevent or minimize dust nuisance.
Dust control soil binders, chemical dust
suppressants, covering stockpiles,
permanent vegetation, mulching, watering,
temporary gravel construction, synthetic
covers, and minimization of disturbed area.
Tracking Controls Minimize the tracking of soil off-site by vehicles.
Stabilized construction roadways and
construction entrances/exits, and entrance/
outlet tire wash.
Non-Storm Water
Management Controls
• Prohibit discharge of materials other
than stormwater, such as discharges
from the cleaning, maintenance, and
fueling of vehicles and equipment.
• Conduct various construction
operations, including paving,
grinding, and concrete curing and
finishing, in ways that minimize nonstormwater discharges and contamination of any such
discharges.
Water conservation practices, temporary
stream crossings, clear water diversions,
illicit connection/discharge, potable and
irrigation water management, and the
proper management of the following
operations: paving and grinding, dewatering,
vehicle and equipment cleaning, fueling and
maintenance, pile driving, concrete curing,
concrete finishing, demolition adjacent to
water, material over water, and temporary
batch plants.
Waste Management
and Controls (i.e., good
housekeeping
practices)
Manage materials and wastes to avoid
contamination of stormwater.
Stockpile management, spill prevention and
control, solid waste management, hazardous
waste management, contaminated soil
management, concrete waste management,
sanitary/septic waste management, liquid
waste management, and management of
material delivery storage and use.
Source: California Stormwater Quality Association 2003. Construction BMP Handbook. https://www.casqa.org/resources/bmp-handbooks. (accessed April 2023).
1129
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-14 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality In addition, the City requires that an erosion and sediment control plan be submitted prior to grading plan approval and the issuance of a grading permit. Implementation of the erosion control plan would address any potential erosion issues associated with the proposed grading and site preparation activities. In addition, implementation of a Soil Management Plan, per MM HAZ-2, during grading activities would ensure that soils containing residual level of hazardous materials and vapors (such as hydrocarbons or arsenic) are properly identified, monitored, and managed on-site; refer to Section 4.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
Operations
Once the Project has been constructed, urban runoff could include a variety of contaminants that could impact water quality. Runoff from buildings and parking lots typically contain oils, grease, fuel, antifreeze, by-products of combustion (such as lead, cadmium, nickel, and other metals), as well as fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and other pollutants. Precipitation at the beginning of the rainy season may result in an initial stormwater runoff (first flush) with high pollutant concentrations.
According to the Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 permit, this project would be classified as a Priority Development Project because it would create more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. Therefore, a preliminary WQMP and a final WQMP would be required for the Project under the MS4 Permit. A preliminary WQMP has been prepared by JLC Engineering and Consulting Inc. on March 16, 2023 (see Appendix G2) and a final WQMP would be submitted to the City prior to the start of construction.
The preliminary WQMP for the Project includes the following site design/ LID BMPs:
• Install underground stormwater retention chambers where downstream landscaped areas are limited.
• Install approved Stormwater Drywells in detention areas. • Construct streets, sidewalks, and parking lot stalls to the minimum widths necessary.
Source control BMPs are designed to minimize the potential for pollutants to come into contact with stormwater, thereby limiting the potential for water quality impacts downstream. A variety of source control BMPs will be incorporated into the Project and implemented during its operation, including the following:
• Minimize non-stormwater site runoff through efficient irrigation system design and controllers. • Minimize trash and debris in storm runoff in parking lots, and roadways through a regular sweeping program.
• Provide solid roofs overall trash enclosures.
• Provide site occupants/site owners/property managers with a copy of the project WQMP and stormwater BMPs.
• Provide site occupants and employees with education/training materials for operation and maintenance of the stormwater BMPs.
1130
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-15 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality • Install stormwater placards/stenciled messages with a “No Dumping” message on all on-site/offsite storm drain inlets.
Treatment control BMPs (single or in combination) remove pollutants of concern from on-site runoff. The following BMPs are designed to control stormwater pollutants where it is not feasible to install on-site or off-site Site Design/LID BMPs, with the requisite capacity to treat the DCV for identified Pollutants of Concern or where pretreatment of stormwater runoff is required, ahead of infiltration all treatment control BMPs would be designed in accordance with the procedures and spreadsheets provided in the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for WQMPs and include:
• Gravity Separator devices for pretreatment of sediment, trash/litter or Oil & Grease The preliminary WQMP shows that the Project can treat the full DCV on-site. The DCV would be captured and treated by seven Chemical Mechanical Polishing (CMP) underground detention basins. Stormwater runoff is captured via catch basins that convey the runoff into hydrodynamic separators (Debris Separating Baffle Boxes [DSBB]). The DSBBs consist of settling chambers for separating out larger solids and a media filter cartridge for capturing fine total suspended solids that may contain metals, nutrients, and bacteria.
Runoff is then released into the on-site storm drains for eventual discharge into the regional storm drain system.
As specified in the preliminary WQMP, the HCOC requirements are achieved by using LID and hydromodification BMPs. The mitigation volume is approximately 161,261 cu-ft. The total storage volume is 430,485 cu-ft which is greater than the mitigation volume needed. As a result, the mitigation volume has been contained by the proposed BMPs. Thus, operational water quality impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of PPP HYD-3 and maintenance of the BMPs described above and as specified in the WQMP. Furthermore, the Project would comply with all state, county, and local regulations regarding stormwater runoff during construction and operational phases of the Project.
Therefore, water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would not be exceeded, and surface water and groundwater quality would not be degraded. Impacts would be less than significant.
Specific Plan – Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
Refer to Phase I discussion above. Note that the Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals for Phase II at this time. Phase II would add to the impervious surfaces within the site when Planning Areas 2B and 3B are completed, which could result in urban runoff which would include a variety of contaminants that could impact water quality. While the Phase II development structures and associated operations would alter the existing hydrological characteristics of the site, impacts associated with water quality would be less than significant, as the Project would not increase the time of concentration and the post-development runoff volume and would 1131
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-16 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality incorporate applicable BMPs. No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.17 Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality with implementation of PPP HYD-1 through HYD-3 and compliance with all applicable regulation and permitting. The 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 2050.18
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.10-2 Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction and Operations
The Project site contains several active wells that feed into man-made ponds and channels. In compliance with the Chino Basin Water Master’s Well Procedure for Developers, a well use/destruction plan and schedule for all existing private/agricultural wells shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to the issuance of permits for any construction activity. If a private well is actively used for water supply, the Developer shall submit a plan to abandon such well and connect users to the City’s water system when available. Wells shall be destroyed/abandoned per the California Water Resource Guidelines and require permitting from County Health Department. Pursuant to PPP HYD-4, a copy of such permit and Form DWR 188 Well Completion Form shall be provided to the Development Engineering Department and the Utilities Engineering Department prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits. If the Developer proposes temporary use of an existing agricultural well for purposes other than agriculture, such as grading, dust control, etc., the developer shall make a formal request to the City of Ontario for such use prior to issuance of permits for any construction activity. Upon approval, the Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City and pay any applicable fees as set forth by the agreement. Therefore, with PPP HDY-4 implemented, construction-related impacts are not anticipated.
As outlined in Draft EIR Section 3.0: Project Description, water service to the Project would be provided by the City, which currently receives approximately 70 to 80 percent of its groundwater supply from the Chino Basin in addition to imported, local, and recycled water provided from the Water Facilities Authority 17 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed April 2023). 18 Ibid.
1132
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-17 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality (WFA), Chino Basin Desalter Authority (CDA), and Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), respectively. The Chino Basin is one of the largest groundwater basins in southern California, with approximately 5 million acre-feet of water demand in storage and has an unused capacity to store approximately 1 million acrefeet of additional water. Thus, the basin has the capacity to store an additional amount of water similar to the storage capacity of Diamond Valley Lake. The availability of additional storage in the basin allows the City to take advantage of wet years by storing additional water for use in dry years. Ontario participates in the Dry Year Yield (DYY) program with IEUA and Metropolitan Water District (MWD). In addition, the City benefits from recharge of IEUA recycled water, in compliance with Title 22 water quality standards, which can be pumped or stored for future use.
A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) has been prepared (Appendix J) to assess water use and water supply information upon total Project buildout (Phase I and Phase II); discussed further in Draft EIR Section 4.17:
Utilities and Service Systems. The WSA demonstrates that the Project’s projected water demands are generally consistent with those assumed in the City’s Urban Water Management Plan. Therefore, due to the availability of water supplies, payment of fees, and ability for the City to meet the Project’s water demand, the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
Specific Plan – Phase II, Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
Refer to Phase I discussion above. Note that the Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals for Phase II at this time. Phase II would add to the impervious surfaces within the site when Planning Areas 2B and 3B are completed. While the Phase II structures and associate operations would alter the existing hydrological characteristics of the site, impacts associated with sustainable groundwater management of the basin would be less than significant, as the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.19 Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. 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 2050.20 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid.
1133
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-18 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.10-3 Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would? i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run-off in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
iii) Create or contribute run-off water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off?
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows.
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction and Operations
Construction of the Project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, but not in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation. The Project would include the use of an Erosion Control Plan and methods that reduce overall erosion during construction and operation, such as preserving vegetation, soil binders, mulching, soil roughening, and stabilization. Furthermore, this Project will be conditioned to contribute funding to the construction of the Master Planned Euclid Avenue storm drain.
The Project area storm drain improvements, shown in Figure 3-20: Storm Drain Plan, are consistent with the facilities specified in Drainage Area XIV of the City Planned Drainage Facilities (refer to Figure 3-21:
City of Ontario Ultimate Storm Drain System).
Drainage Area XIV consists of an area approximately 2.8 square miles along the westerly boundary of Ontario Ranch-West. The area is generally bounded by Riverside Drive to the north, Euclid Avenue to the west, Merrill Avenue to the south, and Bon View Avenue to the east. There are no improved drainage facilities other than graded earthen ditches since the majority of the area is currently being used for agriculture. Drainage Area XIV drains to the City of Chino. It discharges to the existing Airport Channel at the intersection of Euclid Avenue and Merrill Avenue. The Airport Channel is an interim facility that runs south along the east side of Euclid Avenue to the Prado Flood Control Basin. The City of Chino’s future master-planned storm drain, the Euclid Avenue Storm Drain (Line “I” per City of Chino’s Master Plan of Drainage for Subarea 2), would need to be re-evaluated by the City of Chino, to accommodate updated flow rates projected to be discharged from Drainage Area XIV, within the Ontario Ranch area, per this study. In 2003, the Master Plan of Drainage was revised (Revision No. 2) to include Subarea 2 “The Preserve,” which identified capacity expansion due to the addition of 8.5 square miles in the southeast area of the City of Chino. The Preserve is encompassed by the City (Ontario Ranch area) to the north, Riverside County to the south and east, and Euclid Avenue to the west. Drainage Basin Areas were added and redefined from the Chino Airport Master Plan and the City’s New Model Colony (Ontario Ranch) 1134
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-19 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality Drainage Master Plan. In 2004 and 2007, two unofficial amendments were prepared to update Revision No. 2, which identified revisions necessary for the Drainage Basins B, D, and J, and Drainage Basin G respectively for the ultimate build-out of The Preserve area. On-site drain improvements for the Project would include storm water detention/ retention/ water quality basins, which would capture, treat, and/or gradually release storm water into the downstream public storm drain systems. On-site storm water treatment would incorporate a system of catch basins within each building’s parking area. Each storm drain in Ontario Ranch Road, Schaefer Avenue, and Euclid Avenue will be designed with conveyance tributary to a sub-regional full trash capture system such as a debris separating baffle box, continuous deflective system, or an equivalent hydrodynamic separator which has been approved by the SWRCB to satisfy the statewide trash mandate. Each device will be approved by and listed on the Certified Full Capture System List of Trash Treatment Control Devices of the SWRCB. Refer to Impact 4.10-1 above for discussion regarding the Project’s NDPES permitting process. As previously discussed above, the Project’s proposed hydrology would include an on-site internal storm drain system that discharges via catch basins to subsurface facilities throughout each on-site truck yard. The treated water would be discharged from the proposed on-site storm drain system into the City’s 108-inch storm drain at Euclid Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue.
There are currently no improved drainage facilities aside from a few on-site detention areas located in the eastern portion of the site. Thus, the Project would include storm drain improvements consistent with the facilities specified in Drainage Area XIV of the City of Ontario Planned Drainage Facilities.
As part of the PM 20016 Project (Ontario Ranch Business Park) storm drain infrastructure is being constructed along Euclid Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue, Merrill Avenue, Sultana Avenue, Campus Avenue, and Bon View Avenue. The PM 20016 Project was assessed based on the downstream storm drain construction being completed and operational. The existing Master Drainage Plan facilities constructed per PM 20016 are provided in Appendix G1 as Figure 2. Based on the PM 20016 study, upstream projects, including the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project, are required to mitigate their flows to 80 percent of pre-project levels.
Catch basins located throughout the site would collect runoff. On-site storm drain systems would convey runoff to the following facilities:
• 90-inch storm drain in Euclid Avenue along the western perimeter of the Project site. • 48-inch to 90-inch storm drain in Schaefer Avenue along the northern perimeter of the Project site.
• 78-inch to 96-inch storm drain in Ontario Ranch Road along the southern perimeter of the Project site.
• 102-inch trunk line in Euclid Avenue south to connect to the existing 108-inch storm drain at Euclid Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue.
The existing storm drain infrastructure does not have the capacity to accept stormwater flows in excess of the 100-year storm. Based on the existing downstream Master Drainage Plan systems, the Project is required to mitigate on-site runoff to 80% of pre-project levels. According to the unit hydrograph analysis presented by Appendix G1, the peak flow rate for existing conditions on-site is 78.69 cfs. Upon 1135
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-20 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality implementation of the Project, the peak flow rate from the Project site would be 181.58 cfs(alternatively, 149.69 cfs based on the rational method results; provided in Appendix G1). This represents an approximately 131 percent increase from existing conditions. The Project proposes on-site storm drain systems to sufficiently flood protect the project site and provide mitigation for water quality and increased runoff. The Project proposes to construct three drainage systems located to the north, west, and south of the Project site. These drainage facilities will provide the necessary flood protection for the Project. Note that the proposed on-site storm drains would be sized during the Project’s final design phase to restrict site discharge such that there would be no negative impact on existing downstream drainage facilities.
The Hydraulic Reports for the Euclid Avenue Strom Drain, provided as Appendix G3 and Appendix G4, concluded that the storm drain improvements located in Euclid Avenue and Schaefer Avenue, associated with the Project, have been accounted for by the City of Ontario Master Drainage Plan and would not impact adversely impact the existing or planned storm drain system.
With the implementation of the PPP HYD-1 through HYD-3 which includes SWPPP, Erosion Control Plans, BMPs and storm plan Project features, the Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of erosion/siltation and surface runoff in a manner that would result in on- or off-site flooding. Additionally, site design LID features and on-site detention facilities would ensure that stormwater runoff does not exceed the capacity of the storm drain system. The calculated stormwater runoff volume for the 100-year storm under post-development conditions would be less than the amount of stormwater runoff for the 100-year storm under existing conditions (refer to Impact 4.10-1 for more information regarding proposed BMPs). Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Specific Plan – Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
Refer to Phase I discussion above. Note that the Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals for Phase II at this time. Phase II would add to the impervious surfaces within the site when Planning Areas 2B and 3B are completed. While the Phase II development structures and associate operations would alter the existing hydrological characteristics of the site, impacts associated with the alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the Project would be less than significant, as the Project would include storm drain improvements and would not substantially increase the rate or amount of erosion/siltation. No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.21 Conclusion
As noted above, with implementation of PPP HYD-1 through HYD-3, the Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or impede or redirect flood flows. The proposed Project Specific Plan proposes 21 Ibid.
1136
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-21 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality 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 2050.22 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.10-4 Would the Project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Specific Plan – Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The Project site is not within a 100-year floodplain, as per FEMA FIRM No. 06071C8620H and 06071C9335H, dated August 28, 2008. It is designated as within Zone D, where no analysis of flood hazards has been conducted. However, the Project site is relatively flat and there are no nearby water bodies or streams or other conditions that would result in flooding at the Project site.
The Project site, as well as a large portion of the City, is within the dam inundation zone of San Antonio Dam. The dam is owned and operated by the USACE and functions as a flood control and debris dam for the San Antonio River. Dams in California are monitored and inspected annually by the California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). In addition, dam owners are required to maintain Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) that include procedures for damage assessment and emergency warnings. An EAP identifies potential emergency conditions at a dam and specifies preplanned actions to help minimize property damage and loss of life should those conditions occur. EAPs contain procedures and information that instruct dam owners to issue early warning and notification messages to downstream emergency management authorities.
The probability of dam failure is very low, and the City of Ontario has never been impacted by a major dam failure. According to the latest dam inundation map dated February 1986, the arrival time of the first flood wave would be between 8 and 10 hours after the catastrophic failure of the dam and the depth of water is estimated to be approximately two feet. This would provide ample time for implementing evacuation procedures, as specified in the City’s 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan. In addition, the proposed BMPs and LID measures at the Project site would result in the treatment and biofiltration of any floodwaters that enter the site and prevent pollutants from entering the regional storm drain system.
The Project site is also not located near any water storage tanks or reservoirs that would result in a seiche during seismic activity. The Project site is inland and approximately 30 miles from the Pacific Ocean and therefore is not at risk of flooding due to tsunamis. Therefore, impacts associated with the release of pollutants due to inundation would be less than significant. 22 Ibid.
1137
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-22 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality Note that the Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals for Phase II at this time. While the proposed Phase II development structures and associate operations would alter the existing hydrological characteristics of the site, impacts associated with the release of pollutants due to inundation would be less than significant, as risk of flooding and dam failure is low in the Project area, and risk of flooding due to tsunamis is nonexistent. No mitigation is required other than 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 significantly risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or proximity to seiche zones, as there is a low risk of flooding in the Project area.
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 2050.24 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.10-5: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction and Operations
As discussed throughout the impact analyses of this section, the Project would adhere to all applicable state, regional, and local regulatory framework which would ensure that surface and groundwater quality are not adversely impacted during construction. In addition, implementation of the LID and BMP measures at the site, including hydrodynamic separators, underground detention, and Maxwell drywells would ensure that water quality is not impacted during the operational phase of the Project. As a result, the Project would not obstruct or conflict with the implementation of the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan (refer to Impact 4.10-1). On-site groundwater wells would be abandoned per the California DWR Standards and would require a permit from the San Bernardino DEHS and completion of a DWR 188 Well Completion Form (refer to Impact 4.10-2).
Upon development, the Project site would be connected to the City’s public water supply and there would be no on-site wells for use of groundwater. The City manages both the potable and non-potable supplies to ensure withdrawals from the Chino Groundwater Basin do not exceed the safe yield for the Basin, as per the Chino Basin Watermaster's Optimum Basin Management Program (OBMP). The Chino Basin is listed as “very low” priority pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), and therefore is not operating under a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) pursuant to SGMA. However, 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid.
1138
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-23 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality the Chino Basin is an adjudicated basin operating under the OBMP noted above (refer to Section 4.17: Utilities and Service Systems for more information regarding potable water). As discussed above in Impact 4.10-1 and Impact 4.10-2 regarding water quality and groundwater supplies, the Project would meet applicable local and regional water consumption and water quality goals of the OBMP.
Therefore, the Project would not obstruct or conflict with the OBMP. With adherence to all applicable regulative framework, and implementation of PPP HYD-1 through HYD-4, impacts would be less than significant.
Specific Plan – Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
Refer to Phase I discussion above. Note that the Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals for Phase II at this time. Phase II would add up to 466 residential units within Planning Area (PA) 3B and 204,861 SF of business park uses, as well as open space/non-recreational uses when Planning Area 5 is completed. Upon development, residential uses would be connected to the City’s public water supply which withdraws water from the Chino Basin. Per the Phase I discussion above, the Chino Basin is not subject to a GSP, and the Project would not obstruct or conflict with the OBMP. While the structures and associated operations would alter the existing hydrological characteristics of the site, impacts related to the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan 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 2050.25
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. 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 2050.26 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
4.10.7 Cumulative Impacts
Hydrology and Drainage
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 2050.27
25 Ibid. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid.
1139
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-24 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality Cumulative projects within the Chino Creek Watershed would increase impervious areas and increase stormwater runoff rates. However, all projects within the watershed would be required to comply with all regulative framework and prepare and implement WQMPs that include provisions for the capture and infiltration of runoff or the temporary detention of stormwater runoff in HCOC areas so that postdevelopment runoff discharges do not exceed pre-development runoff rates, in accordance with the NPDES MS4 permit. Thus, no significant cumulative drainage impacts would occur, and Project drainage impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Water Quality
Cumulative projects have the ability to generate pollutants during project construction and operation. All construction projects that disturb one acre or more of land would be required to prepare and implement SWPPPs in order to obtain coverage under the statewide GCP. All projects within the watershed would also be required to prepare and implement WQMPs specifying BMPs, including LID measures, which would be applied during project design and project operation to minimize water pollution from project operation. Furthermore, all future development would be required to comply with applicable local, state and federal requirements, as part of the City’s discretionary review process. This includes compliance with the City’s municipal code, which specifically addresses water quality (Municipal Code Article 5, Construction Requirements). Thus, no significant cumulative water quality impacts would occur, and project water quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
4.10.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts related to hydrology and water quality have been identified.
4.10.9 References
Bureau of Reclamation. 2018. Chino Basin Water Bank Strategic Plan. https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/watermarketing/docs/applications/2018/Inland%20Empire% 20Utilities%20Agency.pdf.
California Department of Water Resources. 2006. Chino Subbasin. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWRWebsite/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-BasinDescriptions/8_002_01_ChinoSubbasin.pdf.
Chino Basin Water Conservation District. 2021. The Chino Groundwater Basin. https://cbwcd.org/387/The-Chino-Groundwater-Basin.
Chino Basin Watermaster. 2016. Delineation of Groundwater Contamination Plumes and Point Sources of Concern. https://www.cbwm.org/docs/engdocs/maps/Exhibit%205- 12%20Contamination%20Plumes.pdf.
Chino Basin Watermaster. 2021. http://www.cbwm.org/.
City of Ontario. 2018. Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Emergency-Management/ReadyOntario/city_of_ontario_2018_hmp.pdf. 1140
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December2023 4.10-25 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality 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, Safety Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontarioplan-policy-plan/safetys.
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf.
Converse Consultants. 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report.
County of San Bernardino. 1986. San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. https://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/DPW/docs/HydrologyManual.pdf.
Federal Emergency Management Act. 2020. National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer. https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa 9cd&extent=-117.81426821289033,33.99346556420189,-
117.48193178710954,34.1356709592875.
JLC Engineering & Consulting, Inc. March 2023. Hydrology & Hydraulic Report for Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan. (Appendix G1)
JLC Engineering & Consulting, Inc. March 2023. Preliminary Water Quality Plan for the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan. (Appendix G2)
JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. May 10, 2023. Hydraulic Report in Support of Euclid Avenue Storm Drain (EULD-XIV-1). (Appendix G3)
JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. May 10, 2023. Hydraulic Report in Support of Euclid Avenue Storm Drain (EULD-XIV-4). (Appendix G4)
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company. May 2023. Water Supply Assessment and Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply for the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan (File No. PSP22-001). (Appendix J) State Water Resources Control Board. 2017. Category 5, 2014 and 2016 303(d) List. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/categ ory5_report.shtml.
State Water Resources Control Board. 2019. Final California 2014 and 2016 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305 (b) Report).
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/00483 .shtml#34603.
1141
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-1 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.11.1 Introduction
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates potential impacts to land use in the City of Ontario (City) from implementation of the proposed Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project (Project). The analysis in this section is based on the proposed land use designations described in Chapter 3: Development Plan and Chapter 4: Land Use and Development Standards; and Chapter 5: Design Guidelines of the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan (Project Specific Plan). The Project, including the Specific Plan, has been evaluated for its consistency with relevant goals and policies in The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 and the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS or Connect SoCal).
Potential land use impacts of the Project analyzed in this section of the Draft EIR include those that could result in land use incompatibilities, division of neighborhoods or communities, or interference with other land use plans. Where applicable, mitigation measures are proposed to ensure the application of actions which would minimize or remove land use impacts that are identified as significant.
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
4.11.2 Environmental Setting
The Project site is in the southwestern portion of the City, immediately north of the City of Chino in San Bernardino County. The proposed 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 (See Figure 3-2: Local Vicinity Map and Figure 3-3: Project Boundary). 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 proposed Project consists of a Project specific plan to allow for a business park and mixed-use development on 18 parcels covering 84.1 acres in the City. The development would include up to 290,110 square feet of commercial retail/office uses, up to 466 residential units, and 1,386,777 square feet of business park uses, as described further below. 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, proposing the construction of 13 buildings.
Cumulatively, the 13 buildings provide 1,000,595 square feet of development, however, this could increase when development proceeds beyond Phase 1 to a maximum amount of up to 1,676,887 square feet, as shown in Table 3-1: Maximum Project Buildout, below. Note that the applicant intends to process a Development Plan and Tentative Parcel Map for the Phase I Project following processing of the Project specific plan.
1142
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-2 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
No development is proposed for the Phase II area at this time. Phase I is expected to start construction in 2024, with an anticipated opening year in 2032. Phase I is depicted in Figure 3-6: Phase I Conceptual Site Plan, and is evaluated at a “project-level” in the EIR. The EIR also evaluates, at a “programmatic” level, potential future development of Phase II, comprised of PAs 2B and PA 3B (no specific development proposals have been identified for the Phase II area). The EIR will evaluate the total maximum allowable development in the Project Specific Plan, which is 1,676,887 square feet of business park and mixed-use land uses, in addition to up to 466 residential units and associated on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements.
Existing Conditions
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 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 California Edison (SCE) easements extend across the Project site. No permanent structures, besides the transmission towers, are located within the SCE easements; however, they have been used for various agricultural uses historically.
Surrounding Land Uses
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 (see Figure 3-4: Surrounding Land Uses).
Existing General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Classifications The City’s General Plan was comprehensively updated and adopted as TOP 2050 on August 16, 2022. TOP 2050 serves as the City’s business plan and includes a long-term vision and a principle-based Policy Plan, which functions as the City’s General Plan. TOP 2050 land use designations and the Ontario Municipal Code - Title 9 Development Code (Ontario MC) zoning classifications for the Project site are consistent with the TOP 2050’s existing land designations (see Figure 3-5: Existing Land Use and Zoning). The City’s TOP 2050 designates the Project site for development of Business Park (BP) (0.6 floor area ratio [FAR]), and Mixed-Use (MU) at 14.0 to 65.0 du/ac; 1.5 FAR office; 1.0 FAR retail.1 1 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Figure LU-01, Official Land Use Plan. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/Land%20Use/Figure%20LU-01%20Official%20Land%20Use%20Plan_0.pdf. (accessed March 2023). 1143
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-3 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
TOP land use designations for the Project site by parcel number are as follows:
• Business Park
APNs: 1053-071-01, -02, -03, -04; 1053-211-01, -02, -05; 1053-081-01, -02, -03, -04. • Mixed-Use
APNs: 1053-281-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -07, -08.
The existing zoning designation is Specific Plan (SP) Zoning District. The SP Zoning District designation requires approval of a specific plan by the City for urban development of the Project site. Specific Plan will be the zoning for the Project site, consistent with TOP 2050.
Additionally, the Phase II portion of the Project site (PA 2B and 3B) where no site-specific development plans have been submitted as of yet, is located within the TOP 2050 South Euclid District Place Type. Lying at the southwest corner of the City, the South Euclid District Place Type is envisioned to develop as a vertically and horizontally mixed-use area to serve the populations of newly developing Ontario Ranch and adjoining communities.2 The district will include a range of housing types integrated within and alongside retail, commercial, and office uses, as well as public spaces and trails that connect the "Great Park" to Euclid Avenue. The area is intended to be highly walkable with pedestrian-oriented site design and road network and transit stops with amenities.
4.11.3 Regulatory Setting
Regional
Southern California Association of Governments
SCAG is a regional council of governments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties, which encompass over 38,000 square miles. SCAG is the federally recognized metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for this region and a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG is also the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under federal and state law. In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to analyze their impacts on regional planning programs. As the southern California region’s MPO, SCAG cooperates with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and other agencies in preparing regional planning documents. SCAG has developed regional plans to achieve specific regional objectives, as discussed below.
The Specific Plan is considered a project of “regionwide significance” pursuant to the criteria in SCAG’s Intergovernmental Review Procedures Handbook (November 1995) and Section 15206 of the state CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, this section addresses the Project’s consistency with the applicable SCAG regional planning guidelines and policies.
2 City of Ontario. (2022). TOP 2050, Page 107. https://www.ontarioca.gov/OntarioPlan. (accessed March 2023). 1144
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-4 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy In September 2020, SCAG adopted the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS includes a strong commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources to comply with Senate Bill (SB) 375, improve public health, and meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
This long-range plan, required by the State of California and the federal government, is updated by SCAG every four years as demographic, economic, and policy circumstances change. The RTP/SCS is a living, evolving blueprint for the region’s future.
The City is a member jurisdiction of the San Bernardino Council of Governments (SBCOG), and a participating agency in SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.
Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan The Project site is within the Ontario Airport Influence Area (AIA). The Ontario International Airport (ONT) Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) was adopted on April 19, 2011, by the Ontario City Council to promote compatibility with surrounding land uses. The ONT ALUCP provides guidance to local jurisdictions that may be affected by ONT, and the objective of the ALUCP is to avoid future compatibility conflicts.
Projects within the Specific Plan boundary shall be required to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the ALUCP for ONT.
Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The Project site is within the Chino Airport AIA. The Chino Airport is located approximately one-mile south of the Project site. The City of Chino is currently preparing an ALUCP for Chino Airport which relies on the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. The Chino ALUCP will establish policies and criteria for the four types of compatibility impacts which include safety, noise, airspace protection, and overflight. Projects within the Specific Plan boundary shall be required to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the ALUCP for Chino Airport. The purpose of an ALUCP is to promote peaceful and safe coexistence with the airport’s surrounding communities and to identify areas that would be influenced by future airport operations. The ALUCP is intended to:
• Provide for the orderly development of the public use airport and the area surrounding to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems;
• Protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas surrounding the airport.
Local
City of Ontario General Plan - The Ontario Plan 2050
The City adopted the TOP 2050 in August 2022, which shows the Project site designated for Business Park, Mixed-Use, and Open Space-Non-recreational uses, consistent with the Specific Plan. In addition, the 1145
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-5 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
Project site is within the ONT and Chino Airport AIA’s.3,4 The existing land use designations, their density or intensity, and intention according to TOP 2050, are described in Table 4.11-1: Land Use Designations.
Included in TOP 2050 is the Policy Plan (General Plan), which is a framework that would guide the City’s future growth through the application of policies and goals. TOP 2050 Land Use Element reflects the City’s Vision to be a complete community. Through the Land Use Element, the City desires to have distinct neighborhoods and activity centers, corridors, and districts; diversity of residential, employment, retail, entertainment, community, and recreational services; and a world-class airport which are connected through a unified mobility system.
Table 4.11-1: Land Use Designations
Land Use Dwelling Units per Acre
or Floor Area Ratio Description
Business Park 0.60 FAR
Employee-intensive office uses including corporate offices, technology centers, research and development, “clean” industry, light manufacturing, and supporting retail within a business park. setting.
Mixed-Use –
Great Park
14.01 to 65.0 dwelling
units per acre 1.5 FAR
for office uses 1.0 FAR
for retail uses Subject
to Specific Plan.
The Great Park Mixed Use Areas are envisioned as the southwestern activity centers for citizens of Ontario. These areas accommodate a vertical and horizontal mixture of commercial, office, entertainment, and residential uses all connecting to the Great Park with a pedestrian oriented atmosphere. It is envisioned that the major roads through these Mixed-Use areas are couplets, which are a series of one-way streets that disperse traffic and allow reduced street widths, maximize the sense of community, and emphasize pedestrian accessibility. These Mixed-Use areas are envisioned as low-rise (3-5 stories) with some mid-rise (5-10 stories) near the intersection of Euclid Avenue and Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road.
Open Space –
Non-Recreation
(OS – NR)1
Not Applicable
Open space that includes utility easements, and drainage channels.
We desire to realize multiple uses from these open spaces, such as trails, greenways, joint-use recreational amenities, landscaped parkways/medians, parking lots, and nurseries.
Overlays
ONT Airport
Influence Area Varies
An area in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restriction on those uses. Refer to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Ontario International Airport.
Chino Airport
Influence Area Varies
An area in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restriction on those Uses. Refer to the Ontario Development Code for Chino Airport land use policies and criteria for development.
Plan Required Overlays
Ontario Ranch
Per approved
individual specific
plans
Envisioned as a mixture of residential neighborhoods integrated with areas of high intensity (3-10 stories) employment, retail, service, entertainment, cultural, and residential uses united by a network of greenways/trails, open spaces, amenities, and infrastructure. All 3 Los Angeles/Ontario International Airport. 2010. Map 2-1 Compatibility Policy Map: Airport Influence Area. https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/policy-map-2-1. (accessed March 2023). 4 Riverside County ALUC. (2008). Map CH-1 Compatibility Map: Chino Airport. http://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/PDFGeneral/plan/newplan/09-%20Vol.%201%20Chino.pdf (accessed March 2023). 1146
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-6 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
Land Use Dwelling Units per Acre
or Floor Area Ratio Description
development to be oriented toward or designed to leverage the “Great Park,” a linear open space amenity containing active and passive recreational features, gardens, water features, and cultural facilities. Additional direction may be provided through the application of place types and specific plans.
Source: City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Table 3-2 Land Use Designations in the City of Ontario. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf (accessed March 2023).
Notes:
1. Some parcels with this designation may fall within a Place Type, which characterize the vision and urban design intent within a specified area. If any portion of a parcel is within a Place Type boundary, as shown in TOP 2050 Figure CD-01, Place Types in the Community Design Element, that parcel is subject to Goal CD-3 and related policies. Projects must demonstrate that they are consistent with the vision and policy intent for the applicable Place Type as defined in TOP 2050 Exhibits CD-02 – CD-09. Link to Community Design Element Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-oriented Place Types Section.
The following goals and policies contained in the Land Use Element are relevant to the Project:
Land Use Element5
Goal LU-1 A community that has a spectrum of housing types and price ranges that match the jobs in the City and that make it possible for people to live and work in Ontario and maintain a quality of life.
Policy LU-1.3 Adequate Capacity. We require adequate infrastructure and services for all development.
Policy LU-1.4 Multimodal Mobility. We require development and urban design, where appropriate, that reduces reliance on the automobile and capitalizes on active transportation, transit, electric vehicles, and multimodal transportation opportunities.
Policy LU-1.6 Complete Community. We incorporate a variety of land uses and building types in our land use planning efforts that result in a complete community where residents at all stages of life, employers, workers, and visitors have a wide spectrum of choices of where they can live, work, shop and recreate within Ontario.
Goal LU-4 Development that provides short-term value only when the opportunity to achieve our Vision can be preserved.
Policy LU-4.2 Interim Development. We allow development in urban, mixed use, and transitoriented Place Types that is not immediately reflective of our ultimate Vision for the Place Type, provided it can be modified or replaced when circumstances are right to support development aligned with the Place Type Vision. We will not allow development that impedes, precludes, or compromises our ability to achieve our Vision.
Policy LU-4.4 Shared Infrastructure. We encourage and facilitate the use of shared infrastructure (including shared or managed parking) in urban, mixed use, and transit-oriented Place Types.
5 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Land Use Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policy-plan/land-use. (accessed March 2023).
1147
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-7 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
Goal LU-5 Integrated airport systems and facilities that minimize negative impacts to the community and maximize economic benefits.
Policy LU-5.7 ALUCP Consistency with Land Use Regulations. We comply with state law that requires general plans, specific plans, and all new development to be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for any public-use airport.
City of Ontario Development Code
The City of Ontario Development Code, Title 9 of the Ontario MC, is designed to promote and protect public health, safety, and general welfare in the community. Development Code Chapter 5, Zoning and Land Use establishes zoning designations and development standards to regulate orderly development.
The Project site is zoned as SP District. The SP zoning district was established to accommodate the adoption of Specific Plans pursuant to the Development Code and consistent with all land use designations of the Policy Plan component of the TOP.
4.11.4 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:
• Physically divide an established community.
• Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Methodology
This analysis analyzes the Project’s consistency with regional and local plans, policies and regulations for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Specifically, the Project was analyzed with respect to the applicable regional planning guidelines and strategies of SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and the City’s TOP 2050.
Approach to Analysis
This analysis of impacts on land use and planning components examines the Project’s temporary (i.e., construction) and permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on application of the significance criteria/thresholds outlined above. Each criterion is discussed in the context of the Project site and the surrounding characteristics/geography. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in environmental conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the environment.
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on review of Project maps and drawings; analysis of aerial and ground‐level photographs; and review of various data available in public records, including local planning documents. The determination that a Project component would or would not result in “substantial” adverse effects on land use and planning standards considers the available policies and 1148
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-8 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
regulations established by local and regional agencies and the amount of deviation from these policies in the Project’s components.
4.11.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies
Refer to the Project Specific Plan which contains various development standards and design guidelines (see Project Specific Plan Chapter 5, Design Guidelines) that reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts.
4.11.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.11-1 Would the Project physically divide an established community? Level of Significance: No Impact
Specific Plan – Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The Project applicant proposes development that would include up to 290,110 square feet of commercial retail/office uses, up to 466 residential units, and 1,386,777 square feet of business park uses. 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. The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time as 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. Phase I would include PAs 1, 2A, and 3A, proposing the construction of 13 business park buildings with ancillary office space, approximating 1,386,777 square feet of business park uses and designated open space.
Phase I is expected to start construction in 2024, with an anticipated opening year in 2032. Refer to Figure 3-6: Phase I Conceptual Site Plan.
Projects that are typically considered to have the potential to divide an established community include the construction of new freeways, highways, roads, or other uses that physically separate an existing or established neighborhood. As summarized in Section 4.11.2: Environmental Setting, the Project site is developed with existing buildings and structures used for agricultural purposes and does not include an established community and is not currently zoned for residential use.
Project development would not include improvements which would substantially alter existing roadways and transportation corridors in a manner that would cause the removal or separation of existing adjacent communities from important resources and neighboring units. Roadway improvements associated with the Project would also increase transportation efficiency within the Project site and adjacent roadways without degrading the existing neighborhoods. Therefore, the Project would not physically divide an established community and there would be no impact.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would not physically divide an established community and there would be no impact. The proposed Project Specific Plan proposes the same land uses as contained in the City’s TOP 1149
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-9 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
2050. No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.6 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.11-2 Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Specific Plan – Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The 84.1-acre Project site’s proposed business park and mixed-use is consistent with the Project site’s TOP 2050 land use designation. The Project Specific Plan would provide a land use plan, circulation plan, streetscape plan, infrastructure service plan, grading plan, maintenance plan, phasing plan, design guidelines, development regulations, and implementation measures to guide the development of the Project site. The Project would include up to 290,110 square feet of commercial retail/office uses, up to 466 residential units, and 1,386,777 square feet of business park uses. The Project site is anticipated to be developed in two phases within five PAs. The Business Park designation would allow for employeeintensive office uses including corporate offices, technology centers, research and development, “clean” industry, light manufacturing, and supporting retail within a business park setting. The Mixed-Use designation would accommodate a vertical and horizontal mixture of commercial, office, entertainment, and residential uses with a pedestrian oriented atmosphere.
Below is an evaluation of the Project’s consistency with applicable plans and policies that have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Southern California Association of Governments RTP/SCS Compatibility The Project is considered a project of regionwide significance pursuant to the criteria outlined in SCAG’s Intergovernmental Review Procedures Handbook (November 1995) and state CEQA Guidelines Section 15206, because it would involve a net increase of over 500,000 square feet of business establishment. Therefore, a consistency analysis with the applicable regional planning guidelines and strategies of SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is required. Table 4.11-2: Consistency with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Goals, provides an assessment of the Project’s consistency with the recently adopted 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal) goals. The RTP/SCS goals are directed toward transit, transportation and mobility, and protection of the environment and health of residents. Consistency with SCAG population growth projections is addressed separately in Section 4.13: Population and Housing. The consistency 6 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.11, Land Use. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed March 2023).
1150
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-10 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
analysis below focuses on the broad, policy-oriented goals of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS to determine the Project’s consistency with the RTP/SCS.
Table 4.11-2: Consistency with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Goals RTP/SCS Goal Project Consistency
RTP/SCS G1: Encourage regional
economic prosperity and global
competitiveness.
Consistent: The Project’s objective is to create an economic engine to drive future growth in the City and the County, spur infrastructure improvements in the area, and implement the Specific Plan vision. The Project would allow for the development of urban uses on currently underutilized land.
RTP/SCS G2: Improve mobility,
accessibility, reliability, and travel
safety for people and goods.
Consistent: Implementation of the Project would include roadway improvements and other major infrastructure investments that would ensure that mobility accessibility for people and goods would be maximized. The vehicular and pedestrian improvements in the Project area would be implemented and maintained to meet the needs of employees and customers.
RTP/SCS G3: Enhance the
preservation, security, and resilience
of the regional transportation
system.
Consistent: All modes of public and commercial transit throughout the Project area would be required to follow safety standards set by state, regional, and local regulatory documents. For example, sidewalks must follow precautions established in the Development Code. The Project would not remove or alter in a reductive manner access to the local public transportation near the Project site, including Euclid Omnitrans Bus Route 83.
RTP/SCS G4: Increase person and
goods movement and travel choices
within the transportation system.
Consistent: The Project would involve transportation improvements in the form of improvements to nearby streets. These improvements to Euclid Avenue, Edison Avenue, Schaefer Avenue, and Sultana Avenue would increase the efficiency of the streets after implementation of the Project. Further discussion regarding transportation impacts stemming from the implementation of the Project are discussed in Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic.
RTP/SCS G5: Reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and improve air quality.
Consistent: Discussion regarding reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can be found in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Discussion regarding improvements to air quality can be found in Section 4.3, Air Quality.
The reduction of energy use, improvement of air quality, and promotion of more environmentally sustainable development would be encouraged through the existing and proposed alternative transportation modes, sustainable building and landscaping design techniques, and other best management practices for structures and non-structures.
In addition, it is anticipated that less emissions would occur due to the mixed-use nature of the Project, which encourages an environment that is accessible through walkability and other sustainable alternatives.
Further, the Project is within walking distance of the Euclid Omnitrans Bus Route 83. Omnitrans Bus Route 83 directly connects the site to the cities of Chino and Upland and to several stops in Ontario as well as the Chino Transit Center and Ontario Civic Center Transfer Station. 1151
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-11 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
RTP/SCS Goal Project Consistency
RTP/SCS G6: Support healthy and
equitable communities.
Consistent: The Project would be constructed to current building codes and state and Federal requirements including CALGreen Code.
RTP/SCS G7: Adapt to a changing
climate and support an integrated
regional development pattern and
transportation network.
Consistent: The Project would construct new roads, infrastructure, and buildings to support uses consistent with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and consistent with current building codes and state and Federal requirements including CALGreen Code. This includes electric vehicle (EV) Parking spaces, energy-efficient buildings, and use of construction and grading equipment that complies with current air quality standards, etc. See Section 4.3, Air Quality; 4.8, Green House Gas Emissions; and Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic.
RTP/SCS G8: Leverage new
transportation technologies and
data-driven solutions that result in
more efficient travel.
RTP/SCS G9: Encourage development
of diverse housing types in areas that
are supported by multiple
transportation options.
Consistent: The TOP 2050 land use and zoning designations for the Project site are for Business Park and Mixed-Use which would allow for up to 466 residential dwelling units.
RTP/SCS G10: Promote conservation
of natural and agricultural lands and
restoration of habitats
Consistent: The Project would allow for approximately 12 acres of open space designated for non-recreational uses. While no buildings are proposed within this area, it is suitable for uses such as landscape plant nurseries, recreational vehicle and truck/trailer storage and other uses allowed by the City zoning. There are no habitat restoration sites present on the Project site.
Source: SCAG. 2020. 2020-2045 SCAG RTP/SCS Connect SoCal Goals. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocalplan_0.pdf?1606001176. (accessed March 2023).
The Ontario Plan Compatibility
An analysis of the Project’s consistency with Citywide goals in the TOP 2050 is provided in Table 4.11-3:
Consistency with the City of Ontario General Plan (TOP) 2050. Because CEQA Impact Threshold 4.10-2 emphasizes consistency with land use goals “adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect,” Table 4.11-3 focuses on consistency with the City’s TOP 2050 Elements that address environmental issues. Goals and policies that do not address environmental effects or are not applicable to the Project are not addressed below. Note that the following TOP 2050 consistency analysis is based upon Project consistency with the City’s TOP 2050, which the Project is consistent with.
Table 4.11-3: Consistency with the City of Ontario General Plan (TOP) 2050 General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
Land Use Element
Goal LU-1: A community that has a spectrum of housing types and price ranges that match the jobs in the City and that make it possible for people to live and work in Ontario and maintain a quality of life.
Policy LU-1.1 Strategic Growth. We concentrate
growth in strategic locations that help create
place and identity, maximize available and
planned infrastructure, foster the development
of transit, and support the expansion of the
active and multimodal transportation networks
throughout the City.
Consistent: The Project encourages concentrated
development including high density residential
neighborhoods, office and business park employment uses, and retail and mixed-use centers along major arterial
roadways where future transit stops, multi-use trails and bikeways are planned.
The Project Specific Plan Chapter 5, Design Guidelines
encourage site planning criteria and architectural standards to create a unique and cohesive aesthetic character for the Project area.
1152
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-12 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
Policy LU-1.2 Sustainable Community Strategy.
We integrate state, regional, and local
Sustainable Community/Smart Growth
principles into the development and entitlement
process.
Consistent: The Project encourages the efficient use of energy resources in design, product selection, and operational techniques. The Project Specific Plan Chapter 5, Design Guidelines address lighting, bicycle parking, sustainable landscaping, and sustainable design strategies. Landscape provisions require the use of native drought resistant
vegetation and shade trees to conserve water and reduce heat islands. The sustainable design strategies include design and construction of energy efficient buildings to reduce air, water, and land pollution and environmental impacts from energy production and consumption. Protecting water quality,
reducing runoff, and reducing water demand for landscaping are promoted in the Project Specific Plan Development Plan through the recycled water plan and storm drainage facilities source control and treatment practices.
Policy LU-1.3: Adequate Capacity. We require
adequate infrastructure and services for all
development.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan establishes a Phasing Plan that has been coordinated with affected infrastructure providers and ensures that uses on the Project site would be adequately served. The Specific Plan requires infrastructure development to occur in a timely manner. Potable and
recycled water, sewer, fiber optic communications, and storm drain infrastructure improvements that would ultimately serve the Project site are addressed in Section 3, Development Plan of the Project Specific Plan. Infrastructure and services would be consistent with City of Ontario infrastructure master plans and the approved development agreement.
Please refer to Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, for further discussion regarding utility infrastructure.
Policy LU-1.4 Multimodal Mobility. We require
development and urban design, where
appropriate, that reduces reliance on the
automobile and capitalizes on active
transportation, transit, electric vehicles, and
multimodal transportation opportunities.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan requires the construction of multi-purpose trails along Euclid and Schaefer Avenues and public accessible sidewalk along Euclid, Schaefer, Edison, and Sultana Avenues. These improvements are integral elements to create accessibility and mobility within the Project site and surrounding area. The Project Specific Plan requires the location and construction of transit turnouts within the Specific Plan area.
Policy LU-1.5 Jobs-Housing Balance. We
coordinate land use, infrastructure, and
transportation planning and analysis with
regional, county, and other local agencies to
further regional and subregional goals for jobshousing balance.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan requires all
infrastructure needed to develop the property to be
constructed per the City approved master plans as indicated in Section 5 of the Project Specific Plan. The Land Use Plan allows for up to 466 residential units and a variety of employment generating land uses totaling over 1,676,887 square feet to encourage a balance of jobs and nearby
housing.
Policy LU-1.6 Complete Community. We
incorporate a variety of land uses and building
types in our land use planning efforts that result
in a complete community where residents at all
stages of life, employers, workers, and visitors
have a wide spectrum of choices of where they
can live, work, shop and recreate within Ontario.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan allows for up to 466 residential units and over 1,676,887 square feet of
employment generating land uses to accommodate the design of a complete community with a balance of uses to allow a spectrum of choices for future employers, employees,
residents, and visitors. The allowable land uses will allow for a balanced plan to support Ontario residents in all stages of life. 1153
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-13 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
Goal LU2: Compatibility between a wide range of uses and resultant urban patterns and forms.
Policy LU2.3: Hazardous Uses. We regulate the
development of industrial and similar uses that
use, store, produce or transport toxic
substances, air emissions, other pollutants, or
hazardous materials.
Consistent: Uses within the Project Specific Plan are required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to the use, storage, disposal, and transportation of hazardous materials, toxic substances, and other pollutants.
Policy LU2.5: Regulation of Uses. We regulate
the location, concentration, and operation of
uses that have impacts on surrounding land
uses.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan land use plan contained in Section 3, Development Plan, utilizes the Business Park designation (Planning Area 1,2A and 2B) and Mixed-Use
designation (Planning Area 3A and 3B) to buffer varied existing land uses located across Euclid Avenue within the City of Chino. Project Specific Plan Section 4, Land Use and
Development Standards, restricts Planning Area 1, 2A and 2B to smaller buildings along the Euclid frontage. Furthermore, the conceptual site plan for the business park places truck traffic ingress and egress and visible loading docks away from the existing residential uses.
Policy LU2.6: Infrastructure Compatibility. We
require infrastructure to be aesthetically
pleasing and in context with the community
character.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan Chapter 5, Design Guidelines are intended to support high-quality development that complements the surrounding community. Landscaped
areas and drive entrances will be planned to separate parking areas and keep the parking lot from being the dominant visual element of the site. The Project Specific Plan also establishes landscape setback requirements (Section 4, Land Use and Development Standards) and conceptual streetscape design (Section 5, Design Guidelines) along all roadways within the Specific Plan area to create safe and attractive streets for pedestrians and motorists and ensure cohesive patterns of development.
Policy LU2.9: Methane Gas Sites. We require
sensitive land uses and new uses on former dairy
farms or other methane-producing sites be
designed to minimize health risks.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan incorporates into its Implementation Plan (Section 6) requirements for the Project to comply with any mitigation measures identified in the project environmental impact report, including those for soil remediation and proper venting to address the potential existence of methane gases within the Specific Plan area.
Policy LU-2.11 Context-Aware Transitions and
Connections. We require new development
projects and land-planning efforts to provide
context-aware and appropriate transitions and
connections between existing and planned
neighborhoods, blocks, sites,
and buildings.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan includes the construction of multi-purpose trails along Euclid and Schaefer Avenues and public accessible sidewalks along Euclid, Schaefer, Edison and Sultana Avenues. These improvements provide transitions and connectivity to existing and planned neighborhoods.
Goal LU-3: Staff, regulations and processes that support and allow flexible response to conditions and circumstances in order to achieve the Vision
Policy LU-3.1 Development Standards. We
maintain clear development standards which
allow flexibility to achieve our Vision and provide
objective standards that ensure predictability
and deliver the intended physical outcomes.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan provides development standards intended to address the site and surrounding
conditions and achieve the City’s overall Vision for urban, mixed use, and transit-oriented land uses.
Goal LU-4: Development that provides short-term value only when the opportunity to achieve our Vision can be preserved.
1154
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-14 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
Policy LU-4.1 Commitment to Vision. We are
committed to achieving our Vision but realize
that it may take time and several interim steps
to get there
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan allows for phased development coordinated with infrastructure improvements.
Interim and transitional uses are permitted in order to allow for planned development to occur to achieve the City’s longterm Vision for land uses.
Policy LU-4.3 Infrastructure Timing
We require that the necessary infrastructure and
services be in place prior to or concurrently with
development.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan requires the construction of all infrastructure needed to develop the property to be constructed per the City approved master plans as indicated in Section 5 of the Specific Plan.
Goal LU-5: Integrated airport systems and facilities that minimize negative impacts to the community and maximize economic benefits.
Policy LU-5.1 Coordination with Airport
Authorities. We collaborate with FAA, Caltrans
Division of Aeronautics, airport owners,
neighboring jurisdictions, and other
shareholders in the preparation, update, and
maintenance of airport-related plans.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan will comply with all ALUCP requirements for the Ontario and Chino Airports as outlined in Section 2.3 of the Specific Plan and future development will be required to meet all requirements and procedures outlined by airport related governmental agencies and mitigation measures.
Policy LU-5.2 Airport Planning Consistency. We
coordinate with airport authorities to ensure
The Ontario Plan is consistent with state law,
federal regulations, and/or adopted master
plans, and airport land use compatibility plans
for ONT and Chino Airport.
Policy LU-5.5 Airport Compatibility Planning for
ONT. We create and maintain the Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan for ONT.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan area is within the Ontario International AIA and the Chino Airport AIA. The Project Specific Plan discusses compliance with the ALUCP
requirements for the Ontario Airport and the Chino Airport in Section 2.2, Airport Influence Areas.
Policy LU5.7: ALUCP Consistency with Land Use
Regulations. We comply with state law that
requires general plans, specific plans, and all
new development to be consistent with the
policies and criteria set forth within an Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan for any public use
airport.
Policy LU-5.8 Chino Airport. We will support the
creation and implementation of the Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan for Chino Airport.
Housing Element
Goal H-1: Stable neighborhoods of quality housing, ample community services and public facilities, wellmaintained infrastructure, and public safety that foster a positive sense of identity.
Policy H-1.2 Neighborhood Conditions. We
direct efforts to improve the long-term
sustainability of neighborhoods through
comprehensive planning, provision of
neighborhood amenities, rehabilitation and
maintenance of housing, and community
building efforts.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan allows for up to 466 residential units and recreational open space consistent with The Ontario Plan standards for parks/open space and
neighborhood recreational amenities.
Policy H-1.3 Community Amenities.
We shall provide adequate public services,
infrastructure, open space, parking and traffic
management, pedestrian, bicycle, and
equestrian routes and public safety for
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan requires all
infrastructure, open space, trails, and bikeways needed to develop the property to be constructed concurrently with future development per the City approved master plans as indicated in Section 3 of the Specific Plan. The Land Use Plan allows for up to 466 residential units.
1155
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-15 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
neighborhoods consistent with City master plans
and neighborhood plans.
Policy H-1.4 Historical Preservation. We support
the preservation and enhancement of
residential structures, properties, street designs,
lot configurations, and other reminders of
Ontario’s past that are considered to be local
historical or cultural resources.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan area includes existing buildings that reflect the agricultural history as an important cultural resource of the City; see Section 4.5: Cultural Resources and MM CUL 1 – MM CUL 5. The Specific Plan
provides design guidelines for future buildings in Section 5 that include architectural styles that reinforce the City’s rich agricultural history. Future development would comply with City requirements for documenting historical resources and mitigation measures identified in the project EIR.
Goal H-2: Diversity of types of quality housing that are affordable to a range of household income levels, accommodate changing demographics, and support and reinforce the economic sustainability of Ontario.
Policy H-2.1 Corridor Housing. We revitalize
transportation corridors by encouraging the
production of higher density residential and
mixed-uses that are architecturally, functionally,
and aesthetically suited to corridors.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan includes a Mixed-Use District that will allow up to 466 residential units and a density of 35 to 60 du/ac to be developed along Edison Avenue in close proximity to transit turnouts within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan provides design guidelines for future buildings in Section 5 that include architectural styles and building guidelines to provide aesthetically pleasing and functional residential buildings.
Policy H-2.4 Ontario Ranch. We support a
premier lifestyle community in the Ontario
Ranch, distinguished by diverse housing, highest
design quality, and cohesive and highly
amenitized neighborhoods.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan allows for the
development of up to 466 high density attached residential units linked to surrounding retail and open space uses by local sidewalks and walkways and master planned trails and
bikeways. The Specific Plan provides design guidelines for future residential development in Section 5 that include architectural criteria that establish a high level of design and construction quality and encourage a cohesive neighborhood design character.
Policy H-2.5 Housing Design. We require
architectural excellence through adherence to
City design guidelines, thoughtful site planning,
environmentally sustainable practices, and
other best practices.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan provides design
guidelines for future residential development in Section 5 that include site planning considerations, emphasize sustainable design, and establishes architectural criteria to ensure a high level of design excellence.
Goal H-5: A full range of housing types and community services that meet the special housing needs for all individuals and families in Ontario, regardless of income level, age, or other status.
Policy H-5.2 Family Housing. We support the
development of larger rental apartments that
are appropriate for families with children,
including, as feasible, the provision of services,
recreation, and other amenities.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan allows for the
development of up to 466 high density attached residential units that are suited for a range of future buyers or renters including families with children. Future residential
development will be required to provide parks at a minimum of 2 acres/1000 residents. The Specific Plan also includes multi-purpose trails along Euclid and Schaefer Avenues and public accessible sidewalks along Euclid, Schaefer, Edison, and Sultana Avenues.
Parks and Recreation Element
Goal PR-1: A system of safe and accessible parks that meets the needs of the community.
Policy PR-1.1 Access to Parks. In all new
residential development areas, we strive to
provide a park and/or recreational facility within
walking distance (¼ mile) of every residence and
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan would comply with the City requirement to provide two acres of Park per 1,000 residents onsite and pay an in-lieu fee for the equivalent of three acres of park per 1,000 residents for a total of five acres 1156
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-16 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
prioritize the establishment of parks in
environmental justice areas that do not have
adequate access to parks.
per 1,000 residents to ensure that recreational facilities are within walking distance of future residents within the Specific Plan area.
Policy PR-1.5 Acreage Standard. We strive to
provide 5 acres of parkland (public and private)
per 1,000 residents
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan would comply with the City requirement to provide five acres of Park per 1,000 residents by providing two aces on-site and paying an in-lieu fee for the equivalent of three acres of park per 1,000 residents.
Policy PR-1.6 Private Park. We expect
development to provide a minimum of 2 acres of
developed private park space per 1,000
residents.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan would comply with the City requirement to provide two acres of Park per 1,000 residents on-site.
Policy PR-1.9 Phased Development. We require
parks be built in new communities before a
significant proportion of residents move in.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan allows for phased development coordinated with required park improvements and payment of in-lieu park fees.
Policy PR-1.12 Trails. We promote connections
between parks and local trails including those
managed by other public agencies.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan would comply with the City requirement to provide two acres of Park per 1,000 residents on-site and would develop the public multi-purpose trails along Euclid and Schaefer Avenues along the Project frontage to provided planned connection to Citywide parks and trail systems including the Great Park.
Policy PR-1.14 Multi-family Residential
Developments. We require that new multifamily residential developments of five or more units provide recreational facilities or open
space, in addition to paying adopted impact fees.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan would include
development standards to provide two acres of Park per 1,000 residents on-site for all types of residential development including multi-family neighborhoods.
Policy PR-1.15 Trail Connectivity. We strengthen
and improve equestrian, bike, and multipurpose
trail connections within the City and work to
improve trail connections into adjacent
jurisdictions.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan would develop the public multi-purpose trails along Euclid and Schaefer Avenues along the Project frontage to provided planned connection to
Citywide parks and trail systems including the Great Park.
Environmental Resources Element
Goal ER-1: A reliable and cost-effective system that permits the City to manage its diverse water resources and needs.
Policy ER1.3: Conservation and Sustainable
Water Supply. We work with regional water
providers and users to conserve water and
ensure sustainable local water supplies as more
frequent droughts reduce long term local and
regional water availability.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan incorporates water conservation strategies into its development plan and design guidelines. The use of recycled water to irrigate landscape areas is required consistent with the City of Ontario Recycled Water Master Plan (Section 3, Development Plan). Landscape and irrigation plans are encouraged to use water conservation features such as drought tolerant plant species native to the region and drip irrigation (Section 5, Design Guidelines). The Specific Plan encourages the design and construction of energy-efficient buildings to reduce air, water, and land pollution and environmental impacts from energy production and consumption.
Policy ER1.5: Water Resource Management.
Environmental justice areas are prioritized as we
coordinate with local agencies to protect water
quality, prevent pollution, address existing
contamination, and remediate contaminated
surface water and groundwater.
Consistent: In Section 3.8, Storm Drain Plan, the Specific Plan stipulates that prior to issuance of grading or construction permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be prepared and approved by the City. The SWPPP will identify and detail appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent pollutant discharge into storm drain systems and 1157
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-17 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
natural drainages and aquifers. In addition to the preparation of a SWPPP, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
would be prepared and approved that will enforce long-term BMPs to prevent pollutant discharges into storm drain
systems, for the life of the project. Section 5.8.2, Water Quality, requires the provision of on-site landscape swales to collect and treat stormwater run-off.
Policy ER1.6: Urban Run-off Quantity. We
encourage the use of low impact development
strategies, including green infrastructure, to
intercept run-off, slow the discharge rate,
increase infiltration, and ultimately reduce
discharge volumes to traditional storm drain
systems.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan (Section 3.8, Storm Drain Plan) incorporates low impact development strategies
including landscape designs that promote water retention; permeable surface designs in parking lots and areas with low traffic; parking lots that rain to landscaped areas to provide treatment, retention, or infiltration; and limited soil compaction during grading.
Policy ER1.7: Urban Run-off Quality. We require
the control and management of urban run-off,
consistent with Regional Water Quality Control
Board regulations.
Consistent: In Section 3.8, Storm Drain Plan, the Specific Plan states that prior to issuance of grading or construction permits, a WQMP is required to minimize stormwater runoff and provide on-site opportunities for groundwater recharge integrated into project design and amenities. The grading and drainage of the Specific Plan area would be designed to retain/infilter, harvest and re-use or biotreat surface runoff to comply with the current requirements of the San Bernardino County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Stormwater Program’s WQMP for significant new
development projects.
Policy ER1.8: Wastewater Management. We
require the management of wastewater
discharge and collection consistent with waste
discharge requirements adopted by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
Consistent: In Section 3.6, Sewer Plan, the Specific Plan provides for design of a wastewater system consistent with City and Regional Water Quality Board requirements. The Specific Plan includes a network of new public sewer mains consistent with the City of Ontario’s Ultimate Sewer System Plan.
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 ER3.1: Conservation Strategy. We require
conservation as the first strategy to be employed
to meet applicable energy-saving standards.
Consistent: The Specific Plan incorporates energy-saving conservation strategies into its design guidelines (Section 5) by addressing lighting, bicycle parking, sustainable
landscaping, and energy efficiency. Sustainable design
strategies (Section 5.8) include design and construction of energy-efficient buildings to reduce air, water, and land pollution and environmental impacts from energy production and consumption.
Policy ER3.3: 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.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan encourages the use of passive design to improve building energy performance
through skylights, building orientation, landscaping, and use of select colors.
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.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan promotes renewable energy resource including passive solar collection, subject to consistency with City of Ontario policies and development regulations, within the Business Park and Mixed-Use Districts.
Proposed architectural guidelines and development standards 1158
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-18 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
encourage siting and orienting building with considerations for solar orientation and buildings with roof designs that allow for passive solar collectors. Residential buildings would be prewired or solar collection improvements.
Goal ER-4: Improved indoor and outdoor air quality and reduced locally generated pollutant emissions.
Policy ER-4.1 Land Use. We reduce GHG and
other local pollutant emissions through
compact, mixed use, and transit-oriented
development and development that improves
the regional jobs-housing balance.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan allows for up to 466 residential units and a maximum of 1,676,887 square feet of employment generating land uses within the Project area. The Specific Plan included future transit stops and in close proximity to planned transit lines and helps to improve jobs housing balance in the City and the surrounding region with the provision of varied land use alternatives within the MixedUse District.
Policy ER-4.3 Greenhouse Gases (GHG)
Emissions Reductions. We will reduce GHG
emissions in accordance with regional, state, and
federal regulations.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan would comply with the regional, state and Federal laws and regulations to reduce GHG emissions and would require future development
projects to comply with all City regulations to reduce GHG emissions and mitigation measures identified in the Project EIR.
Policy ER4.4: Indoor Air Quality. We will comply
with state Green Building Codes relative to
indoor air quality. We seek funding to improve
indoor air quality for households with poor
indoor air quality, with priority for lower income
households in environmental justice areas.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan requires development projects in the Specific Plan area to comply with the State of California Building Code as adopted and implemented by the City. The Specific Plan’s Sustainable Design Strategies (Section
5.8) include the design and construction of energy-efficient buildings to reduce air, water, and land pollution.
Policy ER-4.5 Transportation. We promote mass
transit and non-motorized mobility options
(walking, biking) to reduce air pollutant
emissions.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan requires the construction of multi-purpose trails along Euclid and Schaefer Avenues and public accessible sidewalks along Euclid, Schaefer, Edison, and Sultana Avenues. The Specific Plan requires the location and construction of transit turnouts within the Specific Plan area.
These improvements encourage non-motorized mobility
options to reduce air pollutant emissions.
Policy ER-4.8 Tree Planting. We protect healthy
trees within the City and plant new trees to
increase carbon sequestration and help the
regional/local air quality. We expand the tree
canopy in environmental justice areas to
enhance air quality and reduce the “heat island”
effect.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan would implement the City of Ontario’s master street plan including the provision for planting street parkway and median trees and would provide landscape installation, including trees, within all
neighborhood edges. Section 5, Design Guidelines include criteria for landscaping parks, open space, and other common areas.
Goal ER-5: Protected high value habitat and farming and mineral resource extraction activities that are compatible with adjacent development.
ER5.2: Entitlement and Permitting Process. We
comply with state and federal regulations
regarding protected species.
Consistent. The Project Specific Plan acknowledges that all projects within the Specific Plan area shall comply with any and all mitigation measures of the Project EIR.
Community Economics Element
Goal CE-1: A complete community that provides for all incomes and stages of life.
Policy CE1.1: Jobs-Housing Balance. We pursue
improvement to the Inland Empire’s balance
between jobs and housing by promoting job
growth that reduces the regional economy’s
reliance on out-commuting.
Consistent. The Project Specific Plan anticipates the creation of jobs in warehousing, logistics, light manufacturing, and administration within the Specific Plan area, which helps improve the region’s jobs-housing balance. Actual job creation depends on the type of land uses ultimately developed on the site as a wide range of commercial, office, and business park 1159
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-19 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
uses are permitted in the Specific Plan. The Land Use Plan (Section 3.1) implements the vision of The Ontario Plan by providing opportunities for employment in manufacturing, distribution, research and development, service, and
supporting retail at intensities designed to meet the demand of current and future market conditions.
Policy CE1.5: Business Attraction. We
proactively attract new and expanding
businesses to Ontario in order to increase the
City’s share of growing sectors of the regional
and global economy.
Consistent. The Euclid Specific Plan provides for opportunities for new businesses in the City within the Business Park District and the Mixed-Use District. In Section 3.1, Land Use Plan, the Specific Plan provides for the construction of 1,676,887 square feet of business park, commercial and/or office
development in compliance with City and regional planning goals.
Policy CE-1.6 Diversity of Housing. We
collaborate with residents, housing providers,
and the development community to provide
housing opportunities for every stage of life; we
plan for a variety of housing types and price
points to encourage the development of housing
supportive of our efforts to attract business in
growing sectors of the community while being
respectful of existing viable uses.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan allows for the
development of up to 466 high density attached residential units within the Mixed-Use District. This would add to the housing diversity and choices for ownership or rental housing within the Ontario Ranch to accommodate people who live and/or work in the City.
Policy CE-1.7 Retail Goods and Services.
We seek to ensure a mix of retail businesses that
provide the full continuum of goods and services
for the community.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan allows for a maximum of 1,676,887 square feet of business park, retail or office uses.
The Specific Plan provides opportunities for future business to contribute to the provision of continued goods and services within the Business Park and Mixed-Use Districts.
Policy CE-1.12 Circulation. We continuously plan
and improve public transit and non-vehicular
circulation for the mobility of all, including those
with limited or no access to private automobiles.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan provides for both public transit, including future transit stop locations, and multipurpose trails and sidewalks to encourage non-vehicular circulation within the Project area.
Goal CE2: A City of distinctive neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and centers where people choose to be.
Policy CE2.1: Development Projects. We require
new development and redevelopment to create
unique, high-quality places that add value to the
community.
Consistent. The Project Specific Plan contains design
guidelines in Section 5 to guide future development,
consistent with the vision for Ontario Ranch. The guidelines are intended to ensure high quality, cohesive and attractive development that complements and integrates into the
community and adds value to the City. The Specific Plan also establishes landscape setbacks along all roadways within the Specific Plan area to create safe and attractive streets for pedestrians and motorists.
Policy CE2.2: Development Review. We require
those proposing new development and
redevelopment to demonstrate how their
projects will create appropriately unique,
functional, and sustainable places that will
compete well with their competition within the
region.
Consistent. The Project Specific Plan establishes a land use plan (Section 3.1) and design guidelines(Section 5) concerning site design, building design, and landscape design that ensure high-quality, functional and sustainable development that is regionally competitive and appropriate for the Ontario Ranch community
Policy CE-2.4 Protection of Investment. We
require that new development and
redevelopment protect existing investment by
providing architecture and urban design of equal
or greater quality.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan has provisions to ensure that the development of up to 466 high density attached residential units will create attractive and high-quality architecture and urban planning that is equal or greater to similar development in the surrounding neighborhoods. The 1160
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-20 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
Specific Plan provides design guidelines for future residential development in Section 5 that include architectural criteria that establish a high level of design and construction quality.
Policy CE2.5: Private Maintenance. We require
adequate maintenance, upkeep, and investment
in private property because proper maintenance
on private property protects property values.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan includes a Maintenance Responsibility Matrix (Section 6.10) identifying the public, private, or utility providers responsible for maintenance of roadways, parkways, trails, sidewalks, common areas, walls and monuments, infrastructure, and utilities within the Specific Plan area. A Property Owners Association would be established for the maintenance of on-site common areas, including such improvements as landscape areas and drive aisles.
Policy CE2.6: Public Maintenance. We require
the establishment and operation of
maintenance districts or other vehicles to fund
the long-term operation and maintenance of the
public realm whether on private land, in rightsof-way, or on publicly-owned property.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan includes a Maintenance Responsibility Matrix (Section 6.10) identifying the public, private, or utility providers responsible for maintenance of roadways, parkways, trails, sidewalks, common areas, walls and monuments, infrastructure, and utilities within the Specific Plan area. Right-of-way for public streets within the Specific Plan area and infrastructure improvements shall be dedicated to the City of Ontario for maintenance purposes.
Landscape improvements and public streetlights within the public right-of-way shall be maintained through a landscape and lighting district or other special maintenance district established by the City. Dry utilities such as electricity, natural gas, and communication systems would be maintained by the appropriate utility company.
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 S1.1: Implementation of Regulations and
Standards. We require that all new habitable
structures be designed in accordance with the
most recent California Building Code adopted by
the City, including provisions regarding lateral
forces and grading.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan requires all future development projects to comply with the State of California Building Code as adopted and implemented by the City.
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.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan acknowledges that all projects within the Specific Plan area shall comply with state guidelines and the California Building Code. Research of available maps indicates that the Specific Plan site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
Furthermore, there was no visible evidence of faulting during a geotechnical investigation conducted in 2022.
Goal S-2: Minimized risk of injury, loss of life, property damage and economic and social disruption caused by flooding and inundation hazards.
Policy S-2.1 Entitlement and Permitting Process.
We require hydrological studies prepared by a
state-certified engineer when new development
is located in a 100-year or 500-year floodplain to
assess the impact that the new development will
have on the flooding potential of existing
development down-gradient
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan acknowledges that all projects within the Specific Plan area shall comply with any and all applicable mitigation measures of the Project EIR, state guidelines, and the California Building Code regarding flooding and inundation hazards.
Goal S-3: Reduced risk of death, injury, property damage and economic loss due to fires, accidents and normal everyday occurrences through prompt and capable emergency response. 1161
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-21 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
Policy S-3.3 Fire and Emergency Medical
Services. We maintain sufficient fire stations,
equipment and staffing to respond effectively to
emergencies and meet the needs of the
community and state requirements.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan requires all
infrastructure, including water systems needed to provide fire safety to be constructed concurrently with future
development. The Specific Plan is located within the service area of Fire Station #2.
Policy S-3.8 Fire Prevention through
Environmental Design. We require new
development to incorporate fire prevention
consideration in the design of streetscapes,
sites, open spaces, and buildings.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan acknowledges that all projects within the Specific Plan area shall comply with the City’s development review process, which provides for review by the City’s Fire Department and potential redesign to incorporate fire prevention design elements within
streetscapes, sites, open spaces, and buildings.
Goal S-4: An environment where noise does not adversely affect the public’s health, safety, and welfare.
Policy S4.1: Noise Mitigation. We utilize the
City’s Noise Ordinance, building codes, and
subdivision and development codes to mitigate
noise impacts.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan acknowledges that all projects within the Specific Plan area shall comply with any and all mitigation measures of the Project EIR, the City’s noise ordinance, subdivision and development codes, and the
California Building Code to mitigate noise impacts.
Goal S-5: Minimize the risk of injury, property damage, and economic loss resulting from windstorms and windrelated hazards.
Policy S-5.1 Dust Control Measures.
We require the implementation of Best
Management Practices for dust control at all
excavation and grading projects.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan acknowledges that all projects within the Specific Plan area shall comply with any and all mitigation measures of the Project EIR, the
construction management plan, and any subdivision and
development codes regarding dust control.
Policy S-5.2 Grading in High Winds. We prohibit
excavation and grading during strong wind
conditions, as defined by the Building Code.
Consistent: Future construction within the Project Specific Plan would comply with all City regulations and would comply with the City approved construction management plan and mitigation measures identified in the Project EIR.
Goal S-6: Reduced potential for hazardous materials exposure and contamination.
Policy S6.9: Remediation of Methane. We
require development to assess and mitigate the
presence of methane, per regulatory standards
and guidelines.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan acknowledges that all projects within the Specific Plan area shall comply with any and all mitigation measures of the Project EIR. MM HAZ-1, prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall conduct further testing for the presence of methane on the Project site, in accordance with California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) methane assessment
guidelines. The Project Applicant shall prepare a methane gas soil survey and implement grading activity recommendations to the satisfaction of the City Building Department. This shall include a post-construction soil gas investigation and
installation of methane gas mitigation systems where postgrading methane levels exceed 5,000 parts per million volume (ppmv), should any such levels occur.
Goal S-7: Residential neighborhoods, commercial areas, and industrial districts that are kept safe through a multi-faceted approach of prevention, suppression, community involvement in public safety.
Policy S7.4: Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design (CPTED). We require new
development to incorporate CPTED in the design
of streetscapes, sites, open spaces, and
buildings.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan acknowledges that all projects within the Specific Plan area shall comply with the City’s development review process, which provides for review by the City’s Police Department and potential redesign to incorporate crime prevention design elements in
streetscapes, sites, open spaces, and buildings. Parcel lighting (Section 5.6, Lighting) addresses illumination of parking lots, 1162
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-22 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
loading dock areas, pedestrian walkways, building entrances, signage, and architectural and landscape features. A key provision includes the installation of ground or low mounted fixtures to provide for safety and convenience along
pedestrian walkways, entrances, activity areas, steps, ramps, and special features. Section 5.1, Site Design, also encourages delineation of pedestrian access to on-site buildings from adjacent streets and parking areas by marking building
entrances with signage, prominent architectural features, and/or landscaping features.
Goal S-9: Incorporate energy efficient practices and renewable energy systems to improve air quality, comfort, and energy reliability during temporary power outages
Policy S-9.1 Solar Energy. We support and may
incentivize the installation of residential and
commercial solar panels and battery storage
systems that can provide electricity during
power outages.
Consistent: Future construction of residential units within the Project Specific Plan would comply with all Federal, state and City regulations for solar energy. The Specific Plan provides design guidelines for future residential development in Section 5 that include site planning and design criteria to encourage future solar panel installation.
Goal M-1: A system of roadways that meets the mobility needs of a dynamic and prosperous Ontario Policy M-1.1 Roadway Design and
Maintenance. We require our roadways to:
1. Comply with federal, state, and local design
and safety standards;
2. Meet the needs of multiple transportation
modes and users;
3. Handle the capacity envisioned in the City of
Ontario Master Plan of Streets and
Highways;
4. Be maintained in accordance with best
practices;
5. Be compatible with the streetscape and
surrounding land uses;
6. Promote the efficient flow of all modes of
traffic through the implementation of
intelligent transportation systems and travel
demand management strategies.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan complies with the Functional Roadway Classification Plan of the Mobility
Element and, therefore, aims to comply with federal, state, and local design and safety standards; meet the needs of multiple transportation modes and users; and maintain a Level of Service of E or better at all intersections addressed in the project environmental impact report. Specific Plan site design strives to minimize the effects of truck traffic on nearby residential uses by locating truck entries and loading docks away from residential use.
Policy M-1.2 Mitigation of Impacts. We require
development to mitigate its traffic impacts.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan requires in Section 6.3.4, Compliance with CEQA, that projects within the Specific Plan area comply with all mitigation measures, conditions, and project design features identified in the Project EIR.
Section 5.1, Site Design, provides guidelines to ensure buildings, structures, and loading facilities would be designed so loading and unloading activities occur on-site without extending beyond the property line.
Goal M-2: A system of trails and corridors that facilitate and encourage active modes of transportation.
Policy M-2.2 Bicycle System. We provide offstreet multipurpose trails and Class II bikeways as our preferred paths of travel and use the Class
III for connectivity in constrained circumstances.
When truck routes and bicycle facilities share a
right-of-way, we prefer Class I or Class IV bicycle
facilities. We require new development to
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan includes a Circulation Plan in Section 3 to provide connectivity to the trails and bikeway corridors identified in the Ontario Multipurpose Trails and Bikeway Corridor Plan, including installation of multipurpose trails along Euclid Avenue and Edison Avenue. 1163
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-23 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
include bicycle facilities, such as bicycle parking
and secure storage areas.
Policy M-2.3 Pedestrian Walkways. We require
streets to include sidewalks and visible
crosswalks at major intersections where
necessary to promote safe and comfortable
mobility between residential areas, businesses,
schools, parks, recreation areas, and other key
destination points.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan street sections and streetscape designs (Section 3.1, Circulation Plan and Section
5.3, Landscape Design) provide for construction of 5-footwide public pedestrian sidewalks for Euclid, Schaefer, Edison, and Sultana Avenues to connect with adjacent existing and planned pedestrian circulation systems. Pedestrian sidewalks are separated from vehicular travel lanes by a landscaped parkway. Proposed improvements for the Specific Plan area streets are consistent with the City’s Ontario Ranch
Streetscape Master Plan.
Policy M-2.4 Network Opportunities. We use
public rights-of-way and easements such as,
utility easements, levees, drainage corridors,
road rights-of-way, medians, and other potential
options to maintain and expand our bicycle and
pedestrian network. In urban, mixed-use, and
transit-oriented Place Types, we encourage the
use of underutilized public and private spaces to
expand our public realm and improve pedestrian
and bicycle connectivity.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan includes the construction of multi-purpose trails along Euclid and Schaefer Avenues and public accessible sidewalks along Euclid, Schaefer, Edison, and Sultana Avenues. Potential pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity to neighborhoods within and adjacent to the Mixed-Use District would be incorporated into future
residential development plans.
Goal M-3: A public transit system that is a viable alternative to automobile travel and meets basic transportation needs of the transit-dependent.
Policy M-3.2 Alternative Transit Facilities at
New Development. We require new
development adjacent to an existing or planned
transit stop to contribute to the creation of
transit facilities, such as bus shelters, transit bays
and turnouts, and bicycle facilities, such as
secure storage areas.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan discusses (in Section
3.2.9, Transit) that the City is coordinating with regional transit agencies to implement Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service to target destinations and along corridors, including Euclid Avenue on the western boundary of the Specific Plan area.
Goal M-4: An efficient flow of goods through the City that maximizes economic benefits and minimizes negative impacts.
Policy M-4.1 Truck Routes. We designate and
maintain a network of City truck routes that
provide for the safe and efficient transport of
goods while minimizing negative impacts on
local circulation and noise-sensitive land uses, as
shown on Exhibit M-04, Truck Routes. We will
minimize conflicts on truck routes through the
design and implementation of buffers between
travel lanes and pedestrian and bicycle facilities
on designated truck routes.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan is designed to enable easy vehicular access to the truck route network and to encourage its business park users to implement effective goods movement strategies. The Land Use and Circulation Plans for the Specific Plan area (Section 3, Development Plan) are designed to direct truck traffic away from nearby
residential use in the City of Chino.
Policy M-4.4 Environmental Considerations. We
support both local and regional efforts to
reduce/eliminate the negative environmental
impacts of goods movement through the
planning and implementation of truck routing
and the development of a plan to evaluate the
future needs of clean fueling/recharging and
electrified truck parking.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan implements the City of Ontario master planned street network and provides for the construction of circulation improvements to support
adequate infrastructure for safe and efficient truck routing and supports Citywide efforts to evaluate and address future needs for clean fueling/recharging and electrified truck parking.
Goal CD-1: A dynamic, progressive city containing distinct and complete places that foster a positive sense of identity and belonging among residents, visitors, and businesses. 1164
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-24 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
Policy CD-1.2 Place Type. We establish Place
Types in urban, mixed use, and transit-oriented
areas to foster the City’s identity as a premier
community and require new development
within each Place Type to incorporate prescribed
urban patterns, forms, and placemaking
priorities.
Consistent: The Euclid Mixed Use Specific includes design guidelines in Section 5 that include architectural criteria that establish a Gateway design treatment with landscaping and monumentation to create a unique entry to the Ontario Ranch community and the City overall. This placemaking element would establish a unique and high-quality community and neighborhood design character for future development within the Specific Plan area.
Policy CD-1.4 Transportation Corridors. We will
enhance our major transportation corridors
within the City through landscape, hardscape,
signage and lighting. The extent of enhancement
should be appropriate to the use, type, and
context of each corridor.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan requires the construction of landscaped neighborhood edges along Euclid, Edison, and Schaefer Avenues per the City master plans for these major transportation corridors. Section 5, Design Guidelines include criteria for landscaping these neighborhood edges and other common areas.
Goal CD-2: A high level of design quality resulting in neighborhoods, commercial areas, public spaces, parks, and streetscapes that are attractive, safe, functional, human-scale, and distinct.
Policy CD-2.1 Quality Building Design and
Architecture. We encourage all development
projects to convey visual interest and character
through:
1. Building volume, massing, and height to
provide context-appropriate scale and
proportion;
2. A true architectural style which is carried out
in plan, section, and elevation through all
aspects of the building and site design and
appropriate for its setting; and
3. Exterior building materials that are
articulated, high quality, durable, and
appropriate for the architectural style.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan Chapter 5, Design Guidelines ensure that: 1) scale, massing, fenestration, materials, and colors are consistent with the building’s architectural style and compatible with the overall design in the Specific Plan area, 2) articulation is provided through elements such as cornices, parapets, expression lines, and changes in materials and/or colors, 3) use of a variety of colors, materials, and/or textures on each building is
appropriate to the architectural features or massing.
Policy CD-2.2 Neighborhood Design. We create
distinct residential neighborhoods that promote
a sense of community and identity by
emphasizing access, connectivity, livability, and
social interaction through such elements as:
1. A pattern of smaller, walkable blocks that
promote activity, safety, and access to
nearby amenities and services;
2. Varied parcel sizes and lot configurations to
accommodate a diversity of housing types;
3. Traffic calming measures to slow traffic and
promote walkability while maintaining
acceptable traffic flows and emergency
evacuation access;
4. Floor plans that encourage views onto the
street and de-emphasize the visual and
physical dominance of garages (introducing
the front porch as the “outdoor living
room”), as appropriate;
5. Landscaped parkways, with sidewalks
separated from the curb and designed to
maximize safety, comfort, and aesthetics for
all users.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan has provisions to allow for the development of up to 466 high density attached
residential units within the Mixed-Use District. The Specific Plan provides design guidelines for future residential
development in Section 5 that include criteria for site planning/neighborhood design and architecture including considerations for access, connectivity, livability, and social interaction.
1165
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-25 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
Policy CD-2.3 Commercial Areas. We desire
commercial areas and centers to be distinctive,
pedestrian friendly, functional, and vibrant with
a range of businesses, places to gather, and
connectivity to the neighborhoods they serve.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan allows for maximum of 1,676,887 square feet of employment generating land uses within the Business Park and Mixed-Use Districts. The Specific Plan provides design guidelines for future development in Section 5 that include architectural criteria to encourage the development of a variety of distinctive commercial businesses that are pedestrian friendly, connected to other surrounding uses, functional, and vibrant elements of the overall
neighborhood.
Policy CD-2.4 Urban, Mixed Use, and Transitoriented Areas. We establish Place Types to require mixed use, urban, and transit-oriented
areas to be designed and developed as
pedestrian oriented areas that are integrated
with adjacent neighborhoods and promote a
vibrant, comfortable, and functional
environment, as defined for each Place Type.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan includes a Mixed-Use District that would allow up to 466 residential units and a maximum of 290,110 square feet of retail or office uses along Edison Avenue in close proximity to transit turnouts within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan provides design guidelines for future development in Section 5 that include planning and design criteria to create a unique and high-quality community and neighborhood design character for future development within the Specific Plan area that would be integrated into surrounding neighborhoods.
Policy CD-2.5 Streetscapes. We design new and,
when necessary, retrofit existing streets to
improve walkability, bicycling and transit
integration, strengthen connectivity, and
enhance community identity through
improvements to the public right-of-way such as
sidewalks, street trees, parkways, curbs, street
lighting and street furniture.
Consistent: Section 3.3, Circulation Plan, addresses
connectivity, street improvements, pedestrian and bicycle plans, and transit. In Section 5.3, Landscape Design, the Project Specific Plan identifies street improvements and streetscape including parkways, street trees, sidewalks, landscape buffers, and street lighting for Euclid Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue, Merrill Avenue, and Sultana Avenue
within the Specific Plan area, which are consistent with the Circulation Element of The Ontario Plan. The Project Specific Plan streetscape design creates an aesthetically pleasing view for pedestrians and motorists, screens parking and loading areas from the public right-of-way, and visually integrates the development into the surrounding Ontario Ranch community.
Policy CD-2.6 Connectivity. We promote
development of local street patterns,
multimodal networks, and connected public
spaces that create and unify neighborhoods,
rather than divide them, and create cohesive
and continuous corridors, rather than
independent “islands” through the following
means:
1. Local street networks that provide access
both between subdivisions and within
neighborhoods and discourage through
traffic;
2. A local street system that is logical and
understandable for the user. A grid system is
preferred to avoid circuitous and confusing
travel paths between internal neighborhood
areas and adjacent arterials and to provide
adequate emergency and evacuation
access; and
3. Pedestrian and bicycle networks that
provide convenient access to
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan includes design
guidelines for future development within the Mixed-Use
District in Section 5 that include planning and design criteria to create safe and efficient circulation systems and
connectivity for future development within the Specific Plan area and surrounding neighborhoods.
1166
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-26 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
neighborhoods and nearby destinations,
such as schools, parks, other public spaces,
commercial areas, and transit stops.
Policy CD-2.7 Sustainability. We collaborate
with the development community to design and
build neighborhoods, streetscapes, sites,
outdoor spaces, landscaping, and buildings to
reduce energy demand through solar
orientation, maximum use of natural daylight,
passive solar and natural ventilation, building
form, mechanical and structural systems,
building materials, and construction techniques.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan is committed to
sustainable design strategies that integrate principles of environmental stewardship into the design, construction, and operation process. The Specific Plan incorporates
sustainability principles into its design guidelines such as drought tolerant landscaping, skylights in warehouse areas of buildings to provide natural light and reduce lighting demand, high performance dual pane glazing in office storefronts, and LED products for energy efficient site lighting. Design strategies include the design and construction of energy efficient buildings to reduce air, water, and land pollution and environmental impacts from energy production and
consumption. The use of recycled water to irrigate landscape is required by the Specific Plan’s Recycled Water Plan
(Section 3.4), consistent with the City of Ontario Recycled Water Master Plan.
Policy CD-2.8 Safe Design. We incorporate
defensible space design into new and existing
developments to ensure the maximum safe
travel and visibility on pathways, corridors, and
open space and at building entrances and
parking areas by avoiding physically and visually
isolated spaces, maintaining visibility and
accessibility, and using lighting.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan includes design
guidelines for future development within the Mixed-Use
District in Section 5 that include criteria to create safe and efficient walkway and common areas that are visible and well lighted at night for future development within the Specific Plan.
Policy CD-2.9 Landscape Design. We encourage
durable, sustainable, and drought-tolerant
landscaping materials and designs that enhance
the aesthetics of structures, create and define
public and private spaces, and provide shade and
environmental benefits.
Consistent: Consistent with the vision for Ontario Ranch as outlined in the Ontario Ranch Streetscape Master Plan, the Project Specific Plan (Section 5.3, Landscape Design) provides for landscaped setbacks and landscaped parkways adjacent to bike lanes and sidewalks, defining these public spaces. The landscaped setbacks and parkways will include droughttolerant plants featuring colorful shrubs and groundcovers, ornamental grasses and succulents, evergreen and deciduous trees, and species native to southern California or naturalized to the arid southern California climate to promote durable plant materials. The plant selection would complement the design theme of the Specific Plan area. Parking lot landscaping would reduce associated heat buildup, improve aesthetics, and integrate into onsite landscape design and adjacent streetscapes. Swaled landscape areas would retain/ infiltrate stormwater run-off to improve water quality and promote groundwater recharge where feasible. Shade trees
thoughtfully located near expanses of paving, building walls, roofs, and windows would reduce the impacts of heat gain.
Policy CD-2.10 Parking Areas. We require all
development, including single-family residential,
to minimize the visual impact of surface,
structured, and garage parking areas visible from
the public realm in an aesthetically pleasing,
safe and environmentally sensitive manner.
Examples include:
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan includes design
guidelines for future development within the Mixed-Use
District in Section 5 that include planning and design criteria to minimize the visual impact of surface parking and garages for future development within the Specific Plan area and surrounding neighborhoods.
1167
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-27 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
1. Surface parking: Shade trees, pervious
surfaces, urban run-off capture and
infiltration, and pedestrian paths to guide
users through the parking field.
2. Structured parking: facade articulation,
screening, appropriate lighting, and
landscaping.
3. Garage parking: providing access to singlefamily residential garages through alley access, recessing garages from the frontage
to emphasize front doors or active living
spaces.
Policy CD-2.11 Entry statements. We encourage
the inclusion of amenities, signage, and
landscaping at the entry to neighborhoods,
commercial centers, mixed use areas, industrial
developments, and public places that reinforce
them as uniquely identifiable places.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan establishes design guidelines to ensure high-quality development and a sense of place. As discussed in Section 5.3, Landscape Design, Euclid, Eucalyptus, Schaefer, Edison, and Sultana Avenues would feature landscaped setbacks adjacent to the Specific Plan area that would provide attractive entries to the site. An entry monument would be located at the northeast corner of Euclid Avenue and Edison Avenue to identify the Ontario Ranch area and/or the Project Specific Plan area.
Policy CD-2.12 Site and Building Signage. We
encourage the use of sign programs that utilize
complementary materials, colors, and themes.
Project signage should be designed to effectively
communicate and direct users to various aspects
of the development and complement the
character of the structures.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan (Section 5.7, Signage) requires approval of a comprehensive sign program to address parcel identification, building identification and directional signage within the Specific Plan area. A comprehensive sign program would integrate Project signage with the overall design of the site and structures to create a unified visual statement. A comprehensive sign program provides a means for flexible application of sign regulations to provide incentive and latitude in the design and display of multiple signs.
Business park uses on the site would also be appropriately signed to give direction to loading and receiving, visitor parking, and other special uses.
Policy CD-2.16 Transit Stops. We require transit
stops be conveniently located, well lit, safe, and
clearly accessible to pedestrians, bicyclists, and
people of all abilities.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan requires the location and construction of transit turnouts within the Specific Plan area.
Goal CD-3: Vibrant urban environments that are organized around intense buildings, pedestrian and transit areas, public plazas, and linkages between and within developments that are conveniently located, visually appealing and safe during all hours.
Policy CD-3.1 Unique Identity. We promote
development that heightens the unique
character and identity of each Place Type by
requiring compatible land uses and land
planning, site design, and building design that
promotes an active public realm.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan includes design
guidelines for future development within the Mixed-Use
District in Section 5 that include planning and design criteria to establish a unique character and sense of identity for future development within the Specific Plan area and surrounding neighborhoods.
Policy CD-3.2 Comfortable, Human-Scale Public
Realm. We require that public spaces, including
streets, parks, and plazas on both public and
private property be designed to maximize safety,
comfort and aesthetics and connect to the
citywide pedestrian, vehicular, and bicycle
networks.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan includes design
guidelines for future development within the Mixed-Use
District in Section 5 that include planning and design criteria to maximize safety, comfort and aesthetics and connect to the Citywide pedestrian, vehicular and bicycle networks.
1168
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-28 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
Policy CD-3.3 Complete and Connected
Network. We require that pedestrian, vehicular,
and bicycle circulation on both public and private
property be coordinated to provide connections
internally and externally to adjacent
neighborhoods and properties (existing and
planned) through a system of local roads and
trails that promote walking and biking to nearby
destinations (including existing and planned
parks, commercial areas, and transit stops) and
are designed to maximize safety, comfort, and
aesthetics.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan includes design
guidelines for future development within the Mixed-Use
District in Section 5 that include planning and design criteria to ensure that all modes of circulation and neighborhood connectivity are provided and coordinated with the Citywide pedestrian, vehicular and bicycle network to maximize safety, comfort, and aesthetics.
Policy CD-3.4 Context-Aware and Appropriate
Design. We require appropriate building and site
design that complements existing development,
respects the intent and identity of the Place
Type, and provides appropriate transitions and
connections between adjacent uses to ensure
compatibility of scale, maintain an appropriate
level of privacy for each use, and minimize
potential conflicts.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan includes design
guidelines for future development within the Mixed-Use
District in Section 5 that include planning and design criteria to ensure that future development complements existing
surrounding development and provides adequate transitions and buffers between less compatible uses and minimizes
potential conflicts.
Policy CD-3.5 Active Frontages. We create lively
pedestrian streetscapes by requiring primary
building, business, and residential entrances,
outdoor dining, and storefronts be located on
ground floors adjacent to sidewalks or public
spaces and designed to maximize safety,
comfort, aesthetics, and the intended
functionality (as defined by the Place Type).
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan includes design
guidelines for future development within the Mixed-Use
District in Section 5 that include planning and design criteria to create active pedestrian streetscapes and orient building frontages, business entrances, residential courtyards and balconies towards sidewalks and common open areas
maximize safety, comfort, and aesthetics.
Goal CD-5: A sustained level of maintenance and improvement of properties, buildings, and infrastructure that protects the property values and encourages additional public and private investments.
Policy CD-5.1 Maintenance of Buildings and
Property. We require all public and privatelyowned buildings and property (including trails and easements) to be
properly and consistently maintained.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan includes a Maintenance Responsibility Matrix in Section 6, Implementation, identifying the parties responsible for maintenance of roadways,
parkways, trails, sidewalks, common areas, walls and
monuments, infrastructure, and utilities within the Specific Plan area. Privately owned buildings would be maintained as specified by the Property Owners Association (Section 6.10.2).
Policy CD-5.2 Maintenance of Infrastructure.
We require the continual maintenance of
infrastructure.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan includes a Maintenance Responsibility Matrix in Section 6, Implementation, identifying the parties responsible for maintenance of roadways,
parkways, trails, sidewalks, common areas, walls and
monuments, infrastructure, and utilities within the Specific Plan area.
Goal SR-2: A range of educational and training opportunities for residents and workers of all ages and abilities that improves their life choices and provides a skilled workforce for our businesses.
Policy SR-2.4 Access to Schools.
We work with local and regional partners to
improve the safety in and around schools and to
improve access for citizens of all ages and
abilities to schools and community services, such
as after school and other programs.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan evaluated the
accessibility and capacity of existing schools. Future
residential development would be reviewed by the applicable school districts and would address the mitigation measures identified in the Project EIR.
1169
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-29 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goals/Policies Project Consistency
Goal SR-5: Local heritage, entertainment, and cultural experiences that enrich the lives of Ontario’s residents, workers, and visitors and serve to attract residents and businesses to the City.
Policy SR-5.3 Public Art. We encourage public
art in buildings, parks, open spaces, and other
public and private spaces.
Consistent: The Project Specific Plan does not require public art within the Business Park and Mixed-Use Districts
specifically. Future development plans for commercial or office uses should consider public art improvements or
amenities according to City policy.
Sources: City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Policy Plan. https://www.ontarioca.gov/Ontarioplan/Policyplan. (accessed March 2023).
Ontario Development Code Consistency
Upon adoption of the Project Specific Plan, the development regulations and design standards within the Project Specific Plan would apply to the Project site and would establish the applicable zoning regulations and development standards. The Project Specific Plan would become the land use implementation tool for the Project site. As stated in Ontario Development Code Section 1.01.035, in the event of any conflict between the requirements of the Development Code and the standards contained within an adopted project, the requirements of the project shall govern, and when the provisions of a project are silent on a specific matter, the regulations set forth in the Development Code shall apply. As such, the Project would not result in conflicts with the Ontario Development Code, and impacts would be less than significant.
Airport Environs Land Use Plan Consistency
The Project site is one-mile north of the Chino Airport and is approximately 4.0 miles south of the ONT and within the AIA for both airports. Airport operations and their potential noise and safety hazards require careful land use planning on adjacent and nearby lands to protect residents and land uses. Airport operations and their accompanying safety and noise hazards are discussed in Section 4.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 4.12: Noise.
The City is currently developing a Compatibility Plan for Chino Airport (Compatibility Plan) that relies upon the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (State of California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics) October 2011 (Handbook). As provided for in the Handbook “alternative process” the City functions as the Designated Agency in formulating airport land use compatibility plans for City properties. The Compatibility Plan is based on the Handbook Generic Safety Zones for General Aviation Airports.
Final site plans and development plans within the Project site would be subject to and required to comply with applicable standards and requirements of the Compatibility Plan as adopted by the City. Please refer also to related discussions presented in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft EIR.
The Project site is within the ONT ALUCP. However, it is not within a safety zone, a noise impact zone, or an airspace protection zone of the ONT. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation. The proposed Project Specific Plan proposes the same land uses as contained in the City’s TOP 2050. Furthermore, the Project Specific Plan would promote orderly development to coincide with adjacent land uses. As shown 1170
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-30 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
on Tables 4.11-2 and 4.11-3, the Project embodies the goals and policies in the applicable long-range planning documents. 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.
4.11.7 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic context for this cumulative analysis includes the City in relation to the City’s TOP 2050.
Cumulative development would result in substantial changes to existing land use patterns through conversion of agricultural and dairy lands into urban uses pursuant to the General Plan land use designations. Cumulative development would also be subject to site-specific environmental and planning reviews that would address consistency with adopted General Plan goals, objectives, and policies, as well as with the City’s Development Code and ALUCP policies. As part of environmental review, projects would be required to provide mitigation for any inconsistencies with the General Plan and environmental policies that would result in adverse physical environmental effects. The cumulative projects as a whole would result in a more intensely developed built environment than currently exists, as it currently exists as an underutilized portion of land and would be required to be consistent with local General Plan policies.
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 2050.7 Cumulative projects could include General Plan amendments and/or zone changes, and modifications to existing land uses. However, such amendments do not necessarily represent an inherent negative effect on the environment, particularly if the proposed changes involve changes in types and intensity of uses, rather than eliminating application of policies that were specifically adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Past and present cumulative projects do not involve amendments that would eliminate application of policies that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Determining whether any future project might include such amendments and determining the cumulative effects of any such amendments would be speculative since it cannot be known what applications that are not currently filed might request. Thus, it is expected that the land uses of cumulative projects would be consistent with policies that avoid an environmental effect; therefore, cumulatively considerable impacts from cumulative projects related to policy consistency would be less than significant.
7 City of Ontario. (2022). TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.11, Land Use and Planning. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf, (accessed April 2023).
1171
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.11-31 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
4.11.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
There are no significant unavoidable impacts.
4.11.9 References
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (State of California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics) October 2011. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/aeronautics/documents/californiaairportlanduseplanninghandbook-a11y.pdf.
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Land Use Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontarioplan-policy-plan/land-use.
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Figure LU-01, Official Land Use Plan. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/Land%20Use/Figure%20LU01%20Official%20Land%20Use%20Plan_0.pdf City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.11, Land Use and Planning. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf.
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Page 107. https://www.ontarioca.gov/OntarioPlan.
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Policy Plan. https://www.ontarioca.gov/Ontarioplan/Policyplan.
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Table 3-2 Land Use Designations in the City of Ontario. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf.
Los Angeles/Ontario International Airport. 2010. Map 2-1 Compatibility Policy Map: Airport Influence Area. https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/policy-map-2-1.pdf.
Riverside County ALUC. 2008. Map CH-1 Compatibility Map: Chino Airport. http://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/PDFGeneral/plan/newplan/09-%20Vol.%201%20Chino.pdf.
SCAG. 2020. 2020-2045 SCAG RTP/SCS Connect SoCal Goals. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176. 1172
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-1 4.12 | Noise
4.12 NOISE
4.12.1 Introduction
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) discusses the fundamentals of sound; examines federal, state, and local noise guidelines, policies, and standards; reviews noise levels at existing noise-sensitive receptor locations; and evaluates potential noise and vibration impacts associated with (Project); and provides mitigation to reduce noise impacts at sensitive receptor locations. This evaluation uses procedures and methodologies as specified by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and evaluates the potential for the proposed Project to result in noise and vibration impacts at nearby sensitive receptors. Appendix H: Noise Data of this Draft EIR provides supplementary, project-specific background information, construction noise calculation worksheets, and project-generated traffic noise modeling results.
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
4.12.2 Environmental Setting
Sound Fundamentals
Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. It is described in terms of loudness or amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in Hertz [Hz] or cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Changes of 1 to 3 dBA are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions and changes of less than 1 dBA are usually indiscernible. A 3 dBA change in noise levels is considered the minimum change that is detectable with human hearing in outside environments. A change of 5 dBA is readily discernable to most people in an exterior environment whereas a 10 dBA change is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the sound.
The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hz are not heard at all and are “felt” more as a vibration. Similarly, while people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off rapidly above about 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency dependent rating scale is usually used to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by weighting frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the humanear.
Noise is defined as unwanted sound and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the federal government, the State of California, and many local 1173
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-2 4.12 | Noise
governments have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human activities.
Technical Terminology
Noise is most often defined as unwanted sound. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people. People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as “noisiness” or “loudness.” The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this section:
• Sound. A disturbance created by a vibrating object, which, when transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone.
• Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable. • Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale. • A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the humanear.
• Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq); also called the Energy-Equivalent Noise Level. The value of an equivalent, steady sound level which, in a stated time period (often over an hour) and at a stated location, has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time-varying sound. Thus, the Leq metric is a single numerical value that represents the equivalent amount of variable sound energy received by a receptor over the specified duration.
• Statistical Sound Level (Ln). The sound level that is exceeded “n” percent of time during a given sample period. For example, the L50 level is the statistical indicator of the time-varying noise signal that is exceeded 50 percent of the time (during each sampling period); that is, half of the sampling time, the changing noise levels are above this value and half of the time they are below it. This is called the “median sound level.” The L10 level, likewise, is the value that is exceeded 10 percent of the time (i.e., near the maximum) and this is often known as the “intrusive sound level.” The L90 is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is often considered the “effective background level” or “residual noise level.” • Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn or DNL). The energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.
• Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 5 dB added from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm and 10 dB from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am. For general community/environmental noise, CNEL and Ldn values rarely differ by more than 1 dB (with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive, that is, higher than the Ldn value). As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are interchangeable and are treated as equivalent in this assessment.
• Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). The peak signal value of an oscillating vibration velocity waveform usually expressed in inches per second (in/sec).
1174
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-3 4.12 | Noise
• Vibration Decibel (VdB). A unitless measure of vibration, expressed on a logarithmic scale and with respect to a defined reference vibration velocity. In the U.S., the standard reference velocity is 1 micro- inch per second (1x10-6 in/sec).
• Sensitive Receptor. Noise- and vibration-sensitive receptors include land uses where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment and public health and safety. Residences, schools, motels and hotels, libraries, religious institutions, hospitals, and nursing homes are examples. • RCNM. Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model.
Sound Measurement
Sound pressure is measured through the A-weighted measure to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. That is, an A-weighted noise level de-emphasizes low and very high frequencies of sound similar to the human ear’s de-emphasis of thesefrequencies.
Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing points on a sharply rising curve. On a logarithmic scale, an increase of 10 dBA is 10 times more intense than 1 dBA, while 20 dBA is 100 times more intense, and 30 dBA is 1,000 times more intense. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times greater than 0 dBA. The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud).
Sound levels are generated from a source and their decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. This phenomenon is known as “spreading loss.” For a single point source, sound levels decrease by approximately 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source. This drop-off rate is appropriate for noise generated by on-site operations from stationary equipment or activity at a project site. If noise is produced by a line source, such as highway traffic, the sound decreases by 3 dBA for each doubling of distance in a hard site environment. Line source noise in a relatively flat environment with absorptive vegetation decreases by
4.5 dBA for each doubling ofdistance.
Time variation in noise exposure is typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called Leq), or alternately, as a statistical description of the sound level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. For example, the L50 noise level represents the noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time. Half the time the noise level exceeds this level and half the time the noise level is less than this level. This level is also representative of the level that is exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L2, L8 and L25 values represent the noise levels that are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time, or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour. These “Ln” values are typically used to demonstrate compliance for stationary noise sources with a city’s noise ordinance, as discussed below. Other values typically noted during a noise survey are the Lmin and Lmax.
These values represent the minimum and maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over the measurement period.
Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law and the County require that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added 1175
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-4 4.12 | Noise
to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or Day- Night Noise Level (Ldn). The CNEL descriptor requires that an artificial increment of 5 dBA be added to the actual noise level for the hours from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 10 dBA for the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The Ldn descriptor uses the same methodology except that there is no artificial increment added to the hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Both descriptors give roughly the same 24-hour level with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive (i.e., higher).
Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise
Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA.
Exposure to high noise levels affects our entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, and thereby affecting blood pressure, functions of the heart and the nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA could result in permanent hearing damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear. This is called the threshold of pain. Table 4.12-1: Typical Noise Levels shows typical noise levels from familiar noise sources.
Table 4.12-1: Typical Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level
(dBA)
Common Indoor Activities
Onset of physical discomfort 120+
110 Rock Band (near amplification system)
Jet Flyover at 1,000 feet
100
Gas Lawn Mower at three feet
90 Diesel Truck at 50 feet, at 50 mph Food Blender at 3 feet 80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet
Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet
Commercial Area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy Traffic at 300 feet 60
Large Business Office
Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime
30 Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) 20 Broadcast/Recording Studio
10 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013. 1176
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-5 4.12 | Noise
Vibration Fundamentals
Vibration is an oscillating motion in the earth. Like noise, vibration is transmitted in waves, but in this case through the earth or solid objects. Unlike noise, vibration is typically of a frequency that is felt rather than heard.
Vibration can be either natural as in the form of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, or man-made as from explosions, heavy machinery or trains. Both natural and man-made vibration may be continuous such as from operating machinery, or impulsive as from an explosion.
As with noise, vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Amplitude may be characterized in three ways including displacement, velocity, and acceleration. Particle displacement is a measure of the distance that a vibrated particle travels from its original position and for the purposes of soil displacement is typically measured in inches or millimeters. Particle velocity is the rate of speed at which soil particles move in in/sec or millimeters per second (mm/sec). Particle acceleration is the rate of change in velocity with respect to time and is measured in in/sec or mm/sec. Typically, particle velocity (measured in in/sec) and/or acceleration (measured in gravities) are used to describe vibration.
Table 4.12-2: Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels presents the human reaction to various levels of peak particle velocity (PPV).
Table 4.12-2: Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels Vibration Level Peak
Particle Velocity (in/sec)
Human
Reaction
Effect on
Buildings
0.006–0.019 Threshold of perception, possibility of
intrusion
Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any
type
0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible
Recommended upper level of vibration to
which ruins and ancient monuments should
be subjected
0.10 Level at which continuous vibration
begins to annoy people
Virtually no risk of “architectural” (i.e., not
structural) damage to normal buildings
0.20 Vibrations annoying to people in
buildings
Threshold at which there is a risk to
“architectural” damage to normal dwelling
– houses with plastered walls and ceilings
0.4–0.6
Vibrations considered unpleasant by
people subjected to continuous
vibrations and unacceptable to some
people walking on bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than normally
expected from traffic, but would cause
“architectural” damage and possibly minor
structural damage
Source: California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013.
The way in which vibration is transmitted through the earth is called propagation. As vibration waves propagate from a source, the energy is spread over an ever-increasing area such that the energy level striking a given point is reduced with the distance from the energy source. This geometric spreading loss is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Wave energy is also reduced with distance as a result of material damping in the form of internal friction, soil layering, and void spaces. The amount of attenuation provided by material damping varies with soil type and condition as well as the frequency of the wave.
1177
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-6 4.12 | Noise
4.12.3 Regulatory Setting
To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise.
Federal
While there are no federal regulations directly applicable to implementation of the Project under CEQA, the federal government regulates occupational noise exposure common in the workplace through the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Such limitations would apply to the operation of construction equipment and would also apply to any proposed industrial warehouse land uses. Noise exposure of this type is dependent on work conditions and is addressed through a facility’s Health and Safety Plan, as required under OSHA, and is, therefore, not addressed further in this analysis.
State
General Plan Guidelines
The State of California, through its General Plan Guidelines, discusses how ambient noise should influence land use and development decisions and includes a table of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable uses at different noise levels expressed in CNEL. A conditionally acceptable designation implies new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use is made and needed noise insulation features are incorporated in the design. By comparison, a normally acceptable designation indicates that standard construction can occur with no special noise reduction requirements. Local municipalities adopt these compatibility standards as part of their General Plan and modify them as appropriate for their local environmental setting.
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC), Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1, Chapter 12, Interior Environment, §1207.11.2, Allowable Interior Noise Levels, requires that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB in any habitable room. The noise metric is evaluated as either the daynight average sound level (Ldn) or the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), consistent with the noise element of the local general plan.
The State of California’s noise insulation standards for nonresidential uses are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 11, California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). CALGreen noise standards are applied to new or renovation construction projects in California to control interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. Proposed projects may use either the prescriptive method (§5.507.4.1) or the performance method (§5.507.4.2) to show compliance. Under the prescriptive method, a project must demonstrate transmission loss ratings for the wall and roof-ceiling assemblies and exterior windows when located within a noise environment 1178
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-7 4.12 | Noise
of 65 dBA CNEL or higher. Under the performance method, a project must demonstrate that interior noise levels do not exceed 50 dBA Leq(1hr).
Local Noise Standards
City of Ontario General Plan – The Ontario Plan 2050
The Safety and Land Use Elements of The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 set forth goals, policies, and land use guidelines to protect residential neighborhoods and noise-sensitive receptors from excessive noise levels.
The City uses the Noise Level Exposure and Land Use Compatibly Guidelines (shown in Table 4.12-3: Noise Level Exposure and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines below) when siting new development and making land use decisions.
Table 4.12-3: Noise Level Exposure and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines Land Use Categories Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) Category Uses Clearly
Acceptable1
Normally
Acceptable2
Normally
Unacceptable3
Clearly
Unacceptable4
Residential/Lodging
Single Family/Duplex <60 60-65 65-70 70-85
Multi-Family <60 60-65 65-75 75-85
Mobile Homes <60 60-65 - 65-85
Hotel/Motel <65 65-70 70-80 80-85
Public/Institutional
Schools/Hospitals <60 60-65 65-70 70-85
Churches/Libraries <60 60-65 65-70 70-85
Auditoriums/Concert Halls <55 55-60 60-70 70-85
Commercial
Offices <65 65-75 75-80 80-85
Retail <70 70-75 75-80 80-85
Industrial
Manufacturing <70 70-75 75-85 -
Warehousing <70 70-80 80-85 -
Recreational/Open
Space
Parks/Playgrounds <65 65-70 70-75 75-85
Golf Course/Riding Stables <65 65-70 70-75 75-85
Outdoor Spectator Sports <60 60-65 65-70
Outdoor Music
Shells/Amphitheaters - <60 60-65 65-85
Livestock/Wildlife
Preserves <70 - 70-75 75-85
Crop Agriculture <55-85 - - -
Source: The Ontario Plan
1 No special noise insulation required, assuming buildings of normal conventional construction. 2 Acoustical reports will be required for major new residential construction. Conventional construction with closed windows and fresh air supply systems of air conditions will normally suffice 3 New construction should be discouraged. Noise/aviation easements required for all new construction. If new construction does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made, and necessary noise insulation features included. 4 No new construction should be permitted.
The following goals and policies from TOP Safety Element1 are directly relevant to the proposed Project:
Goal S4 An environment where noise does not adversely affect the public’s health, safety, andwelfare.
Goal S4-1 Noise Mitigation. Utilize the City’s Noise Ordinance, building codes and subdivision and development codes to mitigate noise impacts.
1 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Safety Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policy-plan/safety. (accessed April 2023).
1179
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-8 4.12 | Noise
Goal S4-2 Coordination with Transportation Authorities. Collaborate with airport owners, FAA, Caltrans, SANBAG, SCAG, neighboring jurisdictions, and other transportation providers in the preparation and maintenance of, and updates to transportation related plans to minimize noise impacts and provide appropriate mitigation measures.
Goal S4-4 Truck Traffic. Manage truck traffic to minimize noise impacts on sensitive land uses.
Goal S4-5 Roadway Design. Design streets and highways to minimize noise impacts.
Municipal Code Standards
The City of Ontario enforces noise limits through the Municipal Code Chapter 29, Noise. Table 4.12-4:
Exterior Noise Standards – City of Ontario summarizes the City of Ontario’s noise limits.
Table 4.12-4: Exterior Noise Standards – City of Ontario Land Use Allowed Equivalent Noise Level, Leq
7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM
Single-Family Residential 65 dBA 45 dBA
Multi-Family Residential, Mobile Home Parks 65 dBA 50 dBA Commercial Property 65 dBA 60 dBA
Residential Portion of Mixed Use 70 dBA 70 dBA
Manufacturing and Industrial, Other Uses 70 dBA 70 dBA
Source: City of Ontario. 2022. Ontario Municipal Code, Chapter 29 Noise – Section 5-29.04 Exterior Noise Standards. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ontarioca/latest/ontario_ca/0-0-0-41849. (accessed April 2023).
The noise limits summarized in Table 4.12-4 are subject to the following:
• The noise standard for the applicable zone for any fifteen-minute (15) period; and • A maximum instantaneous (single instance) noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus twenty (20) dBA for any period of time (measured using A-weighted slow response). • In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the maximum allowable noise level under such category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. • The Noise Zone IV (residential portion of mixed use) standard shall apply to that portion of residential property falling within one hundred (100) feet of a commercial property or use, if the noise originates from that commercial property or use.
• If the measurement location is on a boundary between two (2) different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply. • Section 5-29.11, the noise standards assigned to Noise Zone I (single-family residential) also apply to the outdoor use area of any school, day care center, hospital or similar health care institution, library or museum while it is in use.
• Section 5-29.06(e), noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition or grading of a public right-of-way is exempt from the provisions of the Municipal Code. • Section 5-29.09 addresses construction noise and states that no person, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition or any other related building activity, shall operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs a 1180
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-9 4.12 | Noise
person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, or a Police or Code Enforcement Officer, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM or on Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM.
City of Chino
The City of Chino enforces noise limits through the Municipal Code Chapter 9.40, Noise. Table 4.12-5:
Exterior Noise Standards for Residential Properties – City of Chino summarizes the City of Chino’s noise limits for residential, school, and hospital (or similar health care institution) properties.
Table 4.12-5: Exterior Noise Standards for Residential Properties – City of Chino Maximum Time of Exposure Noise
Metric
Noise Level Not to Exceed
7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM
30 min/hour L501 55 dBA 50 dBA
15 min/hour L252 60 dBA 55 dBA
5 min/hour L8
3 65 dBA 60 dBA
1 min/hour L2
4 70 dBA 65 dBA
Any Period of Time Lmax5 75 dBA 70 dBA
Source: City of Chino. 2020. Chino Municipal Code, Chapter 9.40 Noise – Section 9.40.040 Exterior Noise Standards, Section 9.40.070 Schools, Churches, Libraries, Health Care Institutions – Special Provisions. https://library.municode.com/ca/chino/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT9PUPEMOWE_CH9.40NO. (accessed April 2023).
Note: A 5 dBA penalty shall be applied in the event of an alleged offensive noise such as impact noise, simple tones, speech, music, or any combination of thereof. The noise standards shall not exceed 1 The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour; or 2 The noise standard plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour;or 3 The noise standard plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour;or 4 The noise standard plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour; or 5 The noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time.
The noise limits summarized in Table 4.12-5 are subject to the following:
• Each of the noise limits specified in Table 4.12-5 shall be reduced by 5 dBA for impulse or simple tone noises, or for noises consisting of speech or music; provided, however, that if the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient shall be the standard. • In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four noise limit categories above, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise category, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.
• If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply. • Construction activity is exempt from the provisions of the Municipal Code between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday through Saturday, with no construction allowed on Sundays and federal holidays pursuant to §9.40.060 and §15.44.030 of the Chino Municipal Code. The construction noise standard is 65 dBA at the affected residential property line. • Section 9.40.110 of the Chino Municipal Code sets the threshold of vibration perception at no more than 0.05 inches/second RMS vertical velocity (equivalent to 94 VdB). 1181
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-10 4.12 | Noise
Existing Conditions
Mobile Noise Sources
Existing roadway noise levels were calculated for the roadway segments in the Project vicinity. This task was accomplished using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and existing traffic volumes from the Traffic Analysis (see Appendix I:
Transportation Reports). The noise prediction model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (also referred to as energy rates) used in the FHWA model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The Caltrans data indicates that California automobile noise is
0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels. The average daily noise levels along roadway segments in proximity to the Project site are included in Table 4.12-6: Existing Traffic Noise Levels. As shown in Table 4.12-6, existing traffic noise levels in the Project vicinity range between 61.7 dBA CNEL and 71.3 dBA CNEL.
Table 4.12-6: Existing Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment ADT dBA CNEL1
Euclid Avenue
SR-60 WB Ramp to SR-60 EB Ramp 53,133 69.7
SR-60 EB Ramp to Walnut Avenue 57,775 70.0
Walnut Avenue to Riverside Drive 43,539 68.8
Riverside Drive to Chino Avenue 39,579 68.3
Chino Avenue to Schaefer Avenue 36,780 70.2
Schaefer Avenue to Project Driveway 1 34,742 69.9
Driveway 1 to Driveway 4 30,338 69.3
Driveway 4 to Edison Avenue 38,099 70.3
Edison Avenue to Eucalyptus Avenue 43,376 70.8
Eucalyptus Avenue to Merrill Avenue 42,026 70.7
Merrill Avenue to Kimball Avenue 38,369 71.3
Schafer Avenue
Euclid Avenue to Project Driveway 5 14,161 64.6
Project Driveway 5 to Project Driveway 7 9,716 62.9
Project Driveway 7 to Sultana Avenue 9,876 62.9
Sultana Drive to Bon View Avenue 9,217 62.6
Bon View Avenue to Grove Avenue 7,522 61.7
Edison Avenue
Euclid Avenue to Project Driveway 8 20,081 67.1
Project Driveway 8 to Project Driveway 10 16,492 66.2
Project Driveway 10 to Sultana Drive 16,690 66.2
Sultana Drive to Bon View Avenue 15,563 65.9
Bon View Avenue to Grove Avenue 15,875 65.9
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL= Community Equivalent Noise Level Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline.
Source: Based on traffic data provided by Urban Crossroads (2023). Refer to Appendix H for traffic noise modeling results.
1182
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-11 4.12 | Noise
Chino Airport
The Project site is located directly north of the Chino Airport. Due to the orientation of the runway, the project would not fall within the 55 dBA CNEL noise contour2 . As shown in Table 4.12-6, existing traffic
noise exceeds the 55 dBA noise level generated by the airport. Therefore, the Chino Airport would not be a significant source of noise for the Project site.
Ambient Noise Measurements
The Project site currently contains land used for dairy farming. To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the Project area, Kimley-Horn conducted five short-term noise measurements on February 8, 2023; see Appendix H. The noise measurement sites were representative of typical existing noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the Project site. The 10-minute measurements were taken between 2:15 p.m. and 3:42 p.m. near potential sensitive receptors. Short-term Leq measurements are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day. The noise levels and sources of noise measured at each location are listed in Table 4.12-7: Existing Noise Measurements and shown on Figure 4.12-1: Noise Measurement and Sensitive Receptor Locations.
Table 4.12-7: Existing Noise Measurements
Monitoring
Location Description Leq(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA) Time
NM-1 Intersection of Edison Avenue and Sultana Avenue 74.8 48.5 92.3 2:15-2:25 p.m.
NM-2 South of Farmhouse Avenue 56.1 46.2 63.9 2:41-2:51 p.m.
NM-3 Euclid Avenue by the Residences on the corner of
Joy Street and Mashona Avenue 75.0 46.0 89.9 3:06-3:16 p.m.
NM-4 7255 Schaefer Avenue 73.0 46.0 86.4 3:32-3:42 p.m.
Source: Kimley-Horn refer to Appendix H
2 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document. 2008. Chino Airport, Map CH-3. https://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/PDFGeneral/plan/newplan/09-%20Vol.%201%20Chino.pdf. (accessed April 2023). 1183
1 2
3 4
1 2
3 4
PROJECT SITE
SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
SHORT-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
Not to scale
Source: County of San Bernardino, 2019.
FIGURE 4.12-1: Sensitive Receptors and
Noise Measurement Locations
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
1184
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-13 4.12 | Noise
Sensitive Receptors
The Project site contains an existing dairy farm and plant nurseries bounded by Euclid Avenue to the west, Sultana Avenue to the east, Edison Avenue to the south, and Schaefer Avenue to the north. The nearest sensitive receptors are the single-family residences located across the street from the Project site, along Euclid Avenue with other nearby residences located surrounding the Project site. The houses directly west of the Project along Euclid Avenue are the nearest receptors to Phase I, approximately 135 feet (41 meters) from the Phase I Project boundary. The nearest sensitive receptor from Phase II of the Project are the houses along Sultana Avenue to the east, approximately 110 feet (34 meters) from Phase II Project boundary. See Table 4.12-8: Sensitive Receptor Locations and Figure 4.12-1 for sensitive receptor locations and labels.
Table 4.12-8: Sensitive Receptor Locations
Sensitive Receptor
Number Description Distance (Feet)
1 Residences west across Euclid Avenue 135 feet
2 Residence east across Sultana Avenue 110 feet
3 Residence south across Edison Avenue 160 feet
4 Residence northeast across Schaefer Avenue 200 feet
Source: Google Earth, 2023
4.12.4 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 result in:
1) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
2) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. 3) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Construction Noise
City of Chino
The City of Chino has set a noise limit to construction noise at 65 dBA at the affected residential property line.
City of Ontario
The City of Ontario has not established noise limits for temporary construction activities. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, the 65 dBA threshold from the City of Chino, located directly adjacent to the western Project boundary, is used to analyze construction noise impacts to affected residences in the City of Ontario.
1185
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-14 4.12 | Noise
Stationary Noise
City of Ontario
As discussed above in Section 4.12.2: Regulatory Setting, the City’s noise ordinance (Chapter 29, Noise, of the Municipal Code) establishes noise level standards at receiving residential, school, daycare, hospital, library and museum land uses (see Table 4.12-4). These noise limits are used as significance thresholds for the impact of stationary noise sources on receptors located within the City of Ontario.
City of Chino
As discussed in Section 4.12.2: Regulatory Setting, the City of Chino establishes noise level standards at receiving residential land uses in Section 9.40.040 of the City’s Municipal Code (see Table 4.12-5). These noise limits are used as significance thresholds for the impact of stationary noise sources on receptors located within the City of Chino.
Vibration
Architectural Damage
The cities of Ontario and Chino do not have established vibration damage criteria, therefore the United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration (FTA) criteria for acceptable levels of ground-borne vibration for various types of buildings is used for this analysis. Structures that amplify ground borne vibration and wood-frame buildings, such as typical residential structures, are more affected by ground vibration than heavier buildings. The level at which ground borne vibration is strong enough to cause architectural damage has not been determined conclusively. The most conservative estimates are reflected in the FTA standards shown in Table 4.12-9: Ground borne Vibration Criteria – Architectural Damage.
Table 4.12-9: Ground borne Vibration Criteria - Architectural Damage Building Category PPV (in/sec)
I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
Vibration Annoyance
Section 9.40.110 of the Chino Municipal Code sets the threshold of vibration perception at no more than
0.05 in/sec root mean squared (RMS) vertical velocity (equivalent to 94 VdB). Therefore, the potential for vibration annoyance is assessed using 94 VdB as a threshold in this analysis. 1186
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-15 4.12 | Noise
4.12.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP N-1 The proposed project shall comply with City of Ontario MC Chapter 29, Exterior Noise Standards and Section 5-29.09, which limits construction activities to weekdays between the hours of 7:00 am and 6:00 pm or on Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 9:00 am and 6:00 pm.
PPP N-2 The proposed project shall comply with City of Chino MC Chapter 9.40, Exterior Noise Standards, and Section 15.44.040, which limits construction activities between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm Monday through Saturday, with no construction allowed on Sundays and federal holidays.
Methodology
Construction
Construction noise levels were based on typical noise levels generated by construction equipment published by the FTA and FHWA. Construction noise is assessed in dBA Leq. This unit is appropriate because Leq can be used to describe noise level from operation of each piece of equipment separately, and levels can be combined to represent the noise level from all equipment operating during a given period.
Construction noise modeling was conducting using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). Reference noise levels are used to estimate operational noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors based on a standard noise attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance (line-of-sight method of sound attenuation for point sources of noise). Noise level estimates do not account for the presence of intervening structures or topography, which may reduce noise levels at receptor locations. Therefore, the noise levels presented herein represent a conservative, reasonable worst-case estimate of actual temporary construction noise.
Operations
The analysis of the Without Project and With Project noise environments is based on noise prediction modeling and empirical observations. Reference noise level data are used to estimate the Project operational noise impacts from stationary sources. Noise levels are collected from field noise measurements and other published sources from similar types of activities are used to estimate noise levels expected with the Project’s stationary sources. The reference noise levels are used to represent a worst-case noise environment as noise level from stationary sources can vary throughout the day.
Operational noise is evaluated based on the standards within the City’s Noise Ordinance and TOP. The Without Project and With Project traffic noise levels in the Project vicinity were calculated using the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108).
Vibration
Groundborne vibration levels associated with construction-related activities for the Project were evaluated utilizing typical groundborne vibration levels associated with construction equipment, obtained from FTA published data for construction equipment. Potential groundborne vibration impacts related to 1187
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-16 4.12 | Noise
building/structure damage and interference with sensitive existing operations were evaluated, considering the distance from construction activities to nearby land uses and typically applied criteria.
Construction vibration levels were calculated using the following formula:
PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
where: PPVequip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPVref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.
D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver
4.12.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.12-1: Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels.
During construction, exterior noise levels could affect the residential neighborhoods surrounding the construction site. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Phase I construction area is an existing residential residence located approximately 135 feet from the Project boundary, directly west along Euclid Avenue in the City of Chino, identified as Sensitive Receptor 1 in Figure 4.12-1. The closest sensitive receptor in the City of Ontario is located approximately 270 feet northeast from the Project Boundary, identified as Sensitive Receptor 4 in Figure 4.12-1.
Phase I construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, and paving. Such activities would require industrial saws, excavators, and dozers during demolition; dozers and tractors during site preparation; excavators, graders, and dozers during grading; cranes, forklifts, generators, tractors, and welders during building construction; and pavers, rollers, mixers, and paving equipment during paving. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 to 4 minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. Typical noise levels associated with individual construction equipment are listed in Table 4.12-10: Typical Construction Noise Levels. Equipment noise levels at 135 feet and 110 feet, the distance to the nearest sensitive receptors 1 and 2 during Phase I and Phase II construction activities, respectively, are included in Table 4.12-10. 1188
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-17 4.12 | Noise
Table 4.12-10: Typical Construction Noise Levels
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA)
at 50 feet from Source
Phase I Phase II
Typical Noise Level (dBA)
at 135 feet from Source1
Typical Noise Level (dBA)
at 110 feet from Source1
Backhoe 80 71 73
Compactor 82 73 75
Concrete Mixer 85 76 78
Concrete Pump 82 73 75
Concrete Vibrator 76 67 69
Crane, Mobile 83 74 76
Dozer 85 76 78
Generator 82 73 75
Grader 85 76 78
Impact Wrench 85 76 78
Jack Hammer 88 79 81
Loader 80 71 73
Paver 85 76 78
Pneumatic Tool 85 76 78
Pump 77 68 70
Roller 85 76 78
Saw 76 67 69
Scraper 85 76 78
Shovel 82 73 75
Truck 84 75 77
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
The City of Ontario has not established noise limits for temporary construction activities. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, the City of Chino threshold of 65 dBA at the affected residential property is used to analyze construction noise impacts to affected residences in the City of Ontario. Chino city limits are also adjacent to the western boundary of the Project. As shown in Table 4.12-10, if construction equipment remained stationary and was located at the Project boundary nearest to the closest sensitive receptor construction noise could exceed the City’s 65 dBA threshold. However, construction equipment will be moving throughout the site and all stationary equipment is located away from sensitive receptors as a best practice.
Following FTA’s methodology for quantitative construction noise assessments, FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) was used to predict construction noise. The noise levels calculated in Table 4.12-11: Phase I Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptor, show estimated exterior construction noise. Following FTA methodology, when calculating construction noise, all equipment is assumed to operate at the center of the Project because equipment would operate throughout the Project site and not at a fixed location for extended periods of time. The distance used in the RCNM model was 900 feet, measured from the center of the Phase I area to the nearest sensitive, Sensitive Receptor 1. 1189
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-18 4.12 | Noise
Table 4.12-11: Phase I Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptor Construction Phase
Modeled
Exterior
Construction
Noise Level at
Nearest
Residence
(dBA Leq)
Noise
Threshold
(dBA Leq)
Exceed
Threshold?
Ambient
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Construction
+ Ambient
Combined
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Exceed
Threshold?
Demolition 61.3
65 No
56.1 62.4 No1
Site Preparation 62.5 No 63.4 No1
Grading 63.1 No 63.9 No1
Construction and Paving 61.9 No 62.9 No1
1. Combined Noise level remains below the 65 dBA construction noise threshold for residential uses.
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model, 2006. Refer to Appendix H for noise modeling results.
As shown in Table 4.12-11, construction noise would not exceed the 65 dBA threshold at residential properties. In addition, compliance with the Municipal Code would minimize impacts from construction noise by limiting construction to daytime hours on weekdays and Saturdays. Phase I construction activities would result in a less than significant noise impact.
Construction noise would increase ambient noise in the project’s vicinity. Generally, noise increases of less than 3 dBA is barely perceptible to people, while a 5-dBA increase is readily noticeable. Therefore, ambient noise level increases greater than 5 dBA would be considered significant, but temporary. As shown in Table 4.12-11, construction noise would lead to an increase in ambient noise levels by a maximum of 7.8 dBA. However, the combined noise level would remain below the 65 dBA construction threshold for residential uses. Thus, construction noise would be considered less than significant.
Operations
Implementation of the proposed Project would create new sources of noise in the Project vicinity. The major noise sources associated with the Project that would potentially impact existing nearby residences include stationary noise equipment (i.e., trash compactors, air conditioners, etc.); truck and loading dock (i.e., slow moving truck on the site, maneuvering and idling trucks, equipment noise); parking areas (i.e., car door slamming, car radios, engine start-up, and car pass-by); and off-site traffic noise.
Mechanical Equipment
Potential stationary noise sources related to long-term operation of the Project would include mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment (e.g., heating ventilation and air conditioning [HVAC] equipment) typically generates noise levels of approximately 52 dBA at 50 feet. Based on preliminary site plans, the nearest potential location for a HVAC unit would be on the roof of Building 3, approximately 170 feet from Sensitive Receptor 1 in the City of Chino. HVAC noise levels would attenuate by the distance to approximately 41.4 dBA, which is well below the City of Chino’s 55 dBA daytime and 50 dBA nighttime noise standards for residential uses (refer to Table 4.12-5). The ambient noise level at Sensitive Receptor 1 was measured to be 56.1 dBA (refer to Table 4.12-7) and would increase by 0.1 dBA with the inclusion of the HVAC equipment. This increase would be below the 3 dBA perceptibility threshold.
For the closest receptor located in the City of Ontario, the nearest potential location for an HVAC unit would be on the roof of Building 7, approximately 370 feet from the residential property line of Sensitive 1190
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-19 4.12 | Noise
Receptor 4. HVAC noise levels would attenuate by the distance to approximately 34.6 dBA, which is well below the City of Ontario’s 65 dBA daytime and 45 dBA nighttime noise standards for residential uses (refer to Table 4.12-4). Operation of mechanical equipment would not increase ambient noise levels beyond the acceptable compatible land use noise levels. Ambient noise levels measured at Sensitive Receptor 4 was measured to be 73.0 dBA (refer to Table 4.12-7) and would remain at the same noise level with the inclusion of the Project. Therefore, HVAC equipment noise would not result in a perceptible 3 dBA ambient noise level increase.
Truck and Loading Dock Noise
During loading and unloading activities, noise would be generated by the trucks’ diesel engines, exhaust systems, and brakes during low gear shifting’ braking activities; backing up toward the docks; dropping down the dock ramps; and maneuvering away from the docks. The nearest loading/unloading activities to residential properties would occur on the western edge of the Project site at the business park area, buildings two and three.
The proposed Project buildings include dock-high doors for truck loading/unloading and manufacturing/light industrial operations. The nearest dock-high doors to residencesin Chino are located approximately 270 feet from the nearest residential property line (Sensitive Receptor 1) and are oriented to the east, away from the residences to the west. Loading dock noise is approximately 68 dB at 30 feet.
Loading dock noise levels would be approximately 49.4 dBA at insensitive Receptor 1 without accounting for the intervening structures. The ambient noise level at Sensitive Receptor 1 was measured to be 56.1 dBA and would increase by 0.8 dBA to 56.9 dBA with the inclusion of Project. Furthermore, loading dock doors would be surrounded with protective aprons, gaskets, or similar improvements that, when a trailer is docked, would serve as a noise barrier between the interior warehouse activities and the exterior loading area. This would attenuate noise emanating from interior activities, and as such, interior loading and associated activities would be permissible during all hours of the day. Therefore, noise levels associated with truck loading/unloading activities would not exceed the City of Chino’s 55 dBA daytime and 50 dBA nighttime noise standards and would not result in a perceptible ambient noise level increase when measured at the nearest residential uses.
The nearest dock high doors to residences in Ontario are located approximately 575 feet from the nearest residential property line (Sensitive Receptor 4) and are oriented west, away from the residential receptors. At this distance, loading dock noise levels would be approximately 42.8 dBA at Sensitive Receptor 4 without accounting for the intervening structures. The ambient noise level at Sensitive Receptor 4 was measured to be 73.0 dBA and would not increase with the inclusion of Project. Therefore, noise levels associated with truck loading/unloading activities would not exceed the City of Ontario’s 65 dBA daytime and 45 dBA nighttime noise standards and would not result in a perceptible ambient noise level increase when measured at the nearest residential uses.
Parking Noise
Phase I of the Project would provide a total of 851 parking stalls, 401 trailers stalls, and 129 dock doors.
Parking stalls would be located on all sides of the proposed buildings, dispersed throughout the Phase I area, except along the edges of the Project site. Nominal parking noise would occur within the on-site 1191
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-20 4.12 | Noise
parking facilities. Traffic associated with parking lots is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards, which are based on a time-averaged scale such as the CNEL scale. The instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up, and car pass-bys range from 53 to 61 dBA; however due to the orientation of the buildings, sensitive receptors would be shielded from the majority of parking lot noise. It should be noted that parking lot noises are instantaneous noise levels compared to noise standards in the hourly Leq metric, which are averaged over the entire duration of a time period. Therefore, parking noise would not exceed the City of Chino’s 55 dBA daytime and 50 dBA nighttime noise standards and the City of Ontario’s 65 dBA daytime and 45 dBA nighttime noise standards, and would not result in a perceptible ambient noise level increase when measured at the nearest residential uses.
Specific Plan – Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction
Analyzed as a worst-case scenario, Phase II construction activities are assumed to be similar to Phase I, and would include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and would also include architectural coating. Such activities would require dozers and tractors during site preparation; excavators, graders, and dozers during grading; cranes, forklifts, generators, tractors, and welders during building construction; pavers, rollers, mixers, and paving equipment during paving; and air compressors during architectural coating. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Phase II construction area are existing residential properties located approximately 110 feet from the Project boundary, identified as Sensitive Receptor 2 in Figure 4.12-1, on the east side of Sultana Avenue. Typical noise levels associated with individual construction equipment are listed in Table 4.12-10.
As discussed previously, the City of Ontario has not established noise limits for temporary construction activities. Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, the City of Chino threshold of 65 dBA at the affected residential property is also used to analyze construction noise impacts to affected residences in the City of Ontario.
The noise levels calculated in Table 4.12-12: Phase II Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptor, show estimated exterior construction noise. Following FTA methodology, when calculating construction noise, all equipment is assumed to operate at the center of the Project because equipment would operate throughout the Project site and not at a fixed location for extended periods of time. Therefore, the distances used in the RCNM model was 900 feet, measured from the center of the Phase II area to the nearest sensitive receptor, Sensitive Receptor 2.
1192
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-21 4.12 | Noise
Table 4.12-12: Phase II Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptor Construction Phase
Modeled
Exterior
Construction
Noise Level at
Nearest
Residence
(dBA Leq)
Noise
Threshold
(dBA Leq)
Exceed
Threshold?
Ambient
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Constructio
n + Ambient
Combined
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Exceed
Threshold?1
Demolition 61.3
65 No
74.8 75.0 No
Site Preparation 62.5 No 75.0 No
Grading 63.1 No 75.1 No
Construction/Paving/Painting 61.0 No 75.0 No
Paving 54.6 No 74.8 No
Architectural Coating 48.6 No 74.8 No
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model, 2006. Refer to Appendix H for noise modeling results.
1. An increase in ambient noise of 5 dBA is readily perceptible and considered significant.
As shown in Table 4.12-12 construction noise would not exceed the 65 dBA threshold at residential properties. In addition, compliance with the Municipal Code would minimize impacts from construction noise by limiting construction to daytime hours on weekdays and Saturdays. Phase II construction activities would result in a less than significant noise impact.
As mentioned previously, noise increase of 5 dBA is readily perceptible to people. Therefore, ambient noise level increases greater than 5 dBA would be considered significant. As shown in Table 4.12-12, construction noise would not lead to an increase in ambient noise levels by more than 5 dBA. Therefore, construction noise levels would not be perceptible at the nearest sensitive receptor.
Operations
As discussed under Phase I, implementation of Phase II of the Project would also create new sources of noise in the project vicinity. The major noise sources associated with Phase II that would potentially impact existing nearby residences include stationary noise equipment (i.e., trash compactors, air conditioners, etc.); truck and loading dock (i.e., slow moving truck on the site, maneuvering and idling trucks, equipment noise); parking areas (i.e., car door slamming, car radios, engine start-up, and car pass-by); and restaurant/drive-thru traffic noise.
Mechanical Equipment
Potential stationary noise sources related to long-term operation of the Project would include mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC equipment) typically generates noise levels of approximately 52 dBA at 50 feet. Although the site plan for Phase II has not been designed, as a worstcase scenario, the minimum setbacks permitted have been assumed for Phase II buildings located next to the nearest sensitive receptors (30 feet).
3 Therefore, the nearest potential location for a HVAC unit would be located approximately 140 feet from the nearest residential property in Chino (Sensitive Receptor 3).
HVAC noise levels would attenuate by the distance to approximately 43.1 dBA at Sensitive Receptor 3 3 City of Ontario. ND. Development Code – Chapter 6.0: Development and Subdivision Regulations, Development and Subdivision Regulations.
Table 6.01-10: Industrial Zoning District Development Standards. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Documents/Planning%20Documents/Development%20Code/Chapter%206.0%20Development%20and%20Subdivision%20Reg ulations.pdf. (accessed April 2023).
1193
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-22 4.12 | Noise
which is well below the City of Chino’s 55 dBA daytime and 50 dBA nighttime noise standards for residential uses (refer to Table 4.12-5). The ambient noise level at locations representative of Sensitive Receptor 3 was measured to be 74.8 dBA and would not increase with the inclusion of the HVAC equipment.4 Therefore, HVAC equipment noise would not result in a perceptible 3 dBA ambient noise level increase.
The nearest potential location for a HVAC unit would be located approximately 190 feet from the nearest residential property in Ontario (Sensitive Receptor 2). HVAC noise levels would attenuate by the distance to approximately 40.4 dBA at Sensitive Receptor 2, which is well below the City of Ontario’s 65 dBA daytime and 45 dBA nighttime noise standards for residential uses (refer to Table 4.12-4), respectively.
Operation of mechanical equipment would not increase ambient noise levels beyond the acceptable compatible land use noise levels. Ambient noise levels measured at Sensitive Receptor 2 was measured to be 74.8 dBA (refer to Table 4.12-7) and would remain at the same noise level with the inclusion of the Project. Therefore, HVAC equipment noise would not result in a perceptible 3 dBA ambient noise level increase.
Truck and Loading Dock Noise
During loading and unloading activities, noise would be generated by the trucks’ diesel engines, exhaust systems, and brakes during low gear shifting’ braking activities; backing up toward the docks; dropping down the dock ramps; and maneuvering away from the docks. Although the site plan for Phase 2 has not been designed, for this analysis it has been assumed that Phase 2 buildings located nearest sensitive receptors would have a similar layout as those in Phase 1.
Assuming a similar design as Phase 1, dock-high doors for truck loading/unloading and manufacturing/light industrial operations would be oriented away from sensitive receptors and located approximately 260 feet from the nearest residence (Sensitive Receptor 2). Loading dock noise levels would be approximately 49.7 dBA at Sensitive Receptor 2 without accounting for the intervening structures. The ambient noise level at Sensitive Receptor 2 was measured to be 74.8 dBA and inclusion of the loading dock noise would not increase ambient noise levels. Furthermore, loading dock doors would be surrounded with protective aprons, gaskets, or similar improvements that, when a trailer is docked, would serve as a noise barrier between the interior warehouse activities and the exterior loading area. This would attenuate noise emanating from interior activities, and as such, interior loading and associated activities would be permissible during all hours of the day. Therefore, noise levels associated with truck loading/unloading activities would not exceed the City of Ontario’s 65 dBA daytime and 45 dBA nighttime noise standards and would not result in a perceptible ambient noise level increase when measured at the nearest residential uses.
According to the proposed land use plan for Phase II, industrial uses would be located on the eastern side of the Project site and would not be located adjacent to or within 1,000 of residential properties in the City of Chino. Therefore, noise levels associated with truck loading/unloading activities would not exceed 4 Ambient Noise levels were not collected at Sensitive Receptor 3. Therefore, ambient noise levels at Sensitive Receptor location 2 is used as the ambient noise level due to its proximity to Sensitive Receptor 3. 1194
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-23 4.12 | Noise
the City of Chino’s daytime or nighttime noise standards and would not result in a perceptible ambient noise level increase when measured at the nearest residential uses.
Parking Noise
Phase II parking stalls would be located on all sides of the proposed buildings including along the edges of the Project site. However, parking areas would be required to meet the City of Ontario’s minimum setback requirements for parking lots. Nominal parking noise would occur within the on-site parking facilities.
Traffic associated with parking lots is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards, which are based on a time-averaged scale such as the CNEL scale. The instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up, and car pass-bys range from 53 to 61 dBA. It should be noted that parking lot noises are instantaneous noise levels compared to noise standards in the hourly Leq metric, which are averaged over the entire duration of a time period. At the closest sensitive receptor 190 feet away (Sensitive Receptor 3), commercial parking lot noise would reach
49.4 dBA and would not increase ambient noise levels at Sensitive Receptor 3. The hours of operation of the commercial spaces is anticipated to be between 7:00 a.m. and 10 p.m. Therefore, parking noise would occur only during the day and would not exceed the City of Chino’s 55 dBA daytime standard and would not result in a perceptible ambient noise level increase when measured at the nearest residential uses.
The closest sensitive receptor in the City of Ontario is located approximately 140 feet away from the nearest parking area. Noise levels would reach 52.1 dBA and would not increase ambient noise levels at Sensitive Receptor 2. As mentioned previously, operation of the Phase II parking lot would occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Therefore, parking noise would only occur during the day and would not exceed the City of Ontario’s 65 dBA daytime standard.
Restaurant/Drive-Thru Traffic Noise
Phase II of the Project would include a drive-thru restaurant with menu boards and intercoms. Project noise sources from drive-thru operations include amplified speech from the intercom, idling vehicles, and vehicles circulating along the drive-thru lane. The measured noise level associated with active drive-thru operations is 64 dBA at a distance of 20 feet.5 As mentioned previously, the site plan for Phase 2 has not been designed, therefore for this analysis it has been assumed that drive-thru operations would be located along Edison Avenue at a point closest to sensitive receptors. The nearest sensitive receptor would be Sensitive Receptor 3 (Chino) located at least 160 feet from the drive-thru lane/queuing area, with the proposed menu board and intercom being located even further. At this distance, drive -thru operations would reach 45.9 dBA during peak hours and would not increase ambient noise levels at Sensitive Receptor 3. Furthermore, noise generated through drive-thru operations would fluctuate depending on the time of day and would be below the level listed above at non-peak hours. Therefore, drive-thru operation noise would not exceed the City of Chino’s 55 dBA daytime and 50 dBA nighttime noise standards and would not result in a perceptible ambient noise level increase when measured at the nearest residential uses.
5 Drive-thru noise sample collected by Kimley-Horn on August 17, 2018. 1195
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-24 4.12 | Noise
Project Buildout (Phase I + Phase II)
Operations
As discussed under Phase I and Phase II operations, implementation of the proposed Project would create new sources of noise in the Project vicinity. Project Buildout looks at all major noise sources from both Phase I and Phase II when the entire Project is built and operational. Project Buildout impacts to sensitive receptors would be similar to those discussed under Phase II as the nearest sensitive receptor to the Project site is located 110 feet from the Phase II area.
Mechanical Equipment
Refer to mechanical equipment discussions under Phase I and Phase II. As discussed above, mechanical equipment noise would not exceed applicable thresholds for the nearest sensitive receptors located in the City of Ontario and City of Chino. Operation of mechanical equipment would not increase ambient noise levels beyond the acceptable compatible land use noise levels.
Truck and Loading Dock Noise
Refer to truck and loading dock discussion noise under Phase I and Phase II. As discussed above, truck and loading dock noise would not exceed applicable thresholds for the nearest sensitive receptors located in the City of Ontario and City of Chino.
Parking Noise
Refer to parking noise discussions under Phase I and Phase II. As discussed above, parking lot noise would not exceed applicable thresholds for the nearest sensitive receptors located in the City of Ontario and City of Chino.
On-Site Composite Noise
Each on-site operational noise source would impact the closest sensitive receptors to the Project site.
Table 4.12-13: On-Site Composite Noise shows the overall noise level generated by the Project at each of the closest sensitive receptors and the combined noise level experienced by the sensitive receptors from Project buildout operations. A noise level increase less than 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible.
Therefore, ambient noise level increases less than 3 dBA would be considered less than significant.
Table 4.12-13: On-Site Composite Noise
Sensitive Receptor
Modeled
Exterior
Operational
Noise (dBA Leq)
Ambient Noise
Level
(dBA Leq)
Ambient +
Project
Combined
Noise Level
Incremental
Increase
Exceed
Threshold?1
Sensitive Receptor 1 51.2 56.1 57.3 1.2 No
Sensitive Receptor 2 54.2 74.8 74.8 0.0 No
Sensitive Receptor 3 49.4 74.8 74.8 0.0 No
Sensitive Receptor 4 50.4 73.0 73.0 0.0 No
Refer to Appendix H for noise modeling results.
1. An increase in ambient noise of 3 dBA is barely perceptible and considered significant. 1196
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-25 4.12 | Noise
As shown in Table 4.12-13, none of the closest sensitive receptors would experience a noise level increase greater than 3 dBA. Therefore, on-site operational noise impacts with regard to increases in ambient noise levels would be less than significant.
Off-Site Traffic Noise
Implementation of the Project would generate increased traffic volumes along nearby roadway segments.
According to the Traffic Analysis, the Project Buildout would generate a total of 8,820 daily trips which would result in noise increases on Project area roadways. In general, a traffic noise increase of less than 3 dBA is barely perceptible to people, while a 5-dBA increase is readily noticeable. Generally, traffic volumes on Project area roadways would have to approximately double for the resulting traffic noise levels to increase by 3 dBA. Therefore, permanent increases in ambient noise levels of less than 3 dBA are considered to be less than significant.
Traffic noise levels for roadways primarily affected by the Project were calculated using the FHWA’s Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Traffic noise modeling was conducted for conditions With and Without the Project, based on traffic volumes from the Traffic Analysis. Table 4.12-14: Project Buildout (Phase I and Phase II) Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels identifies Project trafficgenerated noise levels from both Phase I and Phase II combined. Noise levels on Project area roadways under With Project conditions would range between 61.8 dBA CNEL and 71.5 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline, and the Project would result in a maximum increase of 1.7 dBA CNEL along Edison Avenue.
Noise impacts from off-site traffic would be less than significant.
Table 4.12-14: Project Buildout (Phase I and Phase II) Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels Roadway Segment
Existing Existing Plus
Project Buildout
Project
Change
from No
Build
Conditions
Significant
Impact? ADT dBA
CNEL1 ADT dBA CNEL1
Edison Avenue
SR-60 WB Ramp to SR-60 EB Ramp 53,133 69.7 55,847 69.7 0.0 No SR-60 EB Ramp to Walnut Avenue 57,775 70.0 60,773 70.1 0.1 No Walnut Avenue to Riverside Drive 43,539 68.8 47,599 69.0 0.2 No Riverside Drive to Chino Avenue 39,579 68.3 44,093 68.7 0.4 No Chino Avenue to Schaefer Avenue 36,780 70.2 41,602 70.7 0.5 No Schaefer Avenue to Project Driveway 1 34,742 69.9 39,986 70.5 0.6 No Driveway 1 to Driveway 4 30,338 69.3 35,858 70.0 0.7 No Driveway 4 to Edison Avenue 38,099 70.3 42,293 70.6 0.3 No Edison Avenue to Eucalyptus Avenue 43,376 70.8 47,263 71.2 0.4 No Eucalyptus Avenue to Merrill Avenue 42,026 70.7 44,640 71.0 0.3 No Merrill Avenue to Kimball Avenue 38,369 71.3 40,087 71.5 0.2 No Schaefer Avenue
Euclid Avenue to Project Driveway 5 14,161 64.6 15,084 64.9 0.3 No Project Driveway 5 to Project Driveway 7 9,716 62.9 10,650 63.3 0.4 No Sultana Drive to Bon View Avenue 9,217 62.6 9,567 62.8 0.2 No Bon View Avenue to Grove Avenue 7,522 61.7 7,722 61.8 0.1 No Project Driveway 5 to Project Driveway 7 9,716 62.9 10,650 63.3 0.4 No 1197
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-26 4.12 | Noise
Roadway Segment
Existing Existing Plus
Project Buildout
Project
Change
from No
Build
Conditions
Significant
Impact? ADT dBA
CNEL1 ADT dBA CNEL1
Edison Avenue
Euclid Avenue to Project Driveway 8 20,081 67.1 23,706 67.8 0.7 No Project Driveway 8 to Project Driveway 10 16,492 66.2 22,141 67.5 1.3 No Sultana Drive to Bon View Avenue 15,563 65.9 21,995 67.4 1.5 No Bon View Avenue to Grove Avenue 15,875 65.9 23,239 67.6 1.7 No Euclid Avenue to Project Driveway 8 20,081 67.1 23,706 67.8 0.7 No ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL= Community Equivalent Noise Level
1. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline.
Source: Based on traffic data provided by Urban Crossroads (2023). Refer to Appendix H for traffic noise modeling results.
The Traffic Analysis also identifies average daily traffic for the “Opening Year Without Project” and “Opening Year Plus Project.” Noise levels for these scenarios are compared in Table 4.12-15: Project Buildout (Phase I and Phase II) Opening Year and Opening Year Plus Project Buildout Traffic Noise Levels.
As shown in Table 4.12-15, the opening year Project traffic-generated noise levels on Project area roadways under With Project conditions would range between 62.7 dBA CNEL and 73.6 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline, and the Project would result in a maximum increase of 0.4 dBA CNEL along Edison Avenue. Noise impacts from off-site traffic would be less than significant in this regard.
Table 4.12-15: Project Buildout (Phase I and Phase II) Opening Year and Opening Year Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Opening Year Opening Year Plus
Project
Project
Change
from No
Build
Conditions
Significant
Impact?
ADT dBA
CNEL1 ADT dBA CNEL1
Euclid Avenue
SR-60 WB Ramp to SR-60 EB Ramp 72,792 70.8 73,347 70.9 0.1 No SR-60 EB Ramp to Walnut Avenue 85,177 71.5 86,008 71.6 0.1 No Walnut Avenue to Riverside Drive 77,713 71.1 78,821 71.2 0.1 No Riverside Drive to Chino Avenue 75,066 71.0 76,218 71.0 0.0 No Chino Avenue to Schaefer Avenue 72,518 73.1 73,592 73.1 0.0 No Schaefer Avenue to Project Driveway 1 70,493 73.0 71,795 73.0 0.0 No Driveway 1 to Driveway 4 64,610 72.5 66,018 72.6 0.1 No Driveway 4 to Edison Avenue 72,453 73.0 73,441 73.0 0.0 No Edison Avenue to Eucalyptus Avenue 74,793 73.2 75,721 73.3 0.1 No Eucalyptus Avenue to Merrill Avenue 72,932 73.1 73,482 73.1 0.0 No Merrill Avenue to Kimball Avenue 64,852 73.6 65,314 73.6 0.0 No Schafer Avenue
Euclid Avenue to Project Driveway 5 19,186 65.9 19,847 66.1 0.2 No Project Driveway 5 to Project Driveway 7 11,876 63.8 12,555 64.0 0.2 No Project Driveway 7 to Sultana Avenue 12,053 63.8 12,507 64.0 0.2 No Sultana Drive to Bon View Avenue 11,325 63.5 11,733 63.6 0.1 No Bon View Avenue to Grove Avenue 9,287 62.6 9,463 62.7 0.1 No Edison Avenue
Euclid Avenue to Project Driveway 8 28,341 68.6 28,787 68.7 0.1 No 1198
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-27 4.12 | Noise
Roadway Segment
Opening Year Opening Year Plus
Project
Project
Change
from No
Build
Conditions
Significant
Impact?
ADT dBA
CNEL1 ADT dBA CNEL1
Project Driveway 8 to Project Driveway 10 19,120 66.8 19,716 67.0 0.2 No Project Driveway 10 to Sultana Drive 19,339 66.9 20,615 67.1 0.2 No Sultana Drive to Bon View Avenue 24,489 67.8 25,765 68.1 0.3 No Bon View Avenue to Grove Avenue 25,359 67.9 27,197 68.3 0.4 No ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL= Community Equivalent Noise Level
1. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline.
Source: Based on traffic data provided by Urban Crossroads (2023). Refer to Appendix H for traffic noise modeling results.
Conclusion
As demonstrated in Tables 4.12-11 through 4.12-15, implementation of the Project would not result in substantial temporary or permanent increases in ambient noise levels. Table 4.12-11 and Table 4.12-12 confirm that construction of Phase I and Phase II of the Project would not exceed construction noise thresholds. As discussed above, the operation of Phase I and Phase II individually would not result in noise levels that would exceed applicable daytime and nighttime thresholds. In addition, Table 4.12-13 through Table 4.12-15 demonstrate that operational noise levels from the entire site, both Phase I and Phase II combined would not exceed applicable noise standards during the existing and the Project’s opening year.
Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
Impact 4.12-2: Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Specific Plan – Phase I, Phase II Future Development Areas, and Project Buildout (Phase I + Phase II)
Construction Vibration
Construction operations can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and equipment. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. Construction on the Project site would have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground-borne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the operations involved.
The FTA has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.2 in/sec) appears to be conservative. The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage.
Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) 1199
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-28 4.12 | Noise
at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. For example, for a building that is constructed with reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.20 in/sec is considered safe and would not result in any construction vibration damage.
Table 4.12-16: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, lists vibration levels at 25 feet for typical construction equipment and at 60 feet for the location of the nearest structure to the Project site.
Vibration levels at 110 feet and 135 feet, the distance to the nearest sensitive receptors during Phase I and Phase II construction activities, are also included in Table 4.12-16.
Ground-borne vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. As indicated in Table 4.12-16, based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during Project construction range from 0.003 to 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet from the source of activity.
Table 4.12-16: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Equipment
Peak Particle
Velocity at 25
Feet (in/sec)
Peak Particle
Velocity at 60
Feet (in/sec)
Phase I Phase II
Peak Particle
Velocity at 135
Feet (in/sec)1
Peak Particle
Velocity at 110
Feet (in/sec)1
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.024 0.0071 0.0096
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.024 0.0071 0.0096
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.020 0.0061 0.0082
Rock Breaker 0.059 0.016 0.0047 0.0064
Jackhammer 0.035 0.009 0.0028 0.0038
Small Bulldozer/Tractors 0.003 0.001 0.0002 0.0003 1 Calculated using the following formula: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5, where: PPVequip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance; PPVref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018; D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver.
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.
The nearest structure to the Project site is located 60 feet to the south. As shown in Table 4.12-16, at 60 feet the vibration velocities from construction equipment would not exceed 0.024 in/sec PPV, which is below the FTA’s 0.20 in/sec PPV threshold for building damage. Furthermore, the nearest sensitive receptor to the Phase I construction site is approximately 135 feet to the west (Sensitive Receptor 1), and the nearest receptor to the Phase II construction site is 110 feet to the east (Sensitive Receptor 2). As shown in Table 4.12-16, at 110 feet the vibration velocities from construction equipment would not exceed 0.0096 in/sec PPV, which is below the FTA’s 0.10 in/sec PPV annoyance threshold. It is also acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the Project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the nearest structure. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with Project construction and operation would be less than significant.
Operational Vibration
The proposed Project would include truck movement activity at the proposed Project site. These movements would generally be low-speed (i.e., less than 15 miles per hour) and would occur over new, smooth surfaces. For perspective, Caltrans has studied the effects of propagation of vehicle vibration on 1200
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-29 4.12 | Noise
sensitive land uses and notes that “heavy trucks, and quite frequently buses, generate the highest earthborn vibrations of normal traffic.” Caltransfurther notesthatthe highesttraffic-generated vibrations are along freeways and state routes. Their study finds that “vibrations measured on freeway shoulders (five meters from the centerline of the nearest lane) have never exceeded 0.08 inches per second, with the worst combinations of heavy trucks and poor roadway conditions (while such trucks were moving at freeway speeds). This level coincides with the maximum recommended safe level for ruins and ancient monuments (and historic buildings)”6
. The distance from the centerline of the nearest lane to sensitive receptors along the truck route is a minimum of 45 feet (14 meters), at this distance, roadway vibrations from trucks would not exceed the annoyance threshold. On-site, truck movements would be a low speed (not at freeway speeds) and over smooth surfaces (not under poor roadway conditions), Project-related vibration associated with truck activity would not result in excessive ground borne vibrations; thus, no vehicle-generated vibration impacts would occur. In addition, there are no sources of substantial ground borne vibration associated with the Project, such as rail or subways. The proposed Project would not create or cause any vibration impacts due to operations.
Conclusion
As shown in Tables 4.12-16, construction of the Project would not generate excessive vibration levels that would cause building damage or annoyance. In addition, operations associated with the Project, including slow moving trucks, would not result in the generation of substantial vibration impacts. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with Project construction and operation would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
Impact 4.12-3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Level of Significance: No impact
Specific Plan – Phase I, Phase II Future Development Areas, and Project Buildout (Phase I + Phase II)
Chino Airport
The proposed Project is located approximately one mile north of Chino Airport. The Chino General Plan’s Noise Element has noise contours for the Chino Airport. The noise contours show the Project site outside the 65 dBA CNEL contour and, in addition, the proposed Project would be an industrial business park, which is not considered a noise-sensitive land use. Therefore, there would be no impact. 6 California Department of Transportation. 2013. Technical Noise Supplement (“TeNS”). https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf. (accessed April 2023). 1201
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-30 4.12 | Noise
Ontario International Airport
The proposed Project is approximately 3.7 miles southwest of the Ontario International Airport. The Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Map 2-3, Noise Impact Zones, shows airport noise contours. The map shows that the Project site is outside the 60-65 dB CNEL contour. As discussed above, the proposed Project would be an industrial business park, which is not considered a noise-sensitive land use. There would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.12.7 Cumulative Impacts
Construction Noise
Project-related construction activities would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Construction noise impacts would be periodic and temporary and would cease upon completion of construction activities. The Project would contribute to other proximate construction Project noise impacts if construction activities were conducted concurrently. However, based on the noise analysis above, the Project’s construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant.
Construction activities at other planned and approved projects near the Project site would be required to comply with applicable City rules related to noise. Activities would take place during daytime hours on the days permitted by the applicable Municipal Code, and projects requiring discretionary City approvals would be required to evaluate construction noise impacts, comply with the City’s standard conditions of approval, and implement mitigation, if necessary, to minimize noise impacts. Construction noise impacts are by nature localized. Based on the fact that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, noise impacts would be limited to the Project site and immediate vicinity. Therefore, Project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts, assuming such a cumulative impact existed, and impacts in this regard would not be cumulatively considerable.
Additionally, cumulative construction noise would be consistent with the findings of TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR.
Operational Noise
Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise
Cumulative noise impacts describe how much noise levels are projected to increase over existing conditions with the development of the proposed Project and other foreseeable projects. Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to buildout of the Project and other projects in the vicinity. Cumulative increases in traffic noise levels were estimated by comparing the Existing and Future Without Project scenarios to the Future Plus Project scenario. The traffic analysis considers cumulative traffic from future growth assumed in the transportation model, as well as cumulative projects.
1202
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-31 4.12 | Noise
A project’s contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase would be considered significant when the combined effect exceeds perception level (i.e., auditory level increase) threshold. The following criteria is used to evaluate the combined and incremental effects of the cumulative noise increase. • Combined Effect. The cumulative with Project noise level (“Cumulative With Project”) would cause a significant cumulative impact if a 3.0 dB increase over “Existing” conditions occurs and the resulting noise level exceeds the applicable exterior standard at a sensitive use. Although there may be a significant noise increase due to the proposed Project in combination with other related projects (combined effects), it must also be demonstrated that the Project has an incremental effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must be due to the proposed Project.
• Incremental Effects. The “Cumulative With Project” causes a 1.0 dBA increase in noise over the “Cumulative Without Project” noise level.
A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria have been exceeded. Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon and reduces as distance from the source increases. Consequently, only the proposed Project and growth due to occur in the general area would contribute to cumulative noise impacts.
Table 4.12-17: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Predicted Traffic Noise Levels – Project Buildout, identifies the traffic noise effects along roadway segments in the Project vicinity for “Existing,” “Cumulative Without Project,” and “Cumulative With Project,” conditions, including incremental and net cumulative impacts.
Table 4.12-17: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Predicted Traffic Noise Levels – Project Buildout Roadway Segment
Existi
ng
dBA
CNEL1
Future
Without
Project
dBA CNEL1
Future
With
Project
dBA
CNEL1
Combined
Effects
Incremental
Effects
Cumulatively
Significant
Impact?
Difference
In dBA
Between
Existing and
Future With
Project
Difference In
dBA Between
Future
Without
Project and
Future With
Project
Edison Avenue
SR-60 WB Ramp to SR-60 EB Ramp 69.2 72.2 72.3 3.0 0.1 No SR-60 EB Ramp to Walnut Avenue 69.5 72.4 72.5 2.9 0.1 No Walnut Avenue to Riverside Drive 68.2 73.3 73.5 5.3 0.2 No Riverside Drive to Chino Avenue 67.7 73.3 73.4 5.6 0.1 No Chino Avenue to Schaefer Avenue 69.6 76.0 76.2 6.6 0.2 No Schaefer Avenue to Project Driveway 1 69.3 75.0 75.2 5.9 0.2 No Driveway 1 to Driveway 4 68.7 72.9 73.3 4.6 0.4 No
Driveway 4 to Edison Avenue 69.7 74.1 74.2 4.5 0.1 No
Edison Avenue to Eucalyptus Avenue 70.2 75.1 75.2 5.0 0.1 No Eucalyptus Avenue to Merrill Avenue 70.1 75.1 75.2 5.1 0.1 No Merrill Avenue to Kimball Avenue 70.7 75.2 75.3 4.6 0.1 No Schafer Avenue
Euclid Avenue to Project Driveway 5 64.0 64.2 64.4 0.4 0.2 No 1203
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-32 4.12 | Noise
Roadway Segment
Existi
ng
dBA
CNEL1
Future
Without
Project
dBA CNEL1
Future
With
Project
dBA
CNEL1
Combined
Effects
Incremental
Effects
Cumulatively
Significant
Impact?
Difference
In dBA
Between
Existing and
Future With
Project
Difference In
dBA Between
Future
Without
Project and
Future With
Project
Project Driveway 5 to Project
Driveway 7 62.3 64.2 64.4 2.1 0.2 No
Project Driveway 7 to Sultana Avenue 62.3 63.9 64.1 1.8 0.2 No Sultana Drive to Bon View Avenue 62.0 63.6 63.7 1.7 0.1 No Bon View Avenue to Grove Avenue 61.1 64.2 64.4 3.3 0.2 No Edison Avenue
Euclid Avenue to Project Driveway 8 66.5 71.8 72.1 5.6 0.3 No Project Driveway 8 to Project
Driveway 10 65.6 67.3 68.3 2.7 1.0 No
Project Driveway 10 to Sultana Drive 65.6 67.3 68.5 2.9 1.2 No Sultana Drive to Bon View Avenue 65.3 71.9 72.3 7.0 0.4 No Bon View Avenue to Grove Avenue 65.3 74.6 74.8 9.5 0.2 No ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL= Community Equivalent Noise Level
1. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline.
Source: Based on traffic data provided by Urban Crossroads (2023). Refer to Appendix H for traffic noise modeling results.
A significant cumulative traffic noise increase would be identified if a cumulative traffic noise increase of greater than the 3 dBA significance threshold of perceptibility is calculated, and the relative contribution from project traffic is calculated to contribute more than 1 dBA to this cumulative impact, it would be considered cumulatively considerable. The largest increase in future levels with the Project is along Edison Avenue with an increase of 1.2 dBA. Therefore, the cumulative traffic noise at this roadway segment would be less than significant. The proposed Project’s contribution to noise levels would not be cumulatively considerable. Additionally, cumulative off-site traffic noise would be consistent with the findings of TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR.
Cumulative Stationary Noise
Stationary noise sources associated with the Project would result in an incremental increase in nontransportation noise sources in the Project vicinity. However, as discussed above, operational noise caused by the Project would be less than significant. Additionally, due to Project site’s distance to sensitive receptors, cumulative stationary noise impacts would not occur. Similar to the proposed Project, other planned and approved projects would be required to mitigate for stationary noise impacts at nearby sensitive receptors, if necessary. As stationary noise sources are generally localized, there would be a limited potential for other projects to contribute to cumulative noise impacts.
No known past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects would combine with the operational noise levels generated by the Project to increase noise levels above acceptable standards because each project must comply with applicable City regulations that limit operational noise. Therefore, the Project, together with other projects, would not create a significant cumulative impact. 1204
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-33 4.12 | Noise
Given that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, operational noise impacts from on-site activities and other stationary sources would be limited to the Project site and the immediate vicinity.
Thus, cumulative operational noise impacts from related projects, in conjunction with Project-specific noise impacts, would not be cumulatively significant. Additionally, cumulative stationary noise would be consistent with the findings of TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR.
Pursuant to TOP 2050, implementation of the 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 Specific Plan is implementing TOP 2050.7
4.12.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
There are no unavoidable significant impacts.
4.12.9 References
California Department of Transportation. 2013. Technical Noise Supplement (“TeNS”). https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf.
City of Ontario. ND. Development Code – Chapter 6.0: Development and Subdivision Regulations, Development and Subdivision Regulations. Table 6.01-10: Industrial Zoning District Development Standards.
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Documents/Planning%20Documents/Development%20Code/Chapter%206.0%20 Development%20and%20Subdivision%20Regulations.pdf.
City of Ontario. 2011. April. LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. https://www.ont-iac.com/airport-land-use-compatibility-plan/.
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Safety Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-planpolicy-plan/safety.
City of Ontario. 2022. Ontario Municipal Code, Chapter 29 Noise – Section 5-29.04 Exterior Noise Standards. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ontarioca/latest/ontario_ca/0-0-0-41849 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Report Impact, Section 5.13, Noise. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf.
Chino, City of. 2010. General Plan 2025.
City of Chino. 2020. Chino Municipal Code, Chapter 9.40 Noise – Section 9.40.040 Exterior Noise Standards, Section 9.40.070 Schools, Churches, Libraries, Health Care Institutions – Special Provisions.
7 City of Ontario. (2022). TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed April 2023) 1205
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.12-34 4.12 | Noise
https://library.municode.com/ca/chino/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT9PUPEMOWE_C H9.40NO.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006, August. Construction Noise Handbook.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006, Roadway Construction Noise Model.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018, September. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2003, October. State of California General Plan Guidelines.
Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document. 2008. Chino Airport, Map CH-3. https://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/PDFGeneral/plan/newplan/09-%20Vol.%201%20Chino.pdf.
Urban Crossroads. 2023. Euclid Mixed-Use Specific Plan Traffic Analysis. (Appendix I1). 1206
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.13-1 4.13 | Population and Housing
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.13.1 Introduction
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing regulatory and environmental conditions related to population and housing 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 Project’s relationship to regional housing and jobs policies of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the adopted The Ontario Plan (TOP) for the City of Ontario (City), including the Housing Element, with a particular emphasis on jobs-housing relationships in the City and San Bernardino County (County), 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 result in substantial population growth in the area (either directly or indirectly) or displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing.
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
4.13.2 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
The Project site is located on approximately 84.1 acres of land currently occupied by agricultural uses, including the raising of livestock, dairy farming activities, and a commercial nursery. 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 also located within the Project site. With that, employment opportunities available on the Project site are those associated with agricultural operations. According to Exhibit LU-01: Land Use Plan of TOP1
, the Project site is currently designated for development of Business Park (BP) (0.6 FAR) and Mixed-Use (MU) at 14.0 to 65.0 du/ac; 1.5 FAR office; 1.0 FAR retail.
Population
Citywide and Countywide Population
As of January 2022, the City and County have a population of approximately 179,516 persons and 2,187,665 persons, respectively. Table 4.13-1: Population, Trends in the City of Ontario and San Bernardino County, exhibits the population growth trends in the City as well as in the County, collected by the Department of Finance (DOF). SCAG projects that by 2045, the horizon year of the 2020-2045 1 City of Ontario. 2022. LU-01 TOP Land Use Map. https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/99e7a1effa0242218701ac06ca387f9b. (accessed October 2022).
1207
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.13-2 4.13 | Population and Housing
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), the population of the City and County would increase to 269,100 persons and 2,815,000 persons, respectively.2
According to the data, population has steadily increased in both the City and the County from 2010 to 2022 with the largest percentage increase for the City being from 2018 to 2019, at 2.01 percent. The largest percentage increase for the County was from 2010 to 2011 at 0.98 percent.
Table 4.13-1: Population Trends in the City of Ontario and San Bernardino County Year City of Ontario San Bernardino County
Population Percent Change Population Percent Change
2010 163,924 N/A 2,035,210 N/A
2011 165,529 0.98% 2,055,250 0.98%
2012 166,592 0.64% 2,071,326 0.78%
2013 167,412 0.49% 2,084,443 0.63%
2014 167,885 0.28% 2,094,951 0.50%
2015 169,153 0.76% 2,112,187 0.82%
2016 169,491 0.20% 2,122,579 0.49%
2017 172,858 1.99% 2,139,520 0.80%
2018 175,083 1.29% 2,150,017 0.49%
2019 178,606 2.01% 2,165,876 0.74%
2020 175,427 1.78% 2,181,654 -0.73%
2021 176,689 -0.72% 2,182,343 -0.03%
2022 179,516 -1.60% 2,187,665 -0.24%
Source: Department of Finance (DOF). 2021. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020 with 2010 Census Benchmark. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-4-population-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2011-2020- with-2010-census-benchmark-new/ .;DOF. 2022. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022 with 2020 Census Benchmark. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/Demographics/estimates/e-4-population-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2021-2022- with-2020-census-benchmark/.
Citywide and Countywide SCAG Projections
SCAG’s regional forecast population, housing, and employment projections for 2020 and 2045 for the City and the County are shown in Table 4.13-2: SCAG Projections – City of Ontario and San Bernardino County.
According to SCAG, significant growth is anticipated to occur within the City as well as the County between 2016 and 2045. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS forecasts that the City’s population will increase by 96,900 persons between 2016 and 2045, an approximately 56 percent increase. Households within the City are forecasted to increase by 28,500 from year 2016 to 2045, an approximately 62 percent increase. The 2020 2045 RTP/SCS also forecasts that the number of jobs in the City will increase by 55,400 between 2016 and 2045, an approximately 49 percent increase.
2 SCAG. 2020. 2020-2045 Connect SoCal – Demographics and Growth Forecast. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579. (accessed April 2023). 1208
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.13-3 4.13 | Population and Housing
Table 4.13-2: SCAG Projections – City of Ontario and San Bernardino County 2016 2045 Projected Change
2016-2045
Percent Change
2016-2045
San Bernardino County Forecast
Population 2,141,000 2,815,000 674,000 31%
Housing 630,000 875,000 245,000 39%
Employment 791,000 1,064,000 273,000 35%
City of Ontario Forecast
Population 172,200 269,100 96,900 56%
Housing 46,000 74,500 28,500 62%
Employment 113,900 169,300 55,400 49%
Source: SCAG. 2020. RTP/SCS 2020-2045 – Connect SoCal, Demographics and Growth Forecast. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579. (accessed April 2023).
Households
Citywide and Countywide Housing
As shown in Table 4.13-3: Housing Units – City of Ontario and San Bernardino County (2022), DOF estimates that there are currently approximately 54,918 housing units in the City. The majority of housing in the City and the County are single-family detached homes. Characteristics of occupied and vacant housing units in the City and County, as reported by the DOF, are also shown in Table 4.13-3.
Table 4.13-3: Housing Units – City of Ontario and San Bernadino County (2022) City of Ontario San Bernardino County
By Unit Type
Single-Family Detached 32,194 525,570
Single-Family Attached 3,226 25,620
Two to Four 5,322 47,409
Five Plus 11,913 97,958
Mobile Homes 2,262 44,097
Total 54,918 740,654
Persons per Household 3.37 3.19
Vacancy Rate 3.6% 8.9%
Source: DOF. 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2022 with 2020 Benchmark. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/. (accessed April 2023).
Employment
Citywide Employment
As shown in Table 4.13-4: Employment by Industrial Sector – City of Ontario (2022), there were 123,976 jobs in the City from February 2020 to June 2021 as provided by the City‘s “Regional Intelligence Report.” The numbers of jobs in the City per industrial sector are shown in Table 4.13-4 with the most jobs at 1209
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.13-4 4.13 | Population and Housing
19.4 percent occurring in the “Transport/Warehouse/Utilities” sector. In 2021, unemployment in the City was 4.1 percent (approximately 5,611 persons).3
Table 4.13-4: Employment by Industrial Sector – City of Ontario (2022) Industrial Sector Jobs in the City of Ontario
Jobs Percent (%) of Total Jobs
Transport/Warehouse/Util. 24,004 19.4
Health Care 10,539 8.5
Admin. Support 17,629 14.2
Education 1,196 1.0
Fin. Svcs. And Real Estate 4,639 3.7
Prof, Sci, Tech, and Mgmt. 5,675 4.6
Other Svcs. 2,852 2.3
NR/Construction 5,478 4.4
Information 1,729 1.4
Wholesale Trade 12,393 10.0
Retail Trade 12,846 10.4
Government 5,312 4.3
Manufacturing 12,261 9.9
Leisure and Hospitality 7,423 6.0
Total 123,976 100
Source: UC Riverside. 2022. City of Ontario Regional Intelligence Report. https://www.ontariothinksbusiness.com/sites/default/files/inlinefiles/OntarioRIR_Spring22.pdf. (accessed April 2023).
Jobs-Housing Balance
The jobs-housing balance is a general measure of the total number of jobs and housing units in a defined geographic area, without regard to economic constraints or individual preferences. The balance of jobs and housing in an area—in terms of the total number of jobs and housing units as well as the type of jobs versus the price of housing—has implications for mobility, air quality, and the distribution of tax revenues.
The jobs-housing balance is one indicator of a project’s effect on growth and quality of life in the project area. SCAG applies the jobs-housing balance at the regional and sub regional levels to analyze the fit between jobs, housing, and infrastructure. A major focus of SCAG’s regional planning efforts has been to improve this balance. SCAG defines the jobs-housing balance as follows:
Jobs and housing are in balance when an area has enough employment opportunities for most of the people who live there and enough housing opportunities for most of the people who work there. The region is, by definition, balanced… Job-rich subregions have balances greater than the regional average; housing-rich subregions have balances lower than the regional average.
Ideally, job-housing balance would… assure not only a numerical match of jobs and housing but also an economic match in type of jobs and housing. 3 United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2022. 2021 America Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles 2016-2021. Selected Economic Characteristics. https://data.census.gov/table?t=Employment&g=050XX00US06071_160XX00US0653896&tid=ACSDP1Y2021.DP03 (Accessed March 23, 2023)
1210
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.13-5 4.13 | Population and Housing
Jobs-housing goals and balances are advisory only. No ideal jobs-housing balance is adopted in state, regional, or city policies. However, SCAG considers an area balanced when the jobs-housing balance is
1.36; communities with more than 1.36 jobs per dwelling unit are considered jobs-rich, while those with fewer than 1.36 are housing-rich. A job-housing imbalance can indicate potential air quality and traffic problems associated with commuting.
As shown in Table 4.13-5: Jobs-Housing Balance, the jobs-housing balance in the City is forecast to decrease between 2016 and 2045, from 2.47 to 2.27. The City is shown to have a disproportionate number of employment opportunities to housing. This suggests that many workers commute to the City. According to SCAG projections, the City is expected to remain jobs-rich. The size, location in the City, and noise and safety zones surrounding the City provide a physical barrier for the development of land uses such as housing, and therefore encourage placement of compatible land uses such as retail, office, industrial, warehousing, and airport service-related uses. Consequently, and as stated above, the City is inherently jobs-rich.
Furthermore, as shown in Table 4.13-5, the County is below the proposed balance of 1.36. It is expected to decrease from 1.26 in 2016 to 1.22 in 2045, which is considered housing-rich. Therefore, it is likely that residents within the subregion will supply most of the workforce, thereby reducing the influx of individuals migrating to southwest County and the City. Additional employment to the area is expected to create a better balance between housing and jobs within the County.
Table 4.13-5: Jobs-Housing Balance
Jurisdiction Year Employment Households Jobs-Housing
City of Ontario
2016 113,900 46,000 2.47
2045 169,300 74,500 2.27
San Bernardino County
2016 791,000 630,000 1.26
2045 1,064,000 875,000 1.22
Source: SCAG. 2020. 2020-2045 Connect SoCal – Demographics and Growth Forecast. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579. (accessed April 2023).
4.13.3 Regulatory Setting
State and regional laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the Project are summarized below.
Federal
No Federal laws, regulations, or executive orders apply to aesthetics and scenic resources in the Project site.
State
California Planning and Zoning Law
California planning and zoning law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan for future growth (California Government Code Section 65300). This plan must include a housing element that identifies housing needs for all economic segments and provides opportunities for housing development to meet 1211
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.13-6 4.13 | Population and Housing
that need. At the state level, the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) estimates the relative share of California’s projected population growth in each county based on California DOF population projections and historical growth trends. These figures are compiled by HCD in a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for each region of California. The RHNA is a tool used for SCAG and its member local governments in planning for growth. The RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction. Communities then plan, consider, and decide how they will address this need through the process of completing the Housing Elements of their General Plans. The RHNA does not necessarily encourage or promote growth but allows communities to prepare for growth in a way that enhances quality of life and mobility; improves access to jobs, transportation, and housing; and in a way that would not adversely impact the environment.
State law recognizes the vital role that local governments play in the supply and affordability of housing.
To that end, California Government Code requires that the housing element achieve legislative goals to:
• Identify adequate sites to facilitate and encourage the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for households of all economic levels, including persons with disabilities. • Remove, as legally feasible and appropriate, governmental constraints to the production, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons of all incomes, including those with disabilities.
• Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income households.
• Conserve and improve the condition of housing and neighborhoods, including existing affordable housing. Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability. • Preserve for lower-income households the publicly assisted multifamily housing developments in each community.
California housing element laws (California Government Code Section 65580–65589) require that each city and county identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs within its jurisdiction and prepare goals, policies, and programs to further the development, improvement, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the community commensurate with local housing needs.
No Net Loss Law (Government Code Section 65863)
The purpose of Government Code Section 65863 (No Net Loss Law) is to ensure development opportunities remain available throughout the planning period to accommodate a jurisdiction’s regional housing need allocation (RHNA), especially for lower- and moderate-income households. A jurisdiction may not take any action to reduce a parcel’s residential density unless it makes findings that the remaining sites identified in its Housing Element sites inventory can accommodate the jurisdiction’s remaining unmet RHNA by each income category, or if it identifies additional sites so that there is no net loss of residential unit capacity. If a jurisdiction approves a development of a parcel identified in its Housing Element sites inventory with fewer units than shown in the Housing Element, it must either make findings that the Housing Element’s remaining sites have sufficient capacity to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA by each income level or identify and make available sufficient sites to accommodate the remaining 1212
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.13-7 4.13 | Population and Housing
unmet RHNA for each income category. A jurisdiction may not disapprove a housing project on the basis that approval of the development would trigger the identification or zoning of additional adequate sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA.
Regional
Southern California Association of Governments
SCAG is a council of governments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. SCAG is the federally recognized metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for this region, which encompasses over 38,000 square miles. It serves as a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG develops, refines, and maintains SCAG’s regional and small area socioeconomic forecasting/allocation models. SCAG is also the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under federal and state law. In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to analyze their impacts on regional planning programs. As the southern California region’s MPO, SCAG cooperates with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and other agencies in preparing regional planning documents. The socioeconomic estimates and projections are used for federal and state-mandated long-range planning efforts such as the RTP/SCS, the Air Quality Management Plan, the Federal Transportation Improvement Program, and the RHNA.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
The RHNA is an assessment process performed periodically as part of Housing Element and General Plan updates at the local level. The RHNA quantifies the need for housing by income group within each jurisdiction during specific planning periods. The RHNA is used in land use planning, to prioritize local resource allocation and to help decide how to address existing and future housing needs. The RHNA allows communities to anticipate growth, so that collectively the region can grow in ways that enhance quality of life, improve access to jobs, promote transportation mobility, and address social equity and fair share housing needs.
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy On September 3, 2020, SCAG adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, which places a greater emphasis than ever on sustainability and integrated planning. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS vision encompasses a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS includes a strong commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources to comply with SB 375, improve public health, and meet the GHG emission reductions. This long-range plan, required by the state of California and the federal government, is updated by SCAG every four years as demographic, economic, and policy circumstances change. The 2020 2045 RTP/SCS is a living, evolving blueprint for the region’s future. 1213
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.13-8 4.13 | Population and Housing
Local
City of Ontario General Plan – The Ontario Plan 2050
The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 includes the Housing Element which was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in October 2022. The City of Ontario Housing Element’s purpose is to provide an adequate supply of quality and affordable housing that is fundamental to the economic and social well-being of the City. Among its most important functions, the Housing Element analyzes existing and future housing needs; addresses constraints to meeting local housing needs; identifies land, financial, and administrative resources for housing; sets forth goals and policies to meet community housing needs; and establishes housing programs and an implementation plan. The Housing Element must be updated every eight years. The City’s Housing Element covers the period from October 15, 2021, to October 15, 2029. For Ontario and the rest of the SCAG region, the upcoming housing cycle (the 6th cycle) plans for projected housing needs between 2021 and 2029. For the 6th cycle, the City RHNA goal has nearly doubled since the last Housing Element planning period. For the 2013-2021 planning period, Ontario's RHNA was 10,861 units; the allocation increased 92 percent to 20,854 units for the 2021- 2029 period. Within this goal, the City must plan for housing production at three different income levels:
lower-income housing (includes extremely low, very low, and low income), moderate income, and above moderate-income.
The Project Site has been identified as a Housing Opportunity Area “Strategy 6, Ontario Ranch Housing Opportunity Area, Euclid Corridor” in the City’s Housing Element.
The Housing Element is required to address the production, preservation, and improvement of housing in the community. Among its most important functions, the Housing Element analyzes existing and future housing needs; addresses constraints to meeting local housing needs; identifies land, financial, and administrative resources for housing; sets forth goals and policies to meet community housing needs; and establishes housing programs and an implementation plan.
The following policies contained in the Housing Element are relevant to the Project:
Housing Element4
Goal H-2 Diversity of types of quality housing that are affordable to a range of household income levels, accommodate changing demographics, and support and reinforce the economic sustainability of Ontario.
Policy H-2.1 Corridor Housing. We revitalize transportation corridors by encouraging the production of higher density residential and mixed-uses that are architecturally, functionally, and aesthetically suited to corridors.
4.13.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions concerning aesthetics. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been utilized 4 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Housing Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policy-plan/housing. (accessed April 2023).
1214
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.13-9 4.13 | Population and Housing
as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure); or
• Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project’s demographics are examined in the context of existing and projected population for the County and the City and considers consistency with TOP and the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Information on population, housing, and employment for the planning area is available from several sources including:
• U.S. Census. The official U.S. Census is described in Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution. It calls for an actual enumeration of the people every 10 years, to be used for apportionment among the states of seats in the House of Representatives. The Census Bureau publishes population and household data gathered in the decennial census. This information provides a record of historical growth rates in the County.
• California Department of Finance. The DOF prepares and administers California’s annual budget.
Other duties include estimating population demographics and enrollment projections. DOF’s “Table E-5: City/County Population and Housing Estimates” reports on population and housing estimates for the State, counties, and cities.
• Southern California Association of Governments. Policies and programs adopted by SCAG to achieve regional objectives are expressed in its 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.
The potential impacts of the Project were evaluated relative to the demographic condition, jobs-housing balance, and socioeconomic profiles. The Project would be considered consistent with TOP and the 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS if it is compatible with the general intent of such plans and would not preclude attainment of primary goals of such plans.
4.13.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies
There are no plans, policies, or programs applicable to the Project related to population and housing impacts.
4.13.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation
Impact 4.13-1 Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would introduce new population by way of new housing and employment opportunities to the Project site. Development would include up to 290,110 square feet of commercial retail/office uses, 1215
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.13-10 4.13 | Population and Housing
up to 466 residential units, and 1,386,777 square feet of business park uses; it would result in both jobs and housing for residents in the surrounding area. Table 3-1: Maximum Project Buildout, provides the maximum allowable gross building area for each Planning Area based on its allowable FAR, resulting in a combined maximum building square footage of 1,676,887 square feet of business park and mixed-use land uses, in addition to up to 466 residential units and associated onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements.
The Project is proposed in two phases. Phase 1 would allow approximately 1,000,595 SF of business park and mixed-use development and open space uses. Phase II of the Project is evaluated at a programmatic level in this EIR, for the potential future development of Planning Area (PA) 2B and PA 3B (no specific development proposals have been identified for the Phase II area). Phase II would involve the development of up to 466 residential units within PA 3B, as well as business park and open space/nonrecreational uses within PAs 2B and 5. The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time as 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.
Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction
Employment Growth
Project construction would generate temporary employment opportunities, including short-term design, engineering, and construction jobs. Construction-related jobs would not result in a significant population increase because they are expected to be filled by persons within the local economy. The unemployment rate is approximately 4.1 percent within the jurisdictions in the Project vicinity of the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metropolitan Area as of 2021. Because many of the employment opportunities are expected to be filled by persons within the local economy, it is anticipated that an adequate number of persons are available to fill the employment positions without constructing new residential units.
Furthermore, the small percentage of skilled and managerial positions could either be filled by the local economy or by persons outside the local economy. Therefore, the implementation of the Project would result in less than significant growth inducement impacts in the Project vicinity.
Operations
Employment Growth
The projected number of employees that would result from the implementation of the Project was calculated based on the land use projection assumptions in Appendix J of the TOP EIR.5 As shown in Table 4.13-6: Phase I Project Generated Employment, the Project site has the potential to generate approximately 1,655 employees.
5 City of Ontario. 2009. The Ontario Plan Draft EIR, Appendix J: Land Use Modeling Methodology. https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/32253.pdf. (accessed April 2023). 1216
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.13-11 4.13 | Population and Housing
Table 4.13-6: Phase I Project Generated Employment
Building Warehouse Space Total Building (sf) Employees/1,000 sf Total Employees Business Park
Non-Office (50%) 438,848.5 0.650 285.25
Office (50%) 438,848.5 2.860 1255.11
Mixed-Use Office; Retail
Non-Office (90%) 110,608.2 0.718 79.42
Office (10%) 12,289.8 2.860 35.15
Total – 1,000,595 – 1,655
Notes:
1. The numbers were rounded to present a conservative estimate.
2. The EIR will evaluate the total maximum allowable development in the Specific Plan. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) may be increased to the TOP max levels of 0.60 for BP respectively with appropriate CEQA analysis.
3. Phase II uses are being evaluated at programmatic level only; no specific development applications have been submitted; no specific development dates are known.
Source: City of Ontario. 2009. The Ontario Plan Draft EIR, Appendix J: Land Use Modeling Methodology. https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/32253.pdf.
It should be noted that the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (see Appendix I2: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis) conducted by Urban Crossroads also projected a total of 1,631 new residents and 1,333 employees which was used to determine the service population for purposes of calculating VMT per service population.
The forecast increase in Project employment is within SCAG’s forecast employment increase for the City of 55,400 and the forecast employment increase for the County of 273,000 by 2045 (see Table 4.13-2).
Population Growth
Implementation of the Project would increase jobs in the City, which would have the potential to increase the demand for housing in the area. As stated, the proposed increase of up to 1,676,887 sf of business park uses has the potential to result in 1,655 jobs. The San Bernardino Council of Governments region is housing-rich. The Project would produce more jobs and therefore would support the improvements designated by SCAG in pursuit of an improved jobs-housing-balance for the County. Because the region is housing-rich, it is expected that jobs at the Project site would be drawn from the local and regional labor force.
However, even if the Project increase in employees added equivalent population to the Project site, growth of 1,655 residents would be well within the growth projections assumed for the City and the SCAG region, specifically, 96,900 by 2045 in the City and 674,000 by 2045 in the County (see Table 4.13-2).
Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial population growth, and impacts would be less than significant.
Jobs-Housing Balance
As stated, the SCAG region is considered housing-rich. According to the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, “the region will add 3,672,000 people; 1,621,000 households; and 1,660,000 jobs over the RTP/SCS (2045) planning horizon.” The Project would produce more jobs and therefore would support the improvements designated by SCAG in pursuit of an improved jobs-housing balance for the County.
Project impacts on the jobs-housing balance are estimated by comparing employment and household buildout statistics of the Project to that of SCAG’s 2045 projections. As shown in Table 4.13-7: Combined Phase I and II, Projected Jobs-Housing Balance, at Project buildout, the jobs-housing balance for the City 1217
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.13-12 4.13 | Population and Housing
is estimated to be 2.26 which is similar to and only marginally different than SCAG projections for the City in 2045 of 2.27 (see Table 4.13-5). Buildout of the Project would result in an estimated jobs-housing balance of 1.22 for the County, equivalent to the SCAG projection for the County of 1.22. Therefore, no significant impact related to jobs-housing balance is anticipated to occur with implementation of the Project.
Table 4.13-7: Combined Phase I and II, Projected Jobs-Housing Balance Year Employment Households Jobs-Housing Balance
City of Ontario
2016 113,900 46,000 2.47
SCAG 2045 Projection 169,300 74,500 2.27
Net increase due to Project 1,655 1,571 Not Applicable
SCAG 2045 Projection + Project 170,955 76,071 2.26
San Bernardino County
2016 791,000 630,000 1.26
SCAG 2045 Projection 1,064,000 875,000 1.22
Net increase due to the Project 1,655 1,571 Not Applicable SCAG 2045 Projection + Project 1,065,655 876,571 1.22
1 Jobs-housing balances are identified for regions and subregions and are not applicable to an area as small as the Project.
Source: SCAG. 2020. Connect SoCal, Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579. (accessed April 2023).
Specific Plan – Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction
Refer to Phase I discussion above. The same discussion applies for Phase II as Phase I, when development begins. Phase II would involve the development of up to 466 residential units within PA 3B, as well as open space/non-recreational uses and business park uses when PAs 5 and 2B are completed. Construction of Phase II would generate temporary employment opportunities, including short-term design, engineering, and construction jobs. Construction-related jobs would not result in a significant population increase because they are expected to be filled by persons within the local economy. Permanent employment opportunities would be created associated with development of PA 2B business park uses. While the development of Phase II of the Project would result in a temporary construction workforce, constructionrelated employment would not result in substantial population growth, and therefore impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Operations
Population Growth
The Project would include the addition of up to 466 multi-family residential units within the Project site.
This could directly contribute to population growth in the area. Utilizing the DOF factor of 3.37 persons per household and, conservatively assuming that every resident of the Phase II future development areas 1218
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.13-13 4.13 | Population and Housing
would be a new resident of the City, these residential uses would potentially result in a population increase in the City of up to 1,571 people.6, 7
As discussed in Table 4.13-1 and Table 4.13-2 above, the City’s population in 2022 was 179,516 residents and is expected to increase to 269,100 residents by 2045. Project development could result in a population increase of up to 1,571 residents at the time of Phase II buildout. Cumulative development for the current City population and Project is 181,087 residents at Phase II project buildout. Although the Project could result in a population increase of up to 1,571 people at the time of Phase II buildout, this increase in population is accounted for in the City’s General Plan Buildout of 410,492 which would occur through 2050.
8 The cumulative development of current population with the anticipated Project residents estimates to about 181,087 residents. This increase in population is accounted for in the City’s General Plan buildout of 410,492 residents by 2050, SCAG projections of 269,100 by 2045, and RHNA Allocations.
The Phase II future development areas are characterized by agricultural and urban development consisting of private recreational vehicle facility and a scrap yard. Additionally, the Phase II future development areas are presently designated as Mixed Use – Great Park, which allows for up to 45 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The proposed land use plan of the Phase II future development areas mirrors the current zoning of the Project site, which is not anticipated to result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impact than was evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR. In addition, the proposed residential land uses would not exceed 45 du/ac. Therefore, the Project would not exceed the amount of dwelling units allowed within the General Plan. The Project would align with the City’s goals for regional growth as accounted for in the City’s General Plan buildout and SCAG projections. Therefore, implementation of the Project would have a less than significant impact related to population growth as a greater increase in population has already been taken into account at the City and regional levels.9 Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would not cause substantial unplanned population growth in the area. The Project would provide 466 high-density residential development which would contribute to the City’s RHNA Allocation for the 2021-2029 planning period. The Project site has been identified as a Housing Opportunity Area where residential neighborhoods would be balanced by mixed-use, commercial, and public places and organized around a regional-scale park. The City’s housing strategies for this area promote the creation of mixed-income communities in the western Ontario Ranch. The Project would be consistent with the goals and growth projection for the City and the region. While the development of new business associated with Phase I development and the development of new residences associated with Phase II development would directly result in population growth, growth of 1,571 residents would be well within the growth projections assumed for the City and the SCAG region, specifically, 96,900 by 2045 in the City and 674,000 by 2045 in the County (see Table 4.13-2). The proposed Project Specific Plan 6 DOF. 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022 with 2020 Census Benchmark. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020- 2022/. (accessed April 2023). 7 3.37 people/household × 466 dwelling units = 1,571 people. 8 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.14, Population and Housing. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed April 2023). 9 Ibid.
1219
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.13-14 4.13 | Population and Housing
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.
10 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.13-2 Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The existing Project site currently contains an operational dairy farm and is improved with numerous residential structures, dairy barns, storage structures, feed storage barns, and numerous livestock corrals.
Existing uses would be removed during Project site preparation. The displaced residential units and occupants are voluntarily selling the property to the applicant. Furthermore, the City and surrounding region has adequate housing capacity to accommodate the displaced residents, as discussed above. The affected units are within an Agricultural Overlay District that anticipated future development of this site, which was addressed in the City’s TOP 2050 EIR. No significant impact would occur.
Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction and Operations
There are currently no single-family residences within the Phase I development area of the Project site.
Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on displacing existing people or housing.
Specific Plan – Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
There are currently single-family residences on the Project site that would be displaced upon development of the Project. Based on County parcel data, there are numerous single-family residences on the Project site, within the Phase II future development areas (i.e., APNs 1053-281-01 and -02).11 However, due to the low number of residents that would be displaced compared to the existing larger housing stock in the region, the Project would not displace a substantial number of people or houses and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time as 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. Furthermore, the proposed Project Specific Plan land use designations are the same land use designations as contained in TOP 2050. Phase II would 10 Ibid.
11 County of San Bernardino. 2023. Public San Bernardino County Parcel Viewer. https://sbcounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=87e70bb9b6994559ba7512792588d57a&marker=- 116.34526321815805%2C34.11587161201653%2C%2C%2C%2C&markertemplate=%7B%22title%22%3A%22%22%2C%22longitude%22%3A116.34526321815805%2C%22latitude%22%3A34.11587161201653%2C%22isIncludeShareUrl%22%3Atrue%7D&level=19. (accessed April 2023).
1220
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.13-15 4.13 | Population and Housing
add up to 466 residential units when Planning Areas 2B and 3B are completed. Therefore, the Project would comply with Government Code Section 65863 which ensures that a jurisdiction maintains adequate development opportunities to accommodate a jurisdiction’s RHNA. While the Project would remove existing housing within the Project site, impacts related to the substantial displacement of people or housing would be less than significant, due to the low number of residents that would be displaced compared to the existing larger housing stock in the region. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on displacing existing people or housing. No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.12
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The proposed Project Specific Plan proposes the same land uses as contained in the City’s TOP 2050. Additionally, all growth is planned and consistent with and according to TOP 2050, the City’s Housing Element goals and policies, and RHNA Allocations. 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. 13 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
4.13.7 Cumulative Impacts
The area considered for cumulative impacts is the County. Impacts are analyzed using County projections in SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Demographics and Growth Forecast. Development of the Project in conjunction with the related project list in Table 4-1: Related Approved and Pending Projects, in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this Draft EIR, would not result in cumulative wide population and/or housing impacts, as mixed-use business park projects would further improve the jobshousing balance. This would encourage alignment with objectives set by SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS as it would increase employment opportunities in an area that is predominantly residential. Furthermore, the Project would be consistent with the goals set forth in TOP 205014 by providing long-term employment opportunities associated with the buildout of the Project. Related projects would be reviewed by the City, and development would be required to be consistent with adopted State and City development standards, regulations, plans, and policies to minimize the effect of the increase in population on physical impacts on the environment. Additionally, the indirect effect of Project employment on housing and population growth in the City has been anticipated in TOP, and therefore in regional housing and population forecasts provided in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. As such, the Project would not contribute to cumulatively adverse 12 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR. Section 5.14, Population and Housing. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed April 2023). 13 Ibid. 14 City of Ontario. (2022). TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR. Section 5.14, Population and Housing. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed April 2023).
1221
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.13-16 4.13 | Population and Housing
growth impacts. Upon approval, the Project would improve the jobs-housing balance in the County which is considered a housing-rich area. Therefore, the Project combined with related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to population and housing as no substantial new unplanned growth would occur.
4.13.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable aesthetic impacts have been identified.
4.13.9 References
City of Ontario. 2009. The Ontario Plan Draft EIR, Appendix J: Land Use Modeling Methodology. https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/32253.pdf.
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Housing Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontarioplan-policy-plan/housing.
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Figure LU-01, Official Land Use Plan. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/Land%20Use/Figure%20LU01%20Official%20Land%20Use%20Plan_0.pdf.
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR. Section 5.14, Population and Housing. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf.
County of San Bernardino. 2023. Public San Bernardino County Parcel Viewer. https://sbcounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=87e70bb9b6994559ba75 12792588d57a&marker=-
116.34526321815805%2C34.11587161201653%2C%2C%2C%2C&markertemplate=%7B%22title %22%3A%22%22%2C%22longitude%22%3A116.34526321815805%2C%22latitude%22%3A34.11587161201653%2C%22isIncludeShareUrl%2 2%3Atrue%7D&level=19.
Department of Finance. 2021. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020 with 2010 Census Benchmark. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-4- population-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2011-2020-with-2010-censusbenchmark-new/.
Department of Finance. 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020 with 2010 Census Benchmark.
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/.
Department of Finance. 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022 with 2020 Census Benchmark.
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimatesfor-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/. 1222
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.13-17 4.13 | Population and Housing
Southern California Association of Governments. 2020. 2020-2045 Connect SoCal – Demographics and Growth Forecast. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579.
UC Riverside. 2022. City of Ontario Regional Intelligence Report. https://www.ontariothinksbusiness.com/sites/default/files/inlinefiles/OntarioRIR_Spring22.pdf.
United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2022. 2021 America Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles 2016-2021. Selected Economic Characteristics.
https://data.census.gov/table?t=Employment&g=050XX00US06071_160XX00US0653896&tid=A CSDP1Y2021.DP03.
1223
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.14-1 4.14 | Public Services
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14.1 Introduction
This section identifies potential impacts on public services by identifying anticipated demand and evaluating the relationship to both existing and planned public services facilities and availability that could result from the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project (Project) implementation, located within the City of Ontario (City). The Project consists of a Specific Plan, Development Agreement, Development Plan(s), and Tentative Parcel Map(s) to allow for a business park and mixed-use development to be completed in two phases within five planning areas (PAs), with Phase I proposed at a project level entitlement. Phase II of the Project will be evaluated at a programmatic level in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
In accordance with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the emphasis in this Draft EIR is on impacts to public services that could result from implementation of the Project and that could require construction or expansion of existing public service facilities resulting in a physical impact on the environment.
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
4.14.2 Environmental Setting
Fire Protection
The City of Ontario Fire Department (OFD) provides fire protection, paramedic, and emergency response services to the City and the Project site. Furthermore, the Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Bureau was created by the OFD to provide additional medical care for emergencies, accomplished through training of firefighters in paramedic methods and programs.1 The OFD serves over 185,000 residents over 50 square miles from 10 strategically located fire stations and includes Bomb Squad, the Hazardous Materials Team, the Urban Search and Rescue team, and the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team.2 The Fire Prevention Bureau is responsible for developing and implementing programs and policies that prevent or reduce the magnitude of emergency occurrences (i.e., loss of life and property, or environmental damage). In 2021, the OFD responded to over 22,000 calls for service, approximately 60 calls per day, ranging from medical emergencies to traffic collisions to a large commercial fire. OFD has 227 personnel comprised of 186 sworn firefighters and 41 professional staff members. The OFD currently has ten permanent fire stations and one temporary fire station. The following fire stations service the City of Ontario:
• Station 1: 425 East B Street
1 City of Ontario. ND. EMS – EMS Bureau. https://www.ontarioca.gov/Fire/EMS. (accessed March 2023). 2 City of Ontario. ND. Operations. https://www.ontarioca.gov/Fire/Operations. (accessed March 2023). 1224
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.14-2 4.14 | Public Services
• Station 2: 544 West Francis Street
• Station 3: 1408 East Francis Street
• Station 4: 1005 North Mountain Avenue
• Station 5: 1530 East Fourth Street
• Station 6: 2931 East Philadelphia Avenue
• Station 7: 4901 East Vanderbilt Street
• Station 8: 3429 East Shelby Street
• Station 9: 2661 East Grand Park
• Station 10: 1230 Tower Drive
• Station 11: Southwest corner of Bon View and Eucalyptus Avenues; permanent location yet to be determined.
Station 2, Station 3, and Station 9 are within the closest proximity to the Project site. Station 2 is located at 544 West Francis Street, Ontario, CA, 91762 and is approximately 2.8 miles north of the Project site.
Station 3 is located at 1408 East Francis Street, Ontario, CA, 91761 and is approximately 3 miles northeast of the Project site. Lastly, Station 9 is located at 2661 East Grand Park, Ontario, CA 91762 and is approximately 3 miles west of the Project site. Therefore, the nearest OFD Station to the Project site is Station 2. Fire stations near the Project site are provided in Table 4.14-1: Project Area Fire Services.
Table 4.14-1: Project Area Fire Services
Station/Address Distance from Project Site Apparatus Daily Staffing #2 located at 544 W. Francis St.,
Ontario, CA 91762
Approx. 2.8 miles north of the
Project site
1 paramedic engine 4
#3 located at 1408 E. Francis St.,
Ontario, CA 91761
Approx. 3 miles northeast of the
Project site
1 paramedic engine 4
#9 located at 2661 E. Grand Park,
Ontario, CA 91762
Approx. 3 miles west of the
Project site
1 paramedic engine and
1 truck company
8 Source: City of Ontario. ND. Fire Stations. https://www.ontarioca.gov/Fire/FireStations. (accessed March 2023).
OFD maintains a mutual-aid agreement with the Operation Area and State of California and receives first alarm automatic aid from the following fire departments:
• Chino Valley Fire Department District—Fire Stations 63 and 65 • Montclair Fire Department—Fire Stations 151 and 152
• Ontario Airport Fire Department - Station 140 at Ontario International Airport • Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department—Fire Stations 172 and 174 • San Bernardino County Fire Department—Central Valley Battalion Fire Stations 74 and 72 • San Bernardino County Fire Department —Fire Station 161 The Chino Valley Fire Department Station 63 is located approximately two miles south of the Project site, on the southern end of the Chino Airport. The OFD has several response times benchmarks as identified 1225
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.14-3 4.14 | Public Services
in Table 4.14-2: OFD Response Times. OFD achieves its benchmarks with a 90 percent of the calls are within benchmark. Due to the lack of surrounding development, the average response time to the Project area is 9 minutes and 59 seconds.
Table 4.14-2: OFD Response Times
Measure OFD Benchmark
Call Answering Time Under 60 seconds
Travel Time Under 6 minutes
Total Response Time 9:59
Source: Paul Ehrman. Senior Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal. Ontario Fire Department. Personal Communication.
April 18, 2023. (email)
The nearest hospitals to the Project site are the Kaiser Permanente Ontario Medical Center located approximately three miles to the northeast, and the Chino Valley Medical Center located approximately
5.3 miles to the northwest. Both medical facilities offer EMS and urgent care.
Police Protection
The Ontario Police Department (OPD) provides law enforcementservices for the City and the Project site.
The OPD is located at 2500 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, CA, 91761, approximately 3.6 miles northwest of the Project site. The OPD currently employs 287 sworn police officers and 83 professional staff.
3 The OPD provides staffing based on the needs of the OPD and City and utilizes both civilian and sworn staff.
The OPD has five main service bureaus: Field Operations, Special Operations, Investigations, Airport, and Administration. These bureaus consist of several divisions and units such as: Air Support, C.O.P.S., Special Enforcement, Career Criminal, Traffic, Detectives, the Ontario Mills Mall unit, Recruitment and Training, Forensics, Records, Communications and Crime Prevention/Crime Analysis. OPD is equipped with patrol vehicles, motorcycles, K-9 units, unmarked units, helicopters, bicycles, a SWAT van, command armored rescue vehicle, and crime prevention vans.
The OPD implemented a geographical-based policing program to provide the most protection to the City.
As part of this “Geo-Policing” program, the City has been drawn into three geographical areas: West, East, and South. Each area has an assigned Lieutenant as an Area Commander. The Area Commander is responsible for the delivery of police services in their area of control with an emphasis on the preservation and improvement of the quality of life, safety, and economic value of those who live and do business in the City.4 The Project site is located in the West Area Command and Lieutenant Troy Scutella is the assigned Area Commander for the Project area. Each area has a dedicated teams of officers and corporals, headed by police sergeants, who work 24/7 patrol operations; traffic officers; Community Engagement Team (CET) officers, who work special projects; narcotics investigators; and detectives.5 The OPD’s response time is the time between receipt of a service call and the on-scene arrival of a patrol officer, which varies depending on the urgency of the call. In 2022 the OPD received a total of 143,145 3 The Ontario Police Department. Public Records Request – P000481-041023. (April 26, 2023) Personal Communication. (email) 4 The Ontario Police Department. Area Command. 2023. https://www.ontarioca.gov/Police. (accessed March 2023) 5 City of Ontario. Police Department. https://www.ontarioca.gov/Police. (accessed March 2023) 1226
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.14-4 4.14 | Public Services
calls for service, of which 18,021 were Priority 1 calls. Due to the uniqueness of each call, the department strives for a quick and specific response for non-emergency calls. The average emergency call response time for priority one calls is 8 minutes and 45 seconds. 6 Schools
The Project would be located within the Chino Valley Unified School District (CVUSD). CVUSD has 21 California Distinguished Schools.7 The district offers educational facilities for elementary, junior high school, and high school attendees. The Project site is within the attendance areas for Liberty Elementary, Woodcrest Junior High School, and Chino High School.8,9,10 The nearest schools to the Project site are Edwin Rhodes Elementary School, located at 6655 Schaefer Avenue, Chino, CA 91710, approximately 0.7 mile northwest of the Project site; Howard Cattle Elementary School, located at 13590 Cypress Avenue, Chino, CA 91710, is approximately one mile northwest of the Project site; and Magnolia Junior High School, located at 13150 Mountain Avenue, Chino, CA 91710, is approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the Project site. Therefore, Edwin Rhodes Elementary School is within the closest proximity to the Project site.
Parks
The City of Ontario maintains 32 parks, seven community centers, and three dog parks. The nearest parks to the Project are Centennial Park, which is a City park, and two City of Chino parks: Constellation Park and Cypress Trails Park. These parks are approximately three miles north, less than one mile west, and two miles northwest of the Project site, respectively.
Libraries
The City’s libraries are managed by the City’s Community Life and Culture Department.11 The Community Life and Culture Department manages the City’s two public libraries, neither of which are in close proximity to the Project site. The South Ontario Lewis Family Branch Library (South Ontario Library) is approximately 4.8 miles northeast of the Project site, and the Ovitt Family Community Library is located approximately 4.6 miles north of Project site.
4.14.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal Emergency Management Act
6 Ontario Police Department. Public Records Request – P000481-041023. (April 26, 2023). Personal Communication. (email). 7 Chino Valley Unified School District. 2022. https://www.chino.k12.ca.us/domain/5297 (accessed March 2023). 8 Chino Valley Unified School District 2009. Elementary School Attendance Areas. https://www.chino.k12.ca.us/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=40374&dataid=88556&FileName=Elementary_School_Bou ndary_Map.pdf (accessed March 2023). 9 Chino Valley Unified School District. 2009. Junior High School Attendance Areas. https://www.chino.k12.ca.us/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=40374&dataid=88556&FileName=Elementary_School_Bou ndary_Map.pdf (accessed March 2023). 10 Chino Valley Unified School District. 2009. High School Attendance Areas. https://www.chino.k12.ca.us/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=40374&dataid=88557&FileName=Junior_High_School_Bo undary_Map.pdf (accessed March 2023). 11 City of Ontario. 2020. Library. https://www.ontarioca.gov/Library (accessed March 2023). 1227
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.14-5 4.14 | Public Services
In March 2003, the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) became part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. FEMA's continuing mission is to lead the effort to prepare the nation for all hazards and effectively manage federal response and recovery efforts following any national incident. FEMA also initiates proactive mitigation activities, trains first responders, and manages the National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Fire Administration.
Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974
The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 was created to reduce the nation’s losses caused by fire through better fire prevention and control, supplement existing programs of research, training, and education, and to encourage new and improved programs and activities by State and local governments.
In addition, the act established the U.S. Fire Administration and the Fire Research Center within the Department of Commerce. The Fire Prevention and Control Act established an intensified program of research into the treatment of burn and smoke injuries and the rehabilitation of victims of fires within the National Institutes of Health.
Fire Prevention Plan
Businesses are required under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards to prepare a fire prevention plan that, at a minimum, must include procedures to control accumulations of flammable and combustible waste materials, and for regular maintenance of safeguards installed on heatproducing equipment to prevent the accidental ignition of combustible materials. Furthermore, the fire prevention plan must contain the names and/or job titles of employees responsible for maintaining equipment to prevent or control sources of ignition or fires, and for the control of fuel source hazards.
Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42 U.S. Code [USC] 12181) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in public accommodation and state and local government services. Under the ADA, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board issues guidelines to ensure that facilities, public sidewalks, and street crossings are accessible to individuals with disabilities. Public play areas, meeting rooms, park restrooms, and other buildings and park structures must comply with ADA requirements.
International Fire Code
The International Fire Code (IFC) regulates minimum fire safety requirements for new and existing buildings, facilities, storage, and processes. The IFC includes general and specialized technical fire and life safety regulations addressing fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, use and storage of hazardous materials, protection of emergency responders, industrial processes, and many other topics. The IFC is issued by the International Code Council, an international organization of building officials. 1228
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.14-6 4.14 | Public Services
State
California Penal Code
All law enforcement agencies within the State of California are organized and operated in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Penal Code. This code sets forth the authority, rules of conduct, and training for peace officers. Under state law, all sworn municipal and county officers are state peace officers.
California Code of Regulations Title 24 ( California Building Standards Code) 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).
California Building Code
The State provides a minimum standard for building design through the CBC, which is in Part 2 of Title 24 of the CCR. CBC is based on the International Building Code but has been modified for California conditions. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions. Commercial and residential buildings are plan checked by local City and County building officials for compliance with the CBC. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC include the installation of sprinklers in all commercial and residential buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction; and the clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.
California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 9 – California Fire Code The California Fire Code (CFC) contains regulations consistent with nationally recognized accepted practices for safeguarding, to a reasonable degree, life and property from various hazards, including fire and explosion, among others. The CFC also contains provisions to assist emergency response personnel.
The CFC is pre-assembled with the International Fire Code with necessary California amendments. The CFC contains fire safety-related building standards that are referenced in other parts of CCR Title 24. The CFC is updated once every three years; the 2022 CFC took effect on January 1, 2023. The CFC sets forth regulations regarding building standards, fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as fire extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building standards, and fire suppression training.
The CFC provides minimum standards to increase the ability of a building or structure to resist the intrusion of flame or burning embers being projected by a vegetation fire and contributes to a systematic reduction in fire losses through the use of performance and prescriptive requirements. 1229
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.14-7 4.14 | Public Services
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration In accordance with CCR, Title 8 Section 1270 “Fire Prevention” and Section 6773 “Fire Protection and Fire Equipment,” the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA) has established minimum standards for fire suppression and emergency medical services. The standards include, but are not limited to, guidelines on the handling of highly combustible materials, fire hose sizing requirements, restrictions on the use of compressed air, access roads, and the testing, maintenance, and use of all firefighting and emergency medical equipment.
Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66008) The Mitigation Fee Act requires a local agency, such as the city establishing, increasing, or imposing an impact fee as a condition of development, to identify the purpose of the fee and the use to which the fee is to be put. The agency must also demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged, and between the fee and the type of development project on which it is to be levied. This Act became enforceable on January 1, 1989.
California Health and Safety Code
The California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 13000 et seq., includes fire regulations for building standards (also in the California Building Code [CBC]), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building and childcare facility standards, and fire suppression training.
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC) (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 9) is based on the 2018 adoption of the IFC and includes amendments from the State fully integrated into the code. The CFC contains fire safety-related building standards that are referenced in other parts of Title 24 of the CCR.
The CFC is updated once every three years; the 2019 CFC took effect on January 1, 2020. The CFC sets forth regulations regarding building standards, fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as fire extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building standards, and fire suppression training. It contains regulations relating to construction, maintenance, and use of buildings. Topics addressed in the code also include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist fire responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire-safety requirements for new and existing buildings and the surrounding premises.
Development under the Project would be subject to applicable regulations of the CFC.
Senate Bill 50, California Government Code Section 65995(b), and Education Code (California Government Code Section 17620)
Senate Bill (SB) 50 places limitations on the power of local governments to require mitigation of school facilities by developers. Under the provisions of SB 50, school districts can collect fees to offset the cost of expanding school capacity, which becomes necessary as development occurs. These fees are determined based on the square footage of proposed uses. As a part of SB 50, school districts must base their long-term facilities needs and costs on long-term population growth in order to qualify for this source 1230
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.14-8 4.14 | Public Services
of funding. Payment of statutory school fees is deemed to be adequate mitigation of school impacts under CEQA. Prior to SB 50, case law allowed cities to consider and impose conditions to mitigate impacts of new development on school facilities.
SB 50 amended CGC Section 65995, which contains limitations on Education Code Section 17620, the statute that authorizes school districts to assess development fees within school district boundaries. CGC Section 65995(b)(3) requires the maximum square footage assessment for development to be increased every two years, according to inflation adjustments. Currently, the maximum impact fees allowed by SB 50 are as follows:
• In the case of residential construction, $1.93 per square foot (sf) of assessable space. • In the case of any commercial or industrial construction, $0.31 per sf of chargeable covered and enclosed space. (CGC Section 65995(b)).
According to CGC Section 65995(3)(h), the payment of statutory fees is “deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization...on the provision of adequate school facilities.” The school district is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school impacts under the CGC.
Housing Accountability Act (Senate Bill 330; Govt. Code Section 65589.5 et seq.) The Housing Accountability Act (SB 330) took effect in January 2020. SB 330 provides that a city may not disapprove a residential housing development project for low-moderate income households (as defined) unless the housing development project “would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low and moderate-income households, unless the housing development project is proposed on land … which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project.” (CGC Section 65589.5(d)(4)). Its purpose is to increase housing in urbanized areas, while still accommodating future developments throughout a city.
Assembly Bill (AB) 97
Approved in July 2013, AB 97 revises existing regulations related to financing for public schools, by requiring State funding for county superintendents and charterschools that previously received a generalpurpose entitlement. AB 97 authorizes local educational agencies to spend, for any local educational purpose, the funds previously required to be spent for specified categorical education programs, including, among others, programs for teacher training and class size reduction.
Mutual Aid Agreements
The Emergency Management Mutual Aid (EMMA) system is a collaborative effort between city and county emergency managers in the Office of Emergency Services (OES) in the coastal, southern, and inland regions of the state. EMMA provides service in the emergency response and recovery efforts at the Southern Regional Emergency Operations Center, local Emergency Operations Centers, the Disaster Field Office, and community service centers. The purpose of EMMA is to support disaster operations in affected 1231
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.14-9 4.14 | Public Services
jurisdictions by providing professional emergency management personnel. In accordance with the Mutual Aid Agreements, local and state emergency managers have responded in support of each other under a variety of plans and procedures.
The Quimby Act
The Quimby Act (CGC Section 66477) was established by the California legislature in 1965 to develop new or rehabilitate existing neighborhood or community park or recreation facilities. This legislation was enacted in response to the need to provide parks and recreation facilities for California’s growing communities. The Quimby Act gives the legislative body of a city or county the authority, by ordinance, to require the dedication of land or payment of in-lieu fees, or a combination of both, for park and recreational purposes as a condition of approval of a tract map or parcel map. The Quimby Act is implemented through City Ordinance and is discussed further below.
Senate Bill 50
SB 50 (the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998), adopted in 1998, defined the school impact fee needs analysis process in California Government Code Sections 65995.5–65998. Pursuant to its provisions, school districts may collect fees to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity as a result of development. By statute, payment of a statutory fee by developers serves as the total mitigation of the potential impact of a development on school facilities pursuant to CEQA.
Local
City of Ontario General Plan – The Ontario Plan 2050
The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Safety and Parks and Recreation Elements provide important guidelines and policies to ensure the City’s goals are met. 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 public services.
The following policies contained in the Safety Element are relevant to the Project:
Safety Element12
Goal S-3 Reduced risk of death, injury, property damage and economic loss due to fires, accidents, and normal everyday occurrences through prompt and capable emergency response.
Policy S-3.8 Fire Prevention through Environmental Design. We require new development to incorporate fire prevention consideration in the design of streetscapes, sites, open spaces and buildings.
12 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Safety Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policy-plan/safety (accessed April 2023).
1232
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.14-10 4.14 | Public Services
Goal S-7 Residential neighborhoods, commercial areas, and industrial districts that are kept safe through a multi-faceted approach of prevention, suppression, and community involvement in public safety.
Policy S-7.4 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED). We require new development to incorporate CPTED in the design of streetscapes, sites, open spaces, and buildings.
The following policies contained in the Parks and Recreation Element are relevant to the Project:
Parks and Recreation Element13
Goal PR-1 A system of safe and accessible parks that meets the needs of the community.
Policy PR-1.4 Multi-family Residential Developments. We require that new multi-family residential developments of five or more units provide recreational facilities or open space, in addition to paying adopted impact fees.
Policy PR-1.5 Acreage Standard. We strive to provide 5 acres or parkland (public and private) per 1,000 residents.
Policy PR-1.6 Private Parks. We expect development to provide a minimum of 2 acres of developed private park space per 1,000 residents.
City of Ontario Development Code14
The City uses Development Impact Fees (DIFs) collected at building permit issuance to provide funding for police, fire, roadways, storm drainage, water and sewer infrastructure, solid waste infrastructure, general public facilities, libraries, public meetings, aquatics, and parks. The City has a fee schedule dedicated for the Ontario Ranch. The following are a list of fees charged by the City’s Building Department or collected by the Building Department on behalf of other departments or governmental agencies at the time permits are issued, for the City, specifically within the Project site. These fees took effect on January 1, 2023.
Police Impact Fees
The purpose of police impact fees is to ensure that new development finance its fair share of police protection facilities. This includes coverage for the cost of apprehensions of all suspects and recovery programs to reimburse the City (CGC, Title 5, Section 53150). The fees as of writing this EIR, are calculated as follows:
• Business Park Uses: $0.044/sf
• Retail Service Uses: $0.713/sf
• Office Uses: $0.279/sf
• High Density Dwellings: $502/unit
13 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Parks and Recreation Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policy-plan/parksrecreation. (accessed April 2023). 14 Ontario Ranch Development Impact Fees. ND. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Building/Ontario%20Ranch%20DIF%20Breakdown%20(Effective%2001.01.23).pdf. (accessed April 2023). 1233
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.14-11 4.14 | Public Services
Fire Impact Fees
The purpose of fire impact fees is to ensure coverage for fire protection facilities, where new development occurs. Fees are calculated as follows:
• Business Park Uses: $0.044/sf
• Retail Service Uses: $0.847/sf
• Office Uses: $0.637
• High Density Dwellings: $1,007/unit
School Impact Fees15
• Residential: $4.79/sf
• Commercial: $0.78/sf
Park Impact Fees
The purpose of park impact fees is to ensure coverage for park facilities, where new development occurs.
Fees are calculated as follows:
• High Density Dwellings: $10,658/unit
Library Impact Fees
The purpose of library impact fees is to ensure coverage for library facilities, where new development occurs. Fees are calculated as follows:
• High Density Dwellings: $913/unit
4.14.4 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:
PS-1 Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
15 Chino Valley Unified School District. Developer Fees. https://www.chino.k12.ca.us/Page/4852. (accessed March 2023). 1234
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.14-12 4.14 | Public Services
Other public facilities?
Methodology
The Project is evaluated against the significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for determining the impact’s level of significance concerning public services. This analysis considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce a 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 associated with public services.
The potential impacts related to public services were evaluated based on the ability of existing and planned public services staffing, equipment, and facilities to meet the additional demand for any public services resulting from the development of the Project. Impacts are considered significant if Project Implementation would result in inadequate staffing levels, response times, and/or increased demand for services that would require the construction or expansion of new or altered facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
4.14.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies
Refer to above discussion regarding existing Regulatory Framework.
4.14.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.14-1 Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
I) Fire protection?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Specific Plan - Phase I
Construction and Operations
The increase in development and workers within the Phase I area could potentially result in additional calls for fire protection services, which would increase needs for fire department staffing and equipment.
The OFD provides emergency, preventive and administrative services to over 185,000 residents in over 50 square miles within the City. As previously mentioned, the City has ten fire stations, and Station 2, Station 3, and Station 9 are within the closest proximity to the Phase I area. Station 2 is located at 544 West Francis Street, Ontario, CA, 91762 and is approximately 2.8 miles north of the Phase I area. Station 3 is located at 1408 East Francis Street, Ontario, CA, 91762 and is approximately 3 miles northeast of the Phase I area. Lastly, Station 9 is located at 2661 East Grand Park, Ontario, CA 91762 and is approximately 3 miles west of the Phase I area. Therefore, the nearest OFD Station to the Phase I area is Station 2. 1235
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.14-13 4.14 | Public Services
The Phase I area would primarily be served by the Station 2, Station 3, and Station 9 due to these stations’ close proximity to the site as mentioned previously. Station 2 currently has 4 fire personnel assigned to one paramedic engine. In 2022, Station 2 received a total of approximately 2,500 calls for fire-related incidents, Additionally, Station 3 currently has 4 fire personnel assigned to one paramedic engine. In 2022, Station 3 received a total of 2,000 calls for fire-related incidents. Lastly, Station 9 currently has 8 fire personnel assigned to one paramedic engine and one truck company. In 2022, Station 9 received a total of 1000 calls for fire-related incidents. As previously mentioned, the OFD has a total response time of 9 minutes and 59 seconds.
Additionally, prior to the approval of the Project, the City’s Building Department and OFD would review building plans in order to ensure that all applicable fire safety features are incorporated as part of the Project. Furthermore, all fire-related safety features would be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the adopted CFC and the City’s Municipal Code (MC) Section 4-4.01, ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire prevention and suppression measures related to water improvement plans, fire hydrants, fire access, and water availability. Prior to the approval of occupancy permits for the new buildings, it would be required that the OFD would inspect all new structures in order to ensure that all fire safety features have been implemented and installed correctly.
The Project would comply with all applicable policies aforementioned in Section 4.14.3: Regulatory Setting in order to reduce risk of death, injury, property damage, and economic loss due to fires through prompt and capable emergency response. The Project would be in compliance with the California Fire Code and California Building Code to mitigate or reduce the negative effects of fire and structural collapse.
The Project would comply with TOP Policy S3-8 to ensure all new development within the City would incorporate fire prevention consideration in the design of streetscapes, sites, open spaces, and buildings.
Furthermore, the City has adopted a public alert notification system that efficiently conveys emergency information to the public and the OFD would have additional support in response to emergencies through the California Fire Rescue and Mutual Aid Plan. In addition, the City monitors water supply to ensure enough water is available for adequate firefighting.
Project implementation would not create any deficiencies in current response times or staffing models, nor require provision of new or expanded fire facilities, construction of which would have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. Further, as stated above, based on the Phase I area’s proximity to three existing fire stations, the personnel staffed for each station, and the response times for service received, the Project would be adequately served by fire protection services, and no new or expanded unplanned facilities would be required. DIFs would also be collected in order to build and supply necessary infrastructure for fire protection services, as necessary. The City has a general City fee schedule as well as a separate fee schedule for the Ontario Ranch collected at building permit issuance to provide funding for fire protection services, among other public services.
Overall, the Project would receive adequate fire protection services and would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, and will not adversely affect service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. In addition, the Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and payment 1236
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.14-14 4.14 | Public Services
of DIFs (refer to Section 4.14.3: Regulatory Setting for description of applicable DIFs). Therefore, impacts related to fire protection services 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. While development could affect response times, services ratios, or other performance objectives for the OFD, impacts to governmental facilities, including fire protection facilities, would be less than significant. The OFD would expand in response to the demand for fire protection facilities and personnel caused by new development. No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.16
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would not significantly impact fire protection facilities. 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 4.14-2 Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
II) Police protection?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction and Operations
The increase in development and workers within the Phase I area could potentially result in additional calls for police department services, which would increase needs for Police department staffing and equipment. To help offset costs and ensure adequate service is provided; development mitigation fees are collected. Additionally, the Project would include installation of security features and surveillance through the provision of low-intensity security lighting in and around the new buildings and parking areas.
The Project includes proposed business park and mixed-use development on 18 parcels covering 16 The City’s TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR determined that impacts to public services, including fire protection, would be less than significant. (Final EIR Section 5.15, Public Services). 1237
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.14-15 4.14 | Public Services
84.1 acres within the City, which could increase the City’s population. As previously discussed, police protection services for the City and Phase I area are provided by the OPD. The OPD is located approximately 3.6 miles northwest of the Phase I area at 2500 South Archibald Avenue, Ontario, CA, 91791. The OPD consists of 289 sworn officers providing law enforcement services 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The OPD services three areas of command. The Project site is located within the West Area Command and would be served by officers and corporals, headed by police sergeants, who work 24/7 patrol operations; traffic officers; CET officers, who work special projects; narcotics investigators; and detectives.
To accommodate the growth of the City population, new police officers and potential for new protection facilities were anticipated to help offset costs and ensure adequate service is provided, and development mitigation fees are collected. According to the Project Specific Plan, future development would comply with the City’s development review process, which provides for review by the City’s Police Department and potential redesign to incorporate crime prevention design elements in streetscapes, sites, open spaces, and buildings. Additionally, pursuant to the City’s existing permitting process, the City’s Building Department would review final site plans in order to ensure that crime prevention through design measures is incorporated as part of the Project. Furthermore, Project construction would include the strategic use of nighttime security lighting and on-site security personnel to secure the site and reduce demands on police service.
The Project would comply with all applicable goals and policies outlined in TOP 2050 that would include efforts to improve public safety regard to police protection. This includes the public alert notification system that efficiently conveys information concerning emergency events to the public as well as ensuring the OPD would respond to calls for service in a timely manner. Additionally, pursuant to the City’s existing permitting process, the City’s Building Department would review final site plans in order to ensure that crime prevention through design measures is incorporated as part of the Project. This includes Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies, which is a planning tool that focuses on proper design and use of the built environment to deter and prevent crime, in this case for business park and mixed uses. CPTED would ensure parking lots, loading dock areas, pedestrian walkways, building entrances, signage, and architectural and landscape features have adequate illumination and ground or low mounted fixtures would be installed along walkways, entrances, steps, and ramps for further safety.
Development design within the Project site would also encourage delineation of pedestrian access to buildings located on the site from adjacent streets and parking areas by marking building entrances with prominent signage or architectural and landscaping features. The OPD would continue to add staff and equipment on an as-needed basis in order to accommodate the incremental increasing demands from buildout of land uses, as was identified in TOP. Furthermore, The City partners with other local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies and private security providers, as well as utilize all City departments to help reduce crime and promote public safety. Project plans would be reviewed by applicable local agencies to ensure compliance with TOP 2050, Euclid Mixed-Use Specific Plan, and the Ontario MC, as well as all applicable regulations to ensure adequate site signage, lighting, and other crime safety preventative measures to ensure safety standards. The Master Developer and/or Site Developer, as applicable, is required to pay all required impact fees and fair share costs. Compliance with applicable local regulations and payment of DIFs would ensure that Project construction and operation would result 1238
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.14-16 4.14 | Public Services
in a less than significant impact to police protection services (refer to Section 4.14.3: Regulatory Setting for description of applicable DIFs).
The OPD has prepared for growth of the Ontario Ranch area, where the Project site is located, and is expected to have adequate facilities and personnel to serve the proposed development. The OPD would continue to add staff and equipment on an as-needed basis in order to accommodate the incremental increasing demands from buildout of land uses, as was identified in TOP. Furthermore, buildout of the Project would require payment of police impact fees, and would not require construction of additional police facilities to maintain adequate police protection service. Thus, impacts related to police protection services 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. While development could affect response times, services ratios, or other performance objectives for the OPD, impacts to governmental facilities, including police protection facilities, would be less than significant. The OPD would expand in response to the demand for police protection facilities and personnel caused by new development. No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.17
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would not significantly impact police protection facilities. 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 4.12-3 Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Schools?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
17 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.15, Public Services. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. 1239
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.14-17 4.14 | Public Services
Specific Plan – Phase I
The CVUSD serves the City of Ontario with education services. The Project would include up to 290,110 square feet of commercial retail/office uses, up to 466 residential units, and 1,386,776 square feet of business park uses, which increase employment opportunities. This increase in employment could cause a number of new families to relocate, potentially increasing enrollment within the CVUSD. However, it is anticipated that a majority of potential employees would be existing residents in local and neighboring communities and regions that would not require relocating into the school district.
School funding comes predominantly from federal, state, and local sources such as businesses and personal income taxes, sales tax, and property taxes. Education Code 17620 et seq. authorizes the collection developer fees; Government Code 65995 et seq. establishes the types of fees and rates18 The Project applicant would be required to pay the CVUSD’s current developer impact fees in effect at the time of submitting the building permit application. These fees would be used to accommodate any expansion or upgrades needed to serve new students. Under SB 50, payment of required school impact fees is deemed complete and full mitigation for impacts to school facilities (refer to Section 4.14.3:
Regulatory Setting for description of applicable DIFs). Payment of required fees would ensure impacts to schools are less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
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. Development of Phase II would occur on Planning Areas 2B and 3B. While development could affect performance objectives for schools, impacts would be less than significant. School funding comes predominantly from federal, state, and local sources such as businesses and personal income taxes, sales tax, and property taxes. Education Code 17620 et seq. authorizes the collection developer fees; Government Code 65995 et seq. establishes the types of fees and rates At the time of development for Phase II, payment would be required for the CVUSD’s current developer impact fees in effect at the time of submitting the building permit application. These fees would be used to accommodate any expansion or upgrades needed to serve new students. Payment of required fees would ensure impacts to schools are less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would not significantly impact school facilities. 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.
18 Chino Valley Unified School District. ND. Developer Fees. https://www.chino.k12.ca.us/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=8489&dataid=168928&FileName=Developer%20Fees%20- %20Frequently%20Asked%20Questions%20-%20October%202022.pdf. (accessed March 2023). 1240
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.14-18 4.14 | Public Services
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.12-4 Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Parks?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Specific Plan – Phase I
As previously mentioned, parks and recreation areas within the City are managed by the City of Ontario.
The City maintains 32 parks, seven community centers, and three dog parks. The Project includes a residential component that could generate population growth and increase new employees to the nearby public parks or facilities. Multiple parks are located near the Project site. The nearest parks to the Project are Centennial Park, which is a City park, and two City of Chino parks: Constellation Park and Cypress Trails Park. These parks are approximately three miles north, less than one mile west and two miles northwest of the Project site, respectively. The MU zoning district accommodates a wide variety of retail commercial, office and high-density residential development in conformance with TOP. It is anticipated that the MixedUse development will be comprised of 10 percent Office, 20 percent Commercial/Retail, and 70 percent Residential. According to the Project Specific Plan, public parks, community centers, and similar facilities are permitted by right within both the BP and MU zoning districts. Additionally, publicly owned or accessible open space/parks and trails are permitted within the OS-NR zoning district. The Project is required, by TOP 2050 Policy PR-1.4, to provide parks or open space for new multi-family residential developments, in addition to the payment of applicable DIFs.
Under TOP 2050, the City strives to provide five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and a minimum of two acres of developed private park space per 1,000 residents in addition to the three acres per 1,000 persons standard. The Project would be in compliance with the land use and zoning designations identified in TOP and would Project Applicant would pay general DIFs that contribute to funding for parks. As a result, development of park facilities would keep pace with the anticipated increase in population from buildout of TOP 2050. Furthermore, all future park development would undergo individual CEQA evaluation, which is anticipated to account for any future impacts, and impacts would be less than significant.
Overall, the Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered park facilities and will not adversely affect service ratios or other performance objectives. In addition, the Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and payment of DIFs (refer to Section 4.14.3: Regulatory Setting for description of applicable DIFs). Therefore, impacts related to parks would be less than significant. 1241
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.14-19 4.14 | Public Services
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. Development of Phase II would occur on Planning Areas 2B and 3B. While development could affect population increases that put greater demand on park facilities, the expansion of park facilities in response to the Project is accounted for by TOP 2050 and includes the requirement that new multi-family residential development within the Phase II future development area provide recreational facilities or open space, including parks. Therefore, 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 2050.19 Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would not significantly impact park facilities. 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 4.12-5 Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Other public facilities?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Specific Plan – Phase I
Other Public Facilities generally refers to libraries and government buildings that serve the population within the jurisdiction. The Project construction and operation would not require the physical modification of any of the City’s public facilities. As stated previously, the Community Life and Culture Department manages the City’s two public libraries, neither of which are in close proximity to the Project site. The South Ontario Lewis Family Branch Library (South Ontario Library) is approximately 4.8 miles northeast of the Project site, and the Ovitt Family Community Library is located approximately 4.6 miles north of Project site. The construction and operation of the Project site would not result in a substantial 19 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.16, Recreation. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed January 2023).
1242
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.14-20 4.14 | Public Services
increase in demand for these services such that a significant deterioration of the existing facilities would occur, or such that new facilities would be required.
Additional library services were accounted for in the City’s TOP. The City has plans to build a new 37,646- square-foot public library in the New Model Colony (NMC) or “Ontario Ranch” area that would provide similar services as the Main Library and a 6,763-square-foot expansion in the Old Model Colony (OMC), totaling 44,409 new square feet of public library services. This would give citizens in that area access to similar levels of service as already exist in the OMC. The expansion of library services in the OMC would continue to bring similar levels of service to the residents in the OMC. In addition, the Ontario library system participates in an interlibrary exchange as part of the Inland Library System, which includes 18 other independent public libraries in Inyo, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. This would give existing and future citizens of Ontario access to additional library services. Therefore, additional construction of facilities would not be required. DIFs would also be collected in order to build and supply necessary infrastructure for other public facilities, as necessary. The City has a general City fee schedule as well as a separate fee schedule for the Ontario Ranch collected at building permit issuance to provide funding for public services, including libraries and other general facilities.
Other potential impacts to surrounding public facilities include the Chino Airport. Analyzed in greater detail in Section 4.11: Land Use and Planning, the Project was found to be compliant with the regulations and policies presented in the Chino Airport Land Use Community Plan (ALUCP). Because of the lack of substantial population growth and the Project’s compliance with the Chino Airport ALUCP, a less than significant impact is expected to occur on surrounding public facilities.
Overall, the Project would be adequately served by other public facilities and would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered public facilities, and will not adversely affect service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. In addition, the Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and payment of DIFs (refer to Section 4.14.3: Regulatory Setting for description of applicable DIFs). Therefore, impacts related to fire other public services 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. While development could affect population increases that put greater demand on other public facilities, the expansion of other public facilities in response to the Project is accounted for by TOP 2050, and 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 2050.20
20 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.15, Public Services. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed March 2023).
1243
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.14-21 4.14 | Public Services
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would not significantly impact other public facilities. 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.
4.14.7 Cumulative Impacts
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 2050.21
Fire Protection Services
The cumulative study area for fire protection services is the City of Ontario. Future development projects are anticipated to occur throughout the City, specifically in the Ontario Ranch area, including the Project site. As indicated in the City’s TOP, development of the Ontario Ranch area would generate a proportional increase in demand for additional fire protection and EMS. The City is in the process of constructing two new fire stations with one proposed in the Ontario Ranch area that would help accommodate cumulative increases to fire protection services in the southern portion of the City, including the Project site.
As stated above, the Project would increase the demand for fire protection services through the incorporation of additional people on-site in addition to the cumulative development of projects within the City. Thus, a periodic review process would ensure that adequate service would be maintained throughout the City and would add staffing and equipment as necessary. The OFD can presently serve the Project site without the need for additional fire facilities with payment of DIFs.
Since the Project would be consistent with the buildout assumptions of TOP and other applicable plans and regulations, and payment of general DIFs, implementation of the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in the need for fire protection and EMS facilities or personnel.
Police Protection Services
Similarly, future development projects are anticipated to occur within the City. This overall development would generate a proportional increase in calls for police services. All future cumulative projects would be reviewed by OPD staff prior to issuance of any development permit to ensure adequate security measures are provided for each site-specific development in the City, including this Project. It is anticipated that future development would result in the need of additional sworn officers and equipment, but with payment of DIFs, implementation of the Project would not create a cumulatively considerable 21 Ibid.
1244
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.14-22 4.14 | Public Services
need for new or expanded police stations. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with the implementation of the Project would be less than significant.
Schools, Parks, and Other Public Services
As discussed above, the Project is not anticipated to cumulatively increase the need for schools, parks, and other public services in the City. The anticipated increased demands for schools, parks, and other public services within the City was accounted for in the City’s TOP 2050 and analyzed in TOP EIR, which accounts for the cumulative growth in the City. In addition, cumulative development projects would pay the required DIFs that would be appropriately allocated, in this case, to schools and parks. In addition, the TOP concluded that additional library services would not be required with buildout of the TOP. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with schools, parks, and other public services from the Project would be less than cumulatively significant.
4.14.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts were identified.
4.14.9 References
California AB 97. 2013.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB97.
California Senate Bill 50. 2020.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB50.
California Government Code. Title 5, Article 8, Section 53150. 1985. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum =53150.
Chino Valley Unified School District. Developer Fees. https://www.chino.k12.ca.us/Page/4852.
Chino Valley Unified School District. 2022. https://www.chino.k12.ca.us/domain/5297.
Chino Valley Unified School District. 2009. Elementary School Attendance Areas. https://www.chino.k12.ca.us/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=40374&datai d=88556&FileName=Elementary_School_Boundary_Map.pdf.
Chino Valley Unified School District. 2009. High School Attendance Areas. https://www.chino.k12.ca.us/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=40374&datai d=88557&FileName=Junior_High_School_Boundary_Map.pdf.
Chino Valley Unified School District. 2009. Junior High School Attendance Areas. https://www.chino.k12.ca.us/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=40374&datai d=88556&FileName=Elementary_School_Boundary_Map.pdf.
City of Ontario. 2023. Development Fees. https://www.ontarioca.gov/Building/Fees.
City of Ontario. ND. EMS – EMS Bureau. https://www.ontarioca.gov/Fire/EMS.
City of Ontario. ND. Fire Stations. https://www.ontarioca.gov/Fire/FireStations. 1245
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.14-23 4.14 | Public Services
City of Ontario. 2020. Library. https://www.ontarioca.gov/Library.
City of Ontario. ND. Operations. https://www.ontarioca.gov/Fire/Operations.
City of Ontario. Police Department. https://www.ontarioca.gov/Police.
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.15, Public Services. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Safety Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontarioplan-policy-plan/safety.
Melissa E. Ramirez. Sergeant. Ontario Police Department. Personal Communication. March 28, 2023. (email)
Ontario Police Department. 2023. Area Command. https://www.ontarioca.gov/Police.
Ontario Ranch Development Impact Fees. ND. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Building/Ontario%20Ranch%20DIF%20Breakdown%20(Effective%2001.01.23).pdf.
Ontario Police Department. Public Records Request – P000481-041023. (April 26, 2023). Personal Communication. (email).
Paul Ehrman. Senior Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal. Ontario Fire Department. Personal Communication.
April 18, 2023. (email)
The Ontario Police Department. Area Command. 2023. https://www.ontarioca.gov/Police.
The Ontario Police Department. Public Records Request – P000481-041023. (April 26, 2023) Personal Communication. (email)
1246
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-1 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic
4.15 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.15.1 Introduction
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project (Project) to result in transportation and traffic impacts in the City of Ontario (City).
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:
• Urban Crossroads. August 2023. Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Traffic Analysis. (Appendix I1) • Urban Crossroads. December 2022. Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis. (Appendix I2)
4.15.2 Environmental Setting
The Project site comprises 18 parcels totaling approximately 84.1 acres of agricultural development and residential uses. The Project area is located approximately two and a half miles south of State Route (SR) 60 (SR-60) via SR-83 (Euclid Avenue), which is located on the western boundary of the Project site. The Project site is bounded by Schaefer Avenue on the north, Edison Avenue on the south, Sultana Avenue on the east, and Euclid Avenue on the west. Access to the site is currently provided via multiple private driveway entrances located on Euclid Avenue, Edison Avenue, and Schaefer Avenue.
Existing improvements for Euclid Avenue include interim pavement and an unimproved dirt center median. Euclid Avenue has a fully dedicated right-of-way. Schaefer Avenue and Edison Avenue are paved in an interim condition, requiring ultimate right-of-way dedication and major street and parkway improvements. On the eastern boundary of the Project site, Sultana Avenue is a fully dedicated yet unimproved street that exists only on paper, which would require major street and parkway improvements. Traffic signals are located along Euclid Avenue at the Edison Avenue and Schaefer Avenue intersections.
Existing Regional Transportation System Characteristics The Project site is located approximately two and a half miles south of SR 60 via SR 83 (Euclid Avenue), which is located on the western boundary of the Project site. Regional access to the Project site is provided by SR-83 (Euclid Avenue), which connects to SR-60 and Interstate 10 (I-10) to the north; I-15 approximately
5.5 miles to the east; and SR-71 approximately 4.3 miles to the west. SR-71 connects the Project to SR-91 in unincorporated Riverside County.
1247
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-2 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic
Existing Local Transportation System Characteristics
The City’s General Plan, also known as “The Ontario Plan” (TOP) 2050, provides descriptions of the various classes of roadways within the City. The City’s circulation system includes three freeways, an international airport, two railroad main lines of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and one Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) rail line, and a system of arterial and local streets. The following definitions from the City’s TOP 2050 EIR describes the characteristics of the various roadway classifications:
Freeway: Freeways are limited-access, high-speed travel ways in the state and federal highway systems.
Other Principal Arterials: Other Principal Arterials serve the major centers and corridors of activity, carry the highest volumes of traffic, and serve the longest trips of all city roadways. Other Principal Arterials typically accommodate four to eight lanes of traffic and medians.
Minor Arterials: Minor arterials accommodate less traffic than Other Principal Arterials and are for trips of moderate length. Minor Arterials allow more access to abutting properties than Other Principal Arterials, so speeds are lower. Minor Arterials connect the community but ideally should not penetrate residential neighborhoods. The roadway configuration and right-of-way width vary depending on local conditions, but typically accommodate four to six lanes of traffic and medians.
Collector Streets: Collector streets provide access to abutting properties and traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods and business areas. Collector streets allow access to local and arterial roadways. The roadway configuration and right-of-way width vary depending on local conditions, but typically accommodate two to four lanes of traffic.
Local Street: The primary function of a local street is to provide direct access to abutting properties. Local streets rarely have more than two travel lanes and speed limits are generally low; they are not intended for through traffic. Local streets are not on the Functional Roadway Classifications map because they are not considered part of the backbone circulation system.
Enhanced Intersection: Enhanced Intersections may include additional lanes, reduced median width, increased right-of-way width, removal of on-street bike lanes, or reduction of parkway width to increase capacity, improve operations, and respond to local demands. Detailed engineering studies are necessary to identify the most effective and feasible types of improvements.
The Project vicinity consists of major roadways within the cities of Ontario, Chino, Chino Hills, Eastvale, Jurupa Valley and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) facilities. A detailed description of the existing roadway network and conditions is provided in Section 3 of the Traffic Analysis (see Appendix I1).
1248
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-1 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic
The Project area includes roadways that are classified as 8-lane Other Principal Arterials, which are identified as having four lanes of travel in each direction. The following within the Project area are classified as 8-lane Other Principal Arterials:
• Euclid Avenue
• Edison Avenue
The Project area roadways that are classified as 6-lane Other Principal Arterials are identified as having three lanes of travel in each direction and a 14-foot curbed or painted median. The following Project area roadways classified as 6-lane Other Principal Arterials include:
• Archibald Avenue
• Vineyard Avenue
• Hamner Avenue
The Project area roadways that are classified as 4-lane Other Principal Arterials are identified as having two lanes of travel in each direction. The following Project area roadways that are classified as 4-lane Other Principal Arterials include:
• Grove Avenue
• Haven Avenue, south of Riverside Drive
The Project area roadway that is classified as a 6-lane Minor Arterial is identified as having three lanes of travel in each direction. The following Project area roadway that is classified as a 6-lane Minor Arterial includes :
• Riverside Drive
The Project area roadways that are classified as Collector Streets are identified as having two to four lanes of travel in each direction. The following Project area roadways classified as Collector Streets include:
• Walnut Avenue
• Chino Avenue
• Schaefer Avenue
• Eucalyptus Avenue
• Merrill Avenue
• Bon View Avenue
• Walker Avenue
• Hellman Avenue
• Turner Avenue
1249
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-4 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic
Bicycle and Pedestrian Paths
There are limited pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the Project site. Field observations and traffic counts conducted in 2022 indicate light pedestrian and bicycle activity within the Project area (see Appendix I1). Trails and bicycle paths provide an additional mode of circulation in and around the Project site. Multipurpose trails would be provided on the east side of Euclid Avenue, on the south side of Schaefer Avenue and on the south side of Edison Avenue (see Figure 3-11: Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan).
TOP 2050 Mobility Element specifies a Class II bicycle lane on the north side of Schaefer Avenue adjacent to the Project site. Class II bicycle lanes are defined as dedicated (striped) lanes along streets, with no parking allowed in the bicycle lane. This bicycle lane provides linkages to the City’s bicycle path system (see Figure 3-12: City of Ontario Trail and Bicycle Paths Plan). The trail and bicycle path improvements would be installed along the Project frontages in conjunction with street improvements.
Truck Routes
According to the City’s Truck Routes map, the City has designated certain roadways for the purpose of channeling large trucks through and within the City, including Euclid and Edison Avenues which border the Project site.
1 The City also maintains these routes to establish a network that provides for the effective transport of goods while minimizing negative impacts on local circulation and noise-sensitive land uses.
In addition to the City’s routes, the State has identified Mission Boulevard and parts of Milliken Avenue and Jurupa Street as extralegal load limit streets.
Rail Lines and Crossings
Two major east-west freight lines traverse the City. A third east-west line runs just north of the northern boundary of the City. The northern route through the City is the UPRR Alhambra Subdivision Line, which begins at the Ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach and runs through Los Angeles, Pomona, Colton, and points farther east. The southern route is the UPRR Los Angeles Subdivision Line, which also begins at the Ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach and runs through Pomona, but travels southeast to Riverside and points farther east.
The UPRR main lines run parallel to each other from the western boundary of the City to Campus Avenue.
The Alhambra Subdivision Line continues east along the northern boundary of Ontario International Airport (ONT) north of Airport Drive, and the Los Angeles Subdivision Line turns southeast along the south side of ONT and the north side of Mission Avenue. Metrolink’s Riverside County Line runs on the southern tracks, and the Amtrak Sunset Limited runs on the northern tracks. The rail line that traverses north of the City is Metrolink’s San Bernardino Line. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad has trackage rights on that line.
Both UPRR tracks are grade separated at Mountain Avenue and Euclid Avenue in the western part of the City. The northern tracks are grade separated at Grove Avenue, Vineyard Avenue, Archibald Avenue, 1 City of Ontario. 2022. Figure M-04 Truck Routes. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/Mobility/FIgure%20M-04%20Truck%20Routes.pdf. (accessed March 2023). 1250
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-5 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic
Haven Avenue, and Milliken Avenue. The southern tracks are grade separated at Grove Avenue, Haven Avenue, and Milliken Avenue.
Bus Transit
Omnitrans Transit Agency provides local transit service throughout the County, including the City.
Omnitrans provides Countywide bus service and currently has five bus routes in the City that provide connections between rail stations, ONT, major employment and shopping centers, and residential areas. • 61 – Fontana – Ontario Mills – Pomona (via Holt Boulevard – Inland Empire Boulevard) • 63 – Chino – Ontario – Upland (via Chino Avenue – Riverside Drive – Mountain Avenue – Holt Boulevard – Campus Avenue – 4th Street)
• 80 – Montclair – Ontario Convention Center – Rancho Cucamonga (via Mountain Avenue – Holt Boulevard– Vineyard Avenue)
• 81 – Ontario – Ontario Mills – Chaffey College (via Holt Boulevard– Francis Street – Archibald Avenue – Riverside Drive – Haven Avenue)
• 83 – Upland – Euclid Avenue – Chino Avenue (via Euclid Avenue) There are three transfer centers in the City. The first is at the Civic Center on Sultana Avenue, between Holt Boulevard and D Street; the second is at the Ontario Mills Mall; and the third is at ONT. Omnitrans provides connections to other regional bus services such as Foothill Transit, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Agency, and others. The City is coordinating with regional transit agencies to implement Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service to target destinations and along corridors, including Euclid Avenue west of the Project site. The nearest bus stop to the Project site is at the intersection of Euclid Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue approximately 0.6 mile to the west.
Metrolink
Commuter train service in the City is provided by Metrolink, which operates six commuter rail lines throughout southern California. The Riverside County Line runs between Los Angeles Union Station and downtown Riverside on Mondays through Fridays between 4:30 AM and 8:00 PM, passing through the City. There is no Metrolink service on this line on Saturdays or Sundays. There is one Metrolink station in the City, off of Haven Avenue on Francis Street. This station is served by Omnitrans Bus Route 81. The Metrolink San Bernardino line is less than a mile north of the northern City limit.
Amtrak
Amtrak has one route (Sunset Limited route) that regularly stops in the City, which travels between Los Angeles and New Orleans, Louisiana. The Amtrak stops in the City and is located near the transfer center, on Emporia Street and Lemon Avenue (about one block from Holt Boulevard and Sultana Avenue).
This service arrives and departs on Sunday, Wednesday, and Friday.
4.15.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
1251
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-6 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic
Americans With Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 prohibits discrimination toward people with disabilities and guarantees that they have equal opportunities as the rest of society to become employed, purchase goods and services, and participate in government programs and services. The ADA includes requirements pertaining to transportation infrastructure. The Department of Justice’s revised regulations for Titles II and III of the ADA, known as the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Designs, set minimum requirements for newly designed and constructed or altered State and local government facilities, public accommodations, and commercial facilities to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. These standards apply to accessible walking routes, curb ramps, and other facilities.
Surface Transportation Assistance Act Routes
The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 allows large trucks, referred to as STAA trucks that comply with maximum length and wide requirements, to operate on routes that are part of the National Network. The National Network includes the Interstate System and other designated highways that were a part of the Federal-Aid Primary System on June 1, 1991; states are encouraged, however, to allow access for STAA trucks on all highways.
State
Assembly Bill 1358, Complete Streets Act
The California Complete Streets Act of 2008, Assembly Bill (AB) 1358, was signed into law on September 30, 2008. Beginning January 1, 2011, AB 1358 required circulation elements to address the transportation system from a multimodal perspective. The bill states that streets, roads, and highways must “meet the needs of all users…in a manner suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan.” Essentially, this bill requires a circulation element to plan for all modes of transportation where appropriate—including walking, biking, car travel, and transit.
The Complete Streets Act also requires general plan circulation elements to consider the multiple users of the transportation system, including children, adults, seniors, and the disabled. For further clarity, AB 1358 tasked the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to release guidelines for compliance with this legislation by January 1, 2014.
Senate Bill 743
On September 27, 2013, Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed into law. The Legislature found that with adoption of the SB 375, the State had signaled its commitment to encourage land use and transportation planning decisions and investments that reduce VMT and thereby contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as required by Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006); see Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas for further discussion. Additionally, AB 1358, described above, requires local governments to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users.
SB 743 started a process that could fundamentally change transportation impact analysis as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. Changes implemented include the elimination 1252
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-7 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic
of auto delay, level of service (LOS), and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA. As part of the new State CEQA Guidelines, the new criteria “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) developed alternative metrics and thresholds based on VMT. The guidelines were certified by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency in December 2018, and automobile delay, as described solely by LOS of similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment. There was an opt-in period until July 1, 2020, for agencies to adopt new VMTbased criteria. As such, the City developed its own VMT impact thresholds, which were adopted by City Council on June 16, 2020, using both the OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA and San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) Guidelines.
Senate Bill 375 Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 or SB 375 was signed into law on September 30, 2008. The SB 375 regulation provides incentives for cities and developers to bring housing and jobs closer together and to improve public transit. The goal behind SB 375 is to reduce automobile commuting trips and length of automobile trips, thus helping to meet the statewide targets for reducing GHG emissions set by AB 32. SB 375 requires each metropolitan planning organization (MPO) to add a broader vision for growth, called a “Sustainable Communities Strategy” (SCS), to its transportation plan.
The SCS must lay out a plan to meet the region’s transportation, housing, economic, and environmental needs in a way that enables the area to lower GHG emissions. The SCS should integrate transportation, land-use, and housing policies to plan for the achievement of the emissions target for their region.
Caltrans
Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on State Highway System (SHS) facilities; however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS. If an existing State highway facility is operating at less than this target LOS, the existing LOS should be maintained. In general, the regionwide goal for an acceptable LOS on all freeways and intersections is LOS D. Consistent with the City’s LOS threshold of LOS D and in excess of the City’s stated LOS threshold of LOS E, LOS D would be used as the target LOS for freeway ramps, freeway segments, and freeway merge/diverge ramp junctions.
Regional
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)
On September 3, 2020, SCAG adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal), which places a greater emphasis than ever on sustainability and integrated planning. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS vision encompasses a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS includes a strong commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources to comply with SB 375, improve public health, and meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This long-range plan, required by the State of California and the 1253
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-8 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic
federal government, is updated by SCAG every four years as demographic, economic, and policy circumstances change. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is a living, evolving blueprint for the region’s future.
San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program
The SBCTA is San Bernardino’s Congestion Management Agency (CMA). SBCTA prepares, monitors, and periodically updates the County Congestion Management Program to meet federal Congestion Management Process requirement and the County’s Measure I Program. The County Congestion Management Program defines a network of State highways and arterials, LOS standards and related procedures, the process for mitigation of impacts of new development on the transportations system, and technical justification for the approach.
Measure I Strategic Plan
Measure I authorizes a half-cent sales tax in the County until March 2040 for use exclusively on transportation improvement and traffic management programs. San Bernardino County voters first approved the measure in 1989 and in 2004 overwhelmingly approved the extension through 2040.
Measure I includes language mandating development to pay its fair share for transportation improvements in San Bernardino County. The Measure I Strategic Plan is the official guide for the allocation and administration of the combination of local transportation sales tax, State and Federal transportation revenues, and private fair-share contributions to regional transportation facilities to fund the Measure I 2010–2040 transportation programs. The Strategic Plan identifies funding categories and allocations and planned transportation improvement projects in the County for freeways, major and local arterials, bus and rail transit, and traffic management systems. The City has adopted a development impact fee (DIF) program that is consistent with Measure I requirements.
Local
City of Ontario General Plan – The Ontario Plan 2050
The TOP 2050 Mobility Element establishes a guideline that is intended to provide a balanced transportation/ circulation system that would support the anticipated growth in local and regional land uses. The Mobility Element is based on the following principles:
• Access to convenient local and regional mobility options is essential to the City’s growth and prosperity.
• A comprehensive multimodal mobility system is vital to providing equitable access to jobs, schools, shopping, services, parks, and other key destination points for people of all abilities and incomes.
• Transportation systems should reflect the context and desired character of the surrounding land uses.
• Well designed and maintained roadways, sidewalks, and bikeways are essential for the safe and efficient movement of goods and people.
• Transportation routes and their rights-of-way should be planned and preserved based upon projected travel demands.
1254
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-9 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic
The Mobility Element stipulates that roadways within the City comply with federal, State, and local design and safety standards. Furthermore, the Mobility Element requires City roads maintain a peak hour LOS or better at all intersections. The Mobility Element further provides goals and policies for bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit facilities.
The following Mobility Element goals and policies would apply to the proposed Project:
Mobility Element2
Goal M-1 A system of roadways that meets the mobility needs of a dynamic and prosperous Ontario.
Policy M-1.2 Mitigation of Impacts. We require development to mitigate its traffic impacts.
Policy M-1.5 Level of Service. Maintain a peak hour Level of Service (LOS) E or better at all intersections. Maintain Level of Service D or better on arterial streets in the City. Develop and maintain a list of locations where LOS E or LOS F are considered acceptable and would be exempt from this level of service policy. Considerations for LOS exemption include being restricted by environmental constraints, lacking available right-of-way, deterring an increase in VMT, or degrading other modes of travel (such as bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure).
Policy M-1.6 Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. We will strive to reduce VMT through a combination of land use, transportation projects, travel demand management strategies, and other trip reduction measures in coordination with development projects and public capital improvement projects.
Goal M-2 A system of trails and corridors that facilitate and encourage active modes of transportation.
Policy M-2.1 Active Transportation. We maintain our Active Transportation Master Plan to create a comprehensive system of on- and off-street bikeways and pedestrian facilities that are safe, comfortable, and accessible and connect residential areas, businesses, schools, parks, and other key destination points.
Policy M-2.2 Bicycle System. We provide off-street multipurpose trails and Class II bikeways as our preferred paths of travel and use the Class III for connectivity in constrained circumstances. When truck routes and bicycle facilities share a right-of-way, we prefer Class I or Class IV bicycle facilities. We require new development to include bicycle facilities, such as bicycle parking and secure storage areas.
Policy M-2.3 Pedestrian Walkways. We require streets to include sidewalks and visible crosswalks at major intersections where necessary to promote safe and comfortable mobility between residential areas, businesses, schools, parks, recreation areas, and other key destination points.
2 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Mobility Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policy-plan/mobility. (accessed April 2023).
1255
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-10 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic Policy M-2.4 Network Opportunities. We use public rights-of-way and easements such as, utility easements, levees, drainage corridors, road rights-of-way, medians, and other potential options to maintain and expand our bicycle and pedestrian network. In urban, mixed-use, and transit-oriented Place Types, we encourage the use of underutilized public and private spaces to expand our public realm and improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity.
Goal M-3 A public transit system that is a viable alternative to automobile travel and meets basic transportation needs of the transit-dependent.
Policy M-3.2 Alternative Transit Facilities at New Development. We require new development adjacent to an existing or planned transit stop to contribute to the creation of transit facilities, such as bus shelters, transit bays and turnouts, and bicycle facilities, such as secure storage areas.
Policy M-3.3 Transit-Oriented Development. We may provide additional development-related incentives to those inherent in the Land Use Plan for projects that promote transit use and reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Development Impact Fees
The City of Ontario has a list of development impact fees (DIF) charged by the Building Department or collected by the Building Department on behalf of other departments or governmental agencies at the time permits are issued. DIF provide the means to finance adequate infrastructure and other public improvements and facilities made necessary by the impacts created by new residential (i.e., beyond just demand created by subdivisions) and nonresidential development. The City’s current fees took effect on January 1, 2020, for the General City and on October 17, 2020, for Ontario Ranch. The City maintains development impact fees for projects in the Original Model Colony (OMC) and Ontario Ranch areas of the City. The fees are updated periodically. They include fees assessed per dwelling unit, per hotel room, or per square foot and include fees for regional and local street improvements.
4.15.4 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:
• Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
• Conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). • Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). • Result in inadequate emergency access.
Methodology
1256
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-11 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds as the basis for determining the impact’s level of significance concerning transportation 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.
4.15.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP TR-1 The proposed Project would be required to comply with the City of Ontario’s DIF program, which helps fund transportation improvements. The City’s DIF includes regional improvements to comply with Measure I. If roadway improvements are not included in the DIF program, the proposed Project would be required to provide funding on a fair share basis where appropriate, as determined by the City. These fees shall be collected by the City of Ontario, with the proceeds solely used as part of a funding mechanism aimed at ensuring that regional highways and arterial expansions keep pace with the projected population increases. Chapter 8 of the Traffic Analysis (contained in Appendix I1) provides more information on the DIF program, fair share contributions, and the proposed Project’s expected contributions.
PPP TR-2 The proposed Project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Section 7-3.07, which requires that prior to any activity that would encroach into a rightof-way, the area be safeguarded through the installation of safety devices that would be specified by the City’s Engineering Department during the construction permitting process to ensure that construction activities would not increase hazards.
4.15.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.15-1: Would the Project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
In compliance with the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment, a Traffic Analysis was conducted for the Project which includes an LOS analysis. Please note that this additional information is provided for information purposes only, as vehicle delay is no longer considered a significant impact under CEQA pursuant to SB 743. Specifically, Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21099(b)(2) states that: “Upon certification of the guidelines by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency pursuant to this section, automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.” (emphasis added). As summarized below under the “Traffic Impact Analysis” discussion, with respect to consistency with TOP 2050 level of service policies, with recommended improvements the Project’s effects on operational level of service would be consistent with applicable local agency policies.
Refer to Appendix I1 for a complete discussion of analysis methodology and findings. 1257
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-12 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic Specific Plan – Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas TOP 2050 Mobility Element
The City’s TOP 2050 Mobility Element guides mobility and transportation in the City, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The Project would adhere to the TOP 2050 goals and policies outlined in Section 4.15.3: Regulatory Setting, above, including PPP TR-1 and PPP TR-2. This includes enhancing transportation networks and for vehicles and bicycle facilities, safely accommodating pedestrian walkways and providing easy access to the Project site via public transportation. More specifically, the Project’s circulation network would be designed consistently with the existing transportation system by adhering to the transportation guidelines set in the TOP 2050. The Project would comply with the City’s DIF program which would require a payment of fees to ensure that the Project’s impact would not significantly impact the regional circulation and/or arterial expansions planned by the City and County (i.e., Congestion Management Program). The payment of fees pursuant to the DIF program would also help the City keep pace with improvements associated with the projected population increases or other identified roadway deficiencies. Refer to the following bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities discussion below for more information.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The City proposes a Class II bicycle lane on the north side of Schaefer Avenue adjacent to the Project. A bikeway on Schaefer Avenue would connect to the City’s existing bike path system, see Figure 3-12: City of Ontario Trail and Bicycle Paths Plan. As discussed in Section 3.0: Project Description, the Project would improve all trails and bikeways along the Project frontages in conjunction with street improvements.
Multipurpose trails would be provided on the east side of Euclid Avenue, on the south side of Schaefer Avenue, and on the south side of Edison Avenue. Trails and bicycle paths would provide an additional mode of circulation in and around the Project area. Additionally, to improve safety and the pedestrian experience, connect the various parts of the Project area, and expand access to nearby land uses, sidewalks would be provided along all streets abutting the Project area. As such, the Project supports the City’s goal of encouraging bicycling and walking by increasing the connectivity of the City’s bicycle and pedestrian system. The sidewalks and trails would be designed to ensure pedestrian and bicyclist safety consistent with the City’s Mobility Element. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
Transit Facilities
Transit options provide an alternative mode of transportation for motorists and a primary mode for the transit dependent. The City is coordinating with regional transit agencies to implement BRT service to target destinations and along corridors, including Euclid Avenue on the western boundary of the Project site. The Project is located near Omnitrans Route 81. Omnitrans Route 81 operates on Riverside Drive north of the site. However, there are no existing bus routes near the vicinity of the Project. Transit service is reviewed and updated by Omnitrans periodically to address ridership, budget, and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate. The City strives to provide a transit system that serves as a viable alternative to automobile travel. The Project would support transit use by improving existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the Project area. The Project would also increase the number of employees in the 1258
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-13 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic area that may access the site by public transit. The Project would not introduce new features to any public road that would affect transit in the Project area. As such, a less than significant impact would occur.
Conclusion
The Project would not conflict with the relevant goals, policies, and ordinances, addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required (refer to discussion below for recommended measures for operational LOS to meet applicable local agency transportation policies; while not a significant impact under CEQA per SB743, this information is provided here, would be considered by decision-makers, and recommended improvements likely incorporated into the Project’s conditions of approval for construction or payment of fair share contributions).
Traffic Impact Analysis
To ensure that the Traffic Analysis satisfies the City’s traffic study requirements, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared a Project traffic study scoping package for review by City staff prior to the preparation of the report. The Agreement provides an outline of the Project study area, trip generation, trip distribution, and analysis methodology.
Project Forecast Trip Generation
In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the Project, trip-generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021) was used to estimate the trip generation. For purposes of this analysis, the following ITE land use codes were utilized:
• Industrial Park (ITE Land Use Code 130)
• Warehousing (ITE Land Use Code 150)
• Multifamily (Low-Rise) Housing (ITE Land Use Code 220) • Strip Retail (<40,000 square feet) (ITE Land Use Code 822) The ITE Trip Generation Manual does not currently have any trip generation rates for a truck/trailer parking lot, as such, trip generation estimates for the Project have been developed using data collected at other facilities with operations similar to those proposed. Phase I of the Project, not including the Phase II Future Development uses, is anticipated to generate 2,228 two-way trip-ends per day in actual vehicles, with 212 actual AM peak hour trips and 218 actual PM peak hour trips. The Phase II future development area is consistent with the City’s TOP 2050, and as such is reflected in TOP 2050 traffic forecasts and associated environmental analysis. No site-specific development plans are proposed at this time for the Phase II future development area.
Traffic Study Scenarios and Assumptions
The Traffic Analysis includes documentation of existing conditions, future conditions, and identification of Project-related deficiencies at 42 study intersections (refer to Table 1-1 of Appendix I1). 1259
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-14 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic Analyses of these intersections/segments were conducted for the following scenarios in the morning and evening peak hours:
• Existing (2022) Conditions
• Existing plus Project (E+P)
• Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project
• Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With Project
• Horizon Year (2050) Without Project
• Horizon Year (2050) With Project
In summary, the Traffic Analysis noted various operational deficiencies at off-site locations under these six scenarios. As noted above, operational delay is no longer a significant impact under CEQA and the discussion below and in the Traffic Analysis is provided for informational purposes only. With implementation of recommended improvements, the Project would be consistent with applicable local agency operational LOS standards, as listed in Section 4.15.3: Regulatory Setting, above. Also note that improvements noted below have already been conditioned as part of other project approvals in the City or represent regional improvements where the Project would be required to pay a fair share through the required payment of regional traffic impact fees in accordance with the City’s DIF Program. Refer to the Traffic Analysis (Appendix I1; Section 8: Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms) for detailed discussion.
Existing (2022) Conditions
The following Project area intersection is currently operating at an unacceptable LOS (below LOS D/LOS E) during the peak hours:
• Grove Avenue & Edison Avenue (#33) – LOS F PM peak hour only Existing Plus Project (E+P) Conditions
The following additional Project area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS during the peak hours under E+P traffic conditions, in addition to the intersections identified under Existing (2022) traffic conditions:
• Driveway 9 & Edison Avenue (#19) – LOS F AM peak hour only • Bon View Avenue & Edison Avenue (#31) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Grove Avenue & Edison Avenue (#33) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Walker Avenue & Edison Avenue (#34) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project Conditions The following Project area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS during the peak hours under Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project traffic conditions:
• Euclid Avenue (SR-83) & SR-60 Westbound Ramps (#1) – LOS F PM peak hour only • Euclid Avenue (SR-83) & SR-60 Eastbound Ramps (#2) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours 1260
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-15 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic • Euclid Avenue (SR-83) & Riverside Drive (#4) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Euclid Avenue (SR-83) & Chino Avenue (#5) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Euclid Avenue (SR-83) & Schaefer Avenue (#6) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Euclid Avenue (SR-83) & Edison Avenue (#11) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Euclid Avenue (SR-83) & Eucalyptus Avenue (#12) – LOS F AM peak hour only • Euclid Avenue (SR-83) & Merrill Avenue (#13) – LOS F AM and PM peak hour • Euclid Avenue (SR-83) & Kimball Avenue (#14) – LOS F PM peak hour only • Bon View Avenue & Edison Avenue (#31) – LOS F AM and PM peak hour • Grove Avenue & Schaefer Avenue (#32) – LOS F AM and PM peak hour • Grove Avenue & Edison Avenue (#33) – LOS F AM and PM peak hour • Walker Avenue & Edison Avenue (#34) – LOS F AM and PM peak hour • Archibald Avenue & Edison Avenue (#37) – LOS F AM and PM peak hour Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With Project Conditions
The following additional Project area intersection is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS during the peak hours with the addition of Project traffic under Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With Project traffic conditions:
• Euclid Avenue (SR-83) & SR-60 Westbound Ramps (#1) – LOS E AM peak hour Horizon Year 2050 Conditions Without Project
The following Project area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS during the peak hours under Horizon Year (2050) Without Project traffic conditions:
• Euclid Avenue (SR-83) & SR-60 Westbound Ramps (#1) – LOS F AM and PM peak hour • Euclid Avenue (SR-83) & SR-60 Eastbound Ramps (#2) – LOS F AM and PM peak hour • Euclid Avenue (SR-83) & Riverside Drive (#4) – LOS F AM and PM peak hour • Euclid Avenue (SR-83) & Chino Avenue (#5) – LOS F AM and PM peak hour • Euclid Avenue (SR-83) & Schaefer Avenue (#6) – LOS F AM and PM peak hour • Euclid Avenue (SR-83) & Edison Avenue (#11) – LOS F AM and PM peak hour • Euclid Avenue (SR-83) & Eucalyptus Avenue (#12) – LOS F AM peak hour only • Euclid Avenue (SR-83) & Merrill Avenue (#13) – LOS F AM and PM peak hour • Euclid Avenue (SR-83) & Kimball Avenue (#14) – LOS F AM and PM peak hour • Bon View Avenue & Edison Avenue (#31) – LOS F AM and PM peak hour • Grove Avenue & Schaefer Avenue (#32) – LOS F AM and PM peak hour • Grove Avenue & Edison Avenue (#33) – LOS F AM and PM peak hour 1261
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-16 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic • Walker Avenue & Edison Avenue (#34) – LOS F AM and PM peak hour • Vineyard Avenue & Edison Avenue (#35) – LOS F AM and PM peak hour • Hellman Avenue & Edison Avenue (#36) – LOS F AM and PM peak hour • Archibald Avenue & Edison Avenue (#37) – LOS F AM and PM peak hour • Haven Avenue & Ontario Ranch Roade (#39) – LOS F AM and PM peak hour • Hamner Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road (#40) – LOS F AM and PM peak hour Horizon Year (2050) With Project
The following additional Project area intersections anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS during the peak hours with the addition of Project traffic under Horizon Year (2050) With Project traffic conditions:
• Driveway 9 & Edison Avenue (#19) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours Site Access and Site Adjacent Roadway Recommendations
The following recommendations are based on the minimum improvements needed to accommodate site access and maintain acceptable peak hour operations for the Project. Exhibit 1-4 of the Traffic Analysis shows the site adjacent recommendations. The City will be installing continuous two-way left turn lanes on Sultana Avenue and Schaefer Avenue along the Project’s frontages and are shown on Exhibit 1-4 of the Traffic Analysis. Refer to Appendix I1 for a detailed discussion.
Recommendation 1 – Euclid Avenue (SR-83) & Driveway 1 (#7) – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to construct a stop control on the westbound approach and a right turn lane (Project driveway).
Recommendation 2 – Euclid Avenue (SR-83) & Driveway 2 (#8) – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to construct a stop control on the westbound approach and a right turn lane (Project driveway).
Recommendation 3 – Euclid Avenue (SR-83) & Driveway 3 (#9) – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to construct a stop control on the westbound approach and a right turn lane (Project driveway).
Recommendation 4 – Driveway 5 & Schaefer Avenue (#15) – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to construct a stop control on the northbound approach and a right turn lane (Project driveway).
1262
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-17 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic • It should be noted, the City intends to install a two-way left-turn lane along Schaefer Avenue along the Project’s frontage.
Recommendation 5 – Driveway 6 & Schaefer Avenue (#16) – The following improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to construct a stop control on the northbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane (Project driveway).
• Project to construct a westbound left turn lane with a minimum of 100 feet of storage. • It should be noted, the City intends to install a two-way left-turn lane along Schaefer Avenue along the Project’s frontage.
Recommendation 6 – Driveway 7 & Schaefer Avenue (#17) – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to construct a stop control on the northbound approach and a right turn lane (Project driveway).
• It should be noted, the City intends to install a two-way left-turn lane along Schaefer Avenue along the Project’s frontage.
Recommendation 7 – Sultana Avenue & Schaefer Avenue (#21) – The following improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to construct a stop control on the northbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane (Project driveway).
• Project to construct a westbound left turn lane within a two-way left-turn lane. • It should be noted, the City intends to install a two-way left-turn lane along Schaefer Avenue along the Project’s frontage.
Recommendation 8 – Sultana Avenue & Driveway 11 (#22) – The following improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to construct a stop control on the eastbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane (Project driveway).
• Project to construct a northbound left turn lane within a two-way left-turn lane. • It should be noted, the City intends to install a two-way left-turn lane along Sultana Avenue along the Project’s frontage.
Recommendation 9 – Sultana Avenue & Driveway 12 (#23) – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to construct a stop control on the eastbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane (Project driveway).
• Project to construct a northbound left turn lane with a two-way left-tum lane. 1263
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-18 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic • It should be noted, the City intends to install a two-way left-turn lane along Sultana Avenue along the Project’s frontage.
Recommendation 10 – Sultana Avenue & Driveway 13 (#24) – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to construct a stop control on the eastbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane (Project driveway).
• Project to construct a northbound left turn lane with a two-way left-tum lane. • It should be noted, the City intends to install a two-way left-turn lane along Sultana Avenue along the Project’s frontage.
Recommendation 11 – Sultana Avenue & Driveway 14 (#25) – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to construct a stop control on the eastbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane (Project driveway).
• Project to construct a northbound left turn lane with a two-way left-tum lane. • It should be noted, the City intends to install a two-way left-turn lane along Sultana Avenue along the Project’s frontage.
Recommendation 12 – Sultana Avenue & Driveway 15 (#26) – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to construct a stop control on the eastbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane (Project driveway).
• Project to construct a northbound left turn lane with a two-way left-tum lane. • It should be noted, the City intends to install a two-way left-turn lane along Sultana Avenue along the Project’s frontage.
Recommendation 13 – Sultana Avenue & Euclid Avenue (#29) – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to construct a stop control on the southbound approach, a left turn lane with a minimum of 325 feet of storage, and a right turn lane.
• Project to construct an eastbound left turn lane with a minimum of 100 feet of storage. • It should be noted, the City intends to install a two-way left-turn lane along Sultana Avenue along the Project’s frontage.
Recommendation 14 – Schaefer Avenue– Schaefer Avenue is an east-west oriented roadway located along the Project’s northern boundary. Project to construct Schaefer Avenue from Euclid Avenue to Sultana Avenue at its ultimate half-width as a 4-lane collector (108-foot ultimate right-of-way) in compliance with the circulation recommendations found in TOP 2050. It should be noted, the City intends to install a two-way left-turn lane along Schaefer Avenue along the Project’s frontage. 1264
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-19 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic Recommendation 15 – Sultana Avenue – Sultana Avenue is a north-south oriented roadway located on the Project’s eastern boundary. Project to construct Sultana Avenue from Schaefer Avenue to the northern boundary of Planning Area 2A at its ultimate half-width plus 12-feet of pavement on the east side (northbound direction) to facilitate site access, in compliance with the circulation recommendations found in TOP 2050. It should be noted, the City intends to install a two-way left-turn lane along Sultana Avenue along the Project’s frontage.
Recommendation 16 – Euclid Avenue – Euclid Avenue is a north-south oriented roadway located on the Project’s western boundary. Project to construct Euclid Avenue from Schaefer Avenue to Driveway 4 at its ultimate half-width as a Principal Arterial (8-lanes, 124-foot right-of-way) in compliance with the circulation recommendations found in TOP 2050.
On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented agreeable with the provisions of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project site.
On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented agreeable with the provisions of the Caltrans CA MUTCD and in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project site. Sight distance at each Project access point should be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans and the City sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans.
Off-site Recommendations
The recommended improvements needed to address the cumulative deficiencies identified under Existing (2022), E+P, Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With and Without Project, and Horizon Year (2050) With and Without Project traffic conditions are summarized in Table 1-3 of the Traffic Analysis. For those improvements listed in Table 1-3 of the Traffic Analysis and not constructed as part of the Project, the Project Applicant’s responsibility for the Project’s contributions towards deficient intersections is fulfilled through payment of fees (e.g., DIF) or fair share that would be assigned to construction of the identified recommended improvements. Please refer to the Traffic Analysis (Appendix I1; Section 8: Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms) for detailed information.
Traffic Analysis Table 1-3 also summarizes the applicable cost associated with each of the recommended improvements based on the preliminary construction cost estimates found in Appendix G of the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program in conjunction with a cost escalation factor of 1.819 to reflect current costs per City direction except Traffic Signals. A rough order of magnitude cost has been prepared to determine the appropriate contribution value based upon the Project’s fair share of traffic as part of the Project approval process. Based on the Project fair share percentages, the Project’s fair share cost is estimated at $252,921 to the City. These estimates are a rough order of magnitude as they are intended only for disclosure purposes and do not imply any legal responsibility or formula for contributions or mitigation. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall pay the Project’s fair share amount of $252,921 for the improvements identified in Traffic Analysis Table 1-3 at intersections located within the City, or as agreed to by the City and Project Applicant. If any analyzed intersections and roadway improvements fall outside the jurisdiction of the City, the City does not have 1265
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-20 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic the authority to construct or demand the construction of such improvements. For this reason, the payment of fair-share fees for the improvements identified in this section are considered infeasible and therefore results in a significant and unavoidable impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.15-2: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Specific Plan – Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas Background
Changes to State CEQA Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which require all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay-based LOS as the measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate went into effect July 1, 2020. To aid in this transition, the Governor’s OPR released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December of 2018) (Technical Advisory). To comply with SB 743, the City developed their own VMT methodologies and thresholds (Resolution No. 2020-071), which were adopted by City Council in June 2020 (City Guidelines). The VMT analysis has been prepared based on the adopted City Guidelines.
Project Level Screening
City Guidelines state that a project may be determined to have a less than significant VMT impact and screened out of requiring a project level VMT analysis if it meets at least one of the City’s VMT screening criteria. To aid in the VMT screening process and consistent with screening thresholds identified in the City Guidelines, the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool (Screening Tool) was used. The City’s adopted VMT screening criteria are described in Table 1 of Appendix I2 along with a determination of each screening criteria’s applicability to the Project. Consistent with the screening criteria recommended in OPR’s Technical Advisory, the City utilizes the following project screening thresholds3 :
• Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
• Low VMT Screening
• Low Trip Generating Uses Screening
• Project Type Screening
A land use project need only meet one of the above screening thresholds to be presumed to result in a less than significant impact under CEQA, pursuant to SB 743. 3 City of Ontario. 2020. Vehicle Miles Travelled Analysis Thresholds for CEQA (SB 743). https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/250356- 3/attachment/DJHTFbnM6oJs9ffzDmoKkg50hBDLi_bHx9JBp5n0_NC2VsLGmits_fmVeyGhDmsCcUZAp4KRZIGaC07m0. (accessed April 2023). 1266
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-21 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic The retail component within Phase I of the Project meets the Project Type screening criteria for the Local-Serving Retail as the uses in Planning Area 3A were consistent with the City Guidelines and no single structure was over 50,000 square feet. The truck/trailer component of the Project is anticipated to provide overflow or excess trailer parking for nearby warehouses and distribution centers. It is reasonable to assume that the future tenant would select a location, at least in part, as to how it affects their transportation costs. Businesses who have shipping as a significant part of their operations are sensitive to transportation costs and by extension their relative proximity to customers and suppliers. Therefore, the proposed truck storage lot is anticipated to serve nearby warehouses and distribution facilities that would be seeking to locate overflow truck/trailer storage as close as possible to the primary warehouse or distribution facility. As a result, the trips are expected to be local serving.
The remaining components of the Project did not meet the screening criteria and therefore a VMT analysis was conducted for the business park, warehouse, and residential uses.
VMT Analysis
VMT Metric and Significance Threshold
City Guidelines identify the efficiency based metric VMT per service population (i.e., population and employees) as the measure of potential impact within the City. VMT per service population is an efficiency metric that allows a project’s VMT to be compared to the remainder of the City. Projects found to increase the average VMT per service population within the City may be deemed to have a significant impact. More specifically, City Guidelines identify the following impact threshold for project level VMT analyses:
• A significant impact would occur if the project VMT per service population exceeds the Citywide average VMT per service population under TOP 2050 Buildout Conditions.
The City‘s average VMT per service population under TOP 2050 Buildout conditions has been calculated using the TOP General Plan Buildout (2050) model. Table 4.15-1: Citywide VMT Per Service Population, provides the City’s Citywide average VMT per service population for General Plan Buildout (2050) conditions.
Table 4.15-1: Citywide VMT Per Service Population
Ontario TOP 2050
Service Population 706,494
VMT 21,689,573
VMT per service population 30.70
Source: Appendix I2, Table 2.
As shown in Table 4.15-1, the City’s VMT per service population for General Plan Buildout (2050) conditions has been calculated as 30.70 VMT per service population.
Project Land Use Conversion
In order to estimate Project generated VMT, standard land use information such as dwelling units and building square footage must first be converted into a TOP Model compatible dataset. The TOP Model utilizes socio-economic data (SED) (e.g., population, households and employment) instead of land use information to estimate vehicle trips. The Project’s land use information has been converted to SED and 1267
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-22 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic input into the Project’s traffic analysis zone (TAZ) 53652601 to generate the Project’s VMT. Table 4.15-2:
Project Population and Employment Estimates, summarizes the SED inputs used to reflect the Project and shows the estimated Project-generated households, population, and employees.
Table 4.15-2: Project Population and Employment Estimates Project
Households 466
Population 1,631
Employees 1,333
Source: Appendix I2, Table 3.
VMT Calculation
Origin/Destination VMT Method
The Origin/Destination (OD) method for calculating VMT sums all weekday VMT generated by trips with at least one trip end in the study area (i.e., TAZ or group of TAZ’s). The OD method accounts for all trips (i.e., both passenger car and truck) and trip purposes (i.e., total VMT) and therefore provides a more complete estimate of VMT. Total VMT is divided by the Project’s service population to derive the efficiency based metric VMT per service population, which is then compared to the Citywide buildout VMT per service population for purposes of identifying a potential impact.
Table 4.15-3: Project Generated Total OD VMT Per Service Population, presents Project generated total OD VMT and the resulting total OD VMT per service population for both Baseline (2022) and General Plan Buildout (2050) conditions. As shown in Table 4.15-3, the Project would generate total OD VMT per service population below the City’s adopted impact threshold for both Baseline (2022) and General Plan Buildout Year (2050) conditions. The Project’s VMT analysis found the Project to be below the City’s VMT per service population threshold by 1.56 percent for baseline (2022) conditions and 6.58 percent for buildout (2050) conditions.
Table 4.15-3: Project Generated Total OD VMT Per Service Population Baseline (2022) General Plan Buildout Year (2050)
Population 1,631 1,631
Employment 1,333 1,333
Service Population 2,964 2,964
Total OD VMT 90,055 84,988
OD VMT per Service Population 30.22 28.68
City Threshold 30.70 30.70
Percent Below Threshold -1.56% -6.58%
Potentially Significant? No No
Source: Appendix I2, Table 4.
Boundary VMT Method
City Guidelines also acknowledge that a VMT analysis should contain an evaluation of a project’s cumulative effect on VMT, which can be performed using the boundary method of calculating VMT. The boundary method is the sum of all weekday VMT on the roadway network within a designated boundary (i.e., City boundary). The boundary method estimates VMT by multiplying vehicle trips on each roadway 1268
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-23 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic segment within the boundary by that segment’s length. This approach consists of all trips, including those trips that do not begin or end in the designated boundary. Consistent with City Guidelines, the City was used as the boundary for this assessment. In addition, as the Project is located near the southeastern edge of the City, an additional assessment of a 10-mile boundary area surrounding the Project site has also been conducted to ensure trips associated with the Project are not omitted.
Table 4.15-4: General Plan Buildout (2050) Boundary VMT Results, presents total VMT calculated using the boundary method for No Project and With Project General Plan Buildout (2050) conditions. Boundary VMT per service population is found to remain unchanged under the No Project scenario as compared to the With Project scenario for City boundary and the With Project scenario is found to decrease as compared to the No Project scenario using the 10-mile boundary.
Table 4.15-4: General Plan Buildout (2050) Boundary VMT Results City Boundary 10-Mile Boundary
Scenario No Project With Project No Project With Project Service Population 706,494 706,931 1,985,501 1,985,938
Boundary VMT 9,602,250 9,605,588 34,082,666 33,767,387
VMT per SP 13.59 13.59 17.17 17.00
Change in VMT 0.00 -0.16
Potentially Significant? No No
Source: Appendix I2, Table 5.
Summary
Based on the results of this analysis the following findings are made:
• The Project, both Phase I and II, were evaluated against screening criteria as outlined in the City Guidelines. The Project’s retail and truck/trailer lot was found to meet the Project Type screening criteria.
• However, the remaining components of the Project was not found to meet any available screening criteria, and a VMT analysis was performed.
• The Project’s VMT analysis found the Project to be below the City’s VMT per service population threshold by 1.56 percent for baseline (2022) conditions and 6.58 percent for buildout (2050) conditions.
• In addition, the Project’s cumulative effect on VMT was found to not increase the City’s VMT per service population with the inclusion of the Project using the City’s boundary and 10-mile boundary.
• The Project is found to have a less than significant impact.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), and less than significant impact would occur.
Conclusion
1269
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-24 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic The Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), and less than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.15-3: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Specific Plan – Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The roadway improvements and installation of driveways that would be implemented during construction of the Project could require the temporary closure of travel lanes, but full roadway closure and traffic detours are not expected to be necessary. However, construction activities may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic that could increase hazards. Therefore, in order to ensure the safe passage of persons and vehicles through construction zones, the Project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Section 7-3.07, which requires that prior to any activity that would encroach into a right-of-way, the area be safeguarded through the installation of safety devices that would be specified by the City’s Engineering Department during the construction permitting process to ensure that construction activities would not increase hazards. Implementation of the Specific Plan through the City’s permitting process would reduce potential construction related increases in hazards to a less than significant level.
Furthermore, the Project includes driveway and intersection improvements that would be implemented as part of the Project. In addition, the Project includes improvements to allow for heavy truck access to the Project site. Conflicts have the potential to occur if: 1) there is inadequate site access or 2) there is inadequate turning radii in and out of the site. Implementation of the Specific Plan and its circulation plans would ensure avoidance of these inadequacies.
Site Access
The Project includes the construction and/or improvement of 17 driveways to and from the Project site from adjacent roadways. Exhibit 1-4 in the Traffic Analysis (Appendix I1) illustrates and describes access to the Project site. As previously noted in Impact 4.15-1 above, the Project’s proposed circulation and offsite improvements would be constructed accordingly with Recommendations 1 through 16 listed in the Project Traffic Analysis to accommodate on-site access. Additionally, all roadway improvements would be designed consistently with the City’s TOP 2050 Mobility Element programs, plans, goals and policies, and City Traffic and Transportation Guidelines, and PPP TR-1 and PPP TR-2. Therefore, direct access to the Project site would not substantially increase hazards due to geometric design features or dangerous intersections and a less than significant impact would occur.
Conclusion
1270
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-25 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic Buildout of the Project would result in changes to the circulation network but would not increase hazards due to design features. As noted above, no specific development is proposed at this time for the Phase II future development areas. Once development is proposed, it would conform to existing roadways design standards, preventing impacts of hazards. Impacts and potential impacts would remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.15-4: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Specific Plan – Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The Project is not anticipated to result in any significant emergency access impacts during construction.
During construction and long-term operation of the Project, adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles would be maintained along public streets that abut the Project site. The City, as part of its discretionary review process, reviewed the Project’s application materials to ensure that appropriate emergency ingress and egress would be available to-and-from the Project site and that circulation on the Project site was adequate for emergency vehicles.
Access to the site is currently provided via multiple private driveway entrances located on Euclid Avenue, Edison Avenue, and Schaefer Avenue. The site shall be provided with an adequate number of driveways to facilitate circulation and also reduce the traffic impact along the surrounding arterials. Pedestrian crossing distances shall be minimized at driveways. All driveways and sidewalks shall be constructed per City Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Project access is proposed via seven full access driveways and eleven potential secondary access points along Euclid, Schaefer, Edison, and Sultana Avenues. Pedestrian sidewalks would be constructed along Euclid, Schaefer, Edison, and Sultana Avenues bordering the Project site. Additionally, upon Project operations, pedestrian walkways constructed shall provide for emergency access with a minimum clearance of 26 feet wide and 14 feet of vertical clearance. Off-site connections shall be provided from the neighborhood center to the Project’s residential development.
In case of an emergency, the construction manager would have assigned staff to flag emergency response vehicles and direct them to the emergency location. Unimpeded access throughout the Project site would be maintained by ensuring that vehicles would not be parked or placed in a manner that would impede access for emergency response vehicles. Project site conditions, during and after the workday, would be either maintained or left in a condition that adheres to Division of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) safety standards to prevent any hazardous condition that may affect construction staff and emergency responders.
1271
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-26 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic Access roads to the site would be constructed throughout the Project site for construction staff/inspectors, construction equipment and materials delivery/removal, and emergency response vehicles. The access roads would be kept or maintained in such condition to allow for the safe passage for emergency response vehicles. The Project would implement both on- and off-site improvements, consistent with Recommendations 1 through 16, to ensure the safe and efficient access to the Project Site (refer to Impact 4.15-1 above). Therefore, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access and a less than significant impact would occur.
Conclusion
As stated above, the Project would implement both on- and off-site improvements, consistent with Recommendations 1 through 16, to ensure the safe and efficient access to the Project Site (refer to Impact 4.15-1 above). As noted above, no specific development is proposed at this time for the Phase II future development areas. Once development is proposed, it would conform to existing roadways design standards, preventing impacts of hazards. Impacts and potential impacts would remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
4.15.7 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative traffic impacts are addressed in the Project Traffic Analysis (Appendix I1) and summarized above. The Project’s contribution to operational LOS deficiencies would be fully addressed through implementing the recommended measures and providing construction or funding for the identified improvements (note that operational LOS is no longer a significant impact under CEQA per SB 743). There were no other LOS cumulative effects identified or cumulatively considerable contributions to significant cumulative impacts for the Project. The Project’s VMT analysis (Appendix I2, summarized above) provides an analysis of the Project’s cumulative impacts on VMT. Cumulative analysis is based on the Project’s effect on VMT using total VMT within the City (boundary method). The Project’s cumulative effect on VMT was found to not increase the City’s VMT per service population with the inclusion of the Project using the City’s boundary and 10-mile boundary.
Pursuant to TOP 2050, implementation of the 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 Specific Plan is implementing TOP 2050.4
4.15.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable transportation impacts have been identified. 4 City of Ontario. (2022). TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR. Section 5.17, Transportation. Retrieved from:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf (accessed April 2023)
1272
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-27 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic
4.15.9 References
CAPCOA. 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, p. 227. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/capcoa-quantifying-greenhousegas-mitigation-measures.pdf.
City of Ontario. 2022. Figure M-04 Truck Routes. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/Mobility/FIgure%20M-04%20Truck%20Routes.pdf City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Mobility Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontarioplan-policy-plan/mobility.
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.17, Transportation. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf.
City of Ontario. 2022. Vehicle Miles Travelled Analysis Thresholds for CEQA (SB 743). https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/250356-
3/attachment/DJHTFbnM6oJs9ffzDmoKkg50hBDLi_bHx9JBp5n0_NC2VsLGmits_fmVeyGhDmsCc UZAp4KRZIGaC07m0.
County of San Bernardino. Transportation Impact Study Guidelines. County of San Bernardino: s.n., July 2019.
Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual. 11th Edition. 2021.
Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.
State of California: s.n., December 2018.
Public Resources Code, Section 21064.3 (“‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”). Retrieved from:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21064.3.&law Code=PRC.
Public Resources Code, Section 21155 (“For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”). Retrieved from:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC§ionNum =21155.&highlight=true&keyword=Transit%20Priority%20Project.
San Bernardino Associated Governments. Congestion Management Program for County of San Bernardino. County of San Bernardino: s.n., Updated June 2016 Urban Crossroads, Inc. January 2023. Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Traffic Analysis. (Appendix I1) 1273
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.15-28 4.15 | Transportation and Traffic Urban Crossroads, Inc. December 2022. Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Traffic Analysis. (Appendix I2) WRCOG SB 743 Implementation Pathway. 2019. https://www.fehrandpeers.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/12/WRCOG-SB743-Document-Package.pdf. 1274
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.16-1 4.16 | Tribal Cultural Resources
4.16 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.16.1 Introduction
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project (Project) to impact tribal cultural resources (TCRs) in the City of Ontario (City), within San Bernardino County (County). TCRs include sites, features, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe. Other potential impacts to prehistoric, historic, and disturbance of human remains are evaluated in Section 4.5: Cultural Resources, and impacts to paleontological resources are addressed in Section 4.7: Geology and Soils, 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:
• BCR Consulting LLC (BCR). April 2023. Cultural Resources Assessment Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. (Appendix D1)
4.16.2 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
The 84.1-acre Project area 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 area are similar to those on the site. Ongoing crop farming is located to the north of the Project area 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.
Ethnography1
The earliest inhabitants of the Ontario region lived in the region on a seasonal basis approximately 10,000 years ago. Later, permanent settlements formed along streams and creeks as populations used newer 1 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR, Section 5.18, Tribal Cultural Resources. https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/271618- 2/attachment/eWuGwlyBRUCdOW7ZaCm4H1mV0w8mPGsss0XHvAPaJ8sKEtqYcqdQkAGVxgSCOnxC8eoq7OlGLj0AWg4X0. (accessed May 2023).
1275
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.16-2 4.16 | Tribal Cultural Resources
technologies and food resources. By 2,000 years ago, the Tongva (or Gabrielino), a group of Uto-Aztecan, Takic-speaking people, used both the coastal and inland areas on a seasonal basis. The Tongva Native Americans were intensive hunter-gatherers, gathering a variety of wild plants in the desert, mountains, and coastal areas. The Tongva are believed to have been one of the most populous and wealthy Native American tribes in southern California prior to European contact. They lived in villages that ranged from 50 to 200 inhabitants, each village owning in common the area surrounding the village. Kinship was organized by groups, with each group composed of several related families.
By the 1700s, local Native Americans in southern California had contact with Europeans. One of the earliest known records of this contact is based on Father Garcés’ trip from the Mojave Desert to the coast of California through the Cajon Pass. In 1771, the Spanish established Mission San Gabriel Arcangel about 40 miles west of the area later known as the City of Ontario. Following the Spanish custom of naming local Native American tribes after nearby missions, the Tongva were called Gabrielino. At its peak, Mission San Gabriel furnished food and supplies to settlements and other missions throughout California. By the end of the century, the Gabrielino population significantly declined due to diseases introduced by Europeans.
The Gabrielino people fragmented as individuals succumbed to Spanish control, fled the region, or died.
However, in late 20th century there was a revival of Gabrielino culture.
4.16.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 regulates the protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on federal lands and Indian lands.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 sets provisions for the intentional removal and inadvertent discovery of human remains and other cultural items from federal and tribal lands. It clarifies the ownership of human remains and sets forth a process for repatriation of human remains, associated funerary objects, and sacred religious objects to the Native American groups claiming to be lineal descendants or culturally affiliated with the remains or objects. It requires any federally funded institution housing Native American remains or artifacts to compile an inventory of all cultural items within the museum or with its agency and to provide a summary to any Native American tribe claiming affiliation.
State
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
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.” 1276
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.16-3 4.16 | Tribal Cultural Resources
“Historical resource” is a term with a defined statutory meaning. Under California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Chapter 3 (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 California Register of Historical Resource (CRHR), (PRC Section 5024.1 and Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).
• A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC, or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. • Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1 and Title 14 CCR Section 4852) including the following:
Criterion 1 - Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; Criterion 2 - Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; Criterion 3 - Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
Criterion 4 - Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
• The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
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.” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1)).
CEQA also requires agencies to consider whether projects will affect “unique archaeological resources.” PRC Section 21083.2, subdivision (g), states that “‘unique archaeological resources’ means an 1277
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.16-4 4.16 | Tribal Cultural Resources
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 particular 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.”
Senate Bill 18
Senate Bill (SB) 18, effective September 2004, requires a local government to notify and consult with California Native American tribes when the local government is considering adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan. SB 18 provides California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early stage of planning, for the purpose of protecting or mitigating impacts to cultural places. Prior to adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, a local government must refer the proposed action to those tribes that are on the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) contact list and have traditional lands located within the city’s or county’s jurisdiction. The referral must allow a 45-day comment period pursuant to Government Code Section 65352(b).
SB 18 (Chapter 905 of the 2004 statutes) says, in pertinent parts:
Section 1(b): In recognition of California Native American tribal sovereignty and the unique relationship between California local governments and California tribal governments, it is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this act, to accomplish all of the following:
1. Recognize that California Native American prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, and ceremonial places are essential elements in tribal cultural traditions, heritages, and identities.
2. Establish meaningful consultations between California Native American tribal governments and California local governments at the earliest possible point in the local government land use planning process so that these places can be identified and considered.
3. Establish government-to-government consultations regarding potential means to preserve those places, determine the level of necessary confidentiality of their specific location, and develop proper treatment and management plans.
4. Ensure that local and tribal governments have information available early in the land use planning process to avoid potential conflicts over the preservation of California Native American prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, and ceremonial places.
5. Enable California Native American tribes to manage and act as caretakers of California Native prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, and ceremonial places. 1278
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.16-5 4.16 | Tribal Cultural Resources
6. Encourage local governments to consider preservation of California Native American prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, and ceremonial places in their land use planning processes by placing them in open space.
7. Encourage local governments to consider the cultural aspects of California Native American prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, and ceremonial places early in land use planning processes.”
And:
Section 65352.3 of the Government Code is as follows:
a) (1) Prior to the adoption or any amendment of a city or county’s general plan, proposed on or after March 1, 2005, the city or county shall conduct consultations with California Native American tribes that are on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.995 of the PRC that are located within the city or county’s jurisdiction. (2) From the date on which a California Native American tribe is contacted by a city or county pursuant to this subdivision, the tribe has 90 days in which to request a consultation, unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by that tribe.
b) Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to Section 65040.2, the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of those places, features, and objects.”
Assembly Bill 52
The Native American Historic Resource Protection Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 52) took effect July 1, 2015, and incorporates tribal consultation and analysis of impacts to TCRs into the CEQA process. It requires TCRs to be analyzed like any other CEQA topic and establishes a consultation process for lead agencies and California tribes. Projects that require a Notice of Preparation of an EIR or Notice of Intent to adopt a ND or MND are subject to AB 52. A significant impact on a TCR is considered a significant environmental impact, requiring feasible mitigation measures.
TCRs must have certain characteristics:
1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (must be geographically defined), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources or included in a local register of historical resources. (PRC Section 21074(a)(1))
2. The lead agency, supported by substantial evidence, chooses to treat the resource as a TCR. (PRC Section 21074(a)(2))
The first category requires that the TCR qualify as a historical resource according to PRC Section 5024.1.
The second category gives the lead agency discretion to qualify that resource—under the conditions that 1279
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.16-6 4.16 | Tribal Cultural Resources
it supports its determination with substantial evidence and considers the resource’s significance to a California tribe. The following is a brief outline of the process (PRC Section 21080.3.1–3.3).
1. A California Native American tribe asks agencies in the geographic area with which it is traditionally and culturally affiliated to be notified about projects. Tribes must ask in writing.
2. Within 14 days of deciding to undertake a project or determining that a project application is complete, the lead agency must provide formal written notification to all tribes who have requested it.
3. A tribe must respond within 30 days of receiving the notification if it wishes to engage in consultation.
4. The lead agency must initiate consultation within 30 days of receiving the request from the tribe.
5. Consultation concludes when both parties have agreed on measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect to a TCR, or a party, after a reasonable effort in good faith, decides that mutual agreement cannot be reached.
6. Regardless of the outcome of consultation, the CEQA document must disclose significant impacts on TCRs and discuss feasible alternatives or mitigation that avoid or lessen the impact.
California Health and Safety Code
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, states that 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 Public Resources Code. 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 Public Resources Code. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains.
If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.
1280
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.16-7 4.16 | Tribal 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 tribal cultural resources.
The following policies contained in the Community Design Element are relevant to the Project:
Community Design Element2
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 CD4-1 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-4.6 Promotion of Public Involvement in Preservation. We engage in programs to publicize and promote the City’s and the public’s involvement in preservation efforts.
Policy CD-4.7 Public Outreach. We provide opportunities for our residents to research and learn about the history of Ontario through the Planning Department, the Ontario Museum of History and Art, and the Robert E. Ellingwood Model Colony History Room.
4.16.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions concerning tribal 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:
2 City of Ontario. (2022). TOP 2050, Community Design Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policyplan/community-design. (accessed January 2023). 1281
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.16-8 4.16 | Tribal Cultural Resources
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR, defined in PRC Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Methodology
The Project is evaluated against the significance criteria/thresholds as the basis for determining the impact’s level of significance concerning TCRs. This analysis considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts.
Native American Outreach and Background Research
BCR requested a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) from the NAHC in November 2022. The NAHC responded on November 15, 2022, stating that there are no known sacred lands within a one-mile radius of the Project area. The NAHC requested that 21 individuals from 8 Native American tribes be contacted for further information regarding the general vicinity.
Formal Consultation – Native American Outreach and Background Research As part of the current CEQA process for the Project site, the City initiated formal tribal consultation under AB 52 and SB 18. City staff requested an updated SB 18 tribal consultation list from the NAHC on August 24, 2022. Tribal consultation letters were sent to the Native American Tribes in March 2023. It should be noted that the approved Native American lists for SB 18 and AB 52 consultations are not the same as the tribes and individuals identified on NAHC’s SLF list. The following Tribes were notified:
SB 18 Consultation
• Gabrieliño Band of Mission Indians
• Gabrieliño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians • Gabrieliño Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council • Gabrieliño/Tongva Nation
• Gabrieliño-Tongva Tribe
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
1282
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.16-9 4.16 | Tribal Cultural Resources
• San Fernando Band of Mission Indians
• San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
• Serrano Nation of Mission Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
AB 52 Consultation
• Gabrieliño Band of Mission Indians
• Gabrieliño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians • San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly known as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) responded March 15, 2023, indicating the Project is outside of the Tribes ancestral territory and, as such, the tribe did not elect to consult. Additionally, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation responded March 29, 2023, stating that the Tribe agrees with the Specific and requests consultation for all future projects within this location. No other responses have been received.
4.16.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP TCR-1 The Project is required to comply with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, PRC Sections 21083.2 and 5097.9, and Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, to properly recover and evaluate any TCRs, if encountered.
4.16.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.16-1 Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code 5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated 1283
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.16-10 4.16 | Tribal Cultural Resources
Specific Plan – Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
As previously stated, TCRs are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that is either eligible or listed in the CRHR or local register of historical resources, or determined by the lead agency to be significant to a California Native American tribe pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1 (PRC Section 21074).
Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, public lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to TCRs, and reduce the potential for delay in the environmental review process. The intent of consultation is to provide an opportunity for interested, affiliated Native American tribes to collaborate with the City during the project approval process to identify and protect TCRs.
Sacred Lands File Search
As stated, a SLF search was conducted through the NAHC to determine if any sacred lands or traditional cultural properties on file with the NAHC were within or near the Project site. The NAHC’s SLF record search found no record of sacred lands on or within one mile of the Project site (see Appendix D).
Tribal Consultation
In accordance with SB 18 and AB 52, the City sent Tribal consultation letters to the Native American Tribes in March 2023. Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly known as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) responded, indicating the Project is outside of the Tribes ancestral territory and, as such, the Tribe did not elect to consult. Additionally, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation responded, stating that the Tribe agrees with the Specific and requests consultation for all future projects within this location.
No other responses have been received.
Conclusion
As stated above, no TCRs were identified within the Project area. However, impacts to cultural resources, including TRCs, are considered potentially significant and mitigation measures are required to ensure the proper treatment of undiscovered cultural resources that may be encountered during grading. As discussed in Section 4.5: Cultural Resources, the application of mitigation measures MM CUL-6 and MM CUL-7 below requiring Cultural Awareness training for all construction and field personnel and ensure the proper treatment of undiscovered resources that may be encountered during grading would reduce the impacts to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures
Refer to Section 4.5: Cultural Resources for MM CUL-6 and MM CUL-7.
4.16.7 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts to TCRs would occur when the impacts of the Project, in conjunction with other projects and development in the region, result in multiple and/or cumulative impacts to TCRs in the 1284
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.16-11 4.16 | Tribal Cultural Resources
Ontario Ranch area. The cultural records search and pedestrian survey did not identify any resources that could potentially be TCRs, and no sacred lands are on file with the NAHC within or adjacent to the Project site. Through tribal consultation, no TCRs or concerns about potential TCRs were identified. Each future Project considered for approval by the City would be required to do its own consultation and include mitigation measures to protect resources if they are uncovered during grading activities. The Project would not combine with other projects in the region to create a cumulative impact to TCRs. Therefore, cumulative impacts to TCRs would be less than significant.
4.16.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts have been identified.
4.16.9 References
BCR Consulting LLC. April 2023. Cultural Resources Assessment Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California.
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR, Section 5.18, Tribal Cultural Resources. https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/271618-
2/attachment/eWuGwlyBRUCdOW7ZaCm4H1mV0w8mPGsss0XHvAPaJ8sKEtqYcqdQkAGVxgSCO nxC8eoq7OlGLj0AWg4X0.
1285
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-1 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.17.1 Introduction
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) discusses the current conditions for utility providers, including water, wastewater, stormwater, solid waste, electricity, and natural gas services, and the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project (Project) effects on these providers, for the City of Ontario (City).
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
The following analysis in this section is based, in part, on service provider questionnaire responses and the following technical study information obtained from:
• JLC Engineering & Consulting Inc. March 2023. Hydrology & Hydraulic Report for Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan. (Appendix G1)
• JLC Engineering & Consulting Inc. March 2023. Preliminary Water Quality Plan for the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan. (Appendix G2)
• Ontario Municipal Utilities Company. May 2023. Water Supply Assessment and Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply for the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan (File No. PSP22-001). (Appendix J)
4.17.2 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
The Project site is located within the City of Ontario Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Area XIV and proposes to construct several MDP storm drain facilities. The MDP Area XIV is approximately bounded by Riverside Drive to the north, between Bon View Avenue and Grove Avenue to the east, Merrill Avenue to the south, and Euclid Avenue to the west. The Project site is bounded by Schaefer Avenue to the north, Euclid Avenue to the west, Edison Avenue to the south, and Sultana Avenue to the east (refer to Figure 3-2: Local Vicinity Map).
Water Supply1
The Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) provides water service to residents, businesses, and other users in the City, including the Project site. Two small areas in the north central and northeastern sections of the City are served by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). As of 2020, OMUC 1 City of Ontario. 2021. Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/MunicipalUtilities-Company/FINAL%20City%20of%20Ontario%202020%20UWMP.pdf. (accessed May 2023). 1286
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-2 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems provided water to a population of approximately 178,409 people.2 The primary source of water is groundwater from Chino Groundwater Basin (Chino Basin). Other water supplies include treated groundwater from the Chino Basin Desalter Authority (CDA), recycled water from Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), imported water from the Water Facilities Authority (WFA), and purchased water from the San Antonio Water Company (SAWCo).
The City has already inactivated several wells (Well 3, 4, 9, 15, 31, 35, and 50) due to high nitrate and perchlorate concentrations detected above the maximum contaminant levels (MCL). Well 34 was removed from service due to Trichloropropane (TCP) water quality issues. The operations of Wells 44 and 52 are limited due to the migration of the bacterial groundwater plume when these wells are used too frequently. Well 25 was taken out of service due to a Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) detection, which was below the PFOA interim notification level. The impact on supply due to the closure of these wells is minimized by constructing replacement wells at other locations where contaminant levels are low and constructing wellhead treatment facilities.3
Total potable and recycled water demand within the OMUC service area averaged 39,374 acre-feet per year (AFY) between 2015 and 2020.4 Actual water supplies provided to the City for the year 2020 are summarized in Table 4.17-1: Water Supplies Summary. Potable water demands averaged 32,109 AFY and recycled water demands averaged 7,812 AFY. Over the past ten years, the City’s total water demands (including potable and recycled water demands) have ranged from 36,036 AFY to 45,196 AFY, with an average of 40,831 AFY. In addition, the City recently experienced a five-consecutive-year-drought within its service area from fiscal year (FY) 2011-12 to FY 2015-16. Throughout this consecutive dry year period, the City’s annual water production ranged from 42,603 AFY (2012) to 36,036 AFY (2016), with an average of approximately 41,558 AFY. In the City’s Single-Dry year, annual water production was 43,346 AFY. In 2020, the City’s total demand was 39,921 AFY. The total water supply (potable and non-potable) demands in the year 2045 are projected to be 73,668 AFY. Potable water demands are projected to be 57,609 AFY and recycled water demands are projected to be 16,059 AFY.
Table 4.17-1: Water Supplies Summary
Water Supplier Water Source Amount (AFY)
City of Ontario Groundwater 18,395
Chino Basin Desalter Authority (CDA) Purchased/ Imported Water 6,636 Water Facilities Authority (WFA) Purchased/ Imported Water 6,513 San Antonio Water Company (SAWC) Purchased/ Imported Water 565 Potable Water Subtotal 32,109
Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) – Agriculture Deliveries Recycled Water 7,812 Total 39,921
Source: City of Ontario, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Figure 2 – Historical Water Use by Source, page 6-3. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Municipal-Utilities-Company/FINAL%20City%20of%20Ontario%202020%20UWMP.pdf. (accessed April 2023).
AFY = Acre-feet per year
2 Ibid. Page 3-1. 3 Ibid, page 7-5. 4 Ibid, page 8-22.
1287
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-3 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems Refer to the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the Project (see Appendix J: Water Supply Assessment) for a more detailed description of water supplies in the City.
The passage of Senate Bill (SB) X7-7 (also known as the Water Conservation Act of 2009) resulted in increased efforts to reduce potable water usage by requiring all California urban water suppliers to achieve a 20 percent reduction in demands (from a historical baseline) by 2020. Using a 10-year base period of 1995 to 2004, the City’s baseline water usage is 245 gallons per capita per day (GPCD). The City’s actual water use rate during FY 2019-20 was 161 GPCD which is a decrease of up to 103 GPCD from the recent historical water use. The 2020 target was 196 GPCD.5 It is required that every urban water supplier assess the reliability to provide water service to its customers under normal, single dry, and multiple dry years. As discussed in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City is capable of meeting the water demands of its customers in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years between 2020 and 2045.
The Project site is currently used for agricultural land use, including dairy operations and field crops. The site is not connected to the City’s water supply and utilizes groundwater for irrigation of crops and other agricultural related uses.
Site Hydrology
The Project site 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 in the northeast portion of the site to approximately 690 feet above msl in the southwest portion of the site.
Storm drain systems to serve the Project site would be installed according to the City of Ontario Storm Drain (see Section 3.0: Project Description, Figure 3-17: City of Ontario Ultimate Sewer System).
Currently, there are no City domestic storm drain trunk lines in the Project vicinity. The extension of City master planned storm drain infrastructure is being developed within the western portion of Ontario Ranch. The Project is responsible to provide storm drains to serve future development and would construct a 90-inch line in Euclid Avenue along the western perimeter of the Project site, a 48-inch to 90- inch line in Schaefer Avenue along the northern perimeter of the Project site, and a 78-inch to 96-inch line in Edison Avenue along the southern perimeter of the Project site. Additionally, the Project would construct a 102-inch trunk line in Euclid Avenue south to connect to the existing 108-inch line at Euclid Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue.
Catch basins located throughout the site would collect runoff. On-site storm drain systems serving the Project site would connect to the master planned system in Euclid Avenue to serve the Project site development. The Project site storm drain improvements are shown in Section 3.0: Project Description, Figure 3-20: Storm Drain Plan and Figure 3-21: City of Ontario Ultimate Storm Drain System.
According to the Geotechnical Investigation conducted for the Project (Appendix E: Geotechnical Reports), groundwater was not encountered during the investigation. Based on the available data and the 5 Ibid, page 4-11.
1288
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-4 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems findings of the investigation, the historical high groundwater level and the current groundwater level is estimated to be deeper than 137 feet below ground surface. Groundwater is not expected to be encountered during Project construction. It should be noted that the groundwater level could vary depending upon the seasonal precipitation and possible groundwater pumping activity in each site vicinity. Perched water layers at depth may be present locally, particularly following high precipitation and irrigation events.
Potable and Recycled Water
The City’s existing domestic water system consists of the following:
• 5 primary pressure zones (Zone 925, 1010, 1074, 1212, and 1348) • Over 2.8 million feet (546 miles) of transmission and distribution pipe, 2-inches through 42- inches in diameter
• 6,811 fire hydrants
• 12 reservoirs with a total volume of 75 million gallons • 4 active booster pump stations, 1 inactive booster pump station • 16 pressure reducing stations
• 5 inter-agency connections
• 2 Connections to WFA
• 2 Connections to CDA
The existing water service area includes only a very small portion of Ontario Ranch (OR); Edenglen by Brookfield Homes (located south of Riverside Drive, east of Mill Creek Avenue), and Colony High School (located south of Riverside Drive and west of Mill Creek Avenue). The majority of the existing residents and businesses of OR use private groundwater wells for their water supply.
OMUC will provide potable and recycled water service to the Project. City Ordinance No. 2689 requires all new development to connect to, and use recycled water for all approved uses, including but not limited to landscape irrigation (codified in City Municipal Code Sections 6-8.7 to 6-8.279). OMUC serves at least 41,539 potable water connections and 521 non-potable connections and the total potable water demand in CY 2022 in the OMUC service area was approximately 31,130 acre-feet (AF) and the recycled water demand was 10,066.4 AF. OMUC purchases recycled water supplies from IEUA. IEUA treats the City’s wastewater at its four regional wastewater reclamation plants. IEUA provides wastewater treatment services to seven Contracting Agencies, including the City of Ontario. OMUC has been using recycled water produced by IEUA since 1972. Currently, recycled water is used in the City for agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation, golf course irrigation, and industrial purposes.
Wastewater Conveyance
The City is divided into two distinct areas, Old Model Colony (OMC) and New Model Colony, now known as Ontario Ranch (OR). The two areas are generally divided by Riverside Drive. OMC consists of existing residential, commercial, and industrial developments. It comprises approximately 36 square miles. OR is 1289
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-5 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems an agricultural area that was annexed to the City in 1999. It is approximately 13 square miles and currently consists of primarily agricultural land.