Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, June 16, 2026 (part 12 of 28)

ZE Truck Sales: Manufacturers who certify Class 2b through 8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines are required to sell ZE trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, ZE truck/chassis sales need to be 55 percent of Classes 2b to 3 truck sales, 75 percent of Classes 4 to 8 straight truck sales, and 40 percent of truck tractor sales.

Company and Fleet Reporting: Large employers including retailers, manufacturers, brokers and others would be required to report information about shipments and shuttle services. Fleet owners, with 50 or more trucks, would be required to report about their existing fleet operations. This information would help identify future strategies to ensure that fleets purchase available ZE trucks and place them in service where suitable to meet their needs.

The ACT regulation was granted a separate waiver in 2023 by the Biden administration. On May 22, 2025, the U.S. Senate voted to revoke the waiver granted by the Biden administration for California’s ACT rule through House Joint (H.J.) Resolution 87. On June 12, 2025, President Trump formally nullified California’s ACT rule. California currently has no authority to implement ACT.

Advanced Clean Fleets In April 2023, CARB released the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulation to accelerate the transition to zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles (CARB 2025). In conjunction with the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, the ACF regulations helps to ensure that medium- and heavyduty ZEVs are brought to the market, by requiring certain fleets to purchase ZEVs. The ACF ZEV phase-in approach which provides initial focus where the best fleet electrification opportunities exist, sets clear targets for regulated fleets to make a full conversion to ZEVs, and creates a ■
■
■
2493

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y

3. 6- 12
Table 3.6-1 State Energy Efficiency Regulations
Regulation Summary
catalyst to accelerate development of a heavy-duty public infrastructure network.

The ACF regulations cover four main elements:

Manufacturer sales mandate. Manufacturers may sell only zeroemission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles starting in 2036.

Drayage fleets. 2 Beginning January 1, 2024, trucks must be registered in the CARB Online System to conduct drayage activities in California.

Non-zero-emission “legacy” drayage trucks may register in the CARB Online System through December 31, 2023. Legacy drayage trucks can continue to operate through their minimum useful life. Beginning January 1, 2024, only zero-emission drayage trucks may register in the CARB Online System. All drayage trucks entering seaports and intermodal railyards would be required to be zero-emission by 2035.

High priority and federal fleets. High priority and federal fleets must comply with the Model Year Schedule or may elect to use the optional ZEV Milestones Option to phase in ZEVs into their fleets: o Model Year Schedule: Fleets must purchase only ZEVs beginning 2024 and, starting January 1, 2025, must remove internal combustion engine vehicles at the end of their useful life as specified in the regulation. o ZEV Milestones Option (Optional): Instead of the Model Year Schedule, fleets may elect to meet ZEV targets as a percentage of the total fleet starting with vehicle types that are most suitable for electrification.

State and local agencies. State and local government fleets, including city, county, special district, and State agency fleets, would be required to ensure 50 percent of vehicle purchases are ZE beginning in 2024 and 100 percent of vehicle purchases are ZE by 2027. Small government fleets (10 or fewer vehicles) and those in designated counties would start their ZEV purchases beginning in 2027.

Alternately, State and local government fleet owners may elect to meet ZEV targets using the ZEV Milestones Option. State and local government fleets may purchase either ZEVs or near-ZEVs, or a combination of ZEVs and near-ZEVs, until 2035. Starting in 2035, only ZEVs will meet the requirements. 2
Drayage trucks are in-use class 7 and 8 on-road vehicles that transport containers and bulk goods to and from seaports and intermodal railyards. Land ports of entry, which provide controlled entry to or departure from the United States, are not considered seaports or intermodal railyards. ■
■
■
■
2494

O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N T A R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y
MA RC H 2026 3. 6- 13
Table 3.6-1 State Energy Efficiency Regulations
Regulation Summary
The ACF regulations would also establish requirements that transform the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sector and demonstrate independent utility through achievement of the following objectives:

Achieve criteria and GHG emissions reductions consistent with the goals identified in the State Implementation Plan Strategy and Scoping Plan.

Provide emissions reductions in disadvantaged communities, thereby supporting the implementation of AB 617 (Garcia, C., Chapter 136, Statutes of 2017).

Support the goals of EO N-79-20 which calls for accelerated ZEV deployment with these targets: o 100 percent ZE drayage by 2035 o 100 percent ZE trucks and buses where feasible by 2045 Ensure requirements, such as ZEV deployment schedules and related infrastructure build-out, are technologically feasible, cost-effective, and support market conditions.

Lead the transition away from petroleum fuels and towards electric drivetrains.

Contribute to achieving carbon neutrality in California pursuant to SB 100 and in accordance with EO B-55-18.

Mindfully set requirements to allow time for public ZE infrastructure buildout for smaller fleets or for regional haul applications who would be reliant on a regional network of public chargers.

Ensure manufacturers and fleets work together to place ZEVs in service suitably and successfully as market expands.

Establish a fair and level playing field among fleet owners.

Craft projects in a way that ensures institutional capacity for CARB to manage, implement, and enforce requirements.

As of this writing, the ACF remains in effect; however, the Drayage Fleet and High-Priority Private Fleet rules may not be enforceable unless the State’s Clean Air Act Waiver is resubmitted to and approved by the EPA.

Small Off-Road Engine
Regulations
Small Off-Road Engines (SORE) Regulation applies to spark-ignition engines rated at or below 19 kilowatts (25 horsepower), including lawn and garden, industrial, logging, airport ground support, and commercial utility equipment, golf carts, and specialty vehicles. CARB’s SORE Regulation, last amended in December 2021, establishes new emission standards starting with the 2024 model year of zero grams of exhaust and ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2495

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y

3. 6- 14
Table 3.6-1 State Energy Efficiency Regulations
Regulation Summary
evaporative emissions per kilowatt-hour, effectively requiring zero- emission or electric engines for those subject to the SORE Regulation.

LOCAL
City of Ontario 2022 Community Climate Action Plan
The City of Ontario adopted a Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) in August 2022. The purpose of the CCAP is to implement a plan to reduce GHG emissions to achieve SB 32 emission reduction targets by year 2030 and additional reductions beyond year 2030. The CCAP is an update to the 2014 Community Climate Action Plan and provides an updated emissions inventory, emissions forecast, and reduction strategy analysis. The CCAP is consistent with Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines through 2030 because the emissions reductions demonstrated therein are consistent with statewide 2030 reduction targets; however, the CCAP’s post-2030 reduction targets predate and are not aligned with the State’s current 2045 emission reduction targets and carbon neutrality goal (Ontario 2022). The CCAP provides a strategic roadmap for reducing GHG emissions generated in Ontario through measures that include improving energy efficiency, reducing nonrenewable energy consumption, and promoting the consumption of renewable energy.

City of Ontario Municipal Code
The City’s municipal code is organized by volume, title, chapter, and article. The following regulations relate to energy impacts.

Volume II, Title 8, Building Regulations, adopts the 2022 California Building Code.

Volume II, Title 8, Chapter 9, Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, provides requirements for electric vehicle charging stations as well as expedited permit review and inspection requirements by the Building Department.

Volume II, Title 8, Chapter 10, Energy Code, adopts the 2022 California Energy Code. ■
■
■
2496

O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N T A R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y
MA RC H 2026 3. 6- 15

3.6.2 Existing Conditions

POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
Electricity
The plan area is in Southern California Edison’s (SCE) service area, which spans much of southern California from Orange and Riverside counties on the south to Santa Barbara County on the west to Mono County on the north (SCE 2025). Total electricity demand in the SCE service area for the county was 16.206 billion kWh for 2024 (CEC 2025a).

Sources of electricity sold by SCE in 2023 were (CEC 2025b):

37.6 percent eligible renewable resources:

0.1 percent biomass and biowaste

5.2 percent geothermal

0.7 percent small hydroelectric

19.8 percent solar

11.7 percent wind

13.5 percent eligible carbon-free resources:

4.5 percent large hydroelectric

9.1 percent nuclear

48.8 percent non-RPS eligible resources:
0 percent coal
20 percent natural gas

0.1 percent other

28.8 percent unspecified power (i.e., not traceable to specific sources) Natural Gas
The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas to the City of Ontario.

SoCalGas’ service area spans much of the southern half of California, from Imperial County on the southeast to San Luis Obispo County on the northwest, to part of Fresno County on the north, to Riverside County and most of San Bernardino County on the east (CEC 2022). Total natural gas consumption in SoCalGas’s service area for the county was approximately 547.2 million therms in 2024 (CEC 2025c).
■
■
■
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2497

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y

3. 6- 16
Transportation Fuels
California is one of the top consumers of fuel for transportation. The CEC produces a California Annual Retail Fuel Outlet Report every year, which is a compilation of gasoline and diesel fuel sales across the state, available at the county level. According to the CEC, San Bernardino County fuel sales totaled an estimated 920 million gallons of gasoline and 390 million gallons of diesel fuel in 2024 (CEC 2025d).

SPECIFIC PLAN
Electricity
Electrical service to the Specific Plan area is provided by SCE. Existing power poles are located adjacent to the Specific Plan area along Eucalyptus Avenue and on the east side of Walker Avenue, and within the Specific Plan boundary along Grove Avenue, and Bon View Avenue.

Natural Gas
SoCalGas provides gas service to the Specific Plan area. Gas lines currently exist in Eucalyptus Avenue (3 inch and 12 inch), Bon View Avenue (2 inch and 12 inch), Grove Avenue (4 inch), and Walker Avenue (2 inch).

Transportation Fuels
Diesel fuel is supplied by a number of existing industrial fuel providers serving the region.

3.6.3 Standards for Analysis

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to energy if it would:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

To determine whether the proposed project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, this analysis utilizes the guidance provided in Appendix F, 2498

O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N T A R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y
MA RC H 2026 3. 6- 17
Energy Conservation, of the CEQA Guidelines as well as the analytical precedent set by League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of Placer (2022) (75 Cal.App.5th 63, 164–168).

Based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, Energy Conservation, to ensure energy implications are considered in project decisions, CEQA identifies that EIRs include a discussion of the potential impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing wasteful, unnecessary, or inefficient use of energy resources as applicable. Environmental effects may include the proposed project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type during demolition, construction, and operation; the effects of the proposed project on local and regional energy supplies; the effects of the proposed project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy; the degree to which the proposed project complies with existing energy standards; the effects of the proposed project on energy resources; and the proposed project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives, if applicable.

To assist in analyzing whether the proposed project’s energy consumption is considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary, the following energy conservation goals from Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines are used:

Decrease overall per capita energy consumption.

Decrease reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil.

Increase reliance on renewable energy sources.

It is important to note that these energy conservation goals are not used herein as bright-line significance thresholds but as an informative guide in assessing whether the proposed project could result in a potentially significant energy impact. In other words, even though a project may result in an increase in per capita energy consumption, that does not necessarily mean that the project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption because the consumption of energy alone does not constitute the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy resources. Therefore, this analysis focuses on whether the use of that energy resource is carried out in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner in the context of the Appendix F energy conservation goals and explores whether mitigation may be warranted to ensure that the use of energy resources is not considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

METHODOLOGY
Policy Plan Amendment
Community Emissions
The provided energy and fuel usage information for the proposed project is based on the following.
■
■
■
2499

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y

3. 6- 18
Energy (Natural Gas and Electricity): Energy use for residential and nonresidential land uses in the plan area were estimated based on the energy forecast without state actions conducted for the emissions inventory for the Community Climate Action Plan (2022).

Forecasts for the proposed project were adjusted for increases in dwelling units for residential energy usage and non-residential square footage for non-residential energy usage in the city.

On-Road Fuel Use: Fuel use was based on origin-destination method VMT provided by Fehr & Peers and modeled using CARB’s EMFAC2021 V.1.0.2 web database for calendar year 2050 emission rates.

Specific Plan
CalEEMod
Information from the CalEEMod Version 2022.1 outputs from the EBPSP Air Quality Technical Study was utilized in this analysis, detailing project-related construction equipment, transportation energy demands, and facility energy demands (Appendix C5).

Emission Factors Model
On May 2, 2022, the EPA approved the 2021 version of the EMissions FACtor model (EMFAC2021) web database for use in State Implementation Plan and transportation conformity analyses. EMFAC2021 is a mathematical model that was developed to calculate emission rates, fuel consumption, VMT from motor vehicles that operate on highways, freeways, and local roads in California and is commonly used by CARB to project changes in future emissions from on-road mobile sources. On November 21, 2025, the EPA approved the use of EMFAC 2021 offmodel adjustment factors. These adjustment factors remove the estimated emission benefits that were attributed to California’s Advanced Clean Trucks, Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle, Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Engine Emission Warranty and Maintenance Provisions, and Heavy Duty Omnibus regulations from EMFAC 2021. Because the preemption waivers for these regulations no longer have effect, these regulations are no longer enforceable. Any effects on fuel efficiency are unknown and unquantifiable at this time.

The EBPSP Energy Study utilizes the different fuel types for each vehicle class from the annual EMFAC2021 emission inventory in order to derive the average vehicle fuel economy which is then used to determine the estimated annual fuel consumption associated with vehicle usage during construction and operational activities. For purposes of analysis, the 2027 through 2029 analysis years were utilized to determine the average vehicle fuel economy (Appendix C5). ■
■
2500

O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N T A R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y
MA RC H 2026 3. 6- 19

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

3.6.5 Environmental Impacts
2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. The approved project includes policies related to land use and transportation planning and design, energy efficiency, public and active transit, and renewable energy generation that minimize building and transportationrelated energy demands overall and demands on nonrenewable sources of energy.

The 2022 Certified EIR identified that implementation of the approved project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The approved project includes an Environmental Resources Element and Safety Element that supports the statewide goal of transitioning the electricity grid to renewable sources and employ best practices regarding energy-saving standards.

Proposed Project
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation?
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation.

CONSTRUCTION ENERGY USE
Policy Plan Amendment
Development projects constructed under the proposed project would create temporary demand for electricity. Natural gas is not generally required to power construction equipment, and its use is not anticipated during construction phases. Electricity use would fluctuate according to the phase of construction. Additionally, it is anticipated that most electric-powered 2501

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y

3. 6- 20
construction equipment would be hand tools (e.g., power drills, table saws, compressors) and lighting, which would use minimal electricity during construction activities.

Construction of development projects facilitated by the proposed project would also temporarily increase demands for energy associated with transportation fuels. Transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, VMT, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Energy use during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel or gasoline fuel. The use of energy resources by these vehicles would fluctuate according to the phase of construction and would be temporary. It is anticipated that most offroad construction equipment, such as those used during demolition and grading, would be gasoline or diesel powered. In addition, operation of construction equipment would cease upon completion of construction for individual development projects. Moreover, the construction contractors would be required to minimize nonessential idling of construction equipment during construction in accordance with the CCR Title 13, Chapter 9, Article 4.8, Section 2449. Such required practices would limit wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption.

Overall, the proposed project does not envision any unusual development or project characteristics that require less energy-efficient construction equipment. Construction processes would be comparable to those used at similar sites citywide and projects accommodated under the approved project. The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to that of the approved project and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Accordingly, the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel use during construction. Impacts would be less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
Electricity Usage
The total construction electricity usage is the summation of the products of the power cost by the utility provider cost per kWh of electricity. Total electricity usage from on-site EBPSP construction-related activities is estimated to be approximately 886,886 kWh.

Equipment Fuel Consumption
Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended over the course of construction associated with EBPSP. Construction activities would consume an estimated total of 311,914 gallons of diesel fuel.
2502

O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N T A R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y
MA RC H 2026 3. 6- 21
Worker Fuel Estimates
It is assumed that 50 percent of all worker trips are from light-duty-auto vehicles (LDA), 25 percent are from light-duty-trucks (LDT13
), and 25 percent are from light-duty-trucks (LDT24).

Approximately 269,810 gallons of fuel would be consumed related to construction worker trips during full construction.

Vendor and Hauling Fuel Estimates
It is assumed that 50 percent of all vendor trips are from medium-heavy-duty trucks (MHDT) and 50 percent of vendor trips are from heavy-heavy-duty trucks (HHDT). All hauling trips were assumed to be performed by HHDT vehicles. Approximately 214,130 gallons of fuel would be consumed related to construction vendor and hauling trips during full construction.

Construction Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures
Starting in 2014, CARB adopted the nation’s first regulation aimed at cleaning up off-road construction equipment such as bulldozers, graders, and backhoes. These requirements ensure fleets gradually turn over the oldest and dirtiest equipment to newer, cleaner models and prevent fleets from adding older, dirtier equipment. Therefore, the equipment used for EBPSP construction would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards. It should also be noted that there are no unusual characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Equipment employed in the construction of the EBPSP would therefore not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel.

Construction contractors would be required to comply with applicable CARB regulation regarding retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of diesel off-road construction equipment.

Additionally, CARB has adopted the Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling in order to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other toxic air contaminants. Compliance with anti-idling and emissions regulations would result in a more efficient use of construction-related energy and the minimization or elimination of wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy. Idling restrictions and the use of newer engines and equipment would result in less fuel combustion and energy consumption.

Additional construction-source energy efficiencies would occur due to required California regulations and best available control measures (BACM). For example, 13 CCR 3 Vehicles under the LDT1 category have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 6,000 lbs. and equivalent test weight (ETW) of less than or equal to 3,750 lbs. 4 Vehicles under the LDT2 category have a GVWR of less than 6,000 lbs. and ETW between 3,751 lbs. and 5,750 lbs. 2503

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y

3. 6- 22
Section 2449(d)(3), Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes, precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Section 2449(d)(3) requires that grading plans reference the requirement that a sign shall be posted on-site stating that construction workers need to shut off engines at or before 5 minutes of idling. Enforcement of idling limitations is realized through periodic site inspections conducted by City building officials and/or in response to citizen complaints.

In general, commercial construction processes promote conservation and efficient use of energy by reducing raw materials demands, with related reduction in energy demands associated with raw materials extraction, transportation, processing, and refinement. Use of materials in bulk for large-scale projects reduces energy demands associated with preparation and transport of construction materials as well as the transport and disposal of construction waste and solid waste in general, with corollary reduced demands on area landfill capacities and energy consumed by waste transport and landfill operations.

Summary
EBPSP land uses would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted energy efficiency standards, which are based on the CCR Title 24 energy efficiency standards (Part 6 and Part 11 of the California Building Standards Code). Title 24 standards include a broad set of energy conservation requirements that apply to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building.

Due to the temporary nature of construction and the financial incentives for developers and contractors to use energy-consuming resources in an efficient manner, the construction phase would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact ENE-1: The proposed project would not result in significant impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during construction.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant energy impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
2504

O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N T A R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y
MA RC H 2026 3. 6- 23
New Mitigation Measures
Impacts are less than significant and mitigation measures are not required.

OPERATION ENERGY USE
Policy Plan Amendment
Operation of potential future development accommodated under the proposed project would create additional demands for energy resources compared to existing conditions. Operational use of electricity and heating fuels (e.g., natural gas) would include heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings; water heating; operation of electrical systems; use of on-site equipment and appliances; lighting; and charging electric vehicles. Land uses accommodated under the proposed project would also result in additional demands for transportation fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas, and electricity) associated with on-road vehicles.

Nontransportation Energy
Electrical service to future individual development projects in the City would be provided by SCE through connections to existing off-site electrical lines and new on-site infrastructure. As shown in Table 3.6-2, Year 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Forecast Electricity Consumption, by horizon year 2050, electricity use in the Ontario under the proposed project is estimated to increase by 92,312,370 kWh/year, or approximately 3 percent, compared to the approved project.

Table 3.6-2 Year 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Forecast Electricity Consumption Area
Electricity Usage (kWh per Year)
Current TOP1 Policy Plan
Amendment2 Net Change
Residential 815,532,580 860,880,738 45,348,158
Nonresidential 2,858,631,210 2,905,595,423 46,964,213
Total 3,674,163,790 3,766,476,160 92,312,370
Source: Appendix C1.

1. Electricity usage based on emissions inventory from Community Climate Action Plan (2022), excludes State actions.

2. Residential and nonresidential energy forecasts are adjusted for increases in dwelling units and increases in nonresidential square footage in the plan area. Forecasts do not account for reductions due to increase in energy efficiency from compliance with future Building Energy Efficiency Standards and updates to CALGreen.

As shown in Table 3.6-3, Year 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Forecast Natural Gas Consumption, natural gas use under the proposed project would increase by 3,416,970 therms annually, or approximately 3 percent, compared to the approved project. While the electricity and natural gas demand would both slightly increase for the City compared to the estimates for the 2505

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y

3. 6- 24
approved project, developments accommodated under the proposed project would continue to be required to comply with the current and future updates to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, which would contribute to reducing the energy demands shown in the table. New and replacement buildings in compliance with these standards would generally have greater energy efficiency than existing buildings. It is anticipated that each update to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen would result in greater building energy efficiency and move closer to buildings achieving zero net energy.

Table 3.6-3 Year 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Forecast Natural Gas Consumption Area
Natural Gas Usage (Therms per Year)
Current TOP1 Policy Plan
Amendment2 Net Change
Residential 43,659,430 46,087,138 2,427,708
Nonresidential 60,214,690 61,203,952 989,262
Total 103,874,120 107,291,090 3,416,970
Source: Appendix C1.

1. Natural gas usage based on emissions inventory from Community Climate Action Plan (2022).

In addition to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, the Policy Plan Amendment includes various goals and policies to increase energy efficiency and reduce wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy resources. The Environmental Resources (ER) Element policies ER-3.1 and ER-3.6 would promote applicable energy-saving standards and the use of renewable energy sources (e.g., solar, wind, biomass) in public and private sector development. Policies ER-3.2 and ER-3.4 would encourage implementation of the LEED Neighborhood Development rating system in new communities and LEED Silver Certification for certain new and substantially renovated City buildings. Policy ER-3.3 would require energyefficient building and site design strategies for future development projects. Encouraging sustainable and energy-efficient building practices and using more renewable energy strategies will further reduce energy consumption in the city and move closer to achieving zero net energy.

Transportation Energy
The growth accommodated under the proposed project would consume transportation energy from the use of motor vehicles (e.g., gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas, and electricity).

Table 3.6-4, Policy Plan Amendment Operation-Related Annual Fuel Usage, shows the net 2506

O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N T A R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y
MA RC H 2026 3. 6- 25
change in VMT, fuel usage, and fuel efficiency under forecast year 2050 of the proposed project compared to the conditions under the approved project.

Table 3.6-4 Policy Plan Amendment Operation-Related Annual Fuel Usage Fuel Type Current TOP
Policy Plan
Amendment
Net Change from
Current TOP
Gasoline
VMT1 3,849,391,590 3,948,781,246 99,389,657
Gallons 118,829,803 121,916,809 3,087,007
Miles per Gallon 32.39 32.39 -0.01
Diesel
VMT1355,432,627 369,475,972 14,043,345
Gallons 42,804,468 44,511,155 1,706,686
Miles per Gallon 8.30 8.30 0.00
Compressed Natural Gas
VMT116,988,288 17,667,531 679,243
Gallons 2,276,309 2,367,323 91,014
Miles Per Gallon 7.46 7.46 0.00
Electricity
VMT1554,000,244 570,519,511 16,519,267
kWh 346,693,954 358,483,671 11,789,716
Miles per kWh 1.60 1.59 -0.01
Total VMT 4,775,812,748 4,906,444,260 130,631,512
Source: EMFAC 2021 (v.1.0.2); see Appendix C1.

1. Based on daily VMT provided by Fehr & Peers. VMT per year based on a conversion of VMT x 347 days per year to account for less travel on weekends, consistent with CARB statewide GHG emissions inventory methodology (CARB 2008).

As shown in Table 3.6-4, when compared to the approved project, the proposed project would result in an overall increase in VMT for gasoline-, diesel-, compressed natural gas-, and electricity-powered vehicles. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an increase in annual VMT and fuel usage for all vehicles, primarily due to the increase in projected population growth. Fuel efficiency will be the same as the approved project, and implementation of the proposed project would not result in less efficiency in transportation fuel usage.

The overall VMT shown in the Table 3.6-4 would be primarily attributable to the increase in population compared to the approved project. Although fuel efficiency between the proposed project and the approved project would be the same, the VMT per service person (VMT/SP) would slightly increase under the proposed project (see Section 3.17, Transportation, Table 2507

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y

3. 6- 26

3.17-4, VMT Comparison of Policy Plan Amendment to TOP 2050). An increase in VMT/SP suggests more vehicle trips and longer trip distances as the number of residents in employees living and/or working in Ontario increases.

While VMT related to electric vehicles and electricity use are expected to increase under the proposed project compared to the approved project, improvements in electric vehicle energy efficiency are anticipated. Consistent with broader market trends and advancements in energy generation, a greater share of electricity used to power electric vehicles is anticipated to be derived from renewable sources in future years, such as onsite photovoltaic systems, community choice aggregation programs, and utility-supplied renewable electricity.

The Policy Plan Amendment also includes various policies that contribute to minimizing overall VMT, and thus fuel usage. These proposed policies focus on minimizing VMT through land use and transportation planning efforts that work in combination. The Mobility (M) Element policy M-3.3 and Land Use (LU) Element policies LU-1.4, LU-1.5, and LU-1.6, focus on situating residential development near commercial land uses to promote public transit use. Policies M2.1, M-2.2, M-2.3, and M-2.4, and Community Design (CD) Element policy CD-3.2 would promote improvements for public transportation and active transit (e.g., biking and walking) infrastructure in the City. Locating residential and nonresidential uses near one another through mixed-use development can shorten distances between homes, jobs, and amenities, reducing average vehicle trip lengths and overall VMT. These shorter distances can also encourage walking, biking, and public transit use, further minimizing VMT.

Summary
Overall, implementation of TOP 2050 policies, together with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, would ensure that energy demand from future growth is not inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project and that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, energy impacts associated with implementation and operation of land uses accommodated under the proposed project would be less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
Transportation Energy Demands
Annual vehicular trips and related VMT generated by the operation of the EBPSP would result in a fuel demand of 4,213,944 gallons.

Fuel would be provided by current and future industrial vendors. Trip generation and VMT generated by the EBPSP are consistent with other industrial uses of similar scale and 2508

O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N T A R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y
MA RC H 2026 3. 6- 27
configuration, as reflected, respectively, in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th ed.) and CalEEMod. Therefore, operations would not result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and VMT, nor excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption compared to other industrial uses.

It should be noted that the State strategy for the transportation sector for medium- and heavyduty trucks is focused on making trucks more efficient and expediting truck turnover rather than reducing VMT from trucks. This is in contrast to the passenger vehicle component of the transportation sector, where both per-capita VMT reductions and an increase in vehicle efficiency would be needed to achieve the overall state emissions reductions goals.

Heavy-duty trucks involved in goods movements are generally controlled on the technology side and through fleet turnover of older trucks and engines to newer and cleaner trucks and engines. The first battery-electric heavy-heavy duty trucks are being tested this year, and South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) is looking to integrate this new technology into large-scale truck operations. The following state strategies reduce GHG emissions from the medium- and heavy-duty trucks and would also contribute to reductions in transportationrelated energy consumption:

CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy focuses on reducing GHGs through the transition to zero and low emission vehicles and from medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks.

CARB’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan establishes a goal to improve freight efficiency by 25 percent by 2030, deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and equipment capable of zero emission operation and maximize both zero and near-zero emission freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030.

CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement (Goods Movement Plan) in California focuses on reducing heavy-duty truck-related emissions, fleet turnover, truck retrofits, and restriction on truck idling (CARB 2006). While the focus of Goods Movement Plan is to reduce criteria air pollutant and air toxic emissions, the strategies to reduce these pollutants would also generally have a beneficial effect in reducing GHG emissions.

CARB’s On-Road Truck and Bus Regulation (2010) requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses must meet particulate matter filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. As of January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses have 2010 model year engines or equivalent.

CARB’s Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) GHG Regulation requires SmartWay tractor trailers that include idle-reduction technologies, aerodynamic technologies, and low-rolling resistant tires that would reduce fuel consumption and associated GHG emissions.

Enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and state regulatory actions and the transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, ■
■
■
■
■
2509

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y

3. 6- 28
hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT. The EBPSP’s location near regional and local road networks helps decrease VMT in the area, which in turn reduces the overall energy demand for vehicles in the region. Specifically, the EBPSP would implement sidewalks to encourage pedestrian and bicycle access, which would help reduce VMT and associated energy consumption.

Emergency Engine Fuel Demands
The EBPSP was conservatively assumed to include a total of 2 emergency fire pumps in Phase 1, 4 emergency fire pumps in Phase 2, and 5 emergency fire pumps in Phase 3. Emergency engine operation for maintenance and testing purposes would consume an estimated 2,070 gallons of diesel fuel per year at buildout.

On-Site Cargo Handling Equipment Fuel Demands
Assuming the operation of 5 pieces of equipment in Phase 1, 9 pieces of equipment in Phase 2, and 11 pieces of equipment in Phase 3, on-site operational cargo handling equipment is estimated to consume approximately 51,071 gallons of fuel per year at buildout.

Facility Energy Demands
EBPSP facility operational energy demands are estimated to result in 15,807,558 kWh per year of electricity demand, which would be supplied through rooftop solar as well as SCE. The EBPSP would not use natural gas for the building envelope. The Specific Plan proposes conventional business park uses reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. The Specific Plan does not propose uses that are inherently energy intensive, and the energy demands in total would be comparable to other industrial uses of similar scale and configuration.

The EBPSP would comply with the applicable CCR Title 24 standards. Compliance with applicable Title 24 standards ensures that the energy demands would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Operational Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures
Energy efficiency/energy conservation attributes of the EBPSP would be complemented by increasingly stringent State and federal regulatory actions addressing vehicle fuel economies and vehicle emissions standards and by enhanced building/utilities energy efficiencies mandated under California building codes (i.e., CCR Title 24).

The Specific Plan incorporates a series of measures that generally serve to reduce energy demands. As previously stated, the EBPSP would comply with CCR Title 24 Standards, which include incorporating contemporary design features such as photovoltaic systems or renewable 2510

O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N T A R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y
MA RC H 2026 3. 6- 29
energy. Specifically, the EBPSP would install rooftop solar systems to offset 45 percent of electrical demands.

The EBPSP would also not result in a substantial increase in demand for transmission service, resulting in the need for new or expanded sources of energy supply or new or expanded energy delivery systems or infrastructure (other than site-adjacent and on-site connections to local utilities).

Annual fuel consumption estimates likely represent potential maximums. Under future conditions, average fuel economies of vehicles accessing the site can be expected to improve as older, less fuel-efficient vehicles are removed from circulation. Enhanced fuel economies and transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT.

Summary
It is also noted that the measures to be implemented by the EBPSP pursuant to the City CCAP (see Table 3.8-12, in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions) would also reduce energy consumption through energy efficiency and the generation of renewable energy. Additionally, although Mitigation Measures AIR-5-SP through AIR-13-SP (see Section 3.3, Air Quality) are designed to reduce EBPSP air emissions, they would also reduce energy consumption. The Specific Plan area is surrounded by existing transportation facilities and infrastructure that would give future visitors and employees access to a mix of land uses in the area, thus further reducing fuel consumption demand.

Based on the preceding discussions, impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact ENE-2: The proposed project would not result in significant impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during operation.

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y

3. 6- 30
New Mitigation Measures
Impacts are less than significant and mitigation measures are not required. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

CONSISTENCY WITH RENEWABLE OR ENERGY EFFICIENCY PLANS
The approved project includes an Environmental Resources Element and Safety Element that support the statewide goal of transitioning the electricity grid to renewable sources and employ best practices regarding energy-saving standards. Therefore, the 2022 Certified EIR identified that implementation of the approved project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

The Policy Plan Amendment’s and Specific Plan’s consistency with the California Energy Action Plan, Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, and the City’s CCAP are discussed separately below.

Policy Plan Amendment
Energy Action Plan
As discussed in Section 3.6.1, Regulatory Framework, the Energy Action Plan was last updated in 2008 and was developed by the CPUC, CEC, and California Power Authority to create a unified State energy policy framework. It serves as one of the State’s strategies for planning for reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible energy procurement and supply. The Energy Action Plan further establishes a “loading order” for statewide energy planning efforts, which translates into first prioritizing meeting existing demand with cost-effective energy efficiency and demand response efforts, then using renewable energy resources and distributed generation, and finally meeting the remaining energy demand with renewable or otherwise “clean” fossil-fuel power generation resources (e.g., renewable natural gas). Other priorities identified in the Energy Action Plan but not directly related to local agencies include modernizing transmission and distribution infrastructure, enhancing reliability in electricity and natural gas markets, and ensuring affordable access to all Californians. Therefore, the proposed project can be assessed for consistency with the Energy Action Plan by examining how its policies generally support or conflict with the strategies of the plan, such as promoting energy resource deployment consistent with the plan’s loading order.

TOP 2050 includes several goals and policies that would support the continued implementation of the Energy Action Plan. For instance, Policy M-1.6, Goal M-2, and Policies M-2.1 and M-2.3 support reduced VMT and active transportation by integrating housing, jobs, and services 2512

O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N T A R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y
MA RC H 2026 3. 6- 31
closely together. Policy M-2.4 further promotes mixed use development and walkable design, reducing reliance on fossil fuels for vehicular transportation. Goal ER-3 and Policy ER-3.6 promote the use of renewable energy sources (e.g., solar, wind, biomass) in public- and privatesector development, further supporting the Energy Action Plans’ loading order prioritization.

Lastly, Policy ER-3.5 requires the purchase of vehicles and equipment that are fuel efficient, aligning with the Energy Action Plan’s energy efficiency and clean energy supply objectives.

Therefore, the proposed project would be considered consistent with the Energy Action Plan strategies.

Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan
As discussed in Section 3.6.1, Regulatory Framework, the Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan was last updated in 2011 and serves as the State’s long-term roadmap to make energy efficiency a top priority in supporting California’s grid harmonization and renewable energy integration efforts. As discussed, its key policies include achieving a zero net energy performance for all new residential construction by 2020 and all new commercial construction by 2030. While the 2020 benchmark goal for new residential construction has passed, the goal continues to underpin the triennial updates to the California Building Standards Code. The LongTerm Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan is a living strategic document for State and local agencies and emphasizes the integration of energy-efficiency policies and measures into planning efforts as a critical component to advancing the objectives of the plan. Therefore, the proposed project can be assessed for consistency with the Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan by examining how its policies generally support or conflict with the strategies of the plan, such as promoting compact in-fill development, green building standards, and zero net energy readiness.

TOP 2050 includes several goals and policies that would support the continued implementation of the Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan. Goal ER-3 and Policy ER-3.1 directly advance the energy-efficiency objectives of the Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan by highlighting the importance of conservation strategies as the preferred mechanism to meet energy needs.

Policy ER-3.3 requires new construction to incorporate energy efficient building and site design strategies, supporting the plan’s objectives for achieving zero net energy design for new residential and commercial development. Policy ER-3.6 supports the use of renewable energy sources in public and private sector development, directly advancing the plan’s objectives for integrating demand-side efficiency, distributed energy resources, and energy resiliency. Finally, Policy ER-1.3 promotes energy-efficient water use by working with regional water providers to conserve water and ensure sustainable local water supplies. Therefore, the proposed project would be considered consistent with the Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan strategies. 2513

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y

3. 6- 32
Ontario CCAP
The CCAP provides a strategic roadmap for reducing GHG emissions and energy consumption generated in Ontario through measures that include improving energy efficiency, reducing nonrenewable energy consumption, and promoting the consumption of renewable energy. As identified in Table 3.6-5, Policy Plan Amendment CCAP Consistency Analysis, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable CCAP strategies.

Table 3.6-5 Policy Plan Amendment CCAP Consistency Analysis CCAP Strategy Consistency Analysis
ENERGY
Strategy 1: Building electrification. Promote and
incentivize the phase-out of gas appliances in
new and existing homes and businesses
throughout the community to advance GHG
reductions, increase energy efficiency, and
protect public safety and environmental health.

Consistent. TOP 2050 contains various policies
related to the promotion of building
electrification. Policies ER-3.2, ER-3.6, and S-9.2
support building electrification and encourage
sustainable development by promoting the use of
LEED Neighborhood Development rating systems
and renewable energy sources (e.g., solar, wind,
biomass) in public and private sector
development. Moreover, future development
under the proposed project would be required to
be constructed in accordance with State and City
building codes current at the time, which include
provisions that support building electrification
through electric readiness design requirements.

Strategy 2: Onsite solar energy for existing
residential development. Continue to support
and facilitate installation of rooftop solar
photovoltaic and onsite solar energy systems in
existing residential development.

Consistent. TOP 2050 contains a policy related to
the promotion of on-site solar installations for
existing homes, particularly for resilience during
power outages.

Policy S-9.1 would encourage and incentivize the
installation of residential solar panels and battery
storage systems that can provide electricity
during power outages. Additionally, per the City’s
Municipal Code, Chapter 8, “Small Residential
Rooftop Solar Energy Systems,” the City provides
an expedited permit review and streamlined
inspection requirements for residential rooftop
solar installations.

Strategy 3: Onsite Solar Energy Systems for
Nonresidential Development. Ensure new large
non-residential development, including City
facilities, includes onsite renewable energy to
Consistent. TOP 2050 contains policies related to
the promotion of on-site solar installations for
nonresidential development.
2514

O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N T A R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y
MA RC H 2026 3. 6- 33
Table 3.6-5 Policy Plan Amendment CCAP Consistency Analysis CCAP Strategy Consistency Analysis
support the site's energy needs by requiring solar
photovoltaic panels or other appropriate onsite
renewable energy generation systems for the
following types of projects:

New commercial and office buildings, or
existing commercial and office building
expansions greater or equal to 45,000 square
feet in size.

New industrial or existing industrial buildings
expansions greater or equal to 100,000 square
feet in size.

Policies ER-3.3 and ER-3.6 aim to incorporate
technologies and best practices in building design
that reduce the burning of fossil fuels by
providing alternative energy sources, including
passive and active solar. Policy S-9.1 would
encourage and incentivize the installation of
commercial solar panels and battery storage
systems that can provide electricity during power
outages. Moreover, future development under
the proposed project would be required to be
constructed in accordance with State and City
building codes current at the time. Compliance
with the California Energy Code (24 CCR Part 6)
would ensure solar photovoltaic systems are
installed for most new nonresidential
development or require improved energy
efficiency and design performance to offset its
omission.

Strategy 4: Green Roofs. Promote and incentivize
residents and business owners to install green
roofs to conserve energy and reduce surface
water runoff.

Consistent. TOP 2050 contains policies ER-1.6,
ER-3.2, and ER-3.4, which promote sustainable
building design and low impact development
strategies through compliance with the LEED
Neighborhood Development rating system and
the LEED Silver Certification standard for new
development, which provide scoring options for
including green roofs.

Strategy 5: Urban Cooling. Maintain and expand
the City's existing tree canopy, with a goal of
planting 500 trees annually through 2050 and
promote the use of pervious concrete and cool
pavement for pavement projects.

Consistent. TOP 2050 contains policies related to
planting trees and the implementation of
pervious surfaces. Policies ER-4.8, CD-1.5, and
CD-2.5 aim to protect healthy trees and expand
the tree canopy in environmental justice areas to
enhance air quality and reduce the “heat island”
effect. Policy CD-2.10 would require all
development to minimize the visual impact of
parking areas in a safe and environmentally
sensitive manner, which could include shade
trees and pervious surfaces.

Additionally, the City’s Municipal Code, Chapter 2,
“Parkway Trees,” provides provisions related to
preservation, maintenance, and removal of
parkway trees.
■
■
2515

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y

3. 6- 34
Table 3.6-5 Policy Plan Amendment CCAP Consistency Analysis CCAP Strategy Consistency Analysis
Strategy 6: Energy efficiency retrofits for lowincome households. Promote and incentivize voluntary energy efficiency retrofits of homes to
reduce natural gas and electricity usage, with the
goal of retrofitting 9,000 low-income homes by
2050. Partner with community services agencies
to fund energy efficiency projects, including
heating, ventilation, air conditioning, indoor
lighting, water heating equipment, insulation, and
weatherization for low-income residents.

Consistent. TOP 2050 contains policies that would
support energy efficient practices and renewable
energy systems. Policy S-9.1 would encourage and
incentivize the installation of residential solar
panels and battery storage systems that can
provide electricity during power outages. Policy
S-9.3 would support and provide incentives for
energy-efficient retrofits in residential buildings,
prioritizing low-income applicants.

Strategy 7: Energy efficiency retrofits. Promote
and incentivize voluntary energy efficiency
retrofits to reduce natural gas and electricity
usage. Partner with regional agencies to expand
access to existing energy efficiency and
conservation opportunities, incentives, and
technical assistance for residents and businesses.

Consistent. TOP 2050 contains Policy S-9.3, which
would support and provide incentives for energyefficient retrofits in residential buildings, prioritizing low-income applicants.

Strategy 8: Smart Growth and Infill. Encourage
revitalization of neighborhoods through higherdensity, mixed-use, infill development and creative reuse of underutilized sites within the
urban core.

Consistent. TOP 2050 contains various policies to
support higher density and mixed-use
development in underutilized public and private
spaces. Policies LU-1.6, LU-4.4, M-1.4, and M-2.4
promote mixed use and transit-oriented
development, along with enhancements to
pedestrian and bicycle connectivity in
underutilized spaces.

TRANSPORTATION
Strategy 9: Transit-Oriented Development.

Encourage development of compact, mixed-use,
and transit-oriented development to improve the
regional jobs-housing balance, especially on
corridors served by high-ridership transit and bus
rapid transit, such as Holt Avenue.

Consistent. TOP 2050 contains various policies to
support compact and mixed-use development to
improve regional jobs-housing balance. Policies
CD-3.3, ER-4.1, ER-4.5, LU-1.6, LU-4.4, M-1.4,
M-2.4, and M-3.1 through M-3.11 promote
mixed-use and transit-oriented development
while encouraging proactive partnerships with
transit providers to ensure adequate public
transit service for residents in environmental
justice areas.

Strategy 10: Increase Transportation Ridership.

Ensure a reliable and responsive transit system
with dedicated and secure funding and resources
to support increased ridership.

Consistent. TOP 2050 contains various policies to
support reliable and safe transit system. Policies
M-3.1 through M-3.11 aim to support a viable
alternative to automobile travel and meet the
2516

O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N T A R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y
MA RC H 2026 3. 6- 35
Table 3.6-5 Policy Plan Amendment CCAP Consistency Analysis CCAP Strategy Consistency Analysis
basic transportation needs of the transit- dependent.

Strategy 11: Traffic signal synchronization and
roadway management. Implement traffic and
roadway management strategies to improve
mobility and efficiency and reduce associated
emissions.

Consistent. TOP 2050 contains policies promoting
the efficient flow of all modes of traffic. Policies
CD-2.2, CD-2.6, M-1.1, and M-1.5 would require
roadways to be designed to reduce traffic
congestion through intelligent transportation
system and travel demand management
strategies. While the policies of the Policy Plan
Amendment would not require traffic signal
synchronization, the Policy Plan Amendment
would not conflict with or obstruct the City’s
ability to implement such a measure when
determined feasible.

Strategy 12: Community vehicle electrification.

Promote and incentivize the adoption of electric
vehicles (EV) citywide, including light-duty and
heavy-duty vehicles, for municipal, commercial,
and residential uses.

Consistent. Advanced Clean Cars II would require
new cars sold in 2035 and beyond to be zeroemission vehicles, which includes battery electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and fuel
cell electric vehicles; however, due to federal legal
constraints, Advanced Clean Cars II cannot be
enforced by the State. Nonetheless, future
development under the Policy Plan Amendment
would not obstruct implementation of Advanced
Clean Cars II program since this applies to
automobile manufacturers in California. In
addition, the Policy Plan Amendment would not
conflict with or obstruct the City’s ability to
implement transportation electrification
measures when determined feasible.

Strategy 13: Active Transportation Networks.

Work with transit agencies, school districts, and
employers to facilitate an interconnected
transportation system that allows a shift in travel
from private passenger vehicles to alternative
modes, including public transit, ride sharing, car
sharing, bicycling, and walking.

Consistent. TOP 2050 contains various policies to
support an interconnected transportation system.

Policies CD-3.3, ER-4.1, ER-4.5, LU-1.1, LU-1.4,
LU-1.6, LU-4.4, M-1.4, M-2.1 through M-2.4, and
M-3.1 through M-3.11 promote mixed-use and
transit-oriented development while encouraging
proactive partnerships with transit providers to
ensure adequate public transit service for
residents in environmental justice areas.

Strategy 14: Vehicle Idling. Limit idling of heavyduty trucks. Support the South Coast AQMD and CARB anti-idling requirements and provide
Consistent. Diesel-fueled commercial vehicles
under the proposed project would be required to
comply with 13 CCR Section 2485, limiting truck
2517

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y

3. 6- 36
Table 3.6-5 Policy Plan Amendment CCAP Consistency Analysis CCAP Strategy Consistency Analysis
signage in key areas where idling that is not
consistent with South Coast AQMD or CARB
requirements might occur.
idling to 5 minutes or less when the vehicles are
not in use. Construction contractors would
minimize nonessential idling of construction
equipment during construction in accordance
with 13 CCR Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449.

OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT
Strategy 16: Electrification of construction and
landscaping equipment. Promote and incentivize
the transition to electric construction and
landscaping equipment.

Consistent. This measure is specific to the City to
adopt an ordinance that promotes the transition
to electric construction and landscaping
equipment. While the policies of the Policy Plan
Amendment would not require electrification of
construction and landscaping equipment, the
Policy Plan Amendment would not conflict with
or obstruct the City’s ability to implement such a
measure when determined feasible.

Strategy 17: Idling Ordinance for Construction
Equipment. Limit idling of heavy-duty off-road
construction equipment to reduce air pollution
and GHG emissions from construction activity.

Consistent. Vehicle activity associated with the
development allowed under the proposed project
would be required to comply with 13 CCR
Sections 2485 and 2499 to limit truck idling to
5 minutes or less when the vehicles are not in
use.

WASTE
Strategy 19: Waste Diversion. Exceed waste
diversion goals recommended by AB 939 and
CALGreen by adopting a citywide diversion target
of at least 75 percent of waste.

Consistent. Future development under the
proposed project would be required to comply
with all applicable federal, State, and local
nonhazardous waste diversion requirements,
including those in the applicable mandatory
measures of CALGreen. Additionally, Policy ER-2.1
supports meeting or exceeding the waste
diversion targets established by AB 939.

Moreover, while the Policy Plan Amendment
would not require waste diversion in new
development that exceeds goals established by
AB 939 and CALGreen, the Policy Plan
Amendment would not conflict with or obstruct
the City’s ability to implement such a measure
when determined feasible.
2518

O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N T A R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y
MA RC H 2026 3. 6- 37
Table 3.6-5 Policy Plan Amendment CCAP Consistency Analysis CCAP Strategy Consistency Analysis
Strategy 20: Construction and Demolition Waste
Recovery Ordinance. Increase the amount of
waste recycled during construction and
demolition of buildings.

Consistent. Future development under the
proposed project would be required to comply
with the City’s Municipal Code Section 6-3.602,
“Construction and demolition recycling plan,”
which ensures diversion of construction and
demolition waste from landfills to the greatest
extent possible by recycling, deconstruction for
reuse, or by use of “green building” practices.

WATER
Strategy 21: Indoor water efficiency. Encourage
water-efficient retrofits of new and existing
buildings by working with water providers and
regional agencies.

Consistent. Future development under the
proposed project would be required to be
constructed in accordance with State and City
building codes current at the time. Compliance
with the latest California Building Standards Code
and CALGreen mandatory measures would
require installation of water-efficient appliances
and fixtures. The Policy Plan Amendment also
contains various policies supporting waterefficient retrofits of new and existing development. Additionally, Policies ER-1.3 and
ER-3.1 encourage the conservation of water
supply and the implementation of energy-saving
standards in buildings.

Strategy 22: Water Efficient Landscapes and
Water Recycling. Promote drought-tolerant and
fire-wise landscaping. Encourage increased use of
reclaimed water for landscape irrigation,
agricultural, and industrial use.

Consistent. Future development under the
proposed project would be required to be
constructed in accordance with current State and
City development standards in existence at the
time. The City has Landscape Development
Guidelines that require landscapes to be designed
for efficient water use, minimizing waste, and in
compliance with the State’s Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). These guidelines
also promote recycled water irrigation where
available and feasible.

Strategy 23: Water system and wastewater
operations efficiency. Maximize efficiency at
drinking water treatment, pumping, and
distribution facilities, including development of
off-peak demand schedules for heavy commercial
and industrial users.

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y

3. 6- 38
Table 3.6-5 Policy Plan Amendment CCAP Consistency Analysis CCAP Strategy Consistency Analysis
mandatory measures will require the installation
of water-efficient appliances and fixtures, such as
low-flow toilets, faucets, showerheads, and other
plumbing fittings. Additionally, Chapter 8A, Water
Conservation Plan, of the City’s Municipal Code
contains a Water Conservation Plan designed to
minimize potential water shortages through the
practice of water conservation and reducing
inefficient water use.

Source: Ontario 2022.

Summary
As discussed previously, the proposed project would include policies which directly support the strategies outlined in the Energy Action Plan, Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, and the City’s CCAP. The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project and that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the EBPSP establishes development standards and design guidelines to guide development of the Specific Plan that would support the continued implementation of the Energy Action Plan and the Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan. Additionally, the EBPSP would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted energy efficiency standards, which are based on the energy efficiency standards in CCR Title 24, Part 6. These standards include a broad set of energy conservation requirements that apply to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building. Standards throughout CCR Title 24 Part 6 are widely regarded as the most advanced energy efficiency standards and would help reduce the amount of energy required for lighting, water heating, and heating and air conditioning in buildings and promote energy conservation.

Specifically, key objectives of the EBPSP include promoting mixed-use development; reducing automobile dependency; and encouraging green building design, including sustainable technologies such as rooftop photovoltaic energy systems to offset warehouse electrical demands. Furthermore, as described above, TOP 2050 includes various policies that would continue to support a community-wide shift to renewable energy and promotion of energyefficient and green construction. These policies would directly help the growth under the EBPSP 2520

O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N T A R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y
MA RC H 2026 3. 6- 39
to be aligned with the Energy Action Plan, Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, and the City’s CCAP strategies. Therefore, the EBPSP would be consistent with the Energy Action Plan, Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, and the City’s CCAP strategies, and impacts would be less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact ENE-3: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

New Mitigation Measures
Impacts are less than significant and mitigation measures are not required.

3.6.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis
As this analysis assesses whether energy consumption from the proposed project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of resources, the geographic area relevant to cumulative energy impacts is the plan area. The area considered for cumulative impacts to electricity and natural gas supplies and facilities is SCE and SoCalGas service areas. Analysis of whether the proposed project’s energy demand would be within SCE’s and SoCalGas’s service capacity and require new or expanded facilities is in Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, of this SEIR.

Other future development in the SCE and SoCalGas service areas would be subject to existing state regulations, such as the California Energy Code and CALGreen Code. New buildings would use new energy-efficient appliances and equipment, pursuant to the Appliance Efficiency Regulations. These measures would reduce the overall consumption of electricity and natural gas. Moreover, the proposed project includes various goals, policies, and standards to reduce energy consumption and promote renewable energy sources consistent with applicable local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Consequently, the proposed project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts on energy would be less than significant. 2521

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y

3. 6- 40
Cumulative Impacts: The proposed project, together with cumulative projects, would not substantially impact energy resources.

3.6.7 References
CAISO (California Independent System Operator). 2022, June. “A Golden Age of Energy Storage.” https://www.caiso.com/about/news/energy-matters-blog/a-golden-age-of-energy -storage-2.

CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association). 2022, April. CalEEMod: California Emissions Estimator Model User Guide. Version 2022.1.
https://www.caleemod.com/user-guide.

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2008, October. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/document/psp.pdf.

CARB. 2017, January 18. California’s Advanced Clean Cars Midterm Review. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-01/ACC%20MTR%20Summary_Ac.pdf.

CARB. 2023, April. Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/ programs/advanced-clean-fleets/about.

CARB. 2025, May 20 (accessed). Advanced Clean Cars Program. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/about.

CEC (California Energy Commission). CEC. 2022, January 24 (last updated). Natural Gas Detailed Utility Service Area California, 2020. https://cecgiscaenergy.opendata.arcgis.com/documents/natural-gas-utility-service -area-california-2020/explore.

CEC. 2024, September 11. Energy Commission Adopts Updated Building Standards Expanding Requirements for Heat Pumps and Electric-Ready Buildings. https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2024-09/energy-commission-adopts-updatedbuilding-standards-expanding-requirements-heat.

CEC. 2025a, November 4 (accessed). Electricity Consumption. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data -reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energy-consumption -dashboards-0.

CEC. 2025b, May 20 (accessed). 2023 Power Content Label. https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/7362.
2522

O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N T A R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y
MA RC H 2026 3. 6- 41
CEC. 2025c, November 4 (accessed). Gas Consumption. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data -reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energy-consumption -dashboards-1.

CEC. 2025d, November 4 (accessed). California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation -energy/california-retail-fuel-outlet-annual-reporting.

CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission). 2011, January. CA Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/files/legacyfiles/c/5303 -caenergyefficiencystrategicplan-jan2011.pdf.

CPUC. 2022, December. CPUC Creates New Framework to Advance California’s Transition Away from Natural Gas. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/news-and-updates/all-news/cpuc-creates -new-framework-to-advance-california-transition-away-from-natural-gas.

EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2025a, March 12. Final Rule: Multipollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and MediumDuty Vehicles. https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/ final-rule-multi-pollutant-emissions-standards-model.

EPA. 2025b, May 28 (last updated). Summary of the Energy Independence and Security Act Public Law 110-140 (2007). https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-energy -independence-and-security-act.

EPA and NHTSA (Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). 2020, April 30. The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. Final rule. Federal Register 85, No. 84. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/30/2020-06967/ the-safer-affordable-fuel-efficient-safe-vehicles-rule-for-model-years-2021-2026 -passenger-cars-and.

Ontario, City of. 2022, August 16. Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP). https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/Ontario-CCAP_ Adopted_20220816.pdf.

NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). 2022, May 2. Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Model Years 2024–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. Final rule. Federal Register 87, No. 84. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-05-02/ pdf/2022-07200.pdf.
2523

O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T D R A F T S U P P L EM E N TA L EI R

C I T Y O F O N TA R I O

3. 6 EN E RG Y

3. 6- 42
NHTSA. 2024, June. USDOT Finalizes New Fuel Economy Standards for Model Years 2027–2031.

News release. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/new-fuel-economy-standards -model-years-2027-2031.

NHTSA. 2025, June 11. Corporate Average Fuel Economy. https://www.nhtsa.gov/ laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy.

SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2024, April. Connect SoCal: The 2024– 2050 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/ 23-2987-connect-socal-2024-final-complete-040424.pdf.

SCE (Southern California Edison). 2025, May 20 (accessed). Southern California Edison’s Service Area. https://download.newsroom.edison.com/create_memory_file/ ?f_id=5cc32d492cfac24d21aecf4c&content_verified=True.

USEIA (United States Energy Information Administration). 2024, May 15 (updated). Frequently Asked Questions. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=45&t=7. 2524

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .7 -1

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment and the EBPSP to impact geological and soil resources, paleontological resources, or unique geologic features in the City of Ontario compared to the current TOP 2050 (approved project) and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. See Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, of this SEIR for a discussion regarding archeological resources. The following studies were referenced in preparation of this section.

Geotechnical Feasibility Study Proposed Commercial/Industrial and Residential Development, NWC Eucalyptus Avenue and Grove Avenue, Ontario, California, for Sares Regis Group, Southern California Geotechnical (SocalGeo), March 15, 2022. (Appendix F1) Geotechnical Feasibility Study Proposed Warehouse Development, NEC Eucalyptus Avenue and Grove Avenue, Ontario, California, for Sares Regis Group, Southern California Geotechnical (SocalGeo), January 7, 2022. (Appendix F2) Paleontological Assessment for the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan Project, BFSA Environmental Services, July 20, 2025. (Appendix F3)

3.7.1 Regulatory Framework

FEDERAL
Paleontological Resources
Paleontological Resources Preservation, Omnibus Public Lands Act, Public Law 111-011, Title VI, Subtitle D, 2009
The Paleontological Resources Preservation, Omnibus Public Lands Act (PRPA) directs the secretaries of the Interior and of Agriculture to manage and protect paleontological resources on federal land using “scientific principles and expertise.” To formulate a consistent paleontological resources management framework, the PRPA incorporates most of the recommendations from the report of the Secretary of the Interior, “Assessment of Fossil Management on Federal and Indian Lands” (USDI 2000). In passing the PRPA, Congress officially recognized the scientific importance of paleontological resources on some federal lands by declaring that fossils from these lands are federal property that must be preserved and protected. The PRPA codifies existing policies of the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, US Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and US Fish and Wildlife Service, and provides the following:
■
■
■
2525

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
3 .7- 2
Uniform criminal and civil penalties for illegal sale and transport, and theft and vandalism of fossils from federal lands.

Uniform minimum requirements for paleontological resource-use permit issuance (terms, conditions, and qualifications of applicants).

Uniform definitions for “paleontological resources” and “casual collecting.” Uniform requirements for curation of federal fossils in approved repositories.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, recognizes the continuing responsibility of the federal government to "preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage…” (Sec. 101 [42 US Code sec. 4321] #382). With the passage of the PRPA, paleontological resources are considered a significant resource, and it is now standard practice to include paleontological resources in National Environmental Policy Act studies in all instances where there is a possible impact.

Antiquities Act of 1906
The Antiquities Act of 1906 states, in part:

That any person who shall appropriate, excavate, injure or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity, situated on lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States, without the permission of the Secretary of the Department of the Government having jurisdiction over the lands on which said antiquities are situated, shall upon conviction, be fined in a sum of not more than five hundred dollars or be imprisoned for a period of not more than ninety days, or shall suffer both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. (16 US Code secs. 431–433) Although there is no specific mention of natural or paleontological resources in the act itself, or in the act's uniform rules and regulations (Title 43 Part 3, Code of Federal Regulations [43 CFR 3]), the term “objects of antiquity” has been interpreted to include fossils by the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, the US Forest Service, and other federal agencies.

Permits to collect fossils on lands administered by federal agencies are authorized under this act; however, due to the large gray areas left open to interpretation due to the imprecision of the wording, agencies are hesitant to interpret this act as governing paleontological resources. ■
■
■
■
2526

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .7 -3
STATE
Soil Hazards
California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was signed into state law in 1972. Its primary purpose is to mitigate the hazard of fault rupture by prohibiting the location of structures for human occupancy across the trace of an active fault. The act delineates “Earthquake Fault Zones” along faults that are “sufficiently active” and “well defined.” The act also requires that cities and counties withhold development permits for sites within an earthquake fault zone until geologic investigations demonstrate that the sites are not threatened by surface displacement from future faulting. Pursuant to this act, structures for human occupancy are not allowed within 50 feet of the trace of an active fault.

Seismic Hazard Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act was adopted by the state in 1990 to protect the public from the effects of earthquake hazards other than surface fault rupture, including strong ground shaking, liquefaction, seismically induced landslides, or other ground failure caused by earthquakes. The goal of the act is to minimize loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating seismic hazards. The California Geological Survey prepares and provides local governments with seismic hazard zone maps that identify areas susceptible to amplified shaking, liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and other ground failures. The act requires responsible agencies to only approve projects within seismic hazard zones following a site-specific investigation to determine if the hazard is present, and if so, the inclusion of appropriate mitigation. In addition, the act requires real estate sellers and agents at the time of sale to disclose whether a property is within one of the designated seismic hazard zones.

California Building Code
Current law states that every local agency enforcing building regulations, such as cities and counties, must adopt the provisions of the California Building Code (CBC) within 180 days of its publication. The publication date of the CBC is established by the California Building Standards Commission and the code is also known as Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations.

The 2022 CBC is based on the 2021 International Building Code, modified for California conditions. These codes provide minimum standards to protect property and public safety by regulating the design and construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other building elements to mitigate the effects of seismic shaking and adverse soil conditions. The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock on-site, and the strength of ground shaking with specified probability of occurring at a site. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by2527

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
3 .7- 4
jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions. Commercial and residential buildings are plan-checked by city and county building officials for compliance with the CBC. The 2025 CBC, which includes updated seismic and structural provisions, became effective statewide on January 1, 2026.

Natural Hazards Disclosure Act
The Natural Hazards Disclosure Act requires that sellers of real property and their agents provide prospective buyers with a “Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement” when the property being sold lies within one or more state-mapped hazard areas, including a Seismic Hazard Zone.

California law also requires that when houses built before 1960 are sold, the seller must give the buyer a completed earthquake hazards disclosure report and a booklet titled “The Homeowners Guide to Earthquake Safety.” This publication was written and adopted by the California Seismic Safety Commission.

Soils Investigation Requirements
Requirements for soils investigations for subdivisions requiring tentative and final maps, and for other specified types of structures, are in California Health and Safety Code Sections 17953 to 17955, and in Section 1802 of the CBC. Testing of samples from subsurface investigations is required, such as from borings or test pits. Studies must be done as needed to evaluate slope stability, soil strength, position and adequacy of load-bearing soils, the effect of moisture variation on load-bearing capacity, compressibility, liquefaction, differential settlement, and expansiveness.

Paleontological Resources
California Public Resources Code
Paleontological sites are protected under a wide variety of state policies and regulations in the California Public Resources Code (PRC). In addition, paleontological resources are recognized as nonrenewable resources and receive protection under the PRC and CEQA. PRC Division 5, Chapter 1.7, Section 5097.5, and Division 20, Chapter 3, Section 30244, state:

No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
2528

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .7 -5
This statute prohibits the removal, without permission, of any paleontological site or feature from lands under the jurisdiction of the state or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. As a result, local agencies are required to comply with PRC 5097.5 for their own activities, including construction and maintenance, as well as for permit actions (e.g., encroachment permits) undertaken by others. PRC Section 5097.5 establishes the removal of paleontological resources as a misdemeanor and requires reasonable mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources from developments on public lands (state, county, city, and district).

LOCAL
Soil Hazards
City of Ontario Municipal Code
Site development in the City is required to comply with the CBC and all state requirements pertaining to geotechnical hazards and constraints, including soil conditions. The CBC has been incorporated and adopted in its entirety into the City’s Building Code as Title 8, Chapter 1, Section 8-1.01 of the Ontario Municipal Code.

Erosion Control and Sediment Control Plan Requirements
Prior to issuance of a building permits, the City Engineering Department requires the inclusion of “Erosion and Sediment Control and Contractor Activity Notes” on the grading plan cover sheet prior to submittal. Applicants must also demonstrate conformance with applicable best management practices (BMP), including those recommended by the California Stormwater Quality Association’s Construction BMP Online Handbook (December 2019) and prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with a site map that shows the construction site perimeter; existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, and stormwater collection and discharge points; general topography both before and after construction; and drainage patterns.

The SWPPP must list BMPs that would be implemented to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction-related pollutants that could contaminate nearby water resources.

Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for nonvisible pollutants if there is a failure of the BMPs, and a sediment-monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. 2529

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
3 .7- 6

3.7.2 Existing Conditions

POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
Geology and Soils
Geologic Setting
The City of Ontario is in the Upper Santa Ana River Valley, which consists of a series of coalescing alluvial fans formed by streams flowing out of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north. The Upper Santa Ana River Valley has a gentle southerly slope of approximately 1 percent, and elevations in Ontario range from approximately 1,150 feet in the north to 640 feet in the south. The junction of the Upper Santa Ana River Valley and the San Gabriel Mountains marks the boundary between 2 geomorphic provinces. The valley, including Ontario, lies within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province, characterized by northwest-trending mountains and valleys and extending south into Mexico. The San Gabriel Mountains are part of the Transverse Ranges province, a set of west-trending mountain ranges extending from Santa Barbara County on the west to San Bernardino and Riverside Counties on the east. The San Gabriel Mountains north of Ontario rise as high as 10,064 feet at Mount San Antonio.

Geologic Units in the City of Ontario
The geologic units exposed at the surface in Ontario consist of sediments less than 11,000 years old (Holocene) and deposited either by water or wind; these units are shown in Figure 3.7-1, Geologic Map. In general, the alluvial fan sediments are coarse grained in the northern part of the City and consist of various mixtures of sand, gravel, and cobbles. Moving south away from the mountains, the sediments gradually become finer grained, consisting primarily of silt, silty clay, and silty sand. Generally, soils with faster infiltration rates, higher levels of organic matter, and improved soil structure, such as sand, sandy loam, and loam-textured soils, have a greater resistance to erosion than silt, very fine sand, and certain-clay textured soils.

Artificial Fill (Qaf): The Ontario International Airport and the Milliken Landfill are the largest deposits of artificial fill in the City. Other deposits of man-made fill throughout the City include road and bridge embankments, retention or flood control basins, and man-made fills associated with graded developments. These deposits vary widely in size, age, and composition.

Nonengineered fills are not suitable foundation materials and need to be excavated and replaced with compacted, engineered fill before they can support loads such as buildings and roads.
2530
L-.. ~- CITY OF r .. I UPLAND
,_/ I .~;;;;;;;;;;;;;=-a!!i;;;;;;;;;;;---~~........,.-"_j w
> <(
v pyt
w
I
> 1 W FOURTH ST
w
> <(
Q
z
~ z
<(

CITY OF

MONTCLAIR
z
0 VI
z
...
al
I
z
l=-=--
z z ;i: W G ST ji I-'
z
:::, z
O W DST ~
z
[-ul •· ~ W MISSION BLVD
I : ' : w f > <( ~ z W PHILLIPS ST
_ .. r . .L----· z ~ ~ z z ::, w w O >
; f ~ <(
_,,_J r VI ~
J i ~ W PHILADELPHIA ST ~
Qyf
w w w
> > > <( < <
0 < VI
z ::, ::; ; c..
::,
u ~
w ::, <(
"' u
z z z
w w
~ > <
w
> 0
a:
l!)
z
Qyf
E G ST
Qyf

E HOLT AVE
Qyf Qyf

E PHILADELPHIA ST
,_tr,. .-··~
----='60 '..-------.;------1. ........... ,;-. ...... --"""'P'!-----'!'"=-==- w
> <
w
> 0
a:
l!)
w
> <(
0 a:
;!:
w
z
>
z
w
~
0 a:
;!:
w
z
>
"'

VI E RIVERSIDE DR

E CHINO AVE
Qyf

E SCHAEFER AVE

CITY OF CHINO

E EDISON AVE
Qaf
Qw
Qf
Qf

CITY OF RANCHO

CUCAMONGA
•J .... E-F0 l!J RtfiH-Sif'•,,-,.-----...,.
w Qw
~
0 ~ Qyf al
:i::
\:)
a:
<
z
0 ....
<(
al
i:
u
a:
<(
"'
a:
w
z
a:
::,
>--
"'
z
w
~ :i:: I
u:,
I
::>
<(
I
a: "" z
~
ONTARIO RANCH RD ~ I
l
1 E JURUPA ST
I
.. J
~--~ EASTVALE
La,,_,,_,._M,..,"_,v,_ .. _,._ ..
1 ===;;;;;c;;;;;:====- -~··
L~-~
...,,,,,,,. ..

Qyf
I
~ .. J
I
I
w
Qyf ~
~ cal
z
Qf 3 ~:.a=m,4111.._ __
I
z
I
a, I
E SANTA ANA ST 1
> <(
~ cal
z
w 3
> "" ~ <( > w .J < ~
~ ~ Qyt(

CITY OF

FONTANA
~ ~ Q l VI "' Y County of : San Bernardino 11~,,_._....,__.J_ ,, __ ., County of Riverside

JURUPA VALLEY

GEOLOGY & SOILS
Figure 3. 7-1
Geologic Map
c::J EBPSP Boundary
D Ontario Ci:y Boundary
D County Boundary
Artificial Fill
Very Young Alluvial Fan Deposits
Very Young Wash Deposits
Young Alluvial Fan Deposits
Young Alluvial Valley Deposits
Young Eoli~n Deposits
• • Fault, concealed
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
@ 0 2.500
Source: Morton and Miller 2006
5,000
FT
10,000
Dale: 12/15/l025
2531

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
3 .7- 8
This page intentionally left blank.
2532

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .7 -9
Very Young Wash Deposits (Qw): These late Holocene sediments consist of unconsolidated sand, gravel, and boulders deposited in active washes or channels on the fan surface. They have essentially no soil developed on the surface, and in terms of engineering characteristics, they are typically compressible, highly permeable, nonexpansive, and very susceptible to erosion.

This unit has been mapped in only one small area at the northern edge of the City, in the active channel of Cucamonga Creek.

Very Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qf): These sediments, also Late Holocene, consist predominantly of sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders that form the active and recently active portions of the fan. These deposits are generally unconsolidated to slightly consolidated, and where they have not been graded, they have a network of braided channels on the surface. In most areas, these very young deposits have no soil development. This unit is more prevalent north of Ontario, closer to the mountain front; within the City it is present in a narrow band along Cucamonga Creek and in the northeast corner, in the vicinity of Day Creek and East Etiwanda Creek.

Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf): This Holocene to late Pleistocene1 unit consists of slightly to
moderately consolidated deposits of brown to grayish brown silt, sand, and gravelly sand, locally with cobbles. Where the natural surface has not been disturbed, these deposits are slightly to moderately dissected by streams emanating from the mountains. A moderately to welldeveloped soil is generally present. This unit is widespread throughout the valley region and is mapped in the western half of Ontario. Within Ontario, this unit varies considerably in grain size, ranging from gravelly to cobbly deposits in the north to silty, clayey deposits in the south.

Young Alluvial Valley Deposits (Qya): These Holocene to Late Pleistocene deposits occupy tributary channels of the Santa Ana River, one of which reaches into the eastern corner of Ontario near Etiwanda Avenue and Philadelphia Street. Consisting of slightly to moderately consolidated silt, sand, and gravel, the engineering characteristics of this unit are similar to the alluvial fan deposits described above.

Young Eolian Deposits (Qye): Wind-deposited Holocene sediments consisting of silt and fine- to medium-grained sand are present across the eastern half of the City. These are generally about 10 feet thick and are underlain by the alluvial fan deposits described above.

Seismic Hazards
Faults
The City of Ontario is in one of the more seismically active parts of southern California. Several faults have been identified in and adjacent to the Upper Santa Ana River Valley; these faults are 1 The Pleistocene Epoch extends from approximately 10,000 to 1.6 million years ago. 2533

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
3 .7- 1 0
shown on Figure 3.7-2, Regional Faults and Fault Zones, and are described below. An active fault is one that has had surface displacement within the Holocene epoch, that is, within the last 11,700 years. Figure 3.7-2 includes the regional faults.

Chino-Central Avenue Fault: The Chino-Central Avenue Fault extends along the eastern flank of the Chino Hills from the Los Serranos area of Chino Hills to Corona, a distance of approximately 13 miles.

San Jose Fault: The San Jose Fault extends approximately 11 miles from the base of the San Gabriel Mountains near Upland southwest to the San Jose Hills.

Sierra Madre Fault: The Sierra Madre Fault, approximately 47 miles long, extends along the southern base of the San Gabriel Mountains from the San Fernando Valley in the west to San Antonio Canyon in the east, continuing eastward as the Cucamonga Fault. A rupture in the northwestern portion of this fault resulted in the San Fernando Earthquake of 1971.

Cucamonga Fault: The Cucamonga Fault extends approximately 16 miles east–west along the southern front of the San Gabriel Mountains, from San Antonio Canyon in the west to the vicinity of Lytle Creek in the east.

San Andreas Fault: The San Andreas Fault is the main boundary between the Pacific and North American tectonic plates and extends over 750 miles from near Cape Mendocino in northern California to the Salton Sea region of southern California. The fault is divided into several segments; the closest approach is the San Bernardino Segment, approximately 14 miles northeast of the City.

Whittier Fault: The Whittier Fault extends along the southern base of the Puente Hills approximately 24 miles, from the Santa Ana River in the east to the Whittier Narrows area in the west.

Elsinore Fault: The Elsinore Fault extends along the northeastern front of the Santa Ana Mountains from the Santa Ana River on the northwest, where it merges with the Whittier Fault, southeastward into San Diego County.

Puente Hills Blind Thrust Fault: The Puente Hills Blind Thrust Fault, which does not reach the surface, ranges from northern Orange County to the central Los Angeles area.

San Jacinto Fault Zone: The San Jacinto Fault Zone consists of a series of closely spaced faults that form the western margin of the San Jacinto Mountains. The fault zone extends from its junction with the San Andreas Fault in San Bernardino southeastward through the Imperial Valley into Mexico. The fault zone is divided into several segments, with the San Bernardino segment being the closest to Ontario.
2534

RIVERSIDE
' ··~

GEOLOGY & SOILS
· Figure 3.7-2
c1TY OF r I ,' .. RIALTO ~.,., ·•-: Regional Faults & Fault Zones "\.. .... _ c::::J EBPSP Boundary
'iJ ......L: C.J Ontario City Boundary
..r-i- C.J County Boundary L.-,j Alquist Priolo Fault Traces - - - Inferred
• • • • • Concealed
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
o ~FT
r
,._ 0 2,5005,000 10,000
Source: CGS {California Geological Survey) 2022 Date: 3/2/2026 2535

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
3 .7- 1 2
This page intentionally left blank.
2536

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.7 -13
Surface Rupture of a Fault
Primary ground rupture due to fault movement typically results in a small percentage of the total damage in an earthquake, yet being too close to a rupturing fault can result in extensive damage. It is difficult to safely reduce the effects of this hazard through building and foundation design. Therefore, the primary mitigation measure is to set structures back from the fault zone.

Application of this measure is subject to requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and guidelines prepared by the California Geological Survey. The final approval of a fault setback lies with the local reviewing agency. There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones in the City of Ontario. The nearest such zones are along the Chino Fault, approximately 3 miles southwest of the City, and along the Cucamonga Fault, approximately 4.5 miles north (CGS 2025).

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

When comparing the sizes of earthquakes, the most meaningful feature is the amount of energy released. Thus scientists most often consider seismic moment, a measure of the energy released when a fault ruptures. We are more familiar, however, with scales of magnitude, which measure amplitude of ground motion. Magnitude scales are logarithmic. Each one point increase in magnitude represents a 10-fold increase in the size of the waves as measured at a specific location, and a 32-fold increase in energy. That is, a magnitude 7 earthquake produces 100 times (10 x 10) the ground motion of a magnitude 5 earthquake. Similarly, a magnitude 7 earthquake releases approximately 1,000 times more energy (32 x 32) than a magnitude 5 earthquake. Recently, scientists have developed the moment magnitude (Mw) scale to relate energy release to magnitude.

Historical Earthquakes in the Region
Selected historical earthquakes in and near the Upper Santa Ana River Valley are listed in Table

3.7-1, Selected Historical Earthquakes in and near the Upper Santa Ana River Valley. 2537

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
3 .7- 1 4
Table 3.7-1 Selected Historical Earthquakes in and near the Upper Santa Ana River Valley
Earthquake Date Location Fault Magnitude
Notable
Effects
Wrightwood 1812,
December 8
Near
Wrightwood,
approximately
43 miles
northeast of
Ontario
Unknown;
possibly San
Andreas
Approximately

7.5 40 deaths in
collapse of
chapel at
Mission San
Juan
Capistrano
Cajon Pass 1899, July 22 Near Cajon
Pass,
approximately
26 miles
northeast of
Ontario
Unknown; San
Andreas or
San Jacinto
Approximately

5.7 Extensive
structural
damage in San
Bernardino
and Highland
San
Bernardino
1907;
September 20
Near San
Bernardino,
approximately
27 miles
northeast of
Ontario
Unknown Approximately

5.4 – North San
Jacinto
1923, July 22 South of San
Bernardino,
approximately
15 miles east
of Ontario
San Jacinto 6.3 –
Ontario 1953, May 12 Ontario, near
northern City
boundary
Unknown 4.6 –
Lytle Creek 1970,
September 22
Lytle Creek,
approximately
14 miles
northeast of
Ontario
San Andreas 5.2 –
Whittier
Narrows
1987, October
1 South El
Monte,
approximately
26 miles west
of Ontario
Thrust fault 5.9 8 fatalities;
extensive
damage to
unreinforced
masonry
buildings in
Whittier,
2538

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.7 -15
Table 3.7-1 Selected Historical Earthquakes in and near the Upper Santa Ana River Valley
Earthquake Date Location Fault Magnitude
Notable
Effects
Alhambra, and
Pasadena
Big Bear 1992, June 28 Southeast of
Big Bear Lake,
approximately
55 miles east
of Ontario
Unknown 6.3 Substantial
damage in Big
Bear Lake area
Chino Hills 2008, July 29 Chino Hills, 6
miles
southwest of
Ontario
Unknown 5.4 –
Sources: SCEDC 2025; USGS 2025.

Liquefaction and Related Ground Failure
Liquefaction is a process whereby strong earthquake shaking causes sediment layers that are saturated with groundwater to lose strength and behave as a fluid. This subsurface process can lead to near-surface or surface failure that can damage structures. If surface failure does occur, it is usually expressed as lateral spreading, flow failures, ground oscillation, and/or general loss of bearing strength. Sand boils (injections of fluidized sediment) can commonly accompany these different types of failure.

In order to determine a region’s susceptibility to liquefaction, three major factors must be analyzed:

The intensity and duration of ground shaking.

The age and textural characteristic of the alluvial sediments. Generally, the younger, less compacted sediments have a higher susceptibility to liquefaction. Textural characteristics also play a dominant role in determining liquefaction susceptibility. Sand and silty sands deposited in river channels and floodplains tend to be more susceptible to liquefaction, and floodplains tend to be more susceptible to liquefaction than coarser or finer grained alluvial materials.

The depth to the groundwater. Groundwater saturation of sediments is required for earthquake induced liquefaction. In general, groundwater depths shallower than 10 feet to the surface can cause the highest liquefaction susceptibility. ■
■
■
2539

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
3 .7- 1 6
Strong earthquakes can be expected in the Ontario area on any of the faults in the region, as shown on Figure 3.7-2. Young, loose, unconsolidated sediments, the second factor in liquefaction, are present throughout the Ontario area. Fine sand and silty sand, the types of sediments most often associated with liquefaction, occur mainly in the Ontario Ranch, the southernmost portion of the City. The third factor, water-saturated sediments within about 50 feet of the surface, are not known to occur today in the Ontario area, but have in the past.

Artesian water wells, that is, wells in which groundwater moves upward under pressure, were reported in the southwestern corner of the City in the early 1900s. Groundwater depths in Ontario wells from 2000 to 2024 were reported as greater than 50 feet; groundwater at such depths does not contribute to a high susceptibility to liquefaction (Chino Basin Watermaster 2025).

Seismically Induced Settlement
Strong ground shaking can cause soils to become more tightly packed and settle due to the collapse of voids and pore spaces. This type of settlement typically occurs in soils that are loose, granular, and cohesionless, either wet or dry. Unconsolidated young alluvial sediments are especially susceptible to this hazard. Seismically induced settlement can cause damage to structures and buried pipelines. The entire Ontario area is underlain by young, unconsolidated alluvial deposits and artificial fill that may be susceptible to seismically induced settlement.

Hazardous Buildings
The principal threat in an earthquake is the damage that the earthquake causes to buildings.

Continuing advances in engineering design and building code standards over the past decade have greatly reduced the potential for collapse in an earthquake of most of our new buildings; however, many buildings were built before current earthquake design standards were incorporated into the building code. Several specific building types are a particular concern in this regard.

Unreinforced Masonry Buildings. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, unreinforced masonry was the most common type of construction for larger downtown commercial structures and for multistory apartment and hotel buildings. These were recognized as a collapse hazard following the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 and are generally known to be the most hazardous buildings in an earthquake. Per Senate Bill 547, local jurisdictions are required to enact structural hazard reduction programs by inventorying pre-1943 unreinforced masonry buildings and developing mitigation programs to correct the structural hazards.

Precast Concrete Tilt-up Buildings. This building type was introduced after World War II and gained popularity in light industrial buildings during the late 1950s and 1960s. Extensive damage to concrete tilt-up buildings in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake revealed the need for better anchoring of walls to the of, floor, and foundation elements of the building and for 2540

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.7 -17
stronger roof diaphragms.2In the typical damage to these buildings, the concrete wall panels would fall outward and the roof would collapse.

Soft-Story Buildings. Soft-story buildings are those in which at least one story, commonly the ground floor, has significantly less rigidity and/or strength than the rest of the structure. This can form a weak link in the structure unless special design features are incorporated to give the building adequate structural integrity. Typical examples of soft-story construction are buildings with glass curtain walls on the first floor only, or buildings placed on stilts or columns, leaving the first story open for landscaping, street-friendly building entry, parking, or other purposes. In the early 1950s to early 1970s, soft-story buildings were a popular construction style for lowand midrise concrete frame structures.

Nonductile Concrete Frame Buildings. The brittleness of nonductile concrete frame buildings can result in major damage and even collapse under strong ground shaking. This type of construction, which generally lacks masonry shear walls, was common in the very early days of reinforced concrete buildings, and they continued to be built until the codes were changed to require ductility in the moment-resisting frame in 1973.

There were large numbers of these buildings built for commercial and light industrial use in California’s older, densely populated cities. Although many of these buildings have 4 to 8 stories, many are shorter. This category also includes one-story parking garages with heavy concrete roof systems supported by nonductile concrete columns.

The City of Ontario inventoried unreinforced masonry buildings in the City and reported to the State Seismic Safety Commission in 2005 that there were 58 such buildings in the City; 42 of these are considered historically significant (SSC 2005).

Other Geologic Hazards
Ground Subsidence
Ground subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of the ground surface with little or no horizontal movement, and most often results from human activities such as the extraction of oil, gas, or groundwater. Effects of subsidence include fissures, sinkholes, depressions, and disruption of surface drainage.

Subsidence resulting from oil and gas extraction is not an issue for Ontario. The City is above the Chino Subbasin of the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin, from which groundwater has been extracted for decades. The thick alluvial deposits composing the subbasin may be susceptible to compaction, with resulting subsidence at the surface, in the event of rapid 2 A structural roof deck capable of resisting the stress produced by lateral forces, such as wind or seismic loads. 2541

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
3 .7- 1 8
groundwater withdrawal. Surface subsidence of up to 2.5 feet and ground fissuring from groundwater production have been reported in Chino to the southwest of Ontario.

Groundwater elevation trends observed in Ontario groundwater wells from 2000 to 2024 ranged between rising 40 feet to lowering of 50 feet (Chino Basin Watermaster 2025). Pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014, the Chino Basin Watermaster is responsible for monitoring subsidence and making adjustments to groundwater storage and pumping within the adjudicated Chino Basin as needed to prevent future subsidence and fissuring.

Collapsible Soils
When collapsible soils become saturated, their grains rearrange and lose cohesion, causing rapid, substantial settlement under relatively light loads. Soils prone to collapse are generally young, deposited by flash floods or wind. Increased surface water infiltration, such as from irrigation or a rise in the groundwater table, combined with the weight of a building can cause rapid settlement and cracking of foundations and walls. Most of the alluvium that underlies the Ontario area is generally not susceptible to collapse due to the granular nature of the soils and the lack of clay needed to form dry bonds between grains.

Compressible Soils
Compressible soils are typically unconsolidated, low-density Holocene sediments that may compress under the weight of structures and fill soil. The young sediments underlying the City are generally dry and loose in the upper few feet, and therefore are susceptible to compression.

Areas that have been intensely farmed, such as much of Ontario Ranch, are especially susceptible to compression.

Expansive Soils
Soils containing expansive clay minerals can shrink or swell substantially as the moisture content decreases or increases. Structures built on these soils may experience shifting, cracking, and breaking as soils shrink and subside or expand. The near-surface sediments in the northern and central parts of the City are composed primarily of granular soils, that is, silty sand, sand, and gravel. Such sediments are usually nonexpansive or have very low expansion potential.

Expansive soils are more likely to be present in the southern parts of the City, where there are silts, sandy silts, and silty clays.

Erosion
Erosion is the movement of rock and soil due to water, wind, and gravity. Soil erosion may be a slow process that continues relatively unnoticed, or it may occur quickly, causing serious loss of topsoil. The rate and magnitude of soil erosion by water is controlled by rainfall intensity and runoff, soil texture and cohesion, slope gradient and length, and vegetation cover. The young alluvial sediment and wind-blown sand underlying the City are generally granular, poorly 2542

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.7 -19
consolidated, and very susceptible to erosion. Grading increases the potential for erosion by removing protective vegetation, changing natural drainage patterns, and constructing slopes.

Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. These are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its past ecological settings. There are two types of resources; vertebrate and invertebrate. These resources are found in geologic strata conducive to their preservation, typically sedimentary formations. Paleontological sites are those areas that show evidence of prehuman activity. Often they are simply small outcroppings visible on the surface or sites encountered during grading. While the sites are important, it is the geologic formations that are the most important, since they may contain important fossils. Potential sensitivity for the presence of paleontological resources is based on the underlying geologic formation. Fossil remains may occur throughout Ontario, although the area of their distribution is not known.

The potential for fossil occurrence depends on the rock type exposed at the surface in a given area.

The San Bernardino County Museum, Division of Geological Sciences, conducted the paleontological records search and found one previously known paleontological resource locality recorded by the Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory, a computer database with positional and contextual data for more than 3,000 fossil localities throughout California and the southwestern United States. This review found one paleontological locality for the City area (SBCM 5.1.8). This locality yielded the remains of a mammoth from approximately 20 feet below the ground surface.

The possibility of finding additional paleontological resources within City boundaries is moderate to high. Geologic maps indicate that the proposed project area is situated on surface exposures of recent alluvium. These sediments have low potential to yield fossil resources or to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. These recent sediments overlie older Pleistocene sediments with high potential to contain paleontological resources. Older Pleistocene alluvial sediments have yielded significant fossils of extinct plants and animals elsewhere in the Inland Empire. These older sediments, often found at depths of 10 feet or more below the ground surface, have yielded the fossil remains of plants and extinct terrestrial Pleistocene vertebrates. Significant vertebrate fossils from this age include Ice Age mammals such as camels, mammoths, mastodons, and ground sloths.

SPECIFIC PLAN
The geotechnical analysis prepared for the Specific Plan area was conducted in 2 parts, splitting the site between properties located east and west of Grove Avenue. The following discussions make this distinction where necessary.
2543

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
3 .7- 2 0
Soils
West
Artificial fill soils were encountered at the ground surface and beneath the open-graded gravel extending to depths of 1.5 to 6.5 feet below ground surface. The fill soils generally consist of loose to medium dense silty fine sands. Occasional layers of loose to medium dense silty fine to coarse sands and fine to coarse sands were encountered. The fill soils possess a disturbed and mottled appearance, with some samples possessing asphaltic concrete fragments and twine rope pieces, resulting in their classification as artificial fill.

Native alluvium was encountered beneath the fill at all of the boring locations during the geotechnical investigation. The native alluvium extends to at least 50 feet below ground surface, the maximum depth explored. The alluvial soils generally consist of loose to very dense fine sands, silty fine sands, fine sandy silts, and stiff to very stiff silty clays and fine sandy clays.

Occasional layers of medium dense to very dense silts, fine to coarse sands, clayey silts and clayey fine sands were encountered. In general, the alluvial soils possess trace to extensive amounts of iron oxide staining and calcareous nodules and veining. Occasional samples possess slight cementation and porosity, within the upper approximate 10 feet below ground surface (Appendix F1).

East
Artificial fill soils were encountered at the ground surface and below the pavements extending to depths of approximately 2.5 to 5.5 feet below ground surface. The fill soils generally consist of loose to medium dense fine sands, silty fine to coarse sands, loose/medium stiff clayey fine sands to fine sandy clays. The fill soils possess a disturbed and mottled appearance, resulting in their classification as artificial fill.

Native alluvium was encountered at the ground surface and beneath the fill or topsoil at the remaining borings. The native alluvium extends to at least the maximum depth explored of approximately 50 feet below ground surface. The alluvial soils generally consist of loose to dense fine sands, silty fine sands, fine sandy silts, fine to medium sands and stiff to very stiff silty clays. Occasional layers of medium dense/hard clayey fine sands, fine sandy clay and interbedded fine sand and silty fine sand, were encountered. The alluvium generally possesses trace to little iron oxide staining and calcareous nodules/veining (Appendix F2). 2544

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.7 -21
Groundwater
West
Free water was not encountered during the drilling of the borings conducted as part of the geotechnical investigation. Based on the lack of water within the borings and the moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, the static groundwater table was in excess of 50 feet deep at the time of the subsurface exploration.

A monitoring well on record is located approximately 4,300 feet northwest of the site. Water level readings within this well indicate a high groundwater level of approximately 135 feet below the ground surface in April 2020 (Appendix F1).

East
Free water was not encountered during the drilling of any of the on-site borings. Based on the lack of any water within the borings and the moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, the static groundwater table was more than 50 feet deep at the time of the subsurface exploration.

A monitoring well on record is located approximately 3,800 feet southwest of the site. Water level readings within this well indicate a high groundwater level of approximately 83 feet below the ground surface in June 2021. It should be noted that the ground surface elevation of the well is approximately 20 feet lower in elevation than the Specific Plan area (Appendix F2).

Seismic Hazards
The Specific Plan area is in an area that is subject to strong ground motions due to earthquakes.

Numerous faults capable of producing significant ground motions are located near the Specific Plan area. An active fault is defined by the California Geotechnical Survey (CGS) as a fault that has experienced surface displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years). The nearest active fault to the Specific Plan area is the Chino Fault, located approximately 3.6 miles south (CGS 2025).

Secondary hazards associated with earthquakes include surface rupture, ground failure, unstable soils and slopes. Each of these hazards is briefly described below.

Fault Rupture
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. Review of available maps indicates that the Specific Plan area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake 2545

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
3 .7- 2 2
Fault Zone. Furthermore, no evidence of faulting was identified during the geotechnical investigations (Appendix F1; Appendix F2).

Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the loss of strength in generally cohesionless, saturated soils when the porewater pressure induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or exceeds the overburden pressure. The primary factors which influence the potential for liquefaction include groundwater table elevation, soil type and plasticity characteristics, relative density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. The depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact surface improvements is generally identified as the upper 50 feet below the existing ground surface. Liquefaction potential is greater in saturated, loose, poorly graded fine sands with a mean (d50) grain size in the range of 0.075 to 0.2 mm.

Non-sensitive clayey (cohesive) soils which possess a plasticity index of at least 18 are generally not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction, nor are those soils which are above the historic static groundwater table.

Research of the San Bernardino County Land Use Services website indicates that the Specific Plan area is not located within a zone of liquefaction susceptibility. In addition, based on the lack of groundwater in the upper approximate 50 feet below ground surface, the subsurface conditions at the boring locations are not considered to be conducive to liquefaction (Appendix F1; Appendix F2).

Unstable Soils and Slopes
The overall site slopes downward to the south at a gradient of approximately one percent with localized variations, including berms and detention basins. Several berms were observed throughout the Specific Plan area with heights ranging from approximately 2 to 6 feet. Some of the dirt access roads are approximately 3 to 4 feet higher than adjacent site grades.

Additionally, the bottoms of the detention basins appear to be approximately one to 10 feet lower than the adjacent site grades. The maximum site elevation differential is approximately 23 feet (Appendix F1; Appendix F2).

Slope and Instability Hazards
Soil Erosion
Erosion is the movement of rock and soil due to water, wind, and gravity. Soil erosion may be a slow process that continues relatively unnoticed, or it may occur quickly, causing loss of topsoil.

The rate and magnitude of soil erosion by water is controlled by rainfall intensity and runoff, soil texture and cohesion, slope gradient and length, and vegetation cover. 2546

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.7 -23
The near-surface soils within the Specific Plan area contain appreciable amounts of silt and occasional clay and may become unstable if exposed to significant moisture infiltration or disturbance by construction traffic. Based on their granular content, some of the on-site soils would also be susceptible to erosion (Appendix F1; Appendix F2).

Settlement Potential
Settlement refers to unequal compression of a soil foundation, shrinkage, or undue loads being applied to a building after its initial construction that affects the soil foundation. The potential for seismically induced settlement within the Specific Plan area is considered low (Appendix F1; Appendix F2).

Shrinkage/Subsidence Potential
Subsidence is a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the ground surface (i.e., loss of elevation).

The principal causes of subsidence are aquifer-system compaction, drainage of organic soils, underground mining, and natural compaction. Shrinkage is the reduction in volume in soil as the water content of the soil drops (i.e., loss of volume). The potential for subsidence to affect the Specific Plan area is considered low (Appendix F1; Appendix F2).

Soil Expansion Potential
Expansive soils are soils that exhibit cyclic shrink and swell patterns in response to variations in moisture. Sites with expansive soils (expansion index>20) require special attention during design and maintenance.

The near surface soils for the western portion of the Specific Plan area generally consist of silty fine sands and sandy silts. These soils are expected to have a very low expansion potential (Appendix F2). The near surface soils for the eastern portion of the Specific Plan area generally consist of silty sands, sandy silts and fine sands with occasional thin layers of clayey sands and sandy clays. Laboratory testing indicates that these materials have a very low expansion potential (Appendix F2).

Paleontological Setting
The Specific Plan area is located on the distal margins of the broad alluvial floodplain of the ancestral Santa Ana River. The Specific Plan area is mapped as middle Holocene-aged young sandy alluvial fan deposits. These young deposits overlie middle to late Pleistocene-aged very old sandy alluvial fan deposits, which are mapped at the surface south of the Specific Plan area.

The occurrence of terrestrial vertebrate fossils at shallow depths from Pleistocene alluvial fan sediments in Ontario is well documented as these soils may contain high paleontological sensitivity.
2547

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
3 .7- 2 4
A field survey of the Specific Plan area and the entire limits of disturbance was conducted to determine if any paleontological resources were visible. Ground visibility of the Specific Plan area was limited due to active dairy operations, dense vegetation, development, pavement, and gravel. The entire Specific Plan area has been previously rough-graded, including the off-site improvement areas. No bedrock outcrops were exposed that might indicate the presence of fossils. No paleontological resources, or evidence of paleontological resources, were observed during the survey (Appendix F3).

3.7.3 Standards for Analysis

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to geology if it would:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. iv) Landslides.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.
2548

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.7 -25
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

METHODOLOGY
Specific Plan
The geotechnical analyses prepared for the Specific Plan area included a visual site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, field and laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analysis to evaluate the geotechnical feasibility of the proposed uses. The subsurface exploration consisted of nine hollow-stem auger borings advanced to depths of 25 to 50± feet below the existing site grades. Additionally, 2 hand augers were advanced to depths of 2± feet within the existing grasslands. The soil samples recovered from the subsurface exploration were then sent to a laboratory for further testing to evaluate selected physical and engineering properties of the soils.

A paleontological literature review and collections and locality records search was conducted for the Specific Plan area using records from the Division of Geological Sciences at the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM) and the Western Science Center (WSC) in Hemet, and data from existing paleontological literature. The field methodology included walking evenly spaced survey transects set approximately 10 to 15 meters apart while visually inspecting the ground surface, when possible. All potentially sensitive areas where paleontological resources might be located were closely inspected.

3.7.4 Relevant New and Modified General Plan Policies
There are no new and modified general plan policies applicable to geology and soils.

3.7.5 Environmental Impacts
2022 CERTIFIED EIR
The Certified EIR identified that development of the approved project would adhere to the California Building Code to ensure residents, employees, or visitors in Ontario would not be adversely affected by potential seismic-related hazards. Additionally, the Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The approved project would also not exacerbate geologic hazards in the City, such as on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Development associated with the approved project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

Development pursuant to the approved project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems that would not be supported by soils in the City. 2549

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
3 .7- 2 6
The Certified EIR concluded that implementation of the approved project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource; however, paleontological resources impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

PROPOSED PROJECT
a) Would the project subject residents [or occupants, visitors, etc.] to potential seismicrelated hazards, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. iv) Landslides.

The 2022 Certified EIR found that policies of the Approved Project, and state regulations would ensure that the potential impacts from seismic-related hazards would be less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
Earthquakes
The Upper Santa Ana River Valley and vicinity contain a number of known earthquake faults, which are described above and shown on Figure 5.7-2. The City of Ontario is not within any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CGS 2025). Of the faults listed, the southern section of the San Andreas Fault is estimated to be capable of generating the greatest magnitude earthquake,

8.0. The most intense peak horizontal ground acceleration that any of these faults is estimated to be capable of generating in Ontario is approximately 0.54 g by the Chino Fault, which passes approximately 4 miles from the southwestern City boundary.

Although there are a number of know earthquake faults in the vicinity, any future projects considered for approval would be required to comply with seismic safety provisions of the CBC (Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations). Such compliance would reduce hazards arising from ground shaking to less than significant.
2550

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.7 -27
Liquefaction
Based on the groundwater levels throughout the City being greater than 50 feet below ground surface, there is currently no potential for liquefaction (Chino Basin Watermaster 2025).

Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Seismically Induced Settlement
The Ontario area is underlain by young, unconsolidated alluvial deposits and artificial fill that may be susceptible to seismically induced settlement (see Figure 5.7-1). Implementation of the proposed project could indirectly increase the number of people and structures exposed to earthquake-related hazards. Projects developed under the proposed project would be required to comply with the most current seismic safety standards in the CBC. Chapter 16 of the CBC establishes design and construction requirements to address structural loads, including earthquake forces, and Chapter 18 includes standards for excavation, grading, fill, and foundation design. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Based on the preceding, the proposed project would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
Ground Rupture
There are no known active or potentially active faults on or trending toward the Specific Plan area. Research of available maps indicates that the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No evidence of faulting was identified during the geotechnical investigations (Appendix F1: Appendix F2). As with the findings of the 2022 Certified EIR, the potential for the Specific Plan to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects related to rupture of a known earthquake fault is considered less than significant.

Seismic Ground Shaking
The Specific Plan area is located in a seismically active area of southern California and is expected to experience moderate to severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the on-site uses. The risk is not substantially different than the risk to other properties throughout the southern California area. As a mandatory condition of approval, future development within the Specific Plan area would be required to construct buildings and associated structures in accordance with the California Building Standards Code (CBSC) and the Ontario Development Code. The CBSC and Ontario Development Code, which have been specifically tailored for 2551

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
3 .7- 2 8
California earthquake conditions, provide building standards that must be met to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures. In addition, the CBSC (Chapter 18) requires development sites to be evaluated in preliminary soil reports to identify site-specific geologic and seismic conditions and provide sitespecific recommendations to preclude adverse effects involving unstable soils and strong seismic ground-shaking, including, but not limited to, recommendations related to ground stabilization, selection of appropriate foundation type and depths, and selection of appropriate structural systems. The geotechnical investigations prepared for the Specific Plan area include recommendations for design, construction, and grading considerations based on the Specific Plan area’s geological conditions. These geotechnical investigations comply with the requirements of Chapter 18 of the CBSC. Mandatory compliance with these standards and sitespecific design and construction measures would ensure future development associated with the Specific Plan would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including loss, injury or death, involving seismic ground shaking. As with the findings of the 2022 Certified EIR, impacts would be less than significant.

Seismic-Related Ground Failure
Subsurface conditions within the Specific Plan area are not considered susceptible to liquefaction. Future development implemented pursuant to the Specific Plan would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable seismic safety guidelines, including the standard requirements of the CBSC, as noted above. Furthermore, the Specific Plan would be required (via conditions of approval, as required by the Ontario Municipal Code) to comply with the grading and construction recommendations contained within the geotechnical investigations for the Specific Plan area to further reduce the risk of seismicrelated ground failure. As with the findings of the 2022 Certified EIR, the potential for the Specific Plan to expose people or structures to substantial hazards associated with seismicrelated ground failure is considered less than significant.

Landslides
The Specific Plan area is essentially flat, as is the immediately surrounding area. The Specific Plan area slopes downward to the south at a gradient of about one percent with localized variations, including berms and detention basins. The geotechnical investigations prepared for the Specific Plan area include retaining wall design recommendations for future development, which would ensure their structural soundness. These recommendations would be incorporated into the design and verified by the City during the plan check and permit issuance process.

Mandatory compliance with the recommendations in the geotechnical investigations would ensure that the EBPSP area is engineered and constructed to maximize stability and preclude safety hazards to on-site and abutting off-site areas. Accordingly, the Specific Plan area would not be exposed to substantial landslide risks, and implementation of Specific Plan land uses 2552

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.7 -29
would not pose a substantial direct or indirect landslide risk to surrounding properties. Impacts would be less than significant.

Based on the preceding, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant Impact GEO-1: Development of proposed project would adhere to the California Building Code to ensure residents, employees, or visitors in Ontario would not be adversely affected by potential seismic-related hazards.

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

New Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are warranted. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The 2022 Certified EIR found that policies of the approved project and state regulations would ensure that the potential impacts from erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
The young alluvial sediment and windblown sand underlying the City are generally granular, poorly consolidated, and very susceptible to erosion. Grading increases the potential for erosion by removing protective vegetation, changing natural drainage patterns, and constructing slopes.

Any future project developed consistent with the proposed project would be required to comply with the CBC and undergo review of grading plans for individual projects by the City Engineer which would ensure no significant impacts would occur. In addition, construction activities on project sites larger than one acre are required to prepare a SWPPP that details BMPs to reduce the potential for erosion during construction activities. The proposed project would result in an increase in land use intensity, but would not result in the development of new or previously 2553

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
3 .7- 3 0
undeveloped areas in the city. Therefore, with compliance of safety provision, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
Construction
Development of the Specific Plan area would result in the demolition of all structures on-site.

Additionally, grading and construction activities would occur that would expose and disturb soils that are currently covered by impervious surfaces. Disturbed soils would be subject to potential erosion during rainfall events or high winds due to the removal of stabilizing vegetation and building materials (e.g., existing concrete foundations) and exposure of these erodible materials to wind and water. Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit). The NPDES permit is required for all development projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation, that disturb at least one acre of total land area. In addition, the Specific Plan would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program. Compliance with the NPDES permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction-related activities. The SWPPP would specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the applicant would be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that waterborne pollution—including erosion/sedimentation—is prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to surface runoff being discharged from the site. Examples of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydro-seeding. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP would ensure that the Specific Plan’s implementation does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities.

Operations
At buildout, the Specific Plan area would be covered by buildings, landscaping, and impervious surfaces. Land uses implemented pursuant to the EBPSP would be required to implement erosion control measures pursuant to Ontario Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 12. Stormwater runoff from the Specific Plan area would be captured, treated to reduce waterborne pollutants (including sediment), and conveyed off-site via an on-site storm drain system. Design for the onsite storm drain system improvements in the Specific Plan area would utilize a variety of Low Impact Development (LID) design concepts to detain, filter, and treat surface runoff. 2554

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.7 -31
The applicant would be required to prepare and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to demonstrate compliance with the City’s NPDES municipal stormwater permit, and to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters. The WQMP is a site-specific post-construction water quality management program designed to address the potential release of pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters and other water pollutants through the use of BMPs.

Implementation of the WQMP ensures on-going, long-term protection of the watershed basin.

The Preliminary WQMP for the Specific Plan is included as Technical Appendix H2 to this SEIR.

Summary
Potential erosion impacts incurred during construction activities would be less than significant with mandated compliance with a City-approved SWPPP, as well as compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules that prohibit grading activities and site disturbance during high wind events. At Specific Plan buildout, potential soil erosion impacts would not occur, as pavement, roads, buildings, and landscaping would cover previously exposed soils.

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

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact GEO-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

New Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are warranted. 2555

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
3 .7- 3 2
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? The 2022 Certified EIR found that policies of the approved project and state regulations would ensure that the potential impacts from geology and soils hazards would be less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
Ground Subsidence
The thick alluvial deposits comprising the Chino Subbasin may be susceptible to compaction, with resulting subsidence at the surface, in the event of rapid groundwater withdrawal. Surface subsidence of up to 2.5 feet and ground fissuring from groundwater extraction have been reported in Chino. Projects considered for approval under proposed project could expose structures or persons to potentially significant hazards from ground subsidence; however, compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans for individual projects by the City Engineer would ensure no significant impacts would occur.

Compressible Soils
The young sediments underlying the City are generally dry and loose in the upper few feet, and therefore are susceptible to compression. Much of the Ontario Ranch has been intensively farmed and is especially susceptible to compression. Developments approved pursuant to proposed project could expose persons or structures to potentially significant hazards from compressible soils; however, compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans for individual projects by the City Engineer would ensure no significant impacts would occur.

Summary
The proposed project would have similar geological hazards as the current TOP 2050. This is because while the proposed project would result in an increase in land use intensity, it would not result in development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the City. After compliance with the safety provisions of the CBC implementation of proposed project would have less-thansignificant impacts from geologic hazards. The proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to geology and soils compared to the approved project. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 2556

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.7 -33
Specific Plan
Landslide
The Specific Plan area is relatively flat, as is the immediately surrounding area. The site slopes downward to the south at a gradient of approximately one percent with localized variations, including berms and detention basins. As noted in the response to Threshold a, the geotechnical investigations include recommendations for retaining walls and manufactured slopes which would be incorporated into the design and verified by the City during the plan check and permit issuance process.

Subsidence
There is a low potential for subsidence to affect the Specific Plan area (Appendix F1; Appendix F2). Removal and recompaction of the near-surface existing soils is estimated to result in an average shrinkage of 5 to 15 percent for the western side and 6 to 14 percent for the eastern side of the Specific Plan area. Minor ground subsidence is expected to occur in the soils below the zone of removal, due to settlement and machinery working. The subsidence is estimated to be 0.10 feet (Appendix F1; Appendix F2).

Lateral Spreading and Liquefaction
Lateral spreading is primarily associated with liquefaction hazards. As noted above, the Specific Plan area is not susceptible to liquefaction. As such, there is a low potential for lateral spreading to affect the EBPSP.

Summary
The Specific Plan would be required to comply with the site-specific ground preparation and construction recommendations contained in the geotechnical investigations through the City’s conditions of approval. As such, the potential for the EBPSP be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse is considered less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 2557

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
3 .7- 3 4
Impact GEO-3 The City of Ontario would not exacerbate geologic hazards in the City, such as on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.

New Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are warranted. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
The 2022 Certified EIR found that policies of the approved project and state regulations would ensure that the potential impacts from geology and soils hazards would be less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils are likely in the southern parts of the City, where there are silts, sandy silts, and silty clays. Near-surface soils in the northern and central parts of the City are primarily granular, that is, silty sand, sand, and gravel; such sediments are usually nonexpansive or have very low expansion potential. Future projects in the southern part of the City could expose persons or structures to potentially significant hazards from expansive soils. However, compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans for individual projects by the City Engineer would ensure no significant impacts would occur.

The Policy Plan Amendment would have similar impacts from expansive soils as the current TOP 2050. Therefore, after compliance with the safety provisions of the CBC, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 2558

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.7 -35
Specific Plan
The near surface soils for the western side of the Specific Plan area generally consist of silty fine sands and sandy silts. These soils are expected to have a very low expansion potential (Appendix F1). The near surface soils for the eastern side of the Specific Plan area generally consist of silty sands, sandy silts and fine sands with occasional thin layers of clayey sands and sandy clays. Laboratory testing indicates that these materials also have a very low expansion potential (Appendix F2). No design considerations related to expansive soils are warranted for the Specific Plan area.

Accordingly, the Specific Plan would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property associated with the presence of expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact GEO-4: Development associated with proposed project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

New Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are warranted. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The 2022 Certified EIR found that policies of the approved project, and state regulations would ensure that the potential impacts from geology and soils hazards would be less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
As further discussed in section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, wastewater from Ontario is treated at wastewater treatment facilities owned and operated by the IEUA. Use of septic tanks 2559

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
3 .7- 3 6
would be limited to existing septic tanks, and new septic tanks would be constricted to areas not in practical proximity to existing sewer mains, dependent on approval by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board on a case-by-case basis. The proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to geology and soils compared to the approved project. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
The Specific Plan would install new sewer lines in Walker Avenue, Grove Avenue, Bon View Avenue, and Campus Avenue, and if needed, in Public Street ‘A’. All existing on-site septic systems would be removed. Land uses implemented pursuant to the Specific Plan would not utilize septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems. No impact related to the use of alternative wastewater systems would occur. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: No impact.

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

New Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are warranted. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The 2022 Certified EIR found that buildout of the approved project would not result in impacts to paleontological resources with mitigation.
2560

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.7 -37
Policy Plan Amendment
Geologic Features
As identified in Section 3.7.2, the geologic units exposed at the surface in Ontario consist of sediments less than 11,000 years old (Holocene) deposited either by water or wind. Such geology is common throughout the City and region and is not considered unique.

Paleontological Resources
Ontario is underlain by deposits of Quaternary and upper-Pleistocene sediments deposited during Pliocene and early Pleistocene time. Quaternary Older Alluvial sediments may contain significant, nonrenewable, paleontological resources and are therefore considered to have high sensitivity. Older Pleistocene alluvial sediments can yield fossil remains, often found at depths of 10 feet or more below existing ground surface. As previously discussed, the San Bernardino County Museum, Division of Geological Sciences, conducted the paleontological records search and found one previously known paleontological resource locality recorded by the Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory, a computer database with positional and contextual data for more than 3,000 fossil localities throughout California and the southwestern United States. This review found one paleontological locality for the City area (SBCM 5.1.8). This locality yielded the remains of a mammoth from approximately 20 feet below the ground surface. As a result, the possibility of finding additional paleontological resources within City boundaries is moderate to high at depths of 10 feet or more below ground surface.

Existing federal, state, and local regulations address the provisions of studies to identify paleontological resources, review applications for projects that would potentially involve land disturbance, provide a project-level standard condition of approval that addresses unanticipated paleontological discoveries, and enforces requirements to develop specific mitigation measures if resources are encountered during any development activity.

Paleontological resources are recognized as nonrenewable; and therefore receive protection under the California Public Resources Code (Section 21083.2) and CEQA. Long-term implementation of Policy Plan Amendment would allow development (e.g., new development, infill development, redevelopment, and revitalization/restoration), including grading, of known and unknown sensitive areas. Grading and construction activities of undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires more intensive soil excavation than in the past could potentially cause the disturbance of paleontological resources. Future development that would be accommodated by proposed project could potentially unearth previously unrecorded resources.

Therefore, the potential to uncover undiscovered archeological and paleontological resources is high. Like the approved project, paleontological resources impacts of proposed project would be potentially significant.
2561

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
3 .7- 3 8
Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant Specific Plan
The Specific Plan area is located on the distal margins of the broad alluvial floodplain of the ancestral Santa Ana River. The Specific Plan area is mapped as middle Holocene-aged young sandy alluvial fan deposits. These young deposits overlie middle to late Pleistocene-aged very old sandy alluvial fan deposits, which are mapped at the surface south of the Specific Plan area.

A field survey of the Specific Plan area and the entire limits of disturbance was conducted to determine if any paleontological resources were visible. No bedrock outcrops were exposed that might indicate the presence of fossils. No paleontological resources or evidence of paleontological resources were observed during the survey (Appendix F3).

Potentially fossiliferous late Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits likely occur at a shallow depth below the Specific Plan area. These deposits underlie the Holocene young alluvial fan deposits mapped at the surface. The occurrence of terrestrial vertebrate fossils at shallow depths from Pleistocene alluvial fan sediments in Ontario is well documented as these soils may contain high paleontological sensitivity.

In the event that the construction activities encroach into older alluvial fan deposits, construction could result in impacts to important paleontological resources if such resources are unearthed and not properly treated. Therefore, similar to the 2022 Certified EIR, the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource buried beneath the ground surface is potentially significant. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant.

Impact GEO-6: Implementation of TOP 2050 could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource.

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

Mitigation Measure GEO-1-PPA [Former MM 5-2]: In areas of documented or inferred from evident archaeological and/or paleontological resource presence, City staff shall 2562

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.7 -39
require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the presence/absence of such resources. On properties where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements:

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

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

Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by a San Bernardino County Certified Professional Archaeologist/Paleontologist. If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates, and other special studies; submit materials to a museum for permanent curation; and provide a comprehensive final report including a catalog with museum numbers.

New Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
No new mitigation measures are proposed.

Specific Plan
Based on the findings of the Paleontological Assessment and in accordance with previous Mitigation Measure GEO-1-PPA, a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) shall be prepared and implemented as required by Mitigation Measure GEO-1-SP.

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

1. All mitigation programs shall be performed by a qualified professional paleontologist, defined as an individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who has ■
■
■
2563

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
3 .7- 4 0
proven experience and who is knowledgeable in professional paleontological procedures and techniques. Fieldwork may be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor shall always work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist.

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

3. If a fossil(s) is found at a shallower depth, earth disturbance activities should be halted within a radius of 50 feet from the location of the fossil, and the paleontologist shall be consulted to determine the significance of the fossilized remains. If the fossil is deemed significant by the paleontologist, fulltime monitoring should be initiated at the site.

4. Paleontological monitors will be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment from the affected area to allow removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface or, if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources. The monitor shall notify the paleontologist, who will then notify the concerned parties of the discovery.

5. Paleontological salvage during trenching and boring activities is typically from the generated spoils and does not delay the trenching or drilling activities. Fossils will be collected and placed in cardboard flats or plastic buckets and identified by field number, collector, and date collected. Notes will be taken on the map location and stratigraphy of the site, which will be photographed before it is vacated, and the fossils are removed to a safe place. On mass grading projects, discovered fossil sites will be protected by flagging to prevent them from being overrun by earthmovers (scrapers) before salvage begins. Fossils will be collected in a similar manner, with notes and photographs being taken before removing the fossils. The precise location of the site is determined with the use of electronic handheld devices. If the site involves remains from a large terrestrial vertebrate, such as large bone(s) or a mammoth tusk, that is/are too large to be easily removed by a single monitor, a 2564

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.7 -41
fossil recovery crew shall excavate around the find, encase the find within a plaster and burlap jacket, and remove it after the plaster is set. For large fossils, use of the contractor’s construction equipment may be solicited to help move the jacket to a safe location.

6. Isolated fossils will be collected by hand, wrapped in protective materials, and placed in temporary collecting flats or five-gallon buckets. Notes will be taken on the map location and stratigraphy of the site, which will be photographed before it is vacated, and the fossils are moved to a safe place.

7. Particularly small invertebrate fossils typically represent multiple specimens of a limited number of organisms, and a scientifically suitable sample can be obtained from one to several 5-gallon buckets of fossiliferous sediment. If it is possible to dry screen the sediment in the field, a concentrated sample may consist of one or two buckets of material.

8. In accordance with the “Microfossil Salvage” section of the SVP guidelines (2010:7), bulk sampling and screening of fine-grained sedimentary deposits (including carbonate-rich paleosols) must be performed if the deposits are identified to possess indications of producing fossil “microvertebrates” to test the feasibility of the deposit to yield fossil bones and teeth. If indicators of potential microvertebrate fossils are found, screening of a test sample (approximately 600 pounds) is recommended, according to the SVP guidelines. If feasible, wet screening shall be conducted on the site. If screening yields significant fossils, then removing and processing a “standard sample” of 6,000 pounds shall be performed. If the test sample screening does not yield significant fossils, the standard sample screening is not performed.

9. In the laboratory, individual fossils will be cleaned of extraneous matrix, any breaks will be repaired, and the specimen, if needed, will be stabilized by soaking in an archivally approved acrylic hardener (e.g., a solution of acetone and Paraloid B-72).

10. Recovered specimens will be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation (not display), including screen-washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Preparation of individual vertebrate fossils is often more time-consuming than for accumulations of invertebrate fossils.

11. Recovered specimens will be identified and curated into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and 2565

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
3 .7- 4 2
permanent retrievable storage (e.g., the San Bernardino County Museum). The paleontological program should include a written repository agreement prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. Prior to curation, the lead agency (the City of Ontario) will be consulted on the repository/museum to receive the fossil material.

12. A final report of findings and significance will be prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location(s). The report, when submitted to and accepted by the City of Ontario, will signify satisfactory completion of the program to mitigate impacts to any potential nonrenewable paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) that might have been lost or otherwise adversely affected without such a program in place.

Significance After Mitigation
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure GEO-1-PPA [Prior MM 5-2] requires that in the event of an unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources during grading and excavation of the site, a qualified paleontologist would assess the find and develop a course of action to preserve the find.

Therefore, Mitigation Measure GEO-1-PPA would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a level that is less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
The paleontological monitoring plan required by Mitigation Measure GEO-1-SP would mitigate any adverse impacts (loss or destruction) to potential nonrenewable paleontological resources (fossils), if present.

Specific Plan Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant.

3.7.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Proposed Project
The land use changes of the Policy Plan Amendment are comprehensive and encompasses the land use changes associated with the EBPSP and the concurrent Zoning changes. Therefore, cumulative impacts for the proposed project are described below. 2566

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.7 -43
Geological Hazards
Geology and soils impacts related to the proposed project would be specific to the sites of each development or redevelopment project under proposed project. Compliance with applicable state and local building regulations would be required of all development projects. Site-specific geologic hazards would be addressed by the geotechnical report required for each development project. The geologic investigation would identify the specific geologic and seismic characteristics on a site and provide guidelines for engineering design and construction to maintain the structural integrity of proposed structures and infrastructure. Therefore, compliance with applicable state and local building regulations and standard engineering practices related to seismic and geologic hazard reduction would prevent significant cumulative adverse impacts associated with geologic and seismic hazards. Impacts of the proposed project on geology and soils would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Paleontological Resources
The area considered for cumulative impacts for paleontological resources is the City of Ontario.

Projects in the City of Ontario and would comply with federal and state regulations governing the treatment of paleontological resources. Mitigation measures for the Policy Plan Amendment (MM GEO-1-PPA) and the Specific Plan (MM GEO-1-SP) would ensure that impacts to paleontological resources are less than significant and would be less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts: The proposed project’s contribution to cumulative geology and soils impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

3.7.7 References
BFSA. 2025. Paleontological Assessment for the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan Project. (Appendix F3)
CGS (California Geological Survey). 2025. Fault Activity Map of California. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/.

Chino Basin Watermaster. 2025. 2024 State of the Basin: Chino Groundwater Basin. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/7bdd20e4ec6b43aab2858bb1236c6079.

SCEDC (Southern California Earthquake Data Center) 2025. Earthquake Catalogs database. https://scedc.caltech.edu/earthquake/chronological.html. 2567

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .7 G E OLO G Y AN D SOI LS
3 .7- 4 4
SocalGeo. 2022a. Geotechnical Feasibility Study NWC Eucalyptus Avenue and Grove Avenue. (Appendix F1)
SocalGeo. 2022b. Geotechnically Feasibility Study NEC Eucalyptus Avenue and Grove Avenue. (Appendix F2)
SSC (Seismic Safety Commission). 2005. Status of the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law: 2004 Report to the Legislature. SSC 2005-02. https://ssc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/ 9/2020/08/cssc_2005-02_Urm.pdf.

USGS (US Geological Survey). 2025. Interactive Quaternary Faults database. https://usgs.maps .arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf88412fcf. 2568

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .8 -1

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) evaluates the potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts of the TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment and the EBPSP (proposed project) compared to the current TOP (approved project) and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Because no single project is large enough to result in a measurable increase in global concentrations of GHG, climate change impacts of a project are considered on a cumulative basis. This evaluation is based on the methodology recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). Cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions are based on GHG emissions in California.

GHG emissions modeling for the TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment is included in Appendix C1 of this SEIR. Transportation-sector impacts are based on trip generation and vehicle miles traveled (VMT), as provided by Fehr & Peers (Appendix K1). The GHG analysis for the EBPSP is included in Appendix C6 of this SEIR.

Terminology
Greenhouse gases (GHG). Gases in the atmosphere that absorb infrared light, thereby retaining heat in the atmosphere and contributing to a greenhouse effect.

Global warming potential (GWP). Metric used to describe how much heat a molecule of a greenhouse gas absorbs relative to a molecule of carbon dioxide (CO2) over a given period of time (20, 100, and 500 years). CO2 has a GWP of 1.

Carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e). The standard unit to measure the amount of greenhouse gases in terms of the amount of CO2 that would cause the same amount of warming. CO2e is based on the GWP ratios between the various GHGs relative to CO2. MTCO2e. Metric ton of CO2e.

MMTCO2e. Million metric tons of CO2e.

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases, known as GHGs, to the atmosphere. The primary source of these GHGs is fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified 4 major GHGs—water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3)—that are the likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed in the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHGs identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to ■
■
■
■
■
2569

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 2
a lesser extent are nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons (IPCC 2001).1,2 The major GHGs applicable to the proposed project are briefly described.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and respiration, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.

Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil.

Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and from the decay of organic waste in landfills and water treatment facilities.

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as well as during the combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.

GHGs are dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere.

Some GHGs have a stronger greenhouse effect than others. These are referred to as high GWP gases. The GWP of GHG emissions are shown in Table 3.8-1, GHG Emissions and Their Relative Global Warming Potential. The GWP is used to convert GHGs to CO2-equivalence (CO2e) to show the relative potential that different GHGs have to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. For example, under IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), GWP values for CH4, 10 MT of CH4 would be equivalent to 280 MT of CO2. 1 Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals); however, water vapor is not considered a pollutant because it is considered part of the feedback loop rather than a primary cause of change. 2
Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly, by absorbing sunlight, and indirectly, by depositing on snow (making it melt faster) and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Black carbon is the most strongly light-absorbing component of particulate matter (PM) emitted from burning fuels such as coal, diesel, and biomass. The share of black carbon emissions from transportation is dropping rapidly and is expected to continue to do so between now and 2030 as a result of California’s air quality programs. The remaining black carbon emissions will come largely from woodstoves/fireplaces, off-road applications, and industrial/commercial combustion (CARB 2022). However, state and national GHG inventories do not include black carbon due to ongoing work resolving the precise global warming potential of black carbon. Guidance for CEQA documents does not yet include black carbon.
■
■
■
2570

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .8 -3
Table 3.8-1 GHG Emissions and Their Relative Global Warming Potential GHGs
Fourth Assessment
Report (AR4)
GWP Relative to CO2
1 Fifth Assessment
Report (AR5)
GWP Relative to CO2
1 Sixth Assessment
Report (AR6)
GWP Relative to CO2 1 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 1 1 1
Methane2(CH4) 25 28 30
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 298 265 273
Source: IPCC 2007, 2013, and 2023.

Notes: GWP = global warming potential. The IPCC published updated GWP values in its Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) that reflect latest information on atmospheric lifetimes of GHGs and an improved calculation of the radiative forcing of CO2. However, GWP values identified in AR5 are used by the 2022 Scoping Plan for long-term emissions forecasting.

1. Based on 100 year time horizon of the GWP of the air pollutant compared to CO2.

2. The methane GWP includes direct effects and indirect effects due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. The indirect effect due to the production of CO2 is not included.

HUMAN INFLUENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE
For approximately 1,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere remained relatively constant. During the 20th century, however, scientists observed a rapid change in the climate and the quantity of climate change pollutants in the Earth’s atmosphere that is attributable to human activities.

The recent IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) summarizes the latest scientific consensus on climate change. It finds that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have increased by 50 percent since the Industrial Revolution and continue to increase at a rate of two parts per million each year. By the 2030s, and no later than 2040, the world will exceed 1.5°C warming (CARB 2022).

These recent changes in the quantity and concentration of climate change pollutants far exceed the extremes of the ice ages, and the global mean temperature is warming at a rate that cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Human activities are directly altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of climate change pollutants (CAT 2006). In the past, gradual changes in the Earth’s temperature changed the distribution of species, availability of water, and other conditions. Human activities are accelerating this process so that environmental impacts associated with climate change no longer occur in a geologic time frame but within a human lifetime (IPCC 2007).

Like the variability in the projections of the expected increase in global surface temperatures, the environmental consequences of gradual changes in the Earth’s temperature are hard to predict. Projections of climate change depend heavily upon future human activity. Therefore, climate models are based on different emission scenarios that account for historical trends in emissions and on observations of the climate record that assess the human influence of the trend and projections for extreme weather events. Climate-change scenarios are affected by 2571

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 4
varying degrees of uncertainty. For example, there are varying degrees of certainty on the magnitude of the trends for:

Warmer and fewer cold days and nights over most land areas.

Warmer and more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas.

An increase in frequency of warm spells/heat waves over most land areas.

An increase in frequency of heavy precipitation events (or proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls) over most areas.

Larger areas affected by drought.

Intense tropical cyclone activity increases.

Increased incidence of extreme high sea level (excluding tsunamis).

POTENTIAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS FOR CALIFORNIA
There is at least a greater than 50 percent likelihood that global warming will reach or exceed

1.5°C in the near-term, even for the very low GHG emissions scenario (IPCC 2022). Climate change is already impacting California and will continue to affect it for the foreseeable future.

For example, the average temperature in most areas of California is already 1°F (~0.56°C) higher than historical levels, and some areas have seen average increases in excess of 2°F (~1.1°C) (CalOES 2020). The California Fourth Climate Change Assessment identifies the following climate change impacts under a business-as-usual scenario, in which no new actions are taken to curb GHG emissions:

Annual average daily high temperatures in California are expected to rise by 2.7°F by 2040,

5.8°F by 2070, and 8.8°F by 2100 compared to observed and modeled historical conditions.

These changes are statewide averages. Heat waves are projected to become longer, more intense, and more frequent.

Warming temperatures are expected to increase soil moisture loss and lead to drier seasonal conditions. Summer dryness may become prolonged, with soil drying beginning earlier in the spring and lasting longer into the fall and winter rainy season.

High heat increases the risk of death from cardiovascular, respiratory, cerebrovascular, and other diseases.

Droughts are likely to become more frequent and persistent through 2100.3 3 Overall, California has become drier over time, with five of the eight years of severe to extreme drought occurring between 2007 and 2016, and with unprecedented dry years in 2014 and 2015 (OEHHA 2018). ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2572

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .8 -5
Climate change is projected to increase the strength of the most intense precipitation and storm events affecting California.

Mountain ranges in California are already seeing a reduction in the percentage of precipitation falling as snow. Snowpack levels are projected to decline significantly by 2100 due to reduced snowfall and faster snowmelt.

Marine layer clouds are projected to decrease, though more research is needed to better understand their sensitivity to climate change.

Extreme wildfires (i.e., fires larger than 10,000 hectares or 24,710 acres) would occur 50 percent more frequently. The maximum area burned statewide may increase 178 percent by the end of the century.

Exposure to wildfire smoke is linked to increased incidence of respiratory illness.

Sea level rise is expected to continue to increase erosion of beaches, cliffs, and bluffs. (CalOES 2020)
Global climate change risks to California are shown in Table 3.8-2, Summary of GHG Emissions Risks to California, and include impacts to public health, water resources, agriculture, coastal sea level, forest and biological resources, and energy.

Table 3.8-2 Summary of GHG Emissions Risks to California Impact Category Potential Risk
Public Health Impacts Heat waves will be more frequent, hotter, and longer Fewer extremely cold nights
Poor air quality made worse
Higher temperatures increase ground-level ozone levels
Water Resources Impacts Decreasing Sierra Nevada snow pack Challenges in securing adequate water supply
Potential reduction in hydropower
Loss of winter recreation
Statewide precipitation has become increasingly variable from year to year, with the driest consecutive four years occurring from 2012 to 2015 (OEHHA 2018).
■
■
■
■
■
■
2573

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 6
Table 3.8-2 Summary of GHG Emissions Risks to California Impact Category Potential Risk
Agricultural Impacts Increasing temperature
Increasing threats from pests and pathogens
Expanded ranges of agricultural weeds
Declining productivity
Irregular blooms and harvests
Coastal Sea Level Impacts Accelerated sea level rise
Increasing coastal floods
Shrinking beaches
Worsened impacts on infrastructure
Forest and Biological Resource
Impacts
Increased risk and severity of wildfires
Lengthening of the wildfire season
Movement of forest areas
Conversion of forest to grassland
Declining forest productivity
Increasing threats from pest and pathogens
Shifting vegetation and species distribution
Altered timing of migration and mating habits
Loss of sensitive or slow-moving species
Energy Demand Impacts Potential reduction in hydropower Increased energy demand
Sources: CEC 2006, 2009; CCCC 2012; CNRA 2014; CalOES 2020.

3.8.1 Regulatory Framework
This section describes the federal, State, regional, and local regulations applicable to GHG emissions.

FEDERAL
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG emissions threaten the public health and welfare of the American people and that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat. The EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings do not impose any emission reduction requirements, but allow 2574

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .8 -7
the EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed in 2009 for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation (USEPA 2009).

To regulate GHGs from passenger vehicles, the EPA was required to issue an endangerment finding (USEPA 2025a). The finding identified emissions of 6 key GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and SF6—that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the United States and around the world. The first 3 are applicable to the proposed project’s GHG emissions inventory because they constitute the majority of GHG emissions, and according to guidance by the South Coast AQMD, are the GHG emissions that should be evaluated as part of a project’s GHG emissions inventory. In response to President Trump’s “Unleashing American Energy” EO, published on January 20, 2025, the EPA announced on March 12, 2025, its intention to reconsider regulations and actions that rely on the Endangerment Finding (Holland & Knight 2025). The March 12, 2025, announcement specifically targets the following, which impact GHG emissions:

Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) Plan
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards Multi-pollutant Emissions Standards for model year 2027 and Later Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicles
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Phase 3.

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards
On February 12, 2026, EPA finalized its rescission of the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding.

US Mandatory Reporting Rule for GHGs (2009)
In response to the endangerment finding, the EPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule that requires substantial emitters of GHG emissions (e.g., large stationary sources) to report GHG emissions data. Facilities that emit 25,000 MTCO2e or more per year are required to submit an annual report; however, under the announcement released by the USEPA on March 12, 2025, related to reconsideration of GHG reporting requirements, the EPA would rescind reporting requirements for a substantial portion of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) (covering most source categories) and would suspend reporting obligations for the remaining sectors (those under Subpart W of the GHGRP) until reporting year 2034 (Holland & Knight 2025).
■
■
■
■
■
2575

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 8
Federal Fuel Economy and Fuel Standards
Update to Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
The federal government issued new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in 2012 for model years 2017 to 2025, which required a fleet average of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) in 2025. On March 30, 2020, the EPA finalized an updated CAFE and GHG emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and established new standards covering model years 2021 through 2026, known as the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Final Rule for Model Years 2021 to 2026.

On June 7, 2024, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced final CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks built in model years 2027 to 2031 and final fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans built in model years 2030 to 2035. The final rules establish standards that would require an industry fleetwide average of approximately 50.4 mpg for passenger cars and light trucks in model year 2031, by increasing fuel economy by 2 percent year over year for passenger cars (model years 2027 to 2031) and for light trucks (model years 2029 to 2031). For heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, the final rule would increase fuel efficiency at a rate of 10 percent per year (model years 2030 to 2032) and 8 percent per year (model years 2033 to 2035) (NHTSA 2024).

Multi-pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles
In 2024, the EPA issued a final rule, “Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles,” that sets new, more protective standards to reduce harmful air pollutant emissions from light-duty and medium-duty vehicles starting with model year 2027 (USEPA 2025b).
2025 Rollback of CAFE and Federal Fuel Standards
While both the new CAFE standards and fuel standard are currently in effect, the Trump Administration directed the Department of Transportation to rescind and replace all existing CAFE standards and emissions standards on January 29, 2025. This action targeted regulations covering model years 2024 through 2035 for both light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles.

On June 6, 2025, the NHTSA published an interpretive rule that establishes the NHTSA’s authority to revise the CAFE standards without consideration of electric vehicles (EV). California currently has no authority to implement related standards.

On June 11, 2025, the NHTSA published the final rule, “Resetting the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program.” This rule does not immediately change current fuel economy standards; 2576

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .8 -9
however, the rule clarifies the NHTSA’s interpretation of its obligations for CAFE standards stemming from the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The rule asserts that some regulations, such as those established under previous presidential administrations, improperly considered EVs when identifying the “maximum feasibility” average fuel economy level upon which CAFE standards are developed, thereby establishing a legal foundation for future rollbacks of CAFE standards (NHTSA 2025).

STATE
Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in Executive Order (EO) S-03-05 and EO B-30-15, EO B-55-18, Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB) 32, AB 1279, and SB 375.

Executive Order S-03-05
EO S-03-05 was signed June 1, 2005, and set the following GHG reduction targets for the state:
2000 levels by 2010
1990 levels by 2020
80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050
Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act (2006) AB 32 was passed by the California State legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 tier of emissions reduction targets established in EO S-03-05. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) prepared the 2008 Scoping Plan to outline a plan to achieve the GHG emissions reduction targets of AB 32.

Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197
In September 2016, the California Governor signed SB 32 and AB 197 into law, making the EO B30-15 goal for year 2030 into a statewide mandated legislative target. AB 197 established a joint legislative committee on climate change policies and requires CARB to prioritize direct emissions reductions rather than the market-based cap-and-trade program for large stationary, mobile, and other sources.

Executive Order B-55-18
EO B-55-18, signed September 10, 2018, sets a goal “to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter.” EO B-55-18 directs CARB to work with relevant State agencies to ensure future Scoping Plans identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal. The goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 is in addition to other statewide goals, meaning not only should emissions be ■
■
■
2577

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 1 0
reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, but that, by no later than 2045, the remaining emissions be offset by equivalent net removals of CO2e from the atmosphere, including through sequestration in forests, soils, and other natural landscapes.

Assembly Bill 1279
On August 31, 2022, the California Legislature passed AB 1279, which requires California to achieve net-zero GHG emissions no later than 2045 and to achieve and maintain negative GHG emissions thereafter. Additionally, AB 1279 also establishes a GHG emissions reduction goal of 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. CARB will be required to update the scoping plan to identify and recommend measures to achieve the net-zero and GHG emissions-reduction goals. 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan
CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) on December 15, 2022, which lays out a path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier and to reduce the state’s anthropogenic (human-caused) GHG emissions (CARB 2022). The Scoping Plan provides updates to the previously adopted 2017 Scoping Plan and addresses the carbon neutrality goals of EO B-55-18 and the ambitious GHG reduction target as directed by AB 1279.

Previous Scoping Plans focused on specific GHG reduction targets for our industrial, energy, and transportation sectors—to meet 1990 levels by 2020, and then the more aggressive 40 percent below that for the 2030 target. The 2022 Scoping Plan updates the target of reducing anthropogenic emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. Carbon neutrality takes it one step further by expanding actions to capture and store carbon including through natural and working lands and mechanical technologies, while drastically reducing anthropogenic sources of carbon pollution at the same time.

The path forward was informed by the recent Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the IPCC and the measures would achieve 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279.

CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan identifies strategies as shown in Table 3.8-3, Priority Strategies for Local Government Climate Action Plans, which would be most impactful at the local level for ensuring substantial progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goals. 2578

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.8 -11
Table 3.8-3 Priority Strategies for Local Government Climate Action Plans Priority Area Priority Strategies
Transportation
Electrification
Convert local government fleets to zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) and provide EV charging at public sites.

Create a jurisdiction-specific ZEV ecosystem to support deployment of ZEVs statewide (such as building standards that exceed state building codes, permit streamlining, infrastructure siting, consumer education, preferential parking policies, and ZEV readiness plans).

VMT Reduction Reduce or eliminate minimum parking standards.

Implement Complete Streets policies and investments, consistent with general plan circulation element requirements.

Increase access to public transit by increasing density of development near transit, improving transit service by increasing service frequency, creating bus priority lanes, reducing or eliminating fares, microtransit, etc.

Increase public access to clean mobility options by planning for and investing in electric shuttles, bike share, car share, and walking
Implement parking pricing or transportation demand management pricing strategies.

Amend zoning or development codes to enable mixed-use, walkable, transitoriented, and compact infill development (such as increasing allowable density of the neighborhood).

Preserve natural and working lands by implementing land use policies that guide development toward infill areas and do not convert “greenfield” land to urban uses (e.g., green belts, strategic conservation easements)
Building
Decarbonization
Adopt all-electric new construction reach codes for residential and commercial uses.

Adopt policies and incentive programs to implement energy efficiency retrofits for existing buildings, such as weatherization, lighting upgrades, and replacing energyintensive appliances and equipment with more efficient systems (such as Energy Star-rated equipment and equipment controllers).

Adopt policies and incentive programs to electrify all appliances and equipment in existing buildings such as appliance rebates, existing building reach codes, or time of sale electrification ordinances.

Facilitate deployment of renewable energy production and distribution and energy storage on privately owned land uses (e.g., permit streamlining, information sharing).

Deploy renewable energy production and energy storage directly in new public projects and on existing public facilities (e.g., solar photovoltaic systems on rooftops of municipal buildings and on canopies in public parking lots, battery storage systems in municipal buildings).

Source: CARB 2022.
2579

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 1 2
Based on Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan, for residential and mixed-use development projects, CARB recommends first demonstrating that these land use development projects are aligned with State climate goals based on the attributes of land use development that reduce operational GHG emissions while advancing fair housing. Attributes that accommodate growth in a manner consistent with the GHG and equity goals of SB 32 have all the following attributes:

Transportation Electrification
Provide electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure that, at a minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary standards in the California Green Building Standards Code at the time of project approval.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction
Locate projects on infill sites that are surrounded by existing urban uses and reuse or redevelop previously undeveloped or underutilized land that is presently served by existing utilities and essential public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer).

The project does not result in the loss or conversion of the State’s natural and working lands.

The project consists of transit-supportive densities (minimum of 20 residential dwelling units/acre), or is in proximity to existing transit stops (within a half mile), or satisfies more detailed and stringent criteria specified in the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).

The project reduces parking requirements by: - Eliminating parking requirements or including maximum allowable parking ratios (i.e., the ratio of parking spaces to residential units or square feet); or - Providing residential parking supply at a ratio of <1 parking space per dwelling unit; or - For multifamily residential development, require parking costs to be unbundled from costs to rent or own a residential unit.

At least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income residents.

Result in no net loss of existing affordable units.

Building Decarbonization
Uses all electric appliances without any natural gas connections and does not use propane or other fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking. (CARB 2022) The second approach to project-level alignment with State climate goals is net-zero GHG emissions, especially for new residential development. The third approach to demonstrating project-level alignment with State climate goals is to align with GHG thresholds of significance, ■
■
■
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2580

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.8 -13
which many local air quality management and air pollution control districts have developed or adopted (CARB 2022).

Senate Bill 375
SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, was adopted in 2008 to connect the GHG emissions reduction targets established in the 2008 Scoping Plan for the transportation sector to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Its intent is to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long-range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations to local land use planning to reduce VMT and vehicle trips. Specifically, SB 375 required CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPO). The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the MPO for the Southern California region, which includes Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial Counties. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee, CARB adopted per capita reduction targets for each of the MPOs rather than a total magnitude reduction target.

Update to the SB 375 Targets
Pursuant to the recommendations of the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee, CARB adopted per capita reduction targets for each of the MPOs rather than a total magnitude reduction target. CARB is required to update the targets for the MPOs every eight years. In June 2017, CARB released updated targets and technical methodology, and then released another update in February 2018, which became effective in October 2018 (CARB 2018). All sustainable communities strategies (SCS) adopted after October 1, 2018, are subject to these new targets.

The SB 375 targets are in units of percent per capita reduction in GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks compared to 2005. This excludes reductions anticipated from implementation of state technology and fuels strategies and any potential future state strategies such as statewide road user pricing. The proposed targets call for greater per capita GHG emission reductions from SB 375 than are currently in place, which for 2035 translates into proposed targets that either match or exceed the emission reduction levels in an MPO’s currently adopted SCS. CARB staff began the target update process in 2024 with a public workshop and plans to conclude it in 2026 with Board approval of the new targets (CARB 2025a).

Additional GHG Sector-Specific Regulations
Table 3.8-4, GHG Sector-Specific Regulations, lists specific sector regulations that help reduce GHG emissions.
2581

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 1 4
Table 3.8-4 GHG Sector-Specific Regulations
Sector Regulations
Transportation AB 1493, EO S-01-07, EO B-16-2012, EO N-79-20 Renewables Portfolio: Carbon
Neutrality Regulations
SB 1078, SB 107, SB X1-2, EO S-14-08, SB 350, SB 100, SB 1020 Energy Efficiency California Building Code: Building Energy Efficiency Standards, California Building Code: CALGreen, 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
Solid Waste Diversion AB 939, AB 341, AB 1327, AB 1826
Water Efficiency SBX7-7, AB 1881
Short-Lived Climate Pollution
Reduction Strategy
SB 1383
Source: Appendix C1.

REGIONAL
SCAG’s 2024-2050 RTP/SCS
SB 375 requires each MPO to prepare an SCS in its regional transportation plan (RTP/SCS). For the SCAG region, the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS, Connect SoCal, was adopted on April 4, 2024, and is an update to the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. In general, the RTP/SCS outlines a development pattern for the region that, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce VMT from automobiles and light-duty trucks and thereby reduce GHG emissions from these sources.

Connect SoCal focuses on the continued efforts of the previous RTP/SCSs to integrate transportation and land use strategies in development of the SCAG region through the horizon year 2050 (SCAG 2024). Connect SoCal forecasts that the SCAG region will meet its GHG per capita reduction targets of 8 percent by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035. It also forecasts that implementation of the plan will reduce VMT per capita in year 2050 by 6.3 percent compared to baseline conditions for that year. Connect SoCal includes a “Core Vision” that centers on maintaining and better managing the transportation network for moving people and goods while expanding mobility choices by locating housing, jobs, and transit closer together, and increasing investments in transit and complete streets (SCAG 2024). 2582

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.8 -15
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA Priority Climate Action Plan In March 2024, the regional Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario metropolitan statistical area (MSA) Priority Climate Action Plan (PCAP) was developed by 3 councils of governments:

Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), San Bernardino County Transportation Agency (SBCTA), and Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). The City of Ontario is a beneficiary of the PCAP, which provides a plan to reduce GHG emissions for the entire Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA based on a compilation of existing and new analysis that includes GHG inventories across all sectors, assessment of reduction potential across each sector, and the development of 3 regional measures (i.e., light-duty vehicle infrastructure, building decarbonization, and goods movement decarbonization) (SBCTA 2024). The PCAP includes a broad range of measures geared to addressing climate change and its impacts by reducing GHG emissions associated with sectors of energy, transportation, water, waste, offroad transportation, and agriculture. The PCAP contains existing and forecast emissions inventories for each of the 3 subregions and planned GHG emission reductions by 2030 for each jurisdiction within the region. The City has adopted its own Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) to guide local strategies for reducing GHG emissions at the community level. A discussion regarding the CCAP is provided in the following section, “Local.” LOCAL
City of Ontario Municipal Code
The City’s Municipal Code is organized by volume, title, chapter, and article. The following regulations relate to GHG emissions impacts.

Volume II, Title 8, Building Regulations, adopts the 2022 California Building Code.

Volume II, Title 8, Chapter 10, Energy Code, adopts the 2022 California Energy Code.

Volume I, Title 3, Chapter 10, Mobile Source Air Pollution Fees, supports South Coast AQMD’s imposition of vehicle registration fee and to bring the City into compliance with the requirements in Health & Safety Code Section 44243 in order to receive fee revenues for the purpose of implementing programs to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles.

City of Ontario 2022 Climate Action Plan
The City of Ontario adopted the CCAP in August 2022 to reduce GHG emissions and achieve SB 32 emission reduction targets by year 2030 and additional reductions beyond year 2030. The CCAP is an update to the 2014 Community Action Plan and provides an updated emissions ■
■
■
■
2583

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 1 6
inventory, emissions forecast, and reduction strategy analysis. The CCAP is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 through 2030 because the emission reductions it demonstrates are consistent with Statewide 2030 reduction targets; however, the CCAP post-2030 reduction targets predate the State’s current 2045 emission reduction targets and carbon neutrality goal and so are not aligned with them (Ontario 2022).

3.8.2 Existing Conditions
CALIFORNIA’S GHG SOURCES AND RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION
In 2025, the statewide GHG emissions inventory was updated for 2000 to 2023 emissions using the GWPs in IPCC’s AR4 and reported that California produced 360.4 MMTCO2e GHG emissions in 2023 (3.0 percent lower than 2022 levels). Since peak levels in 2004, California’s GHG emissions have generally followed a decreasing trend. By 2014, statewide GHG emissions dropped below the 2020 GHG limit (AB 32 target for year 2020) and have remained below that limit ever since. Additionally, the carbon intensity of California’s economy (the amount of carbon pollution per million dollars of gross state product) is declining (CARB 2025b).

California’s transportation sector remains the largest source of GHG emissions, producing

37.1 percent of the state’s total emissions. Industrial sector emissions make up 18.6 percent, and electric power generation make up 15.9 percent of the state’s emissions inventory. Other major sectors of GHG emissions include residential and commercial (12.0 percent), agriculture and forestry (8.1 percent), high GWP emissions (5.9 percent), and recycling and waste (2.4 percent).

Emissions from the transportation sector (e.g., on-road vehicles) have generally decreased since their peak in 2002, but this sector has experienced periods of growth and decline. A decrease through 2023 was primarily due to reductions from on-road sources, likely from an increased use in EVs and more fuel-efficient vehicles over that timeframe, and the subsequent decrease in the amount of fuel used. Electricity emissions also have decreased since the early 2000s due to the deployment of renewable and less carbon-intensive resources, leading to reduced dependence on fossil-fuel electricity generation. Emissions from the industrial sector decreased from 2022, largely due to the continued downward trend in oil and gas production (CARB 2025b).

POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
City of Ontario Existing Emissions
The land uses under the approved project consist primarily of residential, mixed-use subareas, retail/service, business park and industrial areas, and open spaces. These operations currently 2584

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.8 -17
generate GHG emissions from vehicle trips, building energy use, water use, solid waste generation, and refrigerants.

SPECIFIC PLAN
The Specific Plan area is currently used for mostly agricultural uses, including dairy farming.

GHGs commonly generated by these types of uses include Methane (CH4) from enteric fermentation, Nitrous Oxide (N2O) from manure and fertilizers, and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) from soil liming, fertilizer, and fuel. CH4 is the leading GHG associated with milk production, making up about 62 percent of the farm-gate life cycle GHG emissions.

3.8.3 Standards for Analysis

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions if it would:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

THRESHOLD GUIDANCE
Policy Plan Amendment
Consistency with a GHG Reduction Plan
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, Tiering and Streamlining the Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, allows for lead agencies to analyze and mitigate the significant effects of GHG emissions at a programmatic level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, later projectspecific environmental documents may tier from and/or incorporate by reference the GHG reduction plan so long as they include the following plan elements.

Quantify greenhouse gas emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area.

Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable.
■
■
2585

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 1 8
Identify and analyze the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area.

Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level.

Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels.

Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.

The CCAP was adopted in a public process following environmental review in August 2022. The CCAP included and updated a GHG inventory for Ontario based on the latest community protocols and GWPs. The CCAP provided emissions forecasts for 2030 and 2050 and established GHG emissions targets for 2030 consistent with SB 32. The CCAP identified State and local measures to reduce GHG emissions and quantified GHG reductions associated with these measures. With implementation of the GHG reduction measures, the CCAP provides a flexible path to reduce the community’s GHG emissions to achieve the 2030 target pursuant to SB 32.

While the CCAP includes a forecast with reductions for the 2050 horizon, it was based on the reductions needed to achieve the 2050 target set by EO S-03-05 and predates the passage of AB 1279 that established updated reduction targets through year 2045. Consequently, the CCAP is a qualified GHG reduction plan through 2030 but does not provide a tiering opportunity that is aligned with existing legislative reduction targets for subsequent projects with a post-2030 buildout horizon.

Because the CCAP is the City’s current GHG reduction strategy for the City, the proposed project will be assessed for consistency with the strategies of the City’s CCAP as the applicable plan adopted for reducing GHG emissions. For the City’s CCAP, impacts of the Policy Plan Amendment are further assessed against the per capita threshold identified in the CCAP. The 2050 GHG per capita goal in the CCAP is:

2.0 MTCO2e per person (service population)
CARB 2022 Scoping Plan
The Policy Plan Amendment forecasts growth in the City through year 2050; therefore, this Draft SEIR analyzes the potential for the Policy Plan Amendment to conflict with statewide GHG reduction goals identified in the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan that are applicable to local ■
■
■
■
■
2586

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.8 -19
governments, which reflect the legislative reduction targets of AB 1279.4 AB 1279 established a carbon neutrality goal of 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. The State’s 2022 Scoping Plan provides statewide strategies to achieve the GHG reduction goals of AB 1279. To provide a GHG emissions target for the City’s community emissions in line with the AB 1279 targets, the City’s AB 1279 reduction target was estimated based on the baseline emissions in the City’s CCAP. The City’s 2008 emissions were 2,212,900 MTCO2e, which corresponds to an estimated 1990- equivalent level of 1,880,970 MTCO2e, based on state guidance that 1990 emissions for local governments are 15 percent below 2005-2010 levels (Ontario 2022). An 85 percent reduction from estimated 1990 levels would require the City’s 2050 emissions5 to achieve the following
annual GHG emissions target in 2050 to be consistent with AB 1279 for the Policy Amendment component of the proposed project:
282,140 MTCO2e
Specific Plan
To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents, South Coast AQMD convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group. Based on the last Working Group meeting (Meeting No. 15) in September 2010, South Coast AQMD identified a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where South Coast AQMD is not the lead agency, which is based on an emissions capture rate of 90 percent. A 90 percent emission capture rate means that 90 percent of total emissions from all projects would be subject to a CEQA analysis. Further, a 90 percent emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future stationary source projects that will be constructed to accommodate future statewide population and economic growth, while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. 4
The 2022 Scoping Plan includes statewide measures to achieve the state’s carbon neutrality goals under EO B-55- 18 such as carbon dioxide removal (CDR) that are not applicable to local governments. Carbon neutrality goals are a “no impact” level and not a “less than significant” impact level for climate change effects. There are presently no reliable means of forecasting how future technological developments related to carbon dioxide removal may affect future emissions in a planning jurisdiction. Therefore, carbon neutrality targets are not directly applicable to local governments and CEQA projects to mitigate GHG emissions impacts of a proposed project. Moreover, AB 1279 GHG reduction targets for 2045 are in line with the scientifically established levels needed in the U.S. to limit global warming below 1.5 to 2.0 degrees Celsius, the warming threshold at which scientists say there will likely be major climate disruptions such as super droughts and rising sea levels. For these reasons, the targets of AB 1279 are applicable to the SEIR. However, the CCAP includes measures that align with the state’s carbon neutrality goals under EO B-55-18 and per capita targets under SB 32. 5 The State has not adopted a quantitative GHG emissions reduction target beyond 2045; however, the State aspires to achieve net zero GHG emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and to achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter.
■
2587

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 2 0
In determining this level of emissions, data available from South Coast AQMD was utilized.

South Coast AQMD used a database of projects that contained 798 projects, 60 of which were extremely large General Plan Updates, Master Plans, or Specific Plan projects. The 60 very large projects were removed from the database in order not to skew the emissions value, leaving a net of 738 projects. In addition, 27 projects were found to be outliers that would skew the emission value too high, leaving 711 as the sample population to use in determining the 90th percentile capture rate.

The South Coast AQMD analysis of the 711 projects within the sample population combined commercial, residential, and mixed-use projects. It should be noted that the sample of projects included warehouses and other light industrial land uses but did not include industrial processes (i.e., oil refineries, heavy manufacturing, electric generating stations, mining operations, etc.). Emissions from each of these projects were calculated by South Coast AQMD to provide a consistent method of emissions calculations.

The South Coast AQMD analysis determined that the 90th percentile ranged from 2,983 to 3,143 MT CO2e per year. Therefore, a 3,000 MT CO2e per year value is the low-end value within that range rounded to the nearest hundred tons of emissions and is used in defining small projects that are considered less than significant and do not need to provide further analysis.

Although the 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold was never adopted, it was developed and recommended by South Coast AQMD, an expert agency, based on substantial evidence as provided in the Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold document and subsequent Working Group meetings. Further, this threshold has been used for hundreds, if not thousands, of GHG analyses performed for projects located within the South Coast AQMD jurisdiction. As such, EBPSP emissions would be considered significant if the 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold was exceeded.

Mass Emissions and Health Effects
On December 24, 2018, in Sierra Club et al. v. County of Fresno et al. (Friant Ranch), the California Supreme Court determined that the EIR for the proposed Friant Ranch project failed to adequately analyze the project’s air quality impacts on human health. The EIR prepared for the project, which involved a master planned retirement community in Fresno County, showed that project-related mass emissions would exceed the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s regional significance thresholds. In its findings, the California Supreme Court affirmed the holding of the Court of Appeal that EIRs for projects must not only identify impacts to human health, but also provide an “analysis of the correlation between the project’s emissions and human health impacts” related to each criterion air pollutant that exceeds the regional significance thresholds or explain why it could not make such a connection. In general, the ruling focuses on the correlation of emissions of toxic air contaminants and criteria air pollutants and their impact to human health.
2588

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.8 -21
In 2009, the EPA issued an endangerment finding for six GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and SF6—to regulate GHG emissions from passenger vehicles. The endangerment finding is based on evidence that shows an increase in mortality and morbidity associated with increases in average temperatures, which increase the likelihood of heat waves and ozone levels. The effects of climate change are identified in Table

3.8-2. Though identified effects such as sea level rise and increased extreme weather can indirectly impact human health, neither the EPA nor CARB has established ambient air quality standards for GHG emissions. The state’s GHG reduction strategy outlines a path to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change, and the state’s GHG reduction goals and strategies are based on the path to reducing statewide cumulative GHGs as outlined in AB 32, SB 32, and EO S-03-05.

Because no single project is large enough to result in a measurable increase in global concentration of GHG emissions, climate change impacts of a project are considered on a cumulative basis. Without federal ambient air quality standards for GHG emissions and given the cumulative nature of GHG emissions and the South Coast AQMD’s significance thresholds, which are tied to reducing the state’s cumulative GHG emissions, it is not feasible at this time to connect the project’s specific GHG emissions to the potential health impacts of climate change.

METHODOLOGY
Policy Plan Amendment
This GHG evaluation was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA to determine if significant GHG impacts are likely to occur in conjunction with future development that would be accommodated by the proposed project.

The emissions inventory and forecast for the Policy Plan Amendment utilizes a community emissions accounting method that includes sources that are in the indirect and direct jurisdictional control of the City of Ontario (geographic region).6 The community GHG emissions
inventory and forecast is based on activity data compiled for TOP 2050 (see Appendix C1). The community emissions inventory was compiled using the United States Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (U.S. Community Protocol) accounting protocols, which were first developed in 2012 and last updated in 2019. The following is a summary of the assumptions used for the community GHG emissions analysis:

Building Energy. Emissions associated with electricity and natural gas use for residential and nonresidential land uses in the city were based on the energy forecast without state actions 6 Emissions from permitted sources are excluded from the existing emissions inventory because the reductions associated with the Industrial sector are regulated separately by South Coast AQMD or are otherwise not under the jurisdiction of the City.
■
2589

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 2 2
conducted for the emissions inventory for the CCAP. Forecasts are adjusted for increases in dwelling units for residential electricity and natural gas use and non-residential square footage for non-residential electricity and natural gas use in the city. Southern California Edison (SCE) carbon intensity factors for year 2050 are based on statutory compliance with SB 100 to provide 100 percent of in-state electricity sales sourced from eligible renewable and carbon-free sources by 2045.

Transportation. Transportation emissions forecasts were modeled using emissions data with adjusted factors from CARB’s EMFAC2021 V1.0.2 web database.7 Model runs were based on
daily VMT data provided by Fehr & Peers (see Appendix K1) and calendar year 2050 emission rates. The VMT is based on the origin-destination methodology using the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model+ (SBTAM+) and includes the full trip length for land uses in the city and a 50 percent reduction in the trip length for externalinternal/internal-external trips based on the recommendations of CARB’s Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) under SB 375.8
Consistent with CARB’s methodology within the
Climate Change Scoping Plan Measure Documentation Supplement, daily VMT was multiplied by 347 days per year to account for reduced traffic on weekends and holidays to determine annual emissions.

Off-Road Equipment. Estimates for the Approved TOP are based on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions modeling conducted for the 2022 Certified EIR. The modeling used CARB’s OFFROAD2021 V1.0.1 web database to estimate emissions from agricultural, light commercial, and construction within the City. The agricultural equipment forecast for the proposed project assumes there is no remaining farmland in the city. The construction equipment forecast for the proposed project was assumed to be similar to historic levels.

The lawn and garden forecast for the proposed project is adjusted for changes in housing 7 EMFAC2021 emissions projections assumed implementation of California’s Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) Regulation and the Heavy-Duty Low NOX Omnibus Regulation, which had been authorized by EPA waivers under the CAA. The ACT and Omnibus regulations were disapproved by congressional resolutions H.J. Resolution 87 and H.J. Resolution 89, respectively, both of which were signed by the president on June 12, 2025. The CARB adjustment factors released for EMFAC2021 address the effects of the resolutions on the forecast emissions data in EMFAC2021. 8
For accounting purposes, there are three types of trips:

Internal-Internal. Vehicle trips that originated and terminated within the city (Internal-Internal, I-I). Using the accounting rules established by RTAC, 100 percent of the length of these trips and their emissions are attributed to the city.

Internal-External/External-Internal. Vehicle trips that either originated or terminated (but not both) in the city (Internal-External or External-Internal, I-X and X-I). Using the accounting rules established by RTAC, 50 percent of the trip length for these trips is attributed to the city.

External-External. Vehicle trips that neither originated nor terminated in the city. These trips are commonly called pass-through trips (External-External, X-X). Using the accounting rules established by RTAC, these trips are not counted toward the city's VMT or emissions.
■
■
2590

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.8 -23
growth in the City. The light commercial/industrial equipment forecast for the proposed project is adjusted for changes in employment in the City.

Refrigerant Leakage. Refrigerants are based on the statewide 2021 refrigerant use and statewide population based on the 2021 census data in order to derive emissions per person. Emissions from this sector are based on AR5.

Solid Waste Disposal. GHG emissions released from trash collected from residents and businesses were quantified using the 2050 forecast per capita GHG emissions from the 2019 inventory developed for the CCAP.

Water Use and Wastewater Treatment. GHG emissions from this sector include indirect GHG emissions from the embodied energy associated with water use and wastewater generation and fugitive GHG emissions from processing wastewater. The total annual existing and proposed water demand/wastewater generation in the city are based on the water demand factors from the City of Ontario, 2024 Water Demand and Sewer Flow Factors Technical Memorandum (see Appendix L1). Electricity use from water use is estimated using energy rates identified by in the 2022 CalEEMod Users Guide (CAPCOA 2022). Then energy is multiplied by the carbon intensity of energy. Wastewater treatment also results in direct CH4 emissions from wastewater processing, which are based on the emission rates identified in the 2022 CalEEMod Users Guide (CAPCOA 2022).

Life-cycle emissions are not included in this analysis because not enough information is available for the proposed project, and therefore they would be speculative.9 Black carbon
emissions are not included in the GHG analysis because CARB does not include this short-lived climate pollutant in the State’s GHG emissions inventory but treats it separately.10 9 Life cycle emissions include indirect emissions associated with materials manufacture. However, these indirect emissions involve numerous parties, each of which is responsible for GHG emissions of their particular activity.

The California Resources Agency, in adopting the CEQA Guidelines Amendments on GHG emissions found that lifecycle analysis was not warranted for project-specific CEQA analysis in most situations, for a variety of reasons, including lack of control over some sources, and the possibility of double-counting emissions (see Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, December 2009). Because the amount of materials consumed during the operation or construction of the proposed project is not known, the origin of the raw materials purchased is not known, and manufacturing information for those raw materials is also not known, calculation of life cycle emissions would be speculative. A life-cycle analysis is not warranted (LCI 2008). 10 Particulate matter emissions, which include black carbon, are analyzed in Section 3.3, Air Quality. The majority of anthropogenic sources come from transportation—specifically, heavy-duty vehicles. The share of black carbon emissions from transportation is dropping rapidly and is expected to continue to do so between now and 2030 as a result of California’s air quality programs. The remaining black carbon emissions will come largely from woodstoves/fireplaces, off-road applications, and industrial/commercial combustion (CARB 2022). ■
■
■
2591

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 2 4
Specific Plan
CalEEMod
The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in conjunction with other California air districts, including South Coast AQMD, released CalEEMod 2022 in May 2022. The purpose of the model is to calculate construction-source and operational-source criteria pollutants and GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources; and quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures. Accordingly, the latest version of CalEEMod has been used to determine the GHG emissions associated with the EBPSP.

CalEEMod includes GHG emissions from the following source categories: construction, area, energy, mobile, waste, water, refrigerants, and stationary sources.

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

3.8.5 Environmental Impacts
2022 CERTIFIED EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that implementation of Ontario’s Community Climate Action Plan would meet the GHG reduction target established under SB 32 and Executive Order S-03- 05 and progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goal, and thus result in less than significant GHG emissions impacts associated with the approved project with respect to established legislative reduction targets at the time. Goals and policies in TOP and actions in the CCAP were determined to minimize GHG emissions generated by the residential and nonresidential land uses in the City.

PROPOSED PROJECT
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that with implementation of the CCAP, the approved project would achieve the EO S-03-05 GHG emissions reduction targets, resulting in an 80 percent decrease in the GHG emissions in the City by 2050 from existing conditions, and would make substantial progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goals under EO B-55-18. Impacts related to GHG emissions were identified as less than significant. 2592

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.8 -25
Policy Plan Amendment
Horizon Year 2050 Emissions Forecast
Buildout of the proposed project is not linked to a specific development time frame but is assumed over a 25-year horizon. The proposed project is an update to the current TOP 2050 to guide the City’s development and conservation through 2050. The community GHG emissions inventory for the proposed project compared to the approved project is shown in Table 3.8-5, City of Ontario GHG Emissions Forecast. As shown in this table, the increase in development and population associated with the proposed project compared to the approved project would result in a slight increase in total GHG emissions across all sectors; however, the GHG emissions efficiency of the proposed project, expressed in GHG emissions per service population, would remain the same as the approved project because of regulations adopted to reduce GHG emissions and the natural turnover of California’s on-road vehicle fleets, where newer, more efficient vehicles gradually replace older, less efficient ones. Overall, GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be slightly higher compared to those of the approved project in the absence of local measures identified in the CCAP and would not meet AB 1279 carbon neutrality target.

Table 3.8-5 City of Ontario GHG Emissions Forecast
Emissions Sector
GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/year)
Current TOP
2050 %
Proposed
Project % Net Change %
Building Electricity 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Building Natural Gas 552,783 22% 570,967 22% 18,184 3%
On-Road Transportation 1,594,833 63% 1,644,577 63% 49,744 3% Off-Road Vehicles and
Equipment 75,897 3% 76,077 3% 180 0%
Solid Waste/Landfills 111,042 4% 115,490 4% 4,448 4%
Refrigerants 185,362 7% 192,786 7% 7,425 4%
Water Use 15,400 1% 15,685 1% 285 2%
Wastewater Treatment 4,482 <1% 4,676 <1% 194 4%
Total Community
Emissions 2,539,799 100% 2,620,257 100% 80,459 3%
AB 1279 Target –
282,140 MTCO2e
Does Not
Achieve Target
Does Not
Achieve Target
2593

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 2 6
Table 3.8-5 City of Ontario GHG Emissions Forecast
Emissions Sector
GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/year)
Current TOP
2050 %
Proposed
Project % Net Change %
Service Population (SP) 710,472 728,776 18,304 3%
MTCO2e/SP 3.6 3.6 0.0 <1%
CCAP 2050 per capita goal 2.0 2.0
Achieves CCAP 2050 per
capita goal?
Does Not
Achieve Per
Capita Goal
Does Not
Achieve Per
Capita Goal
Source: Appendix C1.

Note: Based on GWPs in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding.

While growth in the City would cumulatively contribute to GHG emissions impacts, implementation of the TOP 2050 policies could help minimize energy and mobile-source emissions, as listed below. For example, Environmental Resources Element policies ER-3.1 through ER-3.6 would contribute to reducing emissions from energy consumption by increasing energy efficiency and transitioning from natural gas to renewable energy systems. Policies ER-4.1, ER-4.5, M-1.4, M-1.6, M-2.1 through M-2.4, M-3.3, and M-3.10 would contribute to reducing emissions from mobile sources by supporting transit-oriented development and nonmotorized mobility options.

ER-3.1: Conservation Strategy. We require conservation as the first strategy to be employed to meet applicable energy-saving standards.

ER-3.2: Green Development – Communities. We encourage the use of the LEED Neighborhood Development rating system, or similar mechanism, to guide the planning and development of all new communities.

ER-3.3: Building and Site Design. We require new construction to incorporate energy efficient building and site design strategies, which could include appropriate solar orientation, maximum use of natural daylight, passive solar, and natural ventilation.

ER-3.4: Green Development – Public Buildings. We require all new and substantially renovated City buildings in excess of 10,000 square feet achieve a LEED Silver Certification standard, as determined by the U.S. Green Building Council. ■
■
■
■
2594

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.8 -27
ER-3.5: Fuel-Efficient and Alternative Energy Vehicles and Equipment. We require purchase and use vehicles and equipment that are fuel efficient and meet or surpass state emissions requirements and/or use renewable sources of energy.

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.

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.

ER-4.5: Transportation. We promote mass transit and non-motorized mobility options (walking, biking) to reduce air pollutant emissions.

M-1.4: Complete Streets. We work to provide a complete, balanced, context-aware, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public transportation. We prioritize implementation of complete streets improvements in environmental justice areas to facilitate opportunities for residents to use active transportation systems.

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

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

M-2.2: Bicycle System. We provide off-street multipurpose trails and Class II bikeways as our 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.

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.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2595

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 2 8
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.

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

M-3.10: Multimodal Transportation Center. We intend to ensure the development of a multimodal transportation center near ONT airport to serve as a transit hub with amenities for transit riders, pedestrians, and bicyclists transitioning to local buses, BRT, the Gold Line, high-speed rail, the proposed Ontario Airport Metro Center Circulator, and other future transit modes. We support locations for the multimodal transportation center that are north of ONT airport, between Vineyard Avenue and Interstate 15.

Implementation of the TOP 2050 policies would contribute to minimizing GHG emissions in the City to the extent feasible. However, GHG emissions are projected to increase 3 percent more than the approved project and would not achieve the State’s carbon neutrality targets of AB 1279.

Therefore, the proposed project’s GHG emissions compared to the approved project are considered potentially significant in regard to meeting the State’s long-term reduction goals and achieving substantial progress toward carbon neutrality. As identified above, the 2022 Certified EIR identified less than significant impacts with regard to GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a new impact compared to that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant.

Specific Plan
Construction
Construction-related emissions are expected from the following activities.

Demolition
Site Preparation
Grading
Building Construction
Paving
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2596

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.8 -29
Architectural Coating
For construction phase emissions, GHGs are quantified and amortized over the life of a project.

To amortize the emissions over the life of the EBPSP, the South Coast AQMD recommends calculating the total GHG emissions for construction activities, dividing it by a 30-year project life then adding that number to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. As such, construction emissions were amortized over a 30-year period and added to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. The total and amortized construction emissions for each phase of construction are presented in Tables 3.8-6, Amortized Annual EBPSP Construction Emissions – Phase 1, 3.8-7, Amortized Annual EBPSP Construction Emissions – Phase 2, and 3.8- 8, Amortized Annual EBPSP Construction Emissions – Phase 3. As shown in Tables 3.8-6 through

3.8-8, the total amortized GHG emissions at buildout of Phases 1, 2, and 3 would total 262 MT CO2e/yr.

Table 3.8-6 Amortized Annual EBPSP Construction Emissions – Phase I Year
Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e
2027 1,829 0.08 0.11 1 1,864
2028 1,408 0.05 0.09 1 1,438
Total 3,238 0.13 0.20 3 3,302
Amortized 108 <0.01 0.01 0.09 110
Source: Appendix C6
Note: totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding Table 3.8-7 Amortized Annual EBPSP Construction Emissions – Phase 2 Year
Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e
2028 852 0.05 0.06 0.35 871
2029 1,723 0.06 0.09 1 1,753
Total 2,575 0.11 0.15 2 2,624
Amortized 86 <0.01 <0.01 0.05 87
Source: Appendix C6
Note: totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding ■
2597

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 3 0
Table 3.8-8 Amortized Annual EBPSP Construction Emissions – Phase 3 Year
Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e
2030 1,273.05 0.06 0.07 0.49 1,296.63
2031 637.03 0.02 0.03 0.28 646.03
Total 1,910.08 0.08 0.10 0.77 1,942.67
Amortized 63.67 0.00 0.00 0.03 64.76
Source: Appendix C6
Note: totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding Operation
Operations of the EBPSP would generate CO2, CH4, N2O, and Refrigerant emissions. Primary emissions sources would include:

Mobile Source Emissions
Area Source Emissions
Energy Source Emissions
Water Supply, Treatment, and Distribution
Solid Waste
Refrigerants
Stationary Source Emissions
Cargo Handling Equipment Source Emissions.

The estimated EBPSP-related GHG emissions for all phases are summarized in Table 3.8-9, EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phase 1 (Unmitigated), Table 3.8-10, EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phases 1 and 2 (Unmitigated), and Table 3.8-11, EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phases 1, 2, and 3 (Unmitigated) based on the project phasing. As shown in these tables, the EBPSP would result in GHG emissions of approximately 46,847 MTCO2e/yr at buildout and would exceed the numeric threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. Thus, the EBPSP would result in a potentially significant impact with respect to GHG emissions. The 2022 Certified EIR identified less than significant impacts with regard to GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a new impact compared to that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2598

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.8 -31
Table 3.8-9 EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phase 1 (Unmitigated) Source
Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e
Annual construction emissions 108 0 0.01 0.09 110
Mobile 15,525 0.88 2 17 16,093
Area 36 0 0 0 36
Energy 1,645 0.16 0.02 0 1,655
Water 396 9.21 0.22 0 692
Waste 112 11.17 0 0 391
Refrigeration 0 0 0 5 5
Stationary 8 0 0 0 8
Cargo Handling Equipment — 237
Total CO2e (All Sources) 19,227
Source: Appendix C6
Note: totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Construction emissions are amortized over a 30-year project lifetime.

Table 3.8-10 EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phases 1 and 2 (Unmitigated) Source
Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2T CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e
Annual construction emissions 194 0.01 0.01 0.14 197.52 Mobile 32,016 1.71 3 33 33,115
Area 48 0 0.00 0 48
Energy 3,252 0.31 0.04 0 3,271
Water 758 17.62 0.42 0 1,325
Waste 250 24.98 0 0 874
Refrigeration 0 0 0 10 10
Stationary 17 0 0 0 17
Cargo Handling Equipment — 426
Total CO2e (All Sources) 39,284
Source: Appendix C6
Note: totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Construction emissions are amortized over a 30-year project lifetime.
2599

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 3 2
Table 3.8-11 EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phases 1, 2, and 3 (Unmitigated) Source
Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2T CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e
Annual construction emissions 257 0.01 0.01 0.17 262
Mobile 38,873 2 4 33 40,217
Area 60 0.00 0 0 60
Energy 3,168 0.40 0.05 0 3,192
Water 767 22 0.53 0 1,476
Waste 309 31 0 0 1,082
Refrigeration 0 0 0 16 16
Stationary 21 0 0 0 21
Cargo Handling Equipment — 521
Total CO2e (All Sources) 46,847
Source: Appendix C6
Note: totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Construction emissions are amortized over a 30-year project lifetime.

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant.

Impact GHG-1: Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in GHG emissions compared to the approved project and would not achieve the carbon neutrality threshold of AB 1279.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant GHG emissions impacts and therefore did not identify mitigation measures.

New Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure GHG-1-PPA is applicable to the Policy Plan Amendment.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1-PPA: The City of Ontario shall prepare an update to the Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) to align GHG emissions targets in the City with the GHG reduction targets of Assembly Bill (AB) 1279. The CCAP update shall be completed within 48 months of certification of the Ontario Policy Amendment SEIR. 2600

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.8 -33
Following the initial update within 48 months, the CCAP shall be updated at a frequency of no less than every 5 years to ensure the City is monitoring the plan’s progress toward achieving the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target. The initial and subsequent updates shall consider a trajectory consistent with the GHG emissions reduction goal established under AB 1279 for year 2045, and the latest applicable statewide legislative GHG emissions reduction that may be in effect at the time of the update. If it is determined that the CCAP is not achieving the GHG emissions reduction targets established therein, the plan shall be amended as appropriate to ensure the established GHG emissions reduction target is achieved by 2045 or other benchmark year(s) identified by the latest statewide GHG emissions reduction legislation. The CCAP shall include the following:

GHG inventories of existing- and forecast-year GHG levels.

Tools and strategies for reducing GHG emissions to ensure a trajectory with the long-term GHG reduction target and carbon neutrality goal for year 2045 in Assembly Bill 1279 or subsequent GHG emissions reduction legislation in effect at the time of the CCAP update. These measures may include but are not limited to:
o Encouraging electric vehicle adoption through incentives or education programs.
o Adopting local ordinances or policies that require greater energy efficiency, waste reduction, and water conservation in new construction, additions, and/or alterations.
o Encouraging the construction of solar arrays above parking lots and the integration of solar and other renewable energy generation technologies in new construction, additions, and/or alterations.
o Encouraging the incorporation of energy storage and other gridharmonizing infrastructure in new construction, additions, and/or alterations.
o Collaborating with Southern California Edison to encourage existing developments to upgrade natural gas equipment (e.g., furnaces) with electric equipment (e.g., heat pumps), to the extent feasible. ■
■
2601

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 3 4
Plan implementation guidance that includes, at minimum, the following components:
o Administration and Staffing
o Finance and Budgeting
o Timelines for Measure Implementation
o Community Outreach and Education
o Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management
o Tracking Tools
Specific Plan
As previously mentioned, if the GHG emissions of a given project exceed 3,000 MTCO2e/yr, impacts would be considered significant. Additionally, the EBPSP would be required to achieve a minimum of 100 points pursuant to measures identified in the CCAP Screening Tables. To this end, Mitigation Measure GHG-1-SP is incorporated. Mitigation Measures AIR-1-SP through AIR8-SP (presented in Section 3.3, Air Quality) would also aid in the reduction of GHG emissions.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1-SP: Project development proposals pursuant to the EBPSP shall implement CCAP Screening Table Measures that achieve at least 100 points per the Screening Tables. The City shall verify that Screening Table Measures achieving the 100- point performance standard are incorporated in development plans prior to the issuance of building permit(s) and/or site plans (as applicable). The City shall verify implementation of the selected Screening Table Measures prior to the issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy. At the discretion of the City, measures that provide GHG reductions equivalent to GHG emissions reductions achieved via the Screening Table Measures may be implemented. Multiple development proposals may, at the discretion of the City, be allowed to collectively demonstrate achievement of at least 100 points per the Screening Tables. Measures that shall be considered include:

Reduction Measure 1: Building Electrification
Reduction Measure 2: Solar Energy Systems for New Warehouse Development only
Reduction Measure 7: Vehicle Electrification
Reduction Measure 8: Active Transportation
Reduction Measure 11: Waste diversion
■
■
■
■
■
■
2602

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.8 -35
Reduction Measure 12: Water conservation
Reduction Measure AR-1: Charging stations for large trucks.

Reduction Measure AR-3: Installation of EV charging stations for employee vehicle parking spaces.

Reduction Measure AR-4 Recycled Water.

Reduction Measure AR-5 Reflective Paving.

Reduction Measure AR-6 Zero Emission Cargo Equipment.

Mitigation Measure GHG-2-SP: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1-SP through AIR-8- SP.

Significance After Mitigation
Policy Plan Amendment
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1-PPA would ensure that the City aligns the CCAP update with the GHG reduction targets of AB 1279 and the statewide legislative GHG emission reduction targets that are in effect at the time of the CCAP update. Implementation of CCAP measures that increase the efficiency of energy and water use and offset electricity use through solar panels would reduce GHG emissions from land uses accommodated under the proposed project to the extent feasible.

Given the growth in population and employment in the City, the emissions reductions needed from existing development, the overall magnitude of emissions reductions needed to achieve the GHG reduction target from existing and new development, and federal legal constraints on the implementation and effectiveness of State actions for emissions reduction, it is uncertain whether implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1-PPA would achieve the substantial reductions needed to align with the GHG reduction targets of AB 1279. In addition, the City cannot ensure that Mitigation Measure GHG-1-PPA would be implemented prior to the generation of new GHG emissions from development facilitated under the proposed project, which could further limit the effectiveness of this mitigation measure in achieving the required emissions reductions. Therefore, GHG emissions impacts of the proposed project compared to the approved project are considered significant and unavoidable. Policy Plan Amendment Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.

Specific Plan
Preliminary CCAP measures to be implemented by the EBPSP are presented in Table 3.8-12, EBPSP CCAP Screening Table. These measures are subject to change throughout the ■
■
■
■
■
■
2603

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 3 6
development process, so long as the requisite 100 points are achieved, as required through Mitigation Measure GHG-1-SP. As shown in this table, measures to be implemented by the EBPSP would achieve a total of 101 points.

Table 3.8-12 EBPSP CCAP Screening Table
Description Feature
EBPSP
Points
Reduction Measure 1: Building Electrification
Replacement of gas appliance with electric
appliance.

Electric space heater. 5
Electric water heater. 8
Electric stove. 2
Lack of natural gas infrastructure. No natural gas infrastructure. 8 Reduction Measure 2: Solar Energy Systems for New Warehouse Development only Installation of rooftop solar energy systems
at new warehouse/logistics facilities.

Installation of rooftop solar energy system
which generates enough electricity to meet
45 percent of annual warehouse electricity
demand.
22 Reduction Measure 7: Vehicle Electrification
Installation of EV charging stations for truck
parking spaces.

Installation of Level 2 or higher EV charging
stations at a rate of 10-19 percent of
planned truck parking spaces.
4 Reduction Measure 8: Active Transportation
Installation or improvement of bicycle
facilities.

Bicycle parking facilities with 1:20 ratio of
bicycle parking to employee vehicle parking
space.
2 Construct or improve a single bicycle lane
facility (only Class I, II, or IV) that 1)
connects to a larger existing bikeway
network or 2) closes an existing bikeway
network gap that is at least 0.5 miles long.
3 Reduction Measure 11: Waste diversion
Site design for non-residential warehouse
development includes site(s) for green
waste/ organics and recycling collection
bins
Site design allocates sufficient space for
storage and collection of green waste,
organic waste, and recyclables.
20 2604

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.8 -37
Table 3.8-12 EBPSP CCAP Screening Table
Description Feature
EBPSP
Points
Reduction Measure 12: Water conservation
Implement indoor water efficiency
measures
Install water-efficient faucets and
showerheads.
1 Install on-demand water circulators on
commercial sinks or dishwashing
equipment.
2 Incorporate outdoor water efficiency
measures.

Design and plan outdoor landscapes
planted with drought-tolerant, low
maintenance plants with a 1) drip irrigation
system or 2) sprinkler irrigation system with
a weather-based irrigation controller.
4 Additional Recommended Measures
AR-1: Charging stations for large trucks. Installation of conduit for charging stations for zero emission trucks larger than twoaxles (class 8 and 9, and semi-trucks) so that facilities are prepared for the transition
to electric trucks.
4 AR-3: Installation of EV charging stations for
employee vehicle parking spaces.

Installation of Level 2 or higher EV charging
stations at a rate of 10-19 percent of
planned employee vehicle parking spaces
with Level 2 EV charging stations.
6 AR-4 Recycled Water. Use recycled water for at least 80 percent of outdoor water needs.
2 AR-5 Reflective Paving. Use high-reflectivity pavement for all hardscaped areas, including parking areas,
walking paths, and patios.
4 AR-6 Zero Emission Cargo Equipment. Use of zero-emission cargo handling equipment for a minimum of 50 percent of
all operations.
4 EBPSP Total Points 101
As part of the EBPSP’s CCAP compliance measures, the EBPSP has committed to a rooftop solar system with sufficient capacity to offset 45 percent of the electrical demands. Tables 3.8-13, EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phase 1 (Mitigated), 3.8-14, EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phases 1 and 2 (Mitigated), and 3.8-15, EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phases 1, 2, and 3 (Mitigated), present the estimated operational EBPSP-related GHG emissions for all phases with the incorporation of the rooftop solar system.
2605

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 3 8
Table 3.8-13 EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phase 1 (Mitigated)
Source
Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e
Annual construction emissions 108 0 0.01 0.09 110
Mobile 15,525 0.88 2 17 16,093
Area 36 0 0 0 36
Energy 938 0.09 0.01 0 944
Water 396 9 0.22 0 692
Waste 112 11 0 0 391
Refrigeration 0 0 0 5 5
Stationary 8 0 0 0 8
Cargo Handling Equipment — 237
Total CO2e (All Sources) 18,516
Source: Appendix C6
Note: totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Construction emissions are amortized over a 30-year project lifetime.

Table 3.8-14 EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phases 1 and 2 (Mitigated) Source
Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e
Annual construction emissions 1934 0.01 0.01 0.14 198
Mobile 32,016 2 3 33 33,115
Area 48 0 0 0 48
Energy 1,941 0.19 0.02 0 1,953
Water 758 18 0.42 0 1,325
Waste 250 25 0 0 874
Refrigeration 0 0 0 10 10
Stationary 17 0 0 0 17
Cargo Handling Equipment — 426
Total CO2e (All Sources) 37,966
Source: Appendix C6
Note: totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Construction emissions are amortized over a 30-year project lifetime.
2606

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.8 -39
Table 3.8-15 EBPSP GHG Emissions – Phases 1, 2, and 3 (Mitigated) Source
Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e
Annual construction emissions 257 0.01 0.01 0.17 262
Mobile 38,873 2 4 33 40,217
Area 60 0 0 0 60
Energy 1,870 0.24 0.03 0 1,884
Water 767 22 0.53 0 1,476
Waste 309 31 0 0 1,082
Refrigeration 0 0 0 16 16
Stationary 21 0 0 0 21
Cargo Handling Equipment — 521
Total CO2e (All Sources) 45,539
Source: Appendix C6
Note: totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Construction emissions are amortized over a 30-year project lifetime.

As shown above, even with the incorporation of rooftop solar, the EBPSP would result in GHG emissions of approximately 45,539 MTCO2e/yr at buildout and would still exceed the numeric threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. Other features to be implemented through compliance with Mitigation Measure GHG-1-SP and Mitigation Measures AIR-1-SP through AIR-8-SP, as listed in Table 3.8-14, would also act to reduce GHG emissions, however these are not quantifiable.

Accordingly, no additional feasible mitigation measures are available at this time that would substantially lessen the identified impacts associated with full buildout of the EBPSP area.

Therefore, the EBPSP would result in significant and unavoidable GHG emissions. Specific Plan Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The 2022 Certified EIR identified that the approved project was consistent with statewide strategies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include the City’s CCAP, the PCAP, CARB’s Scoping Plan, and SCAG’s Connect SoCal. A consistency analysis with these plans is presented below. 2607

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 4 0
Policy Plan Amendment
CCAP
Consistency with CCAP 2050 Per Capita Goal
The City’s CCAP stands as a comprehensive strategy to reduce communitywide GHG emissions (Ontario 2022). The City established per-capita emissions targets are 6.0 MTCO2e per capita by 2030 per SB 32 and 2.0 MTCO2e per capita below 1990 levels by 2050 per EO S-03-05. As identified in Table 3.8-5, the proposed project and approved project would not achieve the CCAP 2050 per capita goal of 2.0 MTCO2e per person without additional State and local GHG reduction measures. Therefore, the proposed project would not be consistent with the City’s CCAP.

Consistency with CCAP Strategies
To ensure new development projects are consistent with the City’s CCAP, the CCAP includes implementation of a development review process to reduce GHG emissions associated with new development. The development review process sets procedures for evaluating GHG impacts and determining significance for CEQA purposes by using the “Greenhouse Reduction Measures Screening Thresholds Tables” to mitigate project GHG emissions that exceed the threshold level. The Screening Tables provide a menu of options that both ensure implementation of the reduction strategies and flexibility for projects to reduce GHG emissions to levels that align with the City’s reduction goals. As identified in Table 3.8-16, Policy Plan Amendment CCAP Consistency Analysis, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable CCAP strategies.

Table 3.8-16 Policy Plan Amendment CCAP Consistency Analysis CCAP Strategy Consistency Analysis
Energy
Strategy 1: Building electrification. Promote and
incentivize the phase-out of gas appliances in
new and existing homes and businesses
throughout the community to advance GHG
reductions, increase energy efficiency, and
protect public safety and environmental health.

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.8 -41
Table 3.8-16 Policy Plan Amendment CCAP Consistency Analysis CCAP Strategy Consistency Analysis
provisions that support building electrification
through electric readiness design requirements.

Consistent. TOP 2050 contains a policy related to
the promotion of on-site solar installations for
existing homes, particularly for resilience during
power outages.

Policy S-9.1 would encourage and incentivize the
installation of residential solar panels and battery
storage systems that can provide electricity
during power outages. Additionally, per the City’s
Municipal Code Chapter 8, Small Residential
Rooftop Solar Energy Systems, the City provides
an expedited permit review and streamlined
inspection requirements for residential rooftop
solar installations.

Strategy 3: Onsite Solar Energy Systems for
Nonresidential Development. Ensure new large
non-residential development, including City
facilities, includes onsite renewable energy to
support the site's energy needs by requiring solar
photovoltaic panels or other appropriate onsite
renewable energy generation systems for the
following types of projects:

New commercial and office buildings, or
existing commercial and office building
expansions greater or equal to 45,000
square feet in size.

New industrial or existing industrial
buildings expansions greater or equal to
100,000 square feet in size.

Consistent. TOP 2050 contains policies related to
the promotion of on-site solar installations for
nonresidential development.

Policies ER-3.3 and ER-3.6 aim to incorporate
technologies and best practices in building design
that reduce the burning of fossil fuels by
providing alternative energy sources, including
passive and active solar. Policy S-9.1 would
encourage and incentivize the installation of
commercial solar panels and battery storage
systems that can provide electricity during power
outages. Moreover, future development under
the proposed project would be required to be
constructed in accordance with State and City
building codes current at the time. Compliance
with the California Energy Code (CCR, Title 24,
Part 6) would ensure solar photovoltaic systems
are installed for most new nonresidential
development or require improved energy
efficiency and design performance to offset its
omission.

Strategy 4: Green Roofs. Promote and incentivize
residents and business owners to install green
roofs to conserve energy and reduce surface
water runoff.

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 4 2
Table 3.8-16 Policy Plan Amendment CCAP Consistency Analysis CCAP Strategy Consistency Analysis
the LEED Silver Certification standard for new
development, which provide scoring options for
including green roofs.

Additionally, the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 2,
Parkway Trees, provides provisions related to
preservation, maintenance, and removal of
parkway trees.

Strategy 6: Energy efficiency retrofits for lowincome households. Promote and incentivize voluntary energy efficiency retrofits of homes to
reduce natural gas and electricity usage, with the
goal of retrofitting 9,000 low-income homes by
2050. Partner with community services agencies
to fund energy efficiency projects, including
heating, ventilation, air conditioning, indoor
lighting, water heating equipment, insulation, and
weatherization for low-income residents.

Consistent. TOP 2050 contains policies that would
support energy efficient practices and renewable
energy systems. Policy S-9.1 would encourage and
incentivize the installation of residential solar
panels and battery storage systems that can
provide electricity during power outages. Policy S9.3 would support and provide incentives for energy-efficient retrofits in residential buildings,
prioritizing low-income applicants.

Consistent. TOP 2050 contains Policy S-9.3, which
would support and provide incentives for energyefficient retrofits in residential buildings, prioritizing low-income applicants.

Strategy 8: Smart Growth and Infill. Encourage
revitalization of neighborhoods through higherdensity, mixed-use, infill development and creative reuse of underutilized sites within the
urban core.

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.8 -43
Table 3.8-16 Policy Plan Amendment CCAP Consistency Analysis CCAP Strategy Consistency Analysis
pedestrian and bicycle connectivity in
underutilized spaces.

Transportation
Strategy 9: Transit-Oriented Development.

Strategy 10: Increase Transportation Ridership.

Ensure a reliable and responsive transit system
with dedicated and secure funding and resources
to support increased ridership.

Consistent. TOP 2050 contains various policies to
support reliable and safe transit system. Policies
M-3.1 through M-3.11 aim to support a viable
alternative to automobile travel and meet the
basic transportation needs of the transitdependent.

Strategy 11: Traffic signal synchronization and
roadway management. Implement traffic and
roadway management strategies to improve
mobility and efficiency and reduce associated
emissions.

Strategy 12: Community vehicle electrification.

Promote and incentivize the adoption of electric
vehicles (EV) citywide, including light-duty and
heavy-duty vehicles, for municipal, commercial,
and residential uses.

Consistent. The Advanced Clean Cars II would
require new cars sold in 2035 and beyond to be
zero-emission vehicles, which includes battery
electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles,
and fuel cell electric vehicles; however, due to
federal legal constraints, Advanced Clean Cars II
cannot be enforced by the State. Nonetheless,
future development under the Policy Plan
Amendment would not obstruct implementation
2611

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 4 4
Table 3.8-16 Policy Plan Amendment CCAP Consistency Analysis CCAP Strategy Consistency Analysis
of Advanced Clean Cars II program since this
applies to automobile manufacturers in
California. In addition, the Policy Plan
Amendment would not conflict with or obstruct
the City’s ability to implement transportation
electrification measures when determined
feasible.

Strategy 13: Active Transportation Networks.

Consistent. TOP 2050 contains various policies to
support an interconnected transportation system.

Strategy 14: Vehicle Idling. Limit idling of heavyduty trucks. Support the South Coast AQMD and CARB anti-idling requirements and provide
signage in key areas where idling that is not
consistent with South Coast AQMD or CARB
requirements might occur.

Consistent. Diesel-fueled commercial vehicles
under the proposed project would be required to
comply with 13 CCR Section 2485, limiting truck
idling to 5 minutes or less when the vehicles are
not in use. Additionally, as described in Section

3.6, Energy, construction contractors would
minimize nonessential idling of construction
equipment during construction in accordance
with 13 CCR Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449.

Strategy 15: Parking policy and event parking.

Adopt a comprehensive parking policy that
encourages carpooling and the use of alternative
transportation, including providing parking spaces
for car-share vehicles at convenient locations with
access to public transportation.

Consistent. TOP 2050 contains policies to support
carpooling and use of alternative modes of
transportation. Policies M-3.9 through M-3.11
support a convenient mobility system for the
Ontario Airport Metro Center, Ontario
International Airport, and community-serving
facilities.

Off-Road Equipment
Strategy 16: Electrification of construction and
landscaping equipment. Promote and incentivize
the transition to electric construction and
landscaping equipment.

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.8 -45
Table 3.8-16 Policy Plan Amendment CCAP Consistency Analysis CCAP Strategy Consistency Analysis
or obstruct the City’s ability to implement such a
measure when determined feasible.

Strategy 17: Idling Ordinance for Construction
Equipment. Limit idling of heavy-duty off-road
construction equipment to reduce air pollution
and GHG emissions from construction activity.

Consistent. Vehicle activity associated with the
development allowed under the proposed project
would be required to comply with 13 CCR
Sections 2485 and 2499 to limit truck idling to 5
minutes or less when the vehicles are not in use.

Waste
Strategy 18: Methane capture at landfills.

Support efforts to reduce methane emissions
from regional landfills.

Consistent. This measure is not directly
applicable to the City, because the City does not
own or operate any landfills. However,
development allowed under the proposed project
would be required to comply with SB 1383,
setting strict organic waste collection to reduce
landfill methane emissions, thereby supporting
efforts to reduce methane emissions from
regional landfills serving the city.

Strategy 19: Waste Diversion. Exceed waste
diversion goals recommended by AB 939 and
CALGreen by adopting a citywide diversion target
of at least 75 percent of waste.

Strategy 20: Construction and Demolition Waste
Recovery Ordinance. Increase the amount of
waste recycled during construction and
demolition of buildings.

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 4 6
Table 3.8-16 Policy Plan Amendment CCAP Consistency Analysis CCAP Strategy Consistency Analysis
Water
Strategy 21: Indoor water efficiency. Encourage
water-efficient retrofits of new and existing
buildings by working with water providers and
regional agencies.

Consistent. Future development under the
proposed project would be required to be
constructed in accordance with current State and
City building codes in existence at the time.

Compliance with the latest California Building
Standards Code and CALGreen mandatory
measures would require installation of waterefficient appliances and fixtures. The Policy Plan Amendment also contains various policies
supporting water-efficient retrofits of new and
existing development. Additionally, Policies ER1.3 and ER-3.1 encourage the conservation of water supply and the implementation of energysaving standards in buildings.

Consistent. Future development under the
proposed project would be required to be
constructed in accordance with current State and
City development standards in existence at the
time. Future compliance with the most recent
California Building Standards Code and CALGreen
mandatory measures will require the installation
of water-efficient appliances and fixtures, such as
low-flow toilets, faucets, showerheads, and other
plumbing fittings. Additionally, Chapter 8A, Water
Conservation Plan, of the City’s Municipal Code
contains a Water Conservation Plan designed to
minimize potential water shortages through the
2614

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.8 -47
Table 3.8-16 Policy Plan Amendment CCAP Consistency Analysis CCAP Strategy Consistency Analysis
practice of water conservation and reducing
inefficient water use.

Strategy 24: Methane capture for wastewater
treatment. Work with Inland Empire Utilities
Agency (IEUA), the local wastewater treatment
provider, to increase methane capture rate.

Consistent. TOP 2050 includes Policies ER-1.8 and
S-6.9, which require wastewater discharge and
collection systems to comply with Regional Water
Quality Control Board requirements, and require
new development to mitigate potential methane
hazards associated with industrial activities.

Strategy 25: Methane capture for dairy
operations. Encourage and incentivize local dairy
operations to reduce methane emissions through
methane capture technology.

Consistent. This measure applies to dairy
operations, and there are no dairy farms in the
City of Ontario. However, the Policy Plan
Amendment includes Policies ER-5.4 and LU-2.9,
which protect existing farms and sensitive uses
around them and require sensitive land uses on
former dairy farms or methane-producing sites to
be designed to minimize health risks.

Strategy 26: Climate change awareness and
education. Promote climate change awareness
and GHG reduction community-wide through a
variety of mechanisms, including through support
of climate change education in schools or
community colleges.

Consistent. The State has several climate change
education programs and requirements. AB 285
mandates that California public schools include
instruction on the causes, effects, and mitigation
of climate change in grades 1–12. Additionally,
the California Education and the Environment
Initiative provides a standards-based K–12
curriculum that teaches environmental literacy,
including climate change and impacts. The Policy
Plan Amendment would not obstruct
implementation of these climate change
education programs and requirements.

Strategy 27: Carbon Sequestration. Establish a
citywide carbon sequestration project and
sequestration goal of 5,000 MT CO2 per year.

Consistent. TOP 2050 contains Policy ER-4.8,
which aim to protect and expand the tree canopy.

Moreover, the Policy Plan Amendment would not
conflict with or obstruct the City’s ability to
implement a strategy to achieve this
sequestration goal when determined feasible.

Strategy 28: Green Jobs. Support green job
training and opportunities to create sustainable,
living wage, quality employment opportunities.

Consistent. TOP 2050 contains Policies ER-3.2
through ER-3.4, which encourage energy efficient
building and site design strategies in new
construction and City buildings. Encouraging
more energy-efficient building construction
directly supports green job training and
employment opportunities by increasing demand
2615

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 4 8
Table 3.8-16 Policy Plan Amendment CCAP Consistency Analysis CCAP Strategy Consistency Analysis
for specialized skills across the construction and
building-services sectors.

Accordingly, the Policy Plan Amendment would
not conflict with or obstruct the City’s ability to
support and promote green jobs.

Source: Ontario 2022.

PCAP
The regional PCAP serves as a high-level roadmap for reducing GHG emissions throughout the MSA. Specifically, the PCAP includes a broad range of measures geared towards addressing climate change and its impacts by reducing GHG emissions associated with sectors of energy, transportation, water, waste, offroad transportation, and agriculture. The CCAP, adopted in August 2022, provides an expanded set of GHG reduction strategies that align with the strategies in the PCAP. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not obstruct implementation of the regional PCAP to reduce subregional GHG emissions.

CARB Scoping Plan
CARB’s Scoping Plan is applicable to state agencies but is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects (i.e., the Scoping Plan does not require local jurisdictions to adopt its policies, programs, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions); however, new regulations adopted by the State agencies from the Scoping Plan result in GHG emissions reductions at the local level. So local jurisdictions benefit from reductions in transportation emissions rates, increases in water efficiency in the building and landscape sectors, and other statewide actions that affect a local jurisdiction’s emissions inventory from the top down.

Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the low carbon fuel standard, changes in the corporate average fuel economy standards, Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), and triennial updates to the California building codes.

The GHG emissions shown in Table 3.8-5 include reductions associated with statewide strategies that have been adopted since AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279. The GHG emissions from energy use also accounted for SB 100, which accelerates the State’s RPS program and requires power utility providers to supply 100 percent of in-state electricity sales sourced from eligible renewable and carbon-free generation sources. Because compliance with the RPS is evaluated on a 3-year average, power utility providers such as SCE will be required to provide 100 percent renewable and carbon-free electricity by 2050. Development projects accommodated under the proposed project would be required to adhere to the programs and regulations identified by the Scoping 2616

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.8 -49
Plan that are implemented and enforced by State, regional, and local agencies to achieve the statewide GHG reduction goals of AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279. Furthermore, as listed under Impact a), the Policy Plan Amendment includes various policies that would help reduce longterm GHG emissions in the city.

However, as identified in Impact GHG-1, the proposed project would not achieve the carbon neutrality targets of AB 1279. Therefore, the proposed project would potentially conflict with the GHG reduction targets of the 2022 Scoping Plan.

SCAG’s Connect SoCal
SCAG adopted the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS, Connect SoCal, in April 2024. Connect SoCal is a longterm plan for Southern California region that details the development, integrated management and operation of transportation systems and facilities that will function as an intermodal transportation network for the SCAG metropolitan planning area (SCAG 2024). This plan outlines a forecast development pattern that demonstrates how the region can sustainably accommodate needed housing and job centers with multimodal mobility options. The overarching vision is to expand alternatives to driving, advance the transition to cleantransportation technologies, promote integrated and safe transit networks, and foster transitoriented development in compact and mixed-use developments (SCAG 2024). In addition, Connect SoCal is supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that outline how the region can achieve California’s GHG-emission-reduction goals and federal Clean Air Act requirements.

As demonstrated in Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning, the proposed project would be generally supportive and consistent with the Connect SoCal goals (refer to Table 3.11-1).

Additionally, the Policy Plan Amendment’s policies M-1.4, M-3.3, M-3.10, and M-2.1 through M2.4 would reduce VMT per service population consistent with the regional goals. As discussed in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, implementation of the proposed project would promote growth consistent with Connect SoCal’s Priority Growth Areas and would maintain the City’s jobs-housing balance. As a result, the proposed project would continue to provide for residents to both live and work in the City instead of commuting to other areas, which would contribute to minimizing VMT and VMT per service population. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies in Connect SoCal.

Summary
The proposed project would potentially conflict with the GHG reduction targets in the City’s CCAP and the carbon neutrality targets identified in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Therefore, GHG impacts are considered potentially significant. As identified above, the 2022 Certified EIR identified less than significant impacts with regard to GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a new impact compared to that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. 2617

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 5 0
Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Potentially Significant.

Specific Plan
CCAP
The EBPSP is not consistent with the current Policy Plan land use designation or zoning, and thus would require the General Plan and Zone Change Amendment proposed as part of the proposed project. Therefore, the EBPSP is not consistent with the land use buildout assumptions contained in the City’s CCAP GHG emissions forecast. Therefore, this is a potentially significant impact.
2022 CARB Scoping Plan Consistency
Because the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan’s strategies largely apply to State agencies and entities, the EBPSP would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the 2022 Scoping Plan. The EBPSP would be required to comply with applicable current and future regulatory requirements promulgated through the 2022 Scoping Plan. Some of the current transportation sector policies the EBPSP will comply with (through vehicle manufacturer compliance) include Advanced Clean Fleets, Zero Emission Forklifts, the Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, In-use Off-Road DieselFueled Fleets Regulation, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. As such, the EBPSP would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan.

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant.

Impact GHG-2: The proposed project would be inconsistent with the Community Climate Action Plan’s objective of reducing citywide GHG emissions and the State’s carbon neutrality goals.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant GHG emissions impacts and therefore did not identify mitigation measures.

New Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
Implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1-PPA would reduce emissions. 2618

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.8 -51
Specific Plan
Implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1-SP would reduce emissions.

Significance After Mitigation
Policy Plan Amendment
Implementation of CCAP measures that increase energy efficiency, water use, and offset electricity use through solar panels would reduce GHG emissions from land uses accommodated under the proposed project to the extent feasible. However, given the growth in population and employment within the City, the magnitude of emissions reductions needed to achieve the CCAP’s 2050 per capita target, and federal legal constraints on the implementation and effectiveness of State actions for emission reduction, it is uncertain whether implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1-PPA would achieve the substantial reductions needed to achieve CCAP’s 2050 per capita target and the State’s carbon neutrality goals.

Therefore, GHG emissions impacts of the proposed project compared to the approved project are considered significant and unavoidable. Policy Plan Amendment Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.

Specific Plan
The CCAP provides guidance on how to analyze GHG emissions and determine impact significance during the CEQA review of proposed development projects within the City. Because the CCAP addresses GHG emissions reductions and is consistent with the requirements of AB 32, SB 32, and international efforts to reduce GHG emissions, compliance with the CCAP fulfills the requirement for mitigation pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines. As shown in Table 3.8-12, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-SP-1, the EBPSP would attain the minimum requisite 100 Screening Table points. However, because the EBPSP is not consistent with the land use pattern and subsequent communitywide GHG emissions projections of the CCAP, the EBPSP is determined to be inconsistent with the CCAP and would result in a significant and unavoidable GHG impact which was not anticipated as part of the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.

3.8.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Project-related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide. Therefore, impacts under Impacts GHG-1 and GHG-2 are not project-specific 2619

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 5 2
impacts to global warming, but are the proposed project’s contribution to this cumulative impact.

Implementation of the proposed project would not meet the State’s carbon neutrality targets.

Additionally, the proposed project would be inconsistent with the City’s CCAP objective of reducing citywide GHG emissions and the carbon neutrality targets identified in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Moreover, implementation of the EBPSP would exceed the significance emission threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr and would be inconsistent with the City’s’ CCAP. Therefore, project-related GHG emissions associated with the proposed project and their contribution to global climate change would be cumulatively considerable, and GHG emissions impacts would remain significant. Cumulative Impacts: The proposed project, together with cumulative projects, would result in substantial GHG emissions impacts.

3.8.7 References
CalOES (California Office of Emergency Services). 2020, June. California Adaptation Planning Guide. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/HazardMitigationSite/Documents/CA-Adaptation -Planning-Guide-FINAL-June-2020-Accessible.pdf.

CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association). 2022, April. CalEEMod: California Emissions Estimator Model User Guide. Version 2022.1.
https://www.caleemod.com/user-guide.

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2018, February. SB 375 Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/ SB375_Final_Targets_2018.pdf.

CARB. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf.

CARB. 2025a, November 13 (accessed). SB 375 Regional Targets. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/sustainable-communities-program/sb-375-regional-targets.

CARB. 2025b, November 4. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 2000-2023: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators Report. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/ 2025-11/nc-2000_2023_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf.

CAT (California Climate Action Team). 2006, March. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
2620

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.8 -53
https://planning.lacity.gov/eir/8150Sunset/References/4.E.%20Greenhouse%20Gas%20 Emissions/GHG.23_CalEPA%202006%20Report%20to%20Governor.pdf.

CCCC (California Climate Change Center). 2012, July. Our Changing Climate 2012: Vulnerability and Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California. https://research.fit.edu/media/site-specific/researchfitedu/coast-climate-adaptation -library/united-states/west-coast-amp-hawaix27i/california---statewide/Moser-et-al.-- CEC (California Energy Commission). 2006. Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California. 2006 Biennial Report. CEC-500-2006-077. California Climate Change Center. https://www.engr.scu.edu/~emaurer/papers/CEC-500-2006-077.pdf.

CEC. 2009, May. The Future Is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response Options for California. CEC-500-2008-0077. http://www.susannemoser.com/ documents/CEC-500-2008-071_Moseretal_FutureisNow.pdf.

CEC. 2022, August. Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (2022 Energy Code). CEC-400-2021-077.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/CEC-400-2022-010_CMF.pdf.

CNRA (California Natural Resources Agency). 2014, January. Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk: An Update to the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/docs/climate/materials/2014-01-22 _Sacramento_Overview.pdf.

LCI (Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation). 2008, June. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through CEQA Review. Technical Advisory. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/june08-ceqa.pdf.

Holland & Knight. 2025, September 24. EPA Seeks Public Comments on Reconsideration of Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/ 2025/09/epa-seeks-public-comments-on-reconsideration-of-greenhouse-gas.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. New York: Cambridge University Press.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/WGI_TAR_full_report.pdf.

IPCC. 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4_syr_full_report.pdf.

IPCC. 2013. Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2013. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf. 2621

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 5 4
IPCC. 2023. Sixth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2022. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/.

NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). 2021, August 1. USDOT Proposes Improved Fuel Economy Standards for MY 2024-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/fuel-economy-standards-2024-2026-proposal.

NHTSA. 2024, June. USDOT Finalizes New Fuel Economy Standards for Model Years 2027-2031 news release. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/new-fuel-economy-standards -model-years-2027-2031.

NHTSA. 2025, June 11. Corporate Average Fuel Economy. https://www.nhtsa.gov/ laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy.

Ontario, City of. 2022, August 16. Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP). https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/Ontario-CCAP_ Adopted_20220816.pdf.

Ontario. 2023, March. CCAP Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Tables. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/Ontario-CCAP_ Screening-Tables-AUGUST%202023%20Rev.01.pdf.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment). 2018, May. Indicators of Climate Change in California. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climate-change/report/ 2018caindicatorsreportmay2018.pdf.

SBCTA (San Bernardino County Transportation Authority). 2024, March 1. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA, Priority Climate Action Plan (PCAP). https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-03/5d-98t76601-riverside-san -bernardino-ontario-pcap.pdf.

SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2024, April 4. Connect SoCal Plan: The 2024–2050 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments. https://scag.ca.gov/connect-socal.

USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2009, December. EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment: Science Overwhelmingly Shows Greenhouse Gas Concentrations at Unprecedented Levels due to Human Activity. https://archive.epa.gov/epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/ 08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252.html.

USEPA. 2025a, February 27 (last updated). Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. https://www.epa.gov/ 2622

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOU S E G AS E M ISSI O NS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.8 -55
climate-change/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-greenhouse-gases -under-section-202a.

USEPA. 2025b, March 12. Final Rule: Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles. https://www.epa.gov/regulations -emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-multi-pollutant-emissions-standards-model. 2623

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .8 G RE ENHOUS E G AS E M ISS IO NS
3 .8- 5 6
This page intentionally left blank.
2624

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .9 -1

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) evaluates the potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with implementation of the TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP (proposed project) in comparison to the current TOP 2050 (approved project) and the impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Geologic hazards and flood hazards are addressed separately in Sections 3.7, Geology and Soils, and 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, respectively. Water quality and pollutant discharge are also addressed in Section 3.10. Fire hazards are discussed in Section 3.20, Wildfires. The analysis for the EBPSP is based on environmental site assessments prepared by Roux Associates and covers both on-site and off-site improvements and the Chino and ONT Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) Consistency Determination Analysis:

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Eucalyptus Avenue and Walker Avenue, Ontario, California, March 24, 2025 (Appendix G1)
Phase II Subsurface Investigation Letter Report, Proposed Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (EBPSP) Development of Ontario Ranch II, Northwest of the Intersection of Eucalyptus Avenue and Grove Avenue, Ontario, California, July 7, 2025 (Appendix G2) Phase II Subsurface Investigation Letter Report, Proposed Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (EBPSP) Development of Ontario Ranch I, Northwest of the Intersection of Eucalyptus Avenue and Walker Avenue, Ontario, California, July 7, 2025 (Appendix G3) Chino and ONT Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) Consistency Determination Analysis, February 12, 2026 (Appendix G6)
One comment letter was received in response to the NOP related to hazards and hazardous materials. The relevant issues raised in this comment letter are addressed throughout this section. For a summary of the response letters, refer to Table 1-1 in Chapter 1, Introduction, or Appendix A for the comment letters.

Hazardous Materials and Waste
Hazardous materials refer generally to hazardous substances that exhibit corrosive, poisonous, flammable, and/or reactive properties and have the potential to harm human health and/or the environment. Hazardous materials are used in products (household cleaners, industrial solvents, paint, pesticides, etc.) and in the manufacturing of products (e.g., electronics, newspapers, plastic products). Hazardous materials can include petroleum, natural gas, synthetic gas, acutely toxic chemicals, and other toxic chemicals that are used in agriculture, commercial, and industrial uses; businesses; hospitals; and households. Accidental releases of hazardous ■
■
■
2625

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 2
materials can occur from a variety of causes, including highway incidents, warehouse fires, train derailments, shipping accidents, and industrial incidents.

Hazardous Materials and Waste Regulation
There are many federal, state, and local programs that regulate the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste, and they are constantly changing.

Federal and state statutes as well as local ordinances and plans regulate hazardous waste management. These regulations reduce the danger that hazardous substances may pose to people and businesses under normal daily circumstances and as a result of emergencies and disasters.

3.9.1 Regulatory Framework

FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES
The following agencies govern hazardous materials and waste in the City of Ontario.

Federal Agencies
US Environmental Protection Agency. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary federal agency that regulates hazardous materials and waste. In general, the EPA works to develop and enforce regulations that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress. The agency is responsible for researching and setting national standards for a variety of environmental programs, and delegates to states and tribes the responsibility for issuing permits and for monitoring and enforcing compliance. EPA programs promote handling hazardous wastes safely, cleaning up contaminated land, and reducing trash. Under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and in cooperation with state and tribal partners, the Waste Management Division manages a hazardous waste program, an underground storage tank program, and a solid waste program that includes development of waste reduction strategies such as recycling.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) oversees administration of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which requires specific training for hazardous materials handlers, provision of information to employees who may be exposed to hazardous materials, and acquisition of material safety data sheets from manufacturers. Material safety data sheets describe the risks associated with particular hazardous materials, and proper handling and procedures. Employee training must include response and remediation procedures for hazardous materials releases and exposures.

US Department of Transportation. The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) has developed regulations pertaining to the transport of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes by all modes of transportation. The US Postal Service has developed additional ■
■
■
2626

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .9 -3
regulations for the transport of hazardous materials by mail. USDOT regulations specify packaging requirements for different types of materials.

Federal Aviation Administration. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issues and enforces regulations covering manufacturing, operating, and maintaining aircrafts. The FAA also certifies airmen and airports (including helicopters) that serve air carriers and conducts research on and develops systems and procedures needed for a safe and efficient system of air navigation and air traffic control.

State Agencies
California Environmental Protection Agency. California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) was created in 1991 by governor's executive order. Six boards, departments, and an office were placed under the CalEPA umbrella to create a cabinet-level voice for the protection of human health and the environment and to ensure the coordinated deployment of state resources. CalEPA oversees hazardous materials and hazardous waste compliance throughout California. Among those responsible for hazardous materials and waste management are the Department of Toxic Substances Control, Department of Pesticide Regulation, and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. CalEPA also oversees the unified hazardous waste and hazardous materials management regulatory program (Unified Program), which consolidates and coordinates:

Hazardous Materials Business Plan/Emergency Response Plan Hazardous Waste/Tiered Permitting
Underground Storage Tanks
Aboveground Storage Tanks Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP) Uniform Fire Code Hazardous Materials Management Plan
California Government Code Section 65962.5 directs CalEPA to compile, maintain, and update specified lists of hazardous material release sites. CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21092.6) requires the lead agency to consult the lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 to determine whether the project and any alternatives are identified on any of the following lists:

EPA NPL. The EPA’s NPL includes all sites under the EPA’s Superfund program, which was established to fund cleanup of contaminated sites that pose risks to human health and the environment.

EPA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) and Archived Sites. The EPA’s CERCLIS includes a list of 15,000 sites nationally identified as hazardous sites. This would also involve a review for archived sites that have been removed from CERCLIS due to No Further Remedial Action Planned status.
■
■
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2627

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 4
EPA RCRIS (RCRA Info). The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System (RCRIS or RCRA Info) is a national inventory system about hazardous waste handlers. Generators, transporters, handlers, and disposers of hazardous waste are required to provide information for this database.

DTSC Cortese List. DTSC maintains the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) list as a planning document for use by the State and local agencies to comply with CEQA requirements by providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. This list includes the Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Database.

DTSC HazNet. DTSC uses this database to track hazardous waste shipments.

SWRCB LUSTIS. Through the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System (LUSTIS), SWRCB maintains an inventory of USTs and LUSTs, which tracks unauthorized releases.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is a department of CalEPA, which authorizes DTSC to carry out the RCRA program in California to protect people from exposure to hazardous wastes. (See Federal Regulations, below, for discussion of the RCRA.) The department regulates hazardous waste, cleans up existing contamination, and looks for ways to control and reduce the hazardous waste produced in California primarily under the authority of RCRA and in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (Title 22, California Code of Regulations, Divisions 4 and 4.5). Permitting, inspection, compliance, and corrective action programs ensure that people who manage hazardous waste follow state and federal requirements and other laws that affect hazardous waste specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning.

San Bernardino County, including the City of Ontario, is in DTSC’s Southern California region.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is dedicated to the fire protection and stewardship of over 13 million acres of California’s wildlands. The Office of the State Fire Marshal supports CAL FIRE’s mission to protect life and property through fire prevention engineering programs, law and code enforcements, and education. It provides for fire prevention by enforcing fire-related laws in state-owned or -operated buildings; investigating arson fires; licensing those who inspect and service fire protection systems; approving fireworks for use in California; regulating the use of chemical flame retardants; evaluating building materials against fire safety standards; regulating hazardous liquid pipelines; and tracking incident statistics for local and state government emergency response agencies. The California Fire Plan is the state’s road map for reducing the risk of wildfire through planning and preservation to reduce firefighting costs and property losses, increase firefighter safety, and contribute to ecosystem health. The California Fire Plan is a cooperative effort between the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and CAL FIRE. ■
■
•
•
•
•
2628

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .9 -5
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. Like OSHA at the federal level, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) is the responsible State agency for ensuring workplace safety. Cal/OSHA assumes primary responsibility for the adoption and enforcement of standards regarding workplace safety and safety practices. If a work site is contaminated, a site safety plan must be crafted and implemented to project the safety of workers. Site safety plans establish policies, practices, and procedures to prevent the exposure of workers and members of the public to hazardous materials originating from the contaminated site or building.

California Office of Emergency Services. The California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) was established as part of the Governor’s Office on January 1, 2009, pursuant to Assembly Bill 38, and merged the duties, powers, purposes, and responsibilities of the former Emergency Management Agency and the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security.

Cal OES is responsible for the coordination of overall State agency response to major disasters in support of local government. The agency is responsible for ensuring the State’s readiness to respond to and recover from all hazards––natural, man-made, emergencies, and disasters––and for assisting local governments in their emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and hazard mitigation efforts.

California Department of Transportation and California Highway Patrol. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the California Highway Patrol (CHP) have primary responsibility for enforcing federal and State regulations regarding transportation and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies. Caltrans manages more than 50,000 miles of California’s highways and freeways, provides intercity rail services, permits more than 400 public-use airports and special-use hospital heliports, and works with local agencies. Caltrans is the first responder for hazardous material spills and releases on highways, freeways, and intercity rail lines. The CHP enforces hazardous materials and hazardous waste labeling and packing regulations designed to prevent leakage and spills of materials in transit and to provide detailed information to cleanup crews in the event of an accident. Vehicle and equipment inspection, shipment preparation, container identification, and shipping documentation are all part of the responsibility of the CHP, which conducts regular inspections of licensed transporters to ensure regulatory compliance.

The State of California regulates the transport of hazardous waste originating or passing through the state. Common carriers are licensed by the CHP, pursuant to Section 32000 of the California Vehicle Code. This section requires licensing every motor (common) carrier that transports, for a fee, in excess of 500 pounds of hazardous materials at one time, and every carrier, if not for hire, that carries more than 1,000 pounds of hazardous material of the type requiring placards. Common carriers conduct a large portion of the business in the delivery of hazardous materials.

State Water Resources Control Board. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has broad authority over water quality control issues for the State. The ■
■
■
■
2629

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 6
SWRCB is responsible for developing statewide water quality policy and exercises the powers delegated to the State by the federal government under the Clean Water Act.

SWRCB’s Underground Storage Tank (UST) program protects the public health and safety, and the environment from releases of petroleum and other hazardous substances from USTs. The program elements include:

Leak Prevention. This program element includes requirements for tank installation, construction, testing, leak detection, spill containment, and overfill protection.

Cleanup. Cleanup of leaking tanks often involves a soil and groundwater investigation and remediation, under the direction of a regulatory agency.

Enforcement. The SWRCB aid local agencies enforcing UST requirements.

Tank Tester Licensing. Tank integrity testing is required by law, must meet the requirements of the SWRCB, and must be conducted by State licensed tank testers.

Regional Agencies
Certified Unified Program Agency. A Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) is a local agency that has been certified by CalEPA to implement the local Unified Program. The CUPA can be a county, city, or joint powers authority. A “participating agency” is a local agency that has been designated by the local CUPA to administer one or more Unified Programs within their jurisdiction on behalf of the CUPA. A “designated agency” is a local agency that has not been certified by CalEPA to become a CUPA but is the responsible local agency that would implement the six Unified Programs until they are certified.

The Unified Program is related to the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) and local emergency planning committees (LEPC) that were established under both federal (EPCRA) and state authority for the hazardous materials business plans and emergency response plans. Though the CUPA structure does not specifically incorporate the SERC and LEPCs, both SERC and CUPA have found it beneficial to establish strong communication and coordination on hazardous materials issues. The CUPA board now has a representative on the SERC, and members of LEPCs are also CUPA board members. Common issues include ensuring that hazardous materials, waste, and tank programs maintain strong coordination and communication for maximum consistency in program implementation. Shared data, joint resources, common forms, provision of emergency information, and regulatory review are other interests that are coordinated by the CUPA board and SERC/LEPCs.

San Bernardino County is a member of the Southern California Hazardous Waste Management Authority and works on a regional level to solve hazardous waste problems.

The San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBCFPD), Hazardous Materials Division (HMD), is designated by the state as the CUPA for the County of San Bernardino. The fire department focuses on the management of specific environmental programs at the local government level to address the disposal, handling, processing, storage, and treatment of ■
•
•
•
•
2630

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .9 -7
local hazardous materials and waste products. The CUPAs are also responsible for implementing the leak prevention element of the Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program.

FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 is the principal federal law that regulates the generation, management, and transportation of waste. Hazardous waste management includes the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. Treatment is any process that changes the physical, chemical, or biological character of the waste to reduce its potential as an environmental threat. Treatment can include neutralizing the waste, recovering energy or material resources from the waste, rendering the waste less hazardous, or making the waste safer to transport, dispose of, or store.

The RCRA gave the EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from “cradle to grave,” that is, from generation to transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal. The RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of nonhazardous wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled the EPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. It should be noted that RCRA focuses only on active and future facilities and does not address abandoned or historical sites. The federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments are the 1984 amendments to RCRA that required phasing out land disposal of hazardous waste. Some of the other mandates of this strict law include increased enforcement authority for the EPA, more stringent hazardous waste management standards, and a comprehensive underground storage tank program.

Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 763, Subpart R) gives the EPA authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. The EPA repeatedly screens these chemicals and can require reporting or testing of any that may pose an environmental or human health hazard. It can ban the manufacture and import of chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk. Also, the EPA has mechanisms in place to track the thousands of new chemicals that industry develops each year with either unknown or dangerous characteristics. It can control these chemicals as necessary to protect human health and the environment. The act supplements other federal statutes, including the Clean Air Act and the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
2631

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 8
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, commonly known as the Superfund, was enacted to protect the water, air, and land resources from the risks created by past chemical disposal practices such as abandoned and historical hazardous wastes sites. Through CERCLA, the EPA was given power to seek out those responsible for any release and ensure their cooperation in the cleanup. This federal law created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries that went to a trust fund for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. CERCLA also enabled the revision of the National Contingency Plan, which provided the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The National Contingency Plan also established the National Priority List of sites, which are known as Superfund sites. CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act on October 17, 1986.

Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act
In 1986, Congress passed the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. Title III of this regulation is called the “Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986” (EPCRA). EPCRA required the establishment of state commissions, planning districts, and local committees to facilitate the preparation and implementation of emergency plan. Under the requirements, local emergency planning committees must develop a plan that describes preparing for and responding to a chemical emergency. The plan must include:

An identification of local facilities and transportation routes with hazardous materials.

The procedures for immediate response in case of an accident (including a community-wide evacuation plan).

A plan for notifying the community that an incident has occurred.

The names of response coordinators at local facilities.

A plan for conducting drills to test the plan.

The emergency plan is reviewed by the State Emergency Response Commission and publicized throughout the community. The local emergency planning committee is required to review, test, and update the plan each year. The SBCFPD is responsible for coordinating hazardous material and disaster preparedness planning and appropriate response efforts with City departments and local and state agencies. The goal is to improve public- and private-sector readiness and to mitigate local impacts resulting from natural or human-made emergencies.

Another purpose of the EPCRA is to inform communities and citizens of chemical hazards in their areas. Sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA require businesses to report to state and local agencies the location and quantities of chemicals stored on-site. Under Section 313 of EPCRA, manufacturers are required to report releases for more than 600 designated chemicals. In ■
■
■
■
■
2632

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .9 -9
addition to chemical releases, regulated facilities are also required to report off-site transfers of waste for treatment or disposal at separate facilities, pollution prevention measures, and chemical recycling activities. The EPA maintains the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database to document the information that regulated facilities are required to report annually.

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires state and local governments to prepare mitigation plans that identify hazards, potential losses, mitigation needs, goals, and strategies. It is intended to facilitate cooperation between state and local governments.

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
The USDOT regulates hazardous materials transportation under CFR Title 49. State agencies that have primary responsibility for enforcing federal and state regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies are the CHP and Caltrans. These agencies also govern permitting for hazardous materials transportation. Title 49 CFR reflects laws passed by Congress as of January 2, 2006.

Federal Response Plan
The Federal Response Plan of 1999 is a signed agreement among 27 federal departments and agencies and the American Red Cross that: 1) provides the mechanism for coordinating delivery of federal assistance and resources to augment efforts of state and local government overwhelmed by a major disaster or emergency; 2) supports implementation of the Robert T.

Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act, as well as individual agency statutory authorities; and 3) supplements other federal emergency operations plans developed to address specific hazards. The Federal Response Plan is implemented in anticipation of a significant event likely to result in a need for federal assistance or in response to an actual event requiring federal assistance under a presidential declaration of a major disaster or emergency.

Business Plan Act
Both the federal government and the State of California require all businesses that handle more than a specified amount of hazardous waste materials or extremely hazardous materials–– termed a reporting quantity––to submit a hazardous materials business plan to the local CUPA.

Such a plan must be submitted by businesses that handle hazardous materials or a mixture containing a hazardous material in quantities equal to or greater than:
500 pounds of a solid
55 gallons of a liquid
200 cubic feet of a compressed gas standard temperature and pressure ■
■
■
2633

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 1 0
The federal Threshold Planning Quantity for Extremely Hazardous Substances Radioactive materials in quantities for which an emergency plan is required per Parts 30, 40, or 70 of the CFR, Title 10, Chapter 1
The business plan must include the type and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map, risks of using these materials, spill prevention, emergency response, employee training, and emergency contacts.

Federal Aviation Agency Advisory Circular 150/5390-2C
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5390-2C provides recommendations for heliport design, including heliports serving helicopters with single and tandem (front and rear) rotors.

Asbestos-Containing Materials Regulations
State agencies, in conjunction with the EPA and OSHA, regulate removal, abatement, and transport procedures for asbestos-containing materials. Releases of asbestos from industrial, demolition, or construction activities are prohibited by these regulations; medical evaluation and monitoring are required for employees performing activities that could expose them to asbestos. The regulations include warnings and practices that must be followed to reduce the risk for asbestos emissions and exposure. Finally, federal, state, and local agencies must be notified prior to the onset of demolition or construction activities with the potential to release asbestos. Requirements for limiting asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities are specified in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities). California Government Code Sections 1529 and 1532.1 provide for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection and good working practice by workers exposed to lead and asbestos-containing materials.

Hazardous Waste Generators
The EPA regulates generators of hazardous waste based on the amount of waste generated.

Large quantity generators produce 1,000 kilograms or more per month, or more than one kilogram per month of acutely hazardous waste. Small quantity generators produce between 100 and 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month.

STATE REGULATIONS
California Health and Safety Code and Code of Regulations The Hazardous Substances Account Act (California Health and Safety Code Sections 25300, et seq.) authorizes the State to clean up hazardous materials release sites––including abandoned sites––not qualifying for cleanup under CERCLA; provides funds to pay for the state’s share of ■
■
2634

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.9 -11
costs of CERCLA cleanups; and provides compensation to persons injured by hazardous materials releases.

California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95 and California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 19, Section 2729, describes the minimum requirements for business emergency plans and chemical inventory reporting. These regulations require businesses to provide emergency response plans and procedures, training program information, and a hazardous material inventory disclosing hazardous materials stored, used, or handled onsite. A business that uses hazardous materials in certain quantities or mixtures containing them must establish and implement a business plan.

CCR Title 8, Section 5191, Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories, requires that all laboratories have a written chemical hygiene plan as a fundamental chemical safety plan for the laboratory. The chemical hygiene plans are written programs that set forth procedures, equipment, personal protective equipment, and work practices that are capable of protecting employees from the health hazards presented by hazardous chemicals used in laboratories.

Tanner Act (Assembly Bill 2948)
Although numerous state policies deal with hazardous waste, the most comprehensive is the Tanner Act (Assembly Bill 2948), which was adopted in 1986. The Tanner Act governs the preparation of hazardous waste management plans and the siting of hazardous waste facilities in California. To be in compliance with the Tanner Act, local or regional hazardous waste management plans need to include provisions that define: 1) the planning process for waste management, 2) the permit process for new and expanded facilities, and 3) the appeals process to the state available for certain local decisions.

California Building Code
The state of California provided a minimum standard for building design through the California Building Code (CBC), which is in Part 2 of Title 24 of the CCR. The CBC is based on the International Building Code, modified for California conditions. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions.

Buildings are plan checked by city and county building officials for compliance with the CBC.

The California Building Code also requires the installation and maintenance of smoke alarms in residential dwelling units, as well as carbon monoxide detectors in every hallway leading to bedrooms.

California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Section 907.2.11.2. Smoke alarms shall be installed and maintained on the ceiling or wall outside of each separate sleeping area in the ■
2635

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 1 2
immediate vicinity of bedrooms. In each room used for sleeping purposes, and in each story within a dwelling unit. The smoke alarms shall be interconnected.

State Hazardous Waste Management Programs
Underground Storage Tank Program
Releases of petroleum and other products from USTs are the leading source of groundwater contamination in the United States. The RCRA Subtitle I establishes regulations governing the storage of petroleum products and hazardous substances in USTs and the prevention and cleanup of leaks. In EPA Region 9 (California, Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada, Pacific Islands, and over 140 tribal nations) the UST program operates primarily through state agency programs with EPA oversight. In California, the SWRCB, under the umbrella of CalEPA, provides assistance to local agencies enforcing UST requirements. The purpose of the UST program is to protect public health and safety and the environment from releases of petroleum and other hazardous substances. The program consists of 4 elements: leak prevention, cleanup, enforcement, and tank tester licensing. In September 2004, the SWRCB adopted regulations that require electronic submittal of information for groundwater cleanup programs, including groundwater analytical data, the surveyed locations of monitoring wells, and other data. The SWRCB’s GeoTracker system currently has information submitted by responsible parties for over 10,000 leaking UST (LUST) sites statewide and has been extended to include all SWRCB groundwater cleanup programs, including the LUST, non-LUST (Spill, Leaks, Investigation, and Cleanup), Department of Defense, and landfill programs.

California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5
CCR Title 22, Division 4.5, sets forth the requirements for hazardous-waste generators; transporters; and owners or operators of treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. These regulations include the requirements for packaging, storage, labeling, reporting, and general management of hazardous waste prior to shipment. In addition, the regulations identify standards applicable to transporters of hazardous waste. These regulations specify the requirements for transporting shipments of hazardous waste, including manifesting, vehicle registration, and emergency accidental discharges during transportation.

Hazardous Materials Disclosure Programs
Both the federal and state governments and the state require all businesses that handle more than a specified amount of hazardous materials or extremely hazardous materials, termed a reporting quantity, to submit a hazardous materials emergency/contingency plan (also known as a hazardous materials business plan) to their local CUPA (CFR, EPA, SARA, and Title III) (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Sections 2500-25520; 19 CCR, Chapter 2, 2636

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.9 -13
Subchapter 3, Article 4, Sections 2729-2734). The responsible CUPA in San Bernardino County is the SBCFPD.

Hazardous Materials Business Plans
The hazardous materials business plan includes the business owner/operator identification page, hazardous materials inventory chemical description page, and an emergency response plan and training plan. Business plans must include an inventory of the hazardous materials at the facility. The entire hazardous materials business plan needs to be reviewed and recertified every three years. Business plans are required to include emergency response plans and procedures to be used in the event of a significant or threatened significant release of a hazardous material. These plans need to identify the procedures to follow for immediate notification to all appropriate agencies and personnel of a release, identification of local emergency medical assistance appropriate for potential accident scenarios, contact information for all emergency coordinators of the business, a listing and location of emergency equipment at the business, an evacuation plan, and a training program for business personnel. All facilities must keep a copy of their plan onsite.

Hazardous materials business plans are designed to be used for responding agencies, such as the SBCFPD, during a release or spill to allow for a quick and accurate evaluation of each situation for appropriate response. Businesses that handle hazardous materials are required by law to provide an immediate verbal report of any release or threatened release of hazardous materials if there is a reasonable belief that the release or threatened release of hazardous materials poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety, property, or the environment. If a release involves a hazardous substance listed in Title 40 of the CFR in an amount equal to or exceeding the reportable quantity for that material, a notice must be filed with the California Office of Emergency Services within 15 days of the incident. Both the federal government (Code of Federal Regulations) and the State of California (California Health and Safety Code) require all businesses that handle more than a specified amount—or “reporting quantity”—of hazardous or extremely hazardous materials to submit a hazardous materials business plan to the SBCFPD. According to City guidelines, the preparation, submittal, and implementation of a business plan is required by any business that handles a hazardous material or a mixture containing a hazardous material in specified quantities.

Business plans must include an inventory of the hazardous materials at the facility. Businesses must update their business plan and the chemical portion annually. Also, business plans must include emergency response plans and procedures to be used in the event of a significant or threatened significant release of a hazardous material. These plans need to identify the procedures for immediate notification of all appropriate agencies and personnel, identification of local emergency medical assistance appropriate for potential accident scenarios, contact information for all company emergency coordinators, a listing and location of emergency equipment at the business, an evacuation plan, and a training program for business personnel. 2637

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 1 4
Hazardous Materials Incident Response
Under Title III of SARA, the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) is responsible for developing an emergency plan for preparing for and responding to chemical emergencies in that community. The State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) established six emergency planning districts. The SERC appointed a LEPC for each planning district and supervises and coordinates their activities.

The emergency plan developed by the LEPCs must include:

An identification of local facilities and transportation routes where hazardous materials are present.

The procedures for immediate response in case of an accident (this must include a community-wide evacuation plan).

A plan for notifying the community that an incident has occurred.

The names of response coordinators at local facilities.

A plan for conducting exercises to test the plan.

The plan is reviewed by the SERC and publicized throughout the community. The LEPC is required to review, test, and update the plan each year.

Hazardous Material Spill/Release Notification Guidance
All significant spills, releases, or threatened releases of hazardous materials must be immediately reported. Federal and state emergency notification is required for all significant releases of hazardous materials. Requirements for immediate notification of all significant spills or threatened releases cover owners, operators, persons in charge, and employers. Notification is required regarding significant releases from facilities, vehicles, vessels, pipelines, and railroads. Many state statutes require emergency notification of a hazardous chemical release:

Health and Safety Codes Sections 25270.7, 25270.8, and 25507 Vehicle Code Section 23112.5
Public Utilities Code Section 7673, (PUC General Orders #22-B, 161) Government Code Sections 51018, 8670.25.5 (a)
Water Code Sections 13271, 13272
California Labor Code Section 6409.1 (b)10
In addition, all releases that result in injuries or workers harmfully exposed must be immediately reported to California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (California Labor Code Section 6409.1[b]). Additional reporting requirements are in the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 and Section 9030 of the California Labor Code. ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2638

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.9 -15
California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP) The California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP) became effective on January 1, 1997, in response to Senate Bill 1889, and replaced the California Risk Management and Prevention Program. Under CalARP, the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services must adopt implementing regulations and seek delegation of the program from the EPA. CalARP aims to be proactive and therefore requires businesses to prepare risk management plans, which are detailed engineering analyses of the potential accident factors present at a business and the mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce this accident potential. In most cases, local governments will have the lead role for working directly with businesses in this program.

The SBCFPD is the CUPA designated as the administering agency for CalARP.

California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 9) sets forth requirements for building materials and methods pertaining to fire safety and life safety, fire protection systems in buildings, emergency access to buildings, and handling and storage of hazardous materials. The City adopts the update to the California Fire Code every 3 years.

Government Code Section 65302
Government Code Section 65302 requires the safety element of a general plan to address evacuation routes. The CAL FIRE Safety Element checklist also requires cities to address evacuation routes. In addition, Senate Bill 99 (2018) requires a safety element, upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2020, to include information identifying residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least 2 emergency evacuation routes.

Airport-Related Hazards
State Aeronautics Act
Airport authorities and other agencies regulate aircraft activity. The State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21001, et seq.) is implemented by Caltrans’s Division of Aeronautics. Key purposes of the act include to: 1) foster and promote safety in aeronautics; 2) ensure that state laws and regulations relating to aeronautics are consistent with federal aeronautics laws and regulations; and 3) ensure that persons residing within the vicinity of airports are protected against intrusions by unreasonable levels of aircraft noise.

The State Aeronautics Act also establishes statewide requirements for airport land use compatibility plans (ALUCP), usually prepared by airport land use commissions. These plans are intended to provide for the orderly growth of a public airport and the area surrounding the airport while safeguarding the general welfare of inhabitants near the airport and the public in 2639

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 1 6
general. San Bernardino County opted for an alternative to an airport land use commission and delegated responsibility to prepare an ALUCP to each airport’s jurisdiction.

State law allows local jurisdictions within San Bernardino County to be responsible for airport land use compatibility planning under the "Alternative Process" in place of a county administered ALUC. Under the provisions of the Alternative Process the City of Ontario is the designated agency having responsibility for airport compatibility planning for Ontario International Airport (ONT) and the City of Chino is responsible for Chino Airport.

Air Safety Zones
The California ALUC Planning Handbook provides planning guidance to ALUCs and counties and cities with jurisdiction over airport area land uses. This handbook allows jurisdictions flexibility in determining air safety zones that represent areas of assumed accident potential. The City of Ontario has adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans for both Ontario International Airport and Chino Airport that include safety zones with policies and criteria for each airport.

REGIONAL REGULATIONS
South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) South Coast AQMD Rule 1403 governs the demolition of buildings containing asbestos materials, requiring specific work practices designed to prevent the release of these asbestoscontaining materials (ACMs). These regulations mandate thorough asbestos surveys, notification procedures, controlled removal methods, defined work schedules, and proper handling, storage, and disposal of ACM to ensure that demolition and renovation activities do not emit hazardous fibers or dust in the environment.

CAL FIRE, 2025 Strategic Fire Plan for San Bernardino-Inyo-Mono Unit The California Strategic Plan is implemented through individual “unit plans” that are prepared for different regions of the state. CAL FIRE has adopted the 2025 Strategic Fire Plan for San Bernardino-Inyo-Mono Unit that covers San Bernardino County and the agency’s priorities for prevention, protection, and suppression of wildfires. The overall goal of this plan is to reduce total wildfire-related losses and costs by protecting lives, property, and natural resources through coordinated prevention, fuels management, and pre-fire planning.

LOCAL REGULATIONS
City of Ontario Office of Emergency Management
The City of Ontario’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM) leads efforts to protect life, property and the environment by developing, coordinating and managing programs that prevent, prepare for, respond to, recover from, and mitigate natural and man-made disasters 2640

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.9 -17
and emergencies in the City of Ontario. The OEM supports the fire chief, police chief, City manager, mayor, councilmembers, and all City staff to coordinate response and recovery efforts.

OEM also works with residents, businesses, and community-based organizations to be prepared. The OEM provides information and training on how to build an emergency kit, create an emergency communications plan, and stay informed (Ontario 2025a).

The OEM is responsible for the management and oversight of the City of Ontario's Emergency Operations Center, disaster preparedness, grants, Homeland Security, emergency plans, and the Community Emergency Response Team Volunteer Program. OEM ensures that City employees and residents are as prepared as possible for disasters. This is accomplished through:

Maintaining the City's Hazard Mitigation Plan
Maintaining the City's Emergency Operations Plan
Providing employee and citizen education in preparedness Training employees in disaster response, management, and recovery (Ontario 2025a) City of Ontario Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
In November 2023, the City of Ontario adopted a local hazard mitigation plan (LHMP) to identify the City’s hazards, review and assess past disaster occurrences, estimate the probability of future occurrences, and set goals to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural and man-made hazards. wildfire was not identified as a hazard of concern in the LHMP; instead, urban fire represents the City’s primary fire-related risk. Wildfire was not identified as a hazard of concern in the LHMP; instead, urban fire represents the City’s primary fire-related risk. The LHMP includes a comprehensive set of mitigation actions (see Table 5-3, Mitigation Action Implementation Plan, of the LHMP) designed to enhance community resilience to hazard events. The LHMP is required to be updated and readopted by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the City of Ontario every 5 years, with the next update scheduled for November 2028.

City of Ontario Emergency Operations Plan
The City of Ontario has prepared an Emergency Operations Plan to address the City’s planned response to natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies. The plan does not address normal day-to-day emergencies or the well-established and routine procedures used in coping with such emergencies. Its operational concepts focus on potential large-scale disasters that can generate unique situations requiring unusual emergency responses.
■
■
■
■
2641

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 1 8
City of Ontario Fire Department
The Ontario Fire Department (OFD) has 7 bureaus: EMS, Fire Administrative Services, Fire Prevention, Operations, Personnel and Professional Standards, Support Services, and Training & Professional Development (Ontario 2025b). The OFD employs 265 personnel, staffing 11 fire stations (OFD 2025). Fire hazard risk in Ontario is discussed in Section 3.20, Wildfires. The Ontario Fire Department’s Fire Prevention Bureau is responsible for the Fire and Life Safety Inspection Program, Plan Review, Public Education, Fire Investigation, and Fireworks Enforcement. The Fire Prevention Bureau also provides permitting, inspection of, and standby for events such as firework shows, concerts, conventions, etc. The Bureau enforces the 2025 California Fire, Building, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Residential Codes, as amended by the Ontario Municipal Code; National Fire Protection Association Standards; Title 19 of the California Public Safety Code; and the California Health and Safety Code (Ontario 2025c).

City of Ontario Safety Element
The Safety Element conveys the City’s goals and policies to minimize potential hazards and promote a safe environment in Ontario. It identifies the natural and human-caused hazards that affect existing and future development and provides guidelines for protecting residents, businesses, workers, and visitors. It describes present and expected future conditions and sets policies and standards for improved public safety. The Safety Element also seeks to minimize the level of property loss due to potential disasters and provides a framework for emergency management.

3.9.2 Existing Conditions
Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and any material that a business or implementing agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to public health and safety or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.

POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
Hazardous Materials Sites
A search of the online Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Toxics Tracker, EnviroStor, and GeoTracker databases on October 31, 2025, identified multiple hazardous materials sites in Ontario, as shown in Table 3.9-1, Hazardous Sites in the City of Ontario, and mapped on Figure 3.9-1, Hazardous Materials Cleanup Sites in Ontario (Open Cases) (SWRCB 2025; DTSC 2025a; EPA 2025). The Cortese List includes two facilities: Fast Fuel Service Station #920 and Aluminum – Art Plating Company, Inc. (CalEPA 2026).
2642

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.9 -19
Table 3.9-1 Hazardous Materials Sites in the City of Ontario Site Name Address Reason for Listing and Regulatory Status EPA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Facilities
Location and TRI Facility ID TRI Data Summary for Reporting Year 2023 Alger Precision Machining
ID: 91761LGRMF724SB
Total Releases: 0lb
Total Waste Management: 23,711lb
Alltech Inc.

ID: 9176WLLTCH172SC
Total Releases: 9,564lb
Total Waste Management: 9,564lb
Amrep Manufacturing Co. LLC
ID: 9176WMRPMN1555S
Total Releases: 0lb
Total Waste Management: 180,000lb
Bluescope Coated Products LLC
ID: 91730CLFRN9133C
Total Releases: 118,209lb
Total Waste Management: 1,200,583lb
Danco Anodizing (DBA Danco Metal
Surfacing)
ID: 91761NMLDB1750M
Total Releases: 0lb
Total Waste Management: 149,131lb
Danco En
ID: 9176WDNCNX1745E
Total Releases: 0lb
Total Waste Management: 113,557lb
Frito-Lay Inc,
ID: 91730FRTLY9535A
Total Releases: 7,685lb
Total Waste Management: 154,448lb
GB Manufacturing Inc. California Acrylic
Ind. Inc.

ID: 91766CLFRN1462E
Total Releases: 182,030lb
Total Waste Management: 182,030lb
Genlabs
ID: 91710GNRLC5568S
Total Releases: 0lb
Total Waste Management: 0lb
Holiday Rock – Chino
ID: 91710CLVRS515SC
Total Releases: 0lb
Total Waste Management: 0lb
Holiday Rock – Foothill
ID: 91786HLLDY2193W
Total Releases: 649lb
Total Waste Management: 649lb
Holiday Rock – Ontario
ID: 9176WCLPRT84SCU
Total Releases: 0lb
Total Waste Management: 0lb
Holiday Rock – Mountain View
ID: 9178WHLLDY1499N
Total Releases: 0lb
Total Waste Management: 0lb
Hudson Technologies Co.

ID: 9176WPLRTC747EF
Total Releases: 8,649lb
Total Waste Management: 8,649lb
Lighting Resources LLC
ID: 9176WLGHTN85EFR
Total Releases: 0lb
Total Waste Management: 259,611lb
Net Shapes Inc.

ID: 9176WNTSHP175SB
Total Releases: 3lb
Total Waste Management: 37,707lb
2643

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 2 0
Table 3.9-1 Hazardous Materials Sites in the City of Ontario Site Name Address Reason for Listing and Regulatory Status Net Shapes Inc.

ID: 91761NTSHP1336E
Total Releases: 7lb
Total Waste Management: 101,790lb
Plaze Inc. DBA Shield Parking of
California
ID: 91710SHLDP5165G
Total Releases: 500lb
Total Waste Management: 500lb
PRC Composites LLC
ID: 91761WMBRR1400S
Total Releases: 1,500lb
Total Waste Management: 1,500lb
R&D Fasteners
ID: 9173WRNDDF94449
Total Releases: 251lb
Total Waste Management: 110,043lb
Skyline Steel LLC
ID: 9176WSKYLN155EM
Total Releases: 4lb
Total Waste Management: 2,543lb
Southwest Concrete Products Ontario
Plant
ID: 91762STHWS519SB
Total Releases: 0lb
Total Waste Management: 17lb
Summit Machine LLC
ID: 9176WSMMTM288EP
Total Releases: 8lb
Total Waste Management: 2,052,429lb
Vorteq – Pacific
ID: 91730WSTRN8875I
Total Releases: 3,020lb
Total Waste Management: 4,480lb
GeoTracker, State Water Resources Control Board
Location, GeoTracker ID, and Address Cleanup Status and Contamination Information Alger Manufacturing Company, Inc.

ID: SL208413896
724 South Bon View Avenue
Ontario, CA 91761
Open (05/01/1992) – Verification Monitoring as of
11/04/2024
Contaminants of concern: Tetrachloroethylene (PCE),
trichloroethylene (TCE).

Medias of concern: Aquifer used for drinking water
supply, indoor air, soil, and soil vapor.

Chino Ave LLC
ID: T10000019836
9510 Chino Avenue
Ontario, CA 91761
Open (5/20/2021) – Remediation as of 06/08/2022
Contaminants of concern: Chromium, Copper,
DDD/DDE/DDT, Lead, Mercury (Elemental), Nickel, Other
Insecticides/pesticides/fumigants/herbicides, Other
Metal, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), Toxaphene,
Zinc
Medias of concern: Soil.

General Electric – Flat Iron
ID: SL0607132486
234 Main Street
Ontario, CA 91762
Open (07/01/1987) – Remediation as of 05/03/2017
Groundwater contaminants of concern: Trichloroethene
(TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), and chromium (Cr) in
both Trivalent and Hexavalent states.
■
■
■
■
■
2644

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.9 -21
Table 3.9-1 Hazardous Materials Sites in the City of Ontario Site Name Address Reason for Listing and Regulatory Status Soil contaminants of concern: PCE, TCE, Cr, total xylenes, toluene, ethylbenzene, 1,1,1,-trichloroethane, and 1,1,2- trichloroethane.

Medias of concern: Aquifer used for drinking water
supply, indoor air, soil, and soil vapor.

General Electric Company – Jet Engine
Test Cell Facility
ID: SL208133868
2264 East Avion Street
Ontario, CA 91761
Open (05/18/1990) – Verification Monitoring as of
02/05/2010
Contaminants of concern: Tetrachloroethylene (PCE),
trichloroethylene (TCE).

Media of concern: Aquifer used for drinking water
supply.

South Archibald TCE Plume
ID: T10000004658
East Riverside Drive and South
Archibald Avenue
Ontario, CA 91761
Open (03/21/2013) – Remediation as of 08/26/2021
Contaminants of concern: Nitrate, trichloroethylene
(TCE).

Media of concern: Aquifer used for drinking water
supply.

Sunshine Cleaners
ID: T10000005696
2234-2254 South Euclid Avenue
Ontario, CA 91762
Open (02/28/2014) – Site Assessment as of 02/28/2014
Contaminants of concern: Tetrachloroethylene (PCE),
Trichloroethylene (TCE).

Media of concern: Soil and soil vapor.

Fast Fuel Service Station #920
ID: T0607100388
1315 4th Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Open (05/18/1995) – Site Assessment as of 12/24/2008
Contaminant of concern: Gasoline
Media of concern: Soil.

EnviroStor Database, Department of Toxic Substances Control Location, EnviroStor ID, and Address Cleanup Status and Contamination Information Aluminum – Art Plating Company, Inc.

ID: 60001398
803 West State Street
Ontario, CA 91762
Active (2/1/2011) – State Response or National Priority List Contaminants of concern: Total chromium (1:6 ratio CR
VI: CR III).

Media of concern: Indoor air, soil, and soil vapor.

Cadet Cleaners
ID: 60003484
452 N. Mountain Avenue
Ontario, CA 91762
Active (02/01/2023) – Needs Evaluation
Contaminants of concern: 1,2-Dichloroethylene (CIS),
1,2-Dichloroethylene (TRANS), Tetrachloroethylene
(PCE), Trichloroethylene (TCE), and Vinyl Chloride.

Ontario Plaza
ID: 60001166
1028 West 4th Street
Active (10/13/2020) – Voluntary Agreement
Contaminants of concern: Tetrachloroethylene (PCE).

Media of concern: Soil and soil vapor.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2645

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 2 2
Table 3.9-1 Hazardous Materials Sites in the City of Ontario Site Name Address Reason for Listing and Regulatory Status Ontario, CA 91762
Ontario Site Discovery
ID: 60003127
Bound By West State Street and South
Palmetto Avenue
Active (4/27/2021) – Needs Evaluation
Contaminants of concern: None specified.

Media of concern: None specified.

This is a site discovery project to investigate a potential source that lead to the high concentrations of
tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE)
observed off-site of Alumin Art Plating.

Sunshine Cleaners – Driftwood Village
ID: 60002433
2238 South Euclid Avenue
Ontario, CA 91762
Active (10/1/2016) – Voluntary Agreement
Contaminants of concern: Tetrachloroethylene (PCE),
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Media of concern: indoor air, soil, and soil vapor.

Source: SWRCB 2025; DTSC 2025a; EPA 2025.

Hazardous Material Transport
Releases of explosive, highly flammable, or toxic materials can cause fatalities and injuries, necessitate evacuations, destroy property, or result in serious environmental effects if toxic materials seep into surface or groundwater supplies. In Ontario, hazardous materials and wastes are transported on the SR-60 and I-10. The City has no direct authority to regulate the transport of hazardous materials on federal and state highways or rail lines. When transporting explosives, inhalation hazards or other potentially dangerous materials, and controlled quantities of radioactive materials, state and federal governmental agencies require transporters to include safeguards to reduce the risks of hazardous materials release.

The DTSC’s active hazardous waste transporter database shows 5 active transporters in Ontario (DTSC 2025b):

Swift Oil & Vacuum Inc., 1274 S. Almond Avenue (Registration No. 2789) Lighting Resources, LLC, 805 E. Francis Street (Registration No. 3379) Vazquez & Sons Trucking, 1028 W. Vesta Street (Registration No. 6598) Rincon Transport Inc, 2750 E. Oak Hill Drive Unit 35 (Registration No. 7137) A. Rodriguez Transportation Inc., 1758 E. Olive Street (Registration No. 7216) ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2646

1.'li tr"
ill J"i 1, ... i_M •~
I
.1
:.i.
.:
.... ' .. D jT i:IJ:
ll
:::E ~
II
_)
I
Iii
" )
II ",
-V '
F .. VE.

I El AL 'Tl t E
L
(:1 {Jt-'~(A~'.c::'J
~(;A;::o;:f(t
fl
Ii.
-L.....~···-"=-""',"''l.,,,n,.l<i,,.~--=---=--···;:-=-•='-~..-11r~~--., •.....:-.,,1_ •• fr jJ l' ( .. ,. I
&,. _'1- t:""'1,,,,LJl,u..,~"'"4:,v'Du".:t-tn,uJJ -i:
' ■--- ,- :!t
--- -=----------- --~.~-:::.~I!!!.----------- --.i. .:J'1' •. J .. '1t l ~ II • :( ~ ■ N ; L pl,,,IH ~II! )'\II d
i • ·i:; II • t '
'r ::::j_ .q-A: . r:A . ,N .. ;q'\ :::I
,,
r.::v -
Ii :■ T 1lf ■ tJR PA ~T; I ,u tu \
J
fi
t .I._
"t :t'.

L f :;; _, .J
! _, ,.,
- ;_ <~
II
- .-" .r .,;:.~ II ~ c_
? ~ V '
~ ---- ----
Ill
■ ll ■ ■ ■ --- II ■ ■ ■ ---- ....... C II ■ ■ ■ ■ II ,·-■ ...._ ·~::;:; ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ II II ■ ■ ■ -~ ■ ■ ■ ■ II II ■ II ■
~ ■ II ■ II II ■ II II ■
,
~ lf!IJ ■ ,,.
-
-• iiiii
-
-!!!!! L
- I l ■ ■ ■ _)\ ■ ■ ■
~ r ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ II ■ ■ ■ ■
_,. II ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■, ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
~l-, l'tA,~j/'\- h~~.._pl- i\;i'\- ■ ■ ■ ■
II ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ II ■ ■ ■ !!!!! ■
- ■
- ·-
II ■ II ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Ii ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
• ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Figure 3.9-i
Hazardous Materials Cleauup
Sites 1in Ontario (Open Gases)
;:--_J 1n1t11i, ■ r,.,., F..,.m1.urv
, .. - _, wIIra, Rwmlitfv
tcai! Ne!v,ork EBPSP Boundary
11 1Lt o···i ~•11e..:11 "1t1,'-1.JfJ <:-,1tr- (('-er ':a~"s) •, A'-1i1 ilrr c .. 1ur-urµa-.1Ir-.
"', G·,er·' IJ··tri· r1t r-·,n
ft,G 1er 'H :tri Co Ji'En_·1e~1st-ell~aci"'y ~ 1 0 'ar· Inf m''on ·Ai; ort ·Jir' 1m ,tiL tio - 1 s 1th • rel ·:>af • ·Ic- Ph 1e _ 1 S_.1st.:.Je , __ ea ___ rs . , 1 ,..'5 _Jtll. Vit.._va;_ A\.nt1:.
-, A._rni..Jm A .. Pl;.._ng_on . .,an, Jm ..
.,, A .. ,eri..Jn ... et;..., R .. .;yc..,ig
... 1 ..... m1.v

1.J. miS5.vn ~alwfS

12. vtlta.nJ haza
. .:IF-JU~ $iL ir.Jur .. ltt_.;e .. .he;_ s1._ 01 ,;ro_ .. 1dute; '1a! 1w a" 1ct 1 c 1s isr ct!~ to '1e •te1· !d 'j ,
-;h.-i1c"' 1~a""' f-m 'la!"' o" pl"'~,eI .. l?"'J "'ief' trcflluod to iJ!I '1H11v1Rll11Jllll!1t.il om;e:1"l a11d are 1do11tifieo on tNJe1JI, st:ne. ancl local regniatory agei1cy ,ist.,. T ,..t% .,st·., (Irr. ve\\v.op.,J tr, Jor. .. mr..ii ;:i,.J ri..J)rr, Jis __ rbc. .. ce _ctUie_ Jn :_en_:iet.. JITL ..
1 hr ,t2 ... ,s -• er ·h ,-vrr·1m ·1ta' ~a:· v:--'1es ·1nt ~ar •ie '::1t""1 ~ct~"'i
1~1th LJ"";Ul"n, 1"'Ve"fig<'5•in." or
re111ediationl. closed (1 emediation or clean-up
tOl11J1!leted and app1weo oy me regumtory ageiicy1, or
,m1Gioln1d \u~ll't in.,.,sa.,.1g Jiar. P1ivrt'.> tomJn, ;er, .. dic.~on .,av,._ stt ... ed _; b_;n __ sp._Jd~j. l lir' e.,AulJ1t <;IH•s ""ed-'l!J "1le" w/fh U"";II "':l,il"' 11• Ontario wl1ich incl!udle :sites will1 an ac ie or unresol\:ed staws.
.I,
, 1.l r,,,
' •• ■■ L"I -
•O •O .. -~
q-o- r)f\l f.i.\1{~("1 Ii( p f'd
r,f~PPL~"'lcMTf l E
1 ?
- lh
.J.O ..
- ate -or·
12()"
2647

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 2 4
This page intentionally left blank.
2648

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.9 -25
Potential Hazardous Building Materials
Some buildings in the City were built before the 1970s; based on the ages of these buildings, there is a potential for building materials to contain asbestos or lead-based paint (LBP). A potential release of hazardous materials could occur when asbestos-containing material (ACM) or LBP are disturbed during renovation or demolition activities. This disturbance could be harmful to human health. Typical hazardous materials of concern for existing older structures in the City include the following:

Asbestos is a mineral fiber that is carcinogenic and harmful to respiratory health. Because of its fiber strength and heat resistance, it was widely used in a variety of building construction materials for insulation and as a fire-retardant, as well as in friction and heat-resistant products. Use of asbestos in the manufacturing of these products was common throughout California, until 1977, when it was banned. Older buildings constructed prior to 1978 could contain ACM. Asbestos can be released when ACMs are disturbed by cutting, sanding, drilling, or other remodeling activities. Improper attempts to remove these materials can release asbestos fibers into the air, increasing asbestos levels and affecting indoor air quality.

Lead is a recognized harmful environmental pollutant that can pose a hazard when exposed through air, drinking water, food, contaminated soil, deteriorating paint, and dust. Lead was widely used in paint, gasoline, water pipes, and many other products prior to documentation of its health hazards. The use of LBP was banned in California in 1978, and therefore, buildings constructed prior to 1978 could contain LBP. If LBP is improperly removed from surfaces by dry scraping or sanding, LBP can be inhaled or otherwise absorbed into the body and could pose a potential public health risk.

Mold can impair indoor air quality. The presence of visible water damage, damp materials, visible mold, or mold odor in buildings increases the potential risks of respiratory disease of occupants. According to the California Department of Public Health, known health risks include the development of asthma, allergies, and respiratory infections, the triggering of asthma attacks, and increased wheezing, coughing, difficulty breathing, and other symptoms.

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) are synthetic chemicals that were manufactured for use in various industrial and commercial applications––including oil in electrical and hydraulic equipment, and plasticizers in paints, plastics, and rubber products––because of their nonflammability, chemical stability, high boiling point, and electrical insulation properties. When released into the environment, PCBs persist for many years and bioaccumulate in organisms.

The EPA has classified PCBs as probable human carcinogens. In 1979, the EPA banned the use of PCBs in most new electrical equipment and began a program to phase out certain existing PCB-containing equipment.

Radon is a naturally-occurring odorless, tasteless, and invisible gas produced from the decay of uranium in soil and water. Structures placed on native soils with elevated levels of radon ■
■
■
■
■
2649

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 2 6
can be impacted by the intrusion of radon gas into breathing spaces of the overlying structures, which can cause lung cancer. San Bernardino County is listed as a Zone 2 county, which predicts an average indoor radon screening level between 2 and 4 pCi/L, which is within the recommended levels assigned by the EPA (EPA 2014).

Schools
As described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of this Draft SEIR, some land uses are considered more sensitive to airborne hazardous materials than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Because sensitive population groups include children, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires an evaluation of hazardous emissions or handling hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school, private or public. There are currently 5 public school districts serving the City of Ontario (for list of public schools see Table 3.15-2, Public Schools Serving the City of Ontario).

Pipelines
Pipelines of concern carry hazardous liquids and/or gases that can be harmful to life and property. The City of Ontario does have hazardous pipelines that run through the City. A search on the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) National Pipeline Mapping System found 2 gas transmission pipelines and one hazardous liquid pipeline within the city (USDOT 2025). The risk associated with these pipelines is the exposure of people to hazardous materials or electrical currents because of breakage during an earthquake or ground excavation. Although the City does not contain any active earthquake faults, it is surrounded by areas that experience fault ruptures, liquefaction, and landslides. A seismic event that involves one of these hazards may affect a pipeline or electrical line in a surrounding area and could impact the services being provided to Ontario through pipelines and electrical lines. The excavation of areas near pipelines is required to follow the regulatory procedures of the Underground Service Alert of Southern California.

Airports
The Ontario International Airport (ONT) and the Chino Airport (CNO) operate in and around Ontario. ONT is centrally located in the northern part of the City, and the CNO borders Ontario on the south. Figure 3.9-2, Airport Safety Zones, shows the airport safety zones associated with ONT and CNO. Figure 3.13-2, Airport Noise Contours, in Section 3.13, Noise, identifies the noise compatibility zones for ONT and CNO.
2650
- L_ .. l CITY OF -1_ I
UPLAND r· .. ,£-EIGH"'H-scr-.. ~ - Cl~i::;~~:0 t-" j
~ · ----!... r~~---------_ _j ~ \ I
/ I " I ! \ I 1·
w - ~ L
CITY OF !"'~ w FOURTH ST ! ~ .. - .. -e-F0wR;r,H-s, . .. _ .,_,,_,,_ .,_ ,j, ··-··-··1 w w w ~ > ~ <(
0 < VI
z ::,
~ z z ~
MONTCLAIR ~ <z : .fr
:::; ~ c>.
::,
u .., ~
<
...,
~ ~ w ::,
• < ~ f ~ W G ST ; E G ST E INLA D EMPIRE BLVD i 11'1 u z z z 0 c>: .., .., < ~ I ! w DST
E DST

E HOLT AVE
l
- ,) . ,.J
J 7 - ~

W MISSION BLVD
w
~ W PHILLIPS ST
cc :::;
:c .., \:> :E a: w
<
z
> <( z
z
w
~ :c
~ I
z
I
I

E SANTA ANA ST I
w
~ CITY OF
~ FONTANA J _1 ~
-.. r- ~ ~ z ::, w
w O ~
_,J f ~ !

E JURUPA ST
I z
J
~
t,
J ; V,
~ W PHILADELPHIA ST VI E PHILADELPHIA ST
w
~
0 a:
w
~
z
> ... _, ~ 1•-: (,/')
---==,,...... 60)------------..---------- ----------------...,.--

CITY OF CHINO
I
w
> 0
a:
\!)
VI

E SCHAEFER AVE

C EDISON AVE

E RIVERSIDE DR

E CHINO AVE
I
VI
a:
w
z
a:
::,
>-
V,

E EUCALYPTUS AVE
z
w
~ :c
V, I
I
~ a:
u:,
z
~
ONTARIO RANCH RD 1
I
i
I
.. J
L .. --.. --.. -ME
\ ..
, . .,,,.,,, l
_ _..,,..,. .. ,...,...,. EASTVALE
L
' ,...,...,.~
~··
_,, ..
! I Coonly of
: San Bernardino
w
::1
> w
z
3 VI VI
··- ··- ··- · ·-J- 11- ft
County of R1vers1de

JURUPA VALLEY
3_ 9 HAZAR DS AN D HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Figure 3.9-2
Airport Safety Zones
[. "I Ontario City Boundary
l.. "I County Boundary
c::::J EBPSP Boundary
Ontario International Airport Safety
- ZONE-I
ZONE-2
ZONE-3
ZONE-4
ZONE-5
Chino Airport Safety Zones
Safety Zone I
Safety Zone 2
Safety Zone 3
Safety Zone 4
Safety Zone 6
2 · 0·5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
@ 0 2,500 5,000
Source: City of Ontario, 2019 and 2022
Ff
10,000
Dale: 12/9/2025
2651

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 2 8
This page intentionally left blank.
2652

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.9 -29
Ontario International Airport
ONT has the capacity to provide regional air traffic for domestic and international commercial and cargo service, and the necessary support facilities for major and smaller airlines. Prior to the closure of the Ontario Army Airfield in 1995, the site was operated by the Ontario Air National Guard. In 1967, there was a joint powers agreement between the City of Ontario and the Los Angeles Department of Airports to operate and manage ONT. The City of Ontario and San Bernardino County formed the Ontario International Airport Authority in August 2012 by enacting a joint powers agreement (Ontario 2018). In 2024, approximately 7 million passengers and 793,371 tons of air freight traveled through the airport (ONT 2025a).

The Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan was adopted on April 19, 2011, by the Ontario City Council to promote compatibility with surrounding land uses and amended in July 2018. The ALUCP provides guidance and promotes compatibility between the airport and the land that surrounds it to avoid potential compatibility conflicts (Ontario 2018).

The Ontario International Airport–Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC) was formed through a Cooperative Agreement by all Affected Agencies to maintain local jurisdiction control of land use planning for areas within ONT Airport Influence Area. The Affected Agencies include the City of Chino, City of Fontana, City of Montclair, City of Ontario, City of Rancho Cucamonga, City of Upland and San Bernardino County. The ONT ALUCP contains the ONT-IAC operational framework and identifies 3 framework components: 1) a technical group (ONT-IAC Technical Staff Group) comprised of senior staff members from the Affected Agencies to review projects for consistency with the ALUCP; 2) an appeals body (ONT-IAC Mediation Board) to resolve consistency evaluation disputes; and 3) an administrative function managed by the City of Ontario.

Safety Zones
The following is a summary of the safety zone information for the ONT provided in the ALUCP:

Safety Zone 1 reflects the airport’s established Runway Protection Zone. Land use restrictions in this zone include:

Prohibited livestock uses; outdoor assembly areas; local parks; camping grounds; cemeteries; all residential and lodging uses; all educational and institutional uses; all commercial, offices, and services uses; all industrial, manufacturing, and storage uses; airport terminals; rail and bus stations; communication facilities; power plants; electrical substations; wastewater facilities; solid waste disposal facilities; and solid waste transfer facilities. Conditional allowance for natural land area, flood plains/reservoirs, transportation routes, and auto parking.

Safety Zone 2 reflects the airport’s established Inner Approach/Departure. Land use restrictions in the Safety Zone 2 include:
■
•
■
2653

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 3 0
Prohibited outdoor major facilities, group recreation, local parks, camping grounds, all residential and lodging uses, all educational and institutional uses, major and local retail, eating establishments, vehicle fueling, hazardous materials production, heavy industrial, research and development, communication facilities, and power plants.

Conditional allowance for flood plains/reservoirs, nonresidential agriculture, small recreation, limited retail/wholesale, offices, personal and miscellaneous services, light industrial, indoor storage, rail and bus stations, electrical substations, wastewater facilities, and solid waste disposal facilities.

Normally compatible with natural land areas, livestock uses, cemeteries, outdoor storage, mining and extraction, airport terminals, transportation routes, auto parking, and solid waste transfer facilities.

Safety Zone 3 reflects the airport’s established Inner Turning Zone. Land use restrictions in the Safety Zone 3 include:

Prohibited outdoor major facilities, residential and lodging uses (except short-term lodging), most educational and institutional uses (except what is listed below), and hazardous materials production.

Conditional allowance for flood plains/reservoirs, nonresidential agriculture, group recreation areas, local parks, camping grounds, short-term lodging, adult education spaces, community libraries, indoor assembly facilities, indoor recreation, in-patient and out-patient medical, public safety facilities, commercial, office, and service uses, heavy industrial uses, light industrial, research and development, communications facilities, and power plants.

Normally compatible with natural land areas, livestock uses, cemeteries, vehicle fueling, indoor storage, outdoor storage, mining and extraction, airport terminals, rail and bus stations, transportation routes, auto parking, electrical substations, wastewater facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, and solid waste transfer facilities.

Safety Zone 4 reflects the airport’s established Outer Approach/Departure. Land use restrictions in the Safety Zone 4 include
Prohibited outdoor major facilities, residential and lodging uses (except short-term lodging), most educational and institutional uses (except what is listed below), and hazardous materials production.

Conditional allowance for flood plains/reservoirs, nonresidential agriculture, group recreation areas, camping grounds, local parks, short-term lodging, adult education spaces, community library, large indoor assembly facilities, indoor recreation, in-patient and out-patient medical, public safety facilities, major retail, local retail, eating establishments, offices, personal and miscellaneous services, heavy industrial uses, light industrial, research and development, communications facilities, and power plants.

Normally compatible with natural land areas, livestock uses, cemeteries, limited retail/wholesale, vehicle fueling, indoor storage, outdoor storage, mining and extraction, •
•
•
■
•
•
•
■
•
•
•
2654

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.9 -31
airport terminals, rail and bus stations, transportation routes, auto parking, electrical substations, wastewater facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, and solid waste transfer facilities.

Safety Zone 5 reflects the airport’s established Sideline Zone. Land use restrictions in the Safety Zone 5 include
Prohibited outdoor major facilities, group recreation areas, camping grounds, residential and lodging uses, educational and institutional uses, major retail, local retail, hazardous materials production, heavy industrial, light industrial–high intensity, research and development, power plants, solid waste disposal facilities, and solid waste transfer facilities.

Conditional allowance for local parks, nonresidential agriculture, public safety facilities, eating establishments, offices, personal and miscellaneous services, vehicle fueling, light industrial, rail and bus stations, communications facilities, electrical substations, and wastewater facilities.

Normally compatible with natural land areas, livestock uses, cemeteries, limited retail/wholesale, indoor storage, outdoor storage, mining and extraction, airport terminals, transportation routes, and auto parking.

Chino Airport
CNO is operated by San Bernardino County Department of Airports and is designated a reliever airport for ONT and San Bernardino International Airport. The CNO is south of Ontario across Merrill Avenue and operates on 1,100 acres and services private, business, and corporate tenants and customers from the Inland Empire (Ontario 2022). The City of Chino adopted an Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (ACLUP) in November 1991. The Chino Airport Master Plan (AMP) was adopted by the County of San Bernardino in 2006. The ACLUP dated 1991 does not reflect the latest adopted AMP and is not useful for long-range planning purposes.

Also, the existing Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan does not reflect the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c) that requires local jurisdictions under the “alternative process” to “rely upon” the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook for preparing Compatibility Plans and to utilize the Handbook’s height, land use, noise, safety, and density criteria. Although the City of Ontario does not have the formal responsibility under the “alternative process” to prepare a compatibility plan for CNO, the City of Ontario has adopted the CNO Overlay Zone and Reference I: Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan that addresses CNO’s impacts on Ontario, consistent with policies and criteria set forth within the Caltrans 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.

Safety Zones
The following is a summary of the Safety Zone information applicable for Chino Airport consistent with the Caltrans 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook:
■
•
•
•
2655

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 3 2
Safety Zone 1 Runway Protection Zone. Land use restrictions in Safety Zone 1 include:

Normally allowed uses: none
Limited uses: none
Avoided uses: Nonresidential uses except if very low intensity in character and confined to the outer sides; and Parking lots, streets, and roads.

Prohibited uses: All new structures and residential land uses.

Safety Zone 2 Inner Approach/Departure Zone. Land use restrictions in the Safety Zone 2 include:

Normally allowed uses: Agriculture, non-group recreational uses, low-hazard materials storage, warehouse, low-intensity industrial uses, auto repair, aircraft repair, and marine repair services.

Limited uses: Single-story office buildings and nonresidential uses to activities that attract few people.

Avoided uses: All residential uses except as infill in developed areas, multi-story uses, uses with high density or intensity, shopping centers, and most eating establishments.

Prohibited uses: Theaters, meeting halls, other assembly uses, office buildings greater than three stories, labor intensive industrial uses, children's schools, large daycare centers, hospitals, nursing homes, stadiums, group recreational uses, and hazardous uses.

Safety Zone 3 Inner Turning Zone. Land use restrictions in the Safety Zone 3 include:

Normally allowed uses: Uses allowed in Zone 2, greenhouses, low-hazard materials storage, mini-storage, warehouses, light industrial, and vehicle repair services.

Limited uses: Residential uses to very low densities and office and other commercial uses to low intensities.

Avoided uses: Commercial and other nonresidential uses having higher usage intensities, building with more than 3 aboveground habitable floors, and hazardous uses.

Prohibited uses: Major shopping centers, theaters, meeting halls, other assembly facilities, children’s schools, large daycare centers, hospitals, nursing homes, stadiums, and group recreational uses.

Safety Zone 4 Outer Approach/Departure Zone. Land use restrictions in the Safety Zone 4 include:

Normally allowed uses: Uses allowed in Zone 3, restaurant, retail, and industry.

Limited uses: Residential uses to low density.

Avoided uses: High-intensity retail or office buildings.

Prohibited uses: Children’s schools, large daycare centers, hospitals, nursing homes, stadiums, and group recreational uses.
■
■
■
■
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2656

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.9 -33
Safety Zone 6 Traffic Pattern Zone. Land use restrictions in the Safety Zone 6 include:

Normally allowed uses: Residential uses (however, noise and overflight impacts should be considered where ambient noise levels are low).

Limited uses: Children’s schools, large daycare centers, hospitals, nursing homes, and processing and storage of bulk quantities of highly hazardous materials.

Avoided uses: Outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high intensities.

Prohibited uses: None.

Wildfire
As further described in Section 3.20, Wildfire, the City is not located within a fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) or wildland-urban interface (WUI) (CAL FIRE 2025a). However, moderate, high, and very high FHSZs are to the north of the City, outside its boundaries in the San Bernardino Mountains. Although Ontario itself is not classified within an FHSZ, wildfires originating in these nearby areas could still pose a potential threat to the City’s developed areas. Wildland fire protection is the primary responsibility of the SBCFPD.

SPECIFIC PLAN
Background
The Specific Plan area consists of 11 individual properties referred to herein as the DeGroot Trust, Pietersma Family Trust, Hindelang Family Trust, B&G Cattle Co., Riley, Costa, Whitegold Ventures LLP, Alewyn, Miersma, DeHoog II, and Swager Properties. Figure 3.9-3, Properties within the EBPSP Area, illustrates the locations of each of these properties within the Specific Plan area.

From at least 1938 to 1953, the Specific Plan area was used for agricultural purposes (row crops and orchards) with a few residential dwellings. By the mid-1950s, the area became increasingly used for dairy farming purposes. From at least 1986 to 1992, uses such as fiberglass camper shell manufacturing, general storage yards, and a truck storage facility were also present.

Currently, land uses within the Specific Plan area include dairy farms (including associated wastewater pond(s) and various ancillary dairy farm structures including corral canopies, sheds, feed silos, and milking barns), storage and minor maintenance of semi-trailer trucks, storage and distribution of krill oil and soy sauce, storage of tires, small animal corrals and associated residencies.
■
•
•
•
•
2657

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 3 4
The Specific Plan area is located within the Chino Groundwater Basin. Concentrated animal feeding lots such as dairy farms can be a source of local groundwater degradation due to nitrates and total dissolved solids (TDS). The Chino Basin once had the highest concentration of dairy animals in the world, with approximately 350 dairies located within a 20-square mile area.

Although the number of dairies has declined significantly, historical land application of manure and process water has resulted in significant groundwater degradation due to high levels of nitrate and TDS (EPA n.d.)
The eastern portion of the Specific Plan area is located within a large regional VOC groundwater plume comprised mostly of trichloroethylene (TCE), referred to as the South Archibald TCE Plume. This plume originates from a source approximately 1.7 miles to the northeast as a result of historical land use of numerous metal plating and finishing facilities. Low concentrations of TCE were reported from 2017 to 2022 in groundwater from two wells on the larger DeHoog II and Swager Properties at concentrations of 1.2 and 0.46 ug/l, respectively, well below the SWRCB, Division of Drinking Water maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for TCE in drinking water of 5 ug/l. Based on the depth of groundwater and low concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) detected beneath the Specific Plan area, there is a low likelihood that a vapor intrusion issue is present. At least 2 of the Specific Plan area properties (Swager and DeHoog II) have drinking water supplied by the City of Ontario. There is a low likelihood that land use activities currently located within the Specific Plan area have contributed to the regional groundwater issue. Groundwater monitoring within the plume area is on-going and a remediation system to treat the contaminated groundwater is currently in the design and permitting phases (Appendix G1).

Site Reconnaissance
During the Phase I field reconnaissance, visual evidence of staining, unusual odors, petroleum sheens, or distressed vegetation were observed. Odors associated with dairy farm operations (manure, wastewater ponds) were identified throughout the Specific Plan area. With the exception of Pietersma, Hindelang, B&G Cattle and Riley properties, wastewater ponds associated with dairy farm operations were observed on the remaining properties located within the boundaries of the Specific Plan area. These ponds represent permitted features, and no chemical uses were noted to be associated with these features. No evidence of oil/water separators, utilities of environmental concern, landfills, or dumping was observed. On-site activities observed include dairy farm operations, storage, shipping, manufacturing processes and receiving of products. Exterior industrial features were observed including milk barns, cattle corral canopies, and feed silos. No railroad spurs, baghouses, air emissions, or barrels were observed. All properties were equipped with aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) for milk and feed silos. Interior industrial features were observed including milk pump rooms and cattle wash areas.
2658
SWAGER

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Figure 3.9-3
Properties within the
EBPSP Area
C:Jl EBPSP Boundary
D Property Boundary
2·0·5·0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
@ 0
~
300 600 Feet
Source: T&B 2025 Date: 12/09/2025
2659

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 3 6
This page intentionally left blank.
2660

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.9 -37
Several single to triple pole-mounted electrical transformers along Bon View and Eucalyptus Avenues, and a triple pole mounted transformer on each of the B&G Cattle and DeGroot properties were observed. All observed transformers are expected to be non- polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) containing and/or dry-type transformers. No staining was observed in the areas of the pole-mounted transformers; therefore, the transformers are not considered a recognized environmental concern (REC) and do not warrant additional investigation. No hydraulic equipment was observed within the Specific Plan area.

Chemical storage, specifically within milk barns, at all properties associated with the dairy farm operations was observed. Chemicals observed in the milk barn areas included numerous 55- gallon drums of iodine, acid wash, and hydrogen peroxide for sanitation purposes. Cattle wash and other sanitation chemicals, farm waste, feed lot spoils, and wastewater ponds were observed.

Based on the age of the buildings (1930s to mid-1960s), it is possible that ACM, underground asbestos-cement pipelines (ACPs), and/or LBP are present. No water intrusion or mold was noted during the reconnaissance (Appendix G1).

Regulatory Agency Database Research
Regulatory records for the Hindelang Property indicate that the property was used to manufacture fiberglass camper shells from at least 1986 through 1992. This operation reportedly included use of a spray paint booth and used and stored hazardous materials including chlorinated and hydrocarbon solvents. Based on the documented use of chlorinated solvents (1,1,1-TCA), poor general housekeeping, and noted automobile repair operations, the Hindelang property was identified as a potential vapor encroachment concern. Additionally, environmental database records for the B&G property report hazardous wastes including 0.17- tons of halogenated solvents (chloroforms, methyl chloride, PCE, etc.) in 1997. Based on the documented use of chlorinated solvents (PCE), the B&G property was identified as a potential vapor encroachment concern.

The Whitegold property within the Specific Plan area was permitted and used for dairy farming purposes since at least 1979 with animal wastewater discharge. The HAZNET database reported approximately 0.9-tons of asbestos containing waste in 2018. This facility was also listed on the LUST and Cortese databases. Two 1,000-gallon USTs storing gasoline and diesel were removed from the property in 1994. No sampling activities were conducted at the time of removal. Soil sampling activities were conducted in 2004 and 2005 to determine the vertical and lateral extent of contamination under the direction of the Santa Ana RWQCB. Soil contaminated with Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) and VOCs such as ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes were excavated and disposed of off-site. The Santa Ana RWQCB issued a No Further Action (NFA) letter for the case, dated October 18, 2006. Based on this information, the former LUST case 2661

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 3 8
associated with these listings represents a historical recognized environmental concern (HREC) (Appendix G1).

Soil Sampling
Given the potential concerns identified above for the Hindelang and B&G properties, as well as potential pesticide concerns from historical dairy/agricultural uses, Phase II subsurface investigations were conducted throughout the Specific Plan area. For areas of concern associated with the Hindelang and B&G properties, a total of 8 soil borings were advanced to a depth of 5 feet below ground surface (bgs). For areas of potential pesticide concerns, a total of 220 individual soil samples were collected at a depth of approximately 0.5 feet bgs. Soil vapor sampling was also conducted at depths of 5 feet bgs.

In addition to the above, three samples were taken from several stockpiles of unknown origin, as well as four samples from the most frequently used dirt driveways/pathways at the Hindelang and B&G properties. Please refer to Figure 3.9-4, EBPSP Soil Sample Locations. Samples were tested for TPH, organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), VOCs, and CAM 17 Metals.

Laboratory testing concluded that none of the samples contained contaminants above the thresholds established by the USEPA or DTSC for commercial/industrial land uses. As such, the on-site soils are not significantly impacted by the historical or current land uses within the Specific Plan area (Appendix G2 and G3).

Airport-Related Hazards
Although the Specific Plan area is located within the ONT Influence Area (AIA), it is located outside any identified safety, airspace protection, and noise impact zones. All properties located within the ONT AIA are subject to a real estate transaction disclosure notice (Ontario 2018).

The Specific Plan area is also located within the CNO AIA. The San Bernardino County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Chino Airport was adopted in 1991 and does not reflect guidance set forth in the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (SBC ALUC 1991).

As such, in 2022, the City of Ontario adopted the CNO Overlay District which provides maps, criteria, and policy language to guide development within the Chino AIA consistent with the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.

As illustrated in Figure 3.9-2, the majority of the Specific Plan area is located within CNO Safety Zone 6 (low risk), with a very small portion of the southeastern corner located within Safety Zone 4 (moderate risk). Uses permitted by the EBPSP are allowed in both of these safety zones (Ontario 2022b).
2662
"• .. Ol1BP
•• ••
Oljll/'-1• •• ~ "" se
oe DEO)lOOT ce
ORB~-15 ce ce oe ~~ .. - e-o ae
... A. C05TA9 • A • WHITl;QOl,..D e •e Ofll!P-13 •• ~-16 OAt§t, l't "• QAHl' 12~1l De Ce
oe
oe o• c• ce oe ce ae ••
- _,
•• .A e a•
•e ae •• ~. •e OA8"'11 oe
"'""''" oe oe "• ce
--- --··
•• •e
<lfW>• _ ..... •e I oe ce I
EtlCAI..YnUS AVENUE
~
_,!;=:;;;;~::..:= _ ..___ ! ___________________ ,, _____ _ ~ •• se
""
IJ' ; 01101',22 • :':":e
oe
•• •
~"'be
ee
D~ II
•• ALEWYN
<1"6"-211 oe •• • •• ce CHIP'28C.
oe se I •• ae se
ORllP44 O!lllP.a5 ce
oe "'• oe
•• nntl',29
se ce
°"""""e
"•
oe
I
De
(....W."'1US•~
'• oe I
Ollll/',$1
oe ce
5WAGrll
•• •• oe OfftlP'"'
ce
Ae ••
De """"·"'" "•

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
Figure 3. 9-4
EBPSP Soil Sample
Locations
- - - - EBPSP Boundary
---- Property Boundary
----- Grid Line
RB2A1
SS1 @
•
Ponds
Residential/Developed
Soil and Soil Vapor
Sample Location
Stockpile/Surface Soil
Sample Location
Agricultural Soil Discreet
Sample
OABP-1 Grid Designation
[=a Proposed Open Space Area
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
G 11____11
0 27 5 550 Feet
Source: T&B 2025 Date: 12/09/2025
LS
2663

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 4 0
This page intentionally left blank.
2664

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.9 -41
Wildfire Hazards
The Specific Plan area is located within the limits of the City of Ontario, outside of the State Responsibility Area (SRA). The site is not located within an identified Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE 2025b).

According to the City’s 2023 LHMP, no high fire severity zones exist within the City, nor does the City have any wildland-urban interface areas (Ontario 2023). The Specific Plan area is located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA), with fire protection services currently provided by the OFD.

3.9.3 Standards for Analysis

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials if it would:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. b) 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.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
d) Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
e) 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, if the project would result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
2665

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 4 2

METHODOLOGY
Policy Plan Amendment
The required lists of hazardous material release sites summarized under State Agencies in Section 3.9.1, Regulatory Framework, are commonly and collectively referred to as the “Cortese List,” named after the legislator who authored the legislation. Because the statute was enacted more than 20 years ago, some of the provisions refer to agency activities that were conducted many years ago and are no longer being implemented and, in some cases, the information required in the Cortese List does not exist. Those requesting a copy of the Cortese Lists are now referred directly to the appropriate information resources on websites hosted by the boards or departments referenced in the statute, including DTSC’s online EnviroStor database and the SWRCB’s online GeoTracker database. These 2 databases include hazardous material release sites, along with other categories of sites or facilities specific to each agency’s jurisdiction. The following analysis is based on the hazardous materials identified for the Policy Plan Amendment in Section 3.9.2, Existing Conditions. Specific Plan
The analysis of the Specific Plan area evaluates the potential impacts on human health and the environment due to potential exposure of hazardous materials or conditions associated with the site, construction, and operations. The Phase I analysis was conducted in general accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM E1527-21) in an effort to identify, to the extent feasible, the presence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) with respect to the Specific Plan area. The site and surrounding areas were assessed to determine the potential presence of hazardous materials, which included a review of environmental records, a review of historical records, a site reconnaissance, and interviews with representatives of the Specific Plan area and adjoining properties. As part of the Phase II analysis, the site was subdivided into approximately uniform grids so the investigation could be conducted in a manner generally consistent with the DTSC Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties.

3.9.4 Relevant New and Modified General Plan Policies
There are no applicable policy changes.
2666

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.9 -43

3.9.5 Environmental Impacts
2022 Certified EIR
The Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would involve the transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. The Certified EIR also concluded that properties in the City are included on a list of hazardous materials sites. The approved project would comply with federal, state, and local regulations. Furthermore, the approved project concluded that consistency reviews of the proposed land uses with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the ONT and CNO would prevent significant impacts. In addition, buildout of the approved project would not affect the implementation of an emergency response or evacuation plan. With regard to urban and wildland fire threats, adherence to existing regulations and review of building plans by the Ontario Fire Department would reduce risks from fires to the City. Impacts resulting from the approved project were identified as less than significant upon implementation of regulatory requirements in the Certified EIR.

Proposed Project
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? The Certified EIR concluded that federal and state regulations, City ordinances, and approved project’s policies would help regulate the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. As such, impacts were found to be less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
Similar to the approved project, the proposed project involves the designation of commercial, industrial, and residential land uses in Ontario as well as continued redevelopment and large amounts of infill development. Development associated with the proposed project would result in a concentration of commercial, hospitality, office, and industrial uses around ONT and numerous mixed-use projects throughout the City. The potential buildout of the proposed project would increase the number of businesses and residents in the City, thereby increasing the amount of hazardous materials being transported, stored, and manufactured, and the number of people exposed to these materials (refer to Table 2-4, Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment). Buildout in accordance with the proposed project would result in an increase in the frequency of transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials associated with commercial and industrial growth in Ontario, especially in the Ontario Ranch (see Figure 2- 6, Areas of Change). Though businesses and users are required by federal, state, and local regulations to properly transport, use, and dispose of hazardous material, it is possible that 2667

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 4 4
upset or accidental conditions may arise that result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

As noted in Section 3.9.2, Existing Conditions, the City also has a number of hazardous pipelines.

A major high-pressure distribution pipeline, operated by Kinder Morgan, serves ONT with jet fuel. However, this pipeline and others running throughout the City are monitored by pipeline operators who are responsible for the upkeep of pipelines and the authorization of excavations around pipeline locations. Buildout of the proposed project would increase the exposure of people and the environment to potential hazards related to pipeline or electrical line rupture.

As with all development in California, development in Ontario would be required to follow the procedural requirements of the Underground Service Alert of Southern California, or DigAlert.

Additionally, because demolition activities have the potential to expose construction workers and/or the public to ACMs or LBP, such activities would be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations, including, but not limited to: South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1403; California Health and Safety Code Section 39650 et seq.; California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 1529; California Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations (8 CCR Section 1529 [Asbestos] and Section 1532.1 [Lead]); and the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 61 (asbestos); Title 40, Part 763 (asbestos); and Title 29, Part 1926 (asbestos and lead).

In conclusion, existing federal and state regulations, City ordinances, and the Policy Plan Amendment policies would continue to regulate the handling of hazardous substances to minimize potential releases, exposure, storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Compared to the approved project, implementation of the proposed project would result in similar impacts because it would increase land use intensity rather than expand development into previously undeveloped areas that require substantial landform modification.

Therefore, like the approved project, any additional hazardous materials transport, use, or disposal occurring under the proposed project would be less than significant with continued compliance with applicable regulations. The Policy Plan Amendment would not result in new or substantially greater impacts compared to the approved project.

Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
Construction
Construction activities may require limited transport of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., paints, solvents, fertilizer, etc.) to and from the site. This type of storage, transfer, use and disposal of potentially hazardous materials is extensively regulated at the local, State and federal levels.
2668

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.9 -45
Additionally, based on the age of the on-site structures (1930s to mid-1960s), there is a potential for ACMs, ACPs, and/or LBP to be present within the Specific Plan area. Demolition activities within the Specific Plan area would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local hazardous materials regulations, which include mandatory provisions for the safe removal, transport, and disposal of ACMs, ACPs, and LBP. South Coast AQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions) and Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 1, Chapter 8: Accreditation, Certification, and Work Practices for Lead-Based Paint and Lead Hazards would apply.

Compliance with the existing federal and state regulations, City ordinances, and the Policy Plan Amendment policies would ensure that removal of these materials would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, like the approved project, construction activities associated with implementation of the EBPSP would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials. Accordingly, construction of the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Impacts associated with construction would be less than significant. Operations Although the end users are unknown at this time, it is possible that hazardous materials could be used during the future building users’ daily operations. State and federal Community-Rightto-Know laws allow public access to information about the amounts and types of chemicals in use at local businesses. Laws also are in place that require businesses to plan and prepare for possible chemical emergencies.

Any business that occupies the buildings within the Specific Plan area and that handles hazardous materials (as defined in Section 25500 of California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95) would require a permit from the SBCFPD Hazardous Materials Division in order to register the business as a hazardous materials handler. Such businesses also are required to comply with California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, which requires immediate reporting to the SBCFPD and the State Office of Emergency Services regarding any release or threatened release of a hazardous material, regardless of the amount handled by the business, and to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan (HMBEP). An HMBEP is a written set of procedures and information created to help minimize the effects and extent of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material. With mandatory regulatory compliance, the operations of uses implemented pursuant to the EBPSP would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials. Accordingly, operations of EBPSP land uses would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with long-term operation of the EBPSP would be less than significant.
2669

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 4 6
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant Impact HAZ-1: Compliance with existing regulations and policies would ensure that implementation of the proposed project would not adversely affect the environment through transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

New Mitigation Measures
No impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are needed. b) 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?
The Certified EIR concluded that compliance with federal and state regulations, City ordinances, and approved project’s policies would help regulate the handling of hazardous substances, thereby reducing the potential for their release and exposure in the environment. Impacts were found to be less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
As listed in Table 3.9-1, the City of Ontario has around 36 TRI facilities or active sites that generate, transport, treat, store, and/or dispose of hazardous waste. Figure 3.9-1 shows the known contaminated sites and facilities in Ontario based on the EnviroStor database. An increase in the transport of hazardous waste from an increased demand for transport, use, and disposal within or outside the City could result in more accidents, leading to the release of hazardous materials. An increase in the transport of hazardous materials as a result of the commercial and industrial growth in the City would be limited to areas along interstates and rail lines, where commercial and industrial uses would be concentrated. Some transport of hazardous materials may occur near small commercial pockets proposed throughout various areas of the City.

As stated previously in Impact Discussion a), existing federal and state regulations, City ordinances, and the Policy Plan Amendment policies would continue to regulate the handling of hazardous substances to minimize potential releases, exposure, storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Compared to the approved project, 2670

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.9 -47
implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment would result in similar impacts because it would increase land use intensity rather than expand development into previously undeveloped areas that require substantial landform modification. Therefore, like the approved project, any potential release and exposure of hazardous materials into the environment under the Policy Plan Amendment would be less than significant with continued compliance with applicable regulations. The Policy Plan Amendment would not result in new or substantially greater impacts compared to the approved project.

Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
On-Site Conditions
As discussed above, Phase II subsurface investigations were conducted throughout the Specific Plan area. For areas of concern associated with the Hindelang and B&G properties, a total of 8 soil borings were advanced to a depth of 5 feet bgs. For areas of potential pesticide concerns, a total of 220 individual soil samples were collected at a depth of approximately 0.5 feet bgs. Soil vapor sampling was also conducted at depths of 5 feet bgs.

In addition to the above, 3 samples were taken from several stockpiles of unknown origin, as well as 4 samples from the most frequently used dirt driveways/pathways at the Hindelang and B&G properties. Samples were tested for TPH, OCPs, VOCs, and CAM 17 Metals.

Nonetheless, construction activities have the potential to encounter unknown soil/soil vapor contamination or unknown subsurface structures within the Specific Plan area. As a result, the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials during construction associated with the Specific Plan area would represent a greater impact than the previously approved project. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

Construction
Construction activities may require limited transport of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., paints, solvents, fertilizer, etc.) to and from the site. This type of storage, transfer, use and disposal of potentially hazardous materials is extensively regulated at the local, State and federal levels.
2671

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 4 8
As previously discussed in Impact Discussion a), above, there is a potential for ACMs, ACPs, and LBP to be present within the Specific Plan area. Demolition activities within the Specific Plan area would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local hazardous materials regulations.

Compliance with regulatory requirements would ensure that removal of these materials would not result in a foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Any potential release or exposure of hazardous materials into the environment due to the construction of the EBPSP would be less than significant with continued compliance with applicable regulations. The EBPSP would not result in new or substantially greater impacts compared to the approved project.

Operations
Operations could involve the temporary storage and handling of potentially hazardous materials such as pesticides, fertilizers, or paint products that are pre-packaged for distribution and use, which is regulated at the local, State and federal levels.

As previously mentioned, any business that occupies the buildings within the Specific Plan area and that handles hazardous materials would require a permit from the SBCFPD Hazardous Materials Division in order to register the business as a hazardous materials handler. Such businesses would also be required to prepare a HMBEP.

Operations of the EBPSP would not result in conditions that are not currently addressed by existing regulations, precluding foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, like the approved project, this impact is less than significant. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant.

Impact HAZ-2: Existing regulations and policies of TOP 2050 would ensure that development associated with the Policy Plan Amendment would not exacerbate the potential release of hazardous materials into the environment. However, development of the EBPSP, as well as existing site conditions, may reveal unknown soil or soil vapor contamination or unknown subsurface structures.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. 2672

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.9 -49
New Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
No additional mitigation measures have been identified.

Specific Plan
Development of the EBPSP has the potential to encounter unknown soil/soil vapor contamination or unknown subsurface structures within the Specific Plan area.

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

Significance After Mitigation
Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1-SP would ensure that no significant impacts due to unknown soil/soil vapor contamination or unknown subsurface structures would occur. Adherence to the SMP would ensure compliance with existing laws and regulations. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant. 2673

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 5 0
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
The Certified EIR concluded that compliance with federal and state regulations, City ordinances, and approved project’s policies would help regulate the handling of hazardous substances, thereby reducing the potential for their release and exposure in the environment, including in proximity to existing and proposed schools. As such, impacts were found to be less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
Although implementation of the proposed project would increase overall commercial and industrial activity within the City, thereby potentially increasing the use or transport of hazardous materials near existing or proposed schools, future development would remain subject to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations governing the safe handling of such materials. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that hazardous substances are properly managed, stored, and disposed of to prevent releases to the environment near existing or proposed schools. Additionally, the areas of change are concentrated in the southern part of the City, and there are no schools in this area (refer to Figure 2-6). Moreover, any future projects located near schools would be required to demonstrate compliance with regulatory standards designed to protect sensitive receptors and ensure that hazardous emissions or waste are not generated in proximity to these facilities.

As stated previously in Impact Discussion a), existing federal and state regulations, City ordinances, and the Policy Plan Amendment policies, including policies S-6.1 through S-6.9, would continue to regulate the handling of hazardous substances to minimize potential releases, exposure, storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes, including in proximity to schools. Compared to the approved project, implementation of the proposed project would result in similar impacts because it would increase land use intensity rather than expand development into previously undeveloped areas that require substantial landform modification. Therefore, like the approved project, any potential release and exposure of hazardous materials near existing or proposed schools under the proposed project would be less than significant with continued compliance with applicable regulations. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially greater impacts compared to the approved project.

Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
The Specific Plan area is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

The nearest school is the Park View Elementary School, which is located approximately 1.87 2674

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.9 -51
miles southeast of the Specific Plan area. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, and/or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, like the approved project, impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact HAZ-3: Existing regulations and policies identified in the Policy Plan Amendment would ensure that the proposed project would have no adverse impacts to schools from facilities that handle hazardous materials.

New Mitigation Measures
No impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are needed. d) Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The Certified EIR concluded that implementation of the approved project’s policies in addition to compliance with existing regulations ensured that development of the approved project would not exacerbate existing hazards associated with existing hazardous materials sites. As such, impacts were found to be less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
The Policy Plan Amendment guides growth in development within the City and is not a development project. The proposed project primarily involves modifying the currently permitted and planned TOP land use pattern across nearly 1,000 acres in southern Ontario (see Figure 2-6). Development in accordance with the Policy Plan Amendment land use plan would involve redevelopment and reuse of some sites listed as hazardous materials sites on environmental databases (see Section 3.9.2 under “Hazardous Materials Sites”). The listings document the presence of hazardous materials on those sites but do not document hazardous releases. As a result, redevelopment of these sites could potentially expose future residents and workers to hazards from known hazardous materials releases on and near the sites. 2675

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 5 2
Site assessments for hazardous materials and remediation of hazardous materials releases would be required for redevelopment projects developed in accordance with the Policy Plan Amendment and the regulations and policies of the agency assigned to the site (i.e., DTSC, Water Quality Control Board, CUPA, EPA). Furthermore, there are several Policy Plan Amendment policies that address development on and around known hazardous waste sites.

These policies include:

LU-2.1: Land Use Decisions. We minimize adverse impacts on adjacent properties when considering land use and zoning requests.

LU-2.3: 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.

LU-2.9: 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.

S-6.2: Response to Hazardous Materials Releases. We respond to hazardous materials incidents and coordinate these services with other jurisdictions.

S-6.5: Location of Hazardous Material Facilities. We regulate facilities that will be involved in the production, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials, pursuant to federal, state, county, and local regulations, so that impacts to the environment and sensitive land uses are mitigated. We prohibit new hazardous waste facilities in close proximity to sensitive land uses and environmental justice areas.

S-6.6: Location of Sensitive Land Uses. We prohibit new sensitive land uses from locating within airport safety zones and near existing sites that use, store, or generate large quantities of hazardous materials.

S-6.8: Mitigation and Remediation of Groundwater Contamination. We actively participate in local and regional efforts directed at both mitigating environmental exposure to contaminated groundwater and taking action to clean up contaminated groundwater once exposure occurs.

S-6.9: Remediation of Methane. We require development to assess and mitigate the presence of methane, per regulatory standards and guidelines.

Compared to the approved project, buildout under the proposed project would result in similar impacts because it would increase land use intensity rather than expand development into previously undeveloped areas that require substantial landform modification. Therefore, like the approved project, the proposed project would not expose people to substantial hazards from sites containing hazardous materials listed on environmental databases and impacts would be less than significant. Overall, the proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project.

Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2676

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.9 -53
Specific Plan
The SWRCB GeoTracker database and the DTSC online EnviroStor database were searched for records related to the Specific Plan area.

The Whitegold property has been permitted and used for dairy farming purposes since at least 1979 with animal wastewater discharge. This facility was listed on the LUST and Cortese databases (CalEPA 2026). Two 1,000-gallon USTs storing gasoline and diesel were removed from the property in 1994. No sampling activities were conducted at the time of removal.

Subsequent soil sampling activities were conducted in 2004 and 2005 to determine the vertical and lateral extent of contamination under the direction of the Santa Ana RWQCB. Soils impacted with TPH and VOCs were reportedly excavated at depths ranging from approximately 32 to 50 feet bgs and disposed offsite, totaling approximately 500 cubic yards (752 tons) of impacted soil. Residual petroleum hydrocarbons were detected at a depth of approximately 30 feet bgs. Based on these remediation activities, the low residual concentrations of TPH and the depth to groundwater (approximately 120 feet bgs), the Santa Ana RWQCB issued a No Further Action letter for the case on October 18, 2006 (Appendix G1). As the site has received a status of Completed – Case Closed, it would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No other properties within the Specific Plan area are identified on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The 2022 Certified EIR acknowledged that development in accordance with TOP 2050 would affect properties identified on hazardous materials databases. Site assessments for hazardous materials and the remediation of any hazardous materials releases would be required for redevelopment projects implemented under the proposed project, in accordance with the regulations and policies of the agency with jurisdiction over the site (i.e., DTSC, Water Quality Control Board, CUPA, EPA).

Therefore, like the approved project, impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 5 4
New Mitigation Measures
No impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are needed. e) For a project 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?
The Certified EIR concluded that the development allowed under the approved project near the airport influence areas would be consistent with the adopted ALUCP for ONT and meet the conditions of the CNO Authority and the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. As a result, impacts were identified as less than significant.

Airport safety hazards include hazards posed to aircraft and hazards posed by aircraft to people and property on the ground. With proper land-use planning, aircraft safety risks can be reduced, primarily by avoiding incompatible land uses. The Federal Aviation Administration and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics provide guidance for land use safety near airports. With adherence to these guidelines, high concentrations of people are not exposed to potential airplane accidents along runways or near airports while airplanes are departing and arriving. There are also guidelines on the placement of housing, schools, and other sensitive land uses near airports because of the noise pollution caused by airplanes (see also Section 3.13, Noise).

Policy Plan Amendment
Ontario International Airport
ONT has the capacity to provide regional air traffic for domestic and international commercial and cargo service, and the necessary support facilities for major and smaller airlines. It operates as a medium-hub, full-service airport serving major US cities and international cities with an average of 90 daily departures (ONT 2025b). The City of Ontario prepared an ALUCP for ONT in accordance with the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics’ 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The proposed project would redesignate the area along Holt Boulevard from Business Park to Mixed Use land use and a portion along Grove Avenue from Airport to Industrial land use.

Although the proposed project would redesignate land uses near ONT, any future development facilitated by these changes would remain subject to meet the applicable safety zone restrictions, noise compatibility requirements, and airspace protection policies of the adopted ONT ALUCP. Additionally, the policies under Land Use-5 (LU-5), Airport Planning, of the Policy Plan Amendment require that all new development surrounding ONT be consistent with the adopted ALUCP and be coordinated with airport authorities to ensure that the public is 2678

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.9 -55
protected from excessive noise and safety hazards. Furthermore, a consistency determination analysis for the ONT was prepared by the City and found that the Policy Plan Amendment is consistent with ALUCP for ONT (Appendix G6). Therefore, the approved project, the Policy Plan Amendment maintains consistency with the ALUCP for ONT since the land use designation change within the airport influence area are consistent.

Chino Airport
The CNO is predominantly a recreational airport. Because the airport is not planned for expansion and would remain primarily recreational, and because only lower-elevation buildings surround it and would continue to surround it upon project implementation, the CNO poses no unique hazards. Similar to the approved project, buildout of the Policy Plan Amendment would involve development within the CNO influence area. The proposed land uses within the Chino Airport Overlay include Business Park, Industrial, Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use, and Open Space–Recreation.

The proposed project would redesignate land south of Edison Avenue from General Commercial, Medium Density Residential, and Mixed Use to Business Park and Open Space– Recreation. In general, these changes would result in a reduction in residential land use within the safety zones of Chino Airport. Any future development in these areas of change would remain subject to meet the applicable safety zone restrictions, and airspace protection policies of the CNO Authority and the Caltrans 2011 Handbook. These requirements include appropriate land uses, maximum population density, maximum site coverage, height restrictions, and required notification/disclosure areas based on the noise contours and runway protection, approach, and Part 77 zones of the adopted Chino Airport Master Plan. A consistency determination analysis for the CNO was also prepared by the City of Ontario found that the Policy Plan Amendment is consistent with ALUCP for CNO (Appendix G6).

Furthermore, the policies under Land Use-5 (LU-5), Airport Planning, of the Policy Plan Amendment promote coordination with airport authorities to ensure land uses near the airport are compatible and that the public is protected from excessive noise and safety hazards. These policies include:

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.

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.

LU-5.3: Airport Impacts. We work with agencies to maximize resources to mitigate the impacts and hazards related to airport operations – their homes. ■
■
■
2679

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 5 6
LU-5.4: ONT Growth Forecast. We support and promote an ONT that accommodates 30 million annual passengers and 1.6 million tons of cargo per year, as long as the impacts associated with that level of operations are planned for and mitigated.

LU-5.5: Airport Compatibility Planning for ONT. We create and maintain the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for ONT.

LU-5.6: Alternative Process. We fulfill our responsibilities and comply with state law with regard to the Alternative Process for proper airport land use compatibility planning.

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 publicuse airport.

LU-5.8: Chino Airport. We will support the creation and implementation of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Chino Airport.

M-5.2. Land Use Compatibility with Regional Transportation Facilities. We work with ONT, railroads, Caltrans, SBCTA, and other transportation agencies to minimize impacts.

Overall, the proposed project ensures compatibility with ONT and CNO. As a result, the proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
The Specific Plan area is located approximately 4.5 miles south of ONT. Although the Specific Plan area is located within the ONT AIA, it is located outside any identified safety, airspace protection, and noise impact zones. All properties located within the ONT AIA are subject to a real estate transaction disclosure notice (Ontario 2018).

The Specific Plan area is approximately one-half mile north of CNO, within the CNO AIA. The San Bernardino County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Chino Airport was adopted in 1991 and does not reflect guidance in the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (SBC ALUC 1991). As such, in 2022, the City of Ontario adopted the CNO Overlay District and Reference I:

Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, which provides maps, criteria, and policy language to guide development within the Chino AIA consistent with the Caltrans 2011 Handbook.

The majority of the Specific Plan area is within CNO Safety Zone 6 (low risk), with a very small portion of the southeastern corner located within Safety Zone 4 (moderate risk). Uses permitted by the EBPSP are allowed in both of these safety zones, subject to the criteria and policies of Reference I: Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan in Table 3.9-2, CNO Compatibility Criteria Matrix (Ontario 2022b).
■
■
■
■
■
■
2680

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.9 -57
Table 3.9-2 CNO Compatibility Criteria Matrix
Safety Zones
Residential
Density
Limits
Non-Residential
Intensity Limits
(People per
acre)
Open Land
Requirement
for Entire
Zone Other Criteria
Boundary
Determinations
Zone 1 Runway
Protection Zone
0 0 All Remaining
Avigation
Easement and
Airspace
Review
Required
RPZ
Zone 2 Inner
Approach/Depart
ure Zone 0 60 (avg.)
120 (single acre)
25%;
preserve
open land
nearest
runway end
Avigation
Easement and
Airspace
Review
Required
Safety Zone 2
Zone 3 Inner
Turning Zone
dwelling
unit per 2-
acre lot
100 (avg.)
300 (single acre)
15%;
preserve
open land
along
extended
runway
centerline
Avigation
Easement and
Airspace
Review
Required
Safety Zone 3
Zone 4 Outer
Approach/Depart
ure Zone 2 dwelling
units per 2-
acre lot
150 (avg.)
450 (single acre)
15%;
preserve
open land
along
extended
runway
centerline
Avigation
Easement and
Airspace
Review
Required
Safety Zone 4
Zone 6 Traffic
Pattern Zone
No Limit
300 (avg.)
1,200 (single
acre)
10%;
preserve
open land
every 1/4 to
1/2 mile
Deed Notice
and Airspace
Review
Required
Safety Zone 6
Source : Ontario 2022b.

Note: Excerpt from Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CNO ALUCP), Table I-1: Compatibility Criteria Matrix, Reference I.

As discussed within Section 3.14, Population and Housing, of this Draft SEIR the EBPSP uses have the potential to create up to 1,590 employees within the project site. This would equate to an average of 8.41 people per acre. Even with the addition of visitors to the site, the intensity limits set forth above would not be exceeded. Furthermore, the policies under Land Use-5 (LU2681

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 5 8
5), Airport Planning, of the Policy Plan Amendment promote coordination with airport authorities to ensure land uses near the airport are compatible and that the public is protected from excessive noise and safety hazards.

Therefore, the EBPSP would not result in greater impacts related to safety hazards or excessive noise for people residing or working in the area compared to the approved project, and impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact HAZ-5: The proposed project is within the airport influence area of the Ontario International Airport and Chino Airport; however, land uses are consistent with the airport safety zones.

New Mitigation Measures
No impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are needed. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The Certified EIR concluded that substantial transportation infrastructure improvements are planned to accommodate population growth in the City in the event of an emergency; therefore, the approved project would not interfere with an emergency evacuation plan. As a result, impacts were found to be less than significant.

Policy Plan Amendment
The threat of flood is one of Ontario’s greatest hazard because large portions of the City are within the flood zone. The majority of the population growth associated with the proposed project would occur in Ontario Ranch. As identified in the City’s Roadway Classification map (see Figure 3.17-1, Roadway Classifications), there are substantial improvements in transportation infrastructure planned to accommodate the increase in population in the City in the event of an emergency. Interstate highways would also serve as major emergency response and evacuation routes. As further described in Chapter 3.20, Wildfire, the Policy Plan Amendment land use plan 2682

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.9 -59
would not introduce new roadways or modify existing ones in a manner that would impede emergency vehicle access or evacuation operations. Furthermore, City design review procedures would ensure that all roadway and site designs maintain compliance with emergency access standards and the City’s adopted emergency response plans.

As described in Section 3.9.1, Regulatory Framework, the City’s OEM oversees the City’s emergency plans, which address planned responses to natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies (Ontario 2025a). Compliance with the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and LHMP would help ensure adequate emergency accessibility is provided to the community. Additionally, the OFD reviews development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance. Consequently, the development allowed under the proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
The Specific Plan area does not contain any emergency facilities, nor do adjacent roadways serve as emergency evacuation routes. The nearest evacuation routes are Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road (east-west direction), Merrill Avenue (east-west direction), Euclid Avenue (north-south direction) and Grove Avenue (north-south direction) above Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road.

Additionally, the City’s LHMP identifies potential hazards within the City and includes hazard mitigation strategies and actions to be implemented in an effort to minimize risk. Land uses implemented pursuant to the Specific Plan would not interfere with the City’s implementation of any of the actions identified therein.

The EBPSP does not propose or require permanent alteration of major vehicle circulation routes. In addition, no facilities or operations that would interfere with any identified emergency response or emergency evacuation plan are proposed in the Specific Plan area. In accordance with the City’s OEM, LHMP, and coordination with the local fire and police departments during construction would ensure that potential interference with emergency response and evacuation efforts are avoided. Further, potential temporary traffic/access disruption that may occur during construction would be addressed through the implementation of a Temporary Traffic Control Plan, as required by the City. The City, as part of its discretionary review process, would review future development application materials to ensure that appropriate emergency ingress and egress is provided.

Based on the preceding, the EBPSP would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in a new 2683

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 6 0
or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact HAZ-6: Implementation of the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan.

New Mitigation Measures
No impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are needed. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? The Certified EIR found that, with the adherence to applicable state and local building standards, development and infrastructure associated with the approved project would result in less than significant risks related to wildfire hazards.

Policy Plan Amendment
Buildout of the proposed project modifies the land-use pattern and updates related Policy Plan elements while maintaining the overall planning and regulatory framework established by the approved project. As further described in Section 3.20, Wildfire, the adopted 2025 CAL FIRE Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone map does not identify areas in Ontario within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. However, the City recognizes that even though fuel loading is light and fire risk comes primarily from urban fires, not wildfires, there is some risk related to wildfire events.

Ontario is supported by multiple local and regional programs for fire prevention and for addressing wildland fires should they arise, including the California Building Code, the California Fire Code, CAL FIRE 2024 Strategic Fire Plan for California, County of San Bernardino Multi-jurisdiction Hazard Management Plan, the Ontario LHMP, and fire services from OFD.

Continued adherence to these regulations and practices would ensure that future development and infrastructure associated with the proposed project do not exacerbate risk in wildfire hazards or result in post-wildfire hazards (e.g., landslides, mudflows, and flooding). 2684

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.9 -61
In addition, the Safety Element contains the following policies to prevent wildfire hazards and support the community during wildfire events:

S-3.4: Special Team Services. We maintain effective special rescue services.

S-3.6: Interagency Cooperation. In order to back up and supplement our capabilities to respond to emergencies, we participate in the California Fire Rescue and Mutual Aid Plan.

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.

S-3.9: Resource Allocation. We analyze fire data to evaluate the effectiveness of our fire prevention and reduction strategies and allocate resources accordingly.

S-8.3: Emergency/Disaster Training and Exercises. We conduct training and exercises to prepare for and evaluate emergency/disaster response and recovery procedures.

S-8.5: Interdepartmental Coordination. We utilize all City departments to help support emergency/disaster mitigation, preparedness, response, mitigation, and recovery.

CD-2.8: Safe Design. We incorporate defensible space design into new and existing developments to ensure the maximum safe travel and visibility on pathways, corridors, and open space and at building entrances and parking areas by avoiding physically and visually isolated spaces, maintaining visibility and accessibility, and using lighting.

Because the proposed project would not alter topography, slope conditions, or emergency infrastructure design standards, and would continue to implement existing fire-safety programs and policies, it would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Accordingly, the Policy Plan Amendment would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to the approved project, and wildfire-related risks would be less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
As detailed in Section 3.20, Wildfire, of this SEIR the Specific Plan area is located within the limits of the City of Ontario, outside of the SRA, and is not located within an identified Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE 2025b).

According to the City’s 2023 LHMP, no high fire severity zones exist within the City, nor does the City have any wildland-urban interface areas (Ontario 2023). The Specific Plan area is located within an LRA, with fire protection services currently provided by the OFD.

Uses implemented pursuant to the EBPSP would comply with the California Building Code, California Fire Code, CAL FIRE 2024 Strategic Fire Plan for California, County of San Bernardino Multi-jurisdiction Hazard Management Plan, the Ontario LHMP, and applicable City policies. ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2685

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 6 2
Compliance with these standards and plans would act to prevent or minimize wildfire hazards and would avoid or reduce exposure to wildfire risks. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to the approved project. The potential for the EBPSP to expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires is considered less than significant. The EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact HAZ-7: The proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks in Ontario.

New Mitigation Measures
No impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are needed.

3.9.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Proposed Project
The land use changes of the Policy Plan Amendment are comprehensive and encompasses the land use changes associated with the EBPSP and the concurrent Zoning changes. Therefore, cumulative impacts for the proposed project are described below.

Hazardous Materials
The cumulative setting for hazardous materials is the City of Ontario. Impacts arising from hazardous materials and hazardous materials releases are site specific and generally do not combine to cause cumulative impacts; however, the cumulative impact analysis considers the Specific Plan and nearby related projects.

As discussed previously, the EBPSP does not propose uses or activities that would require substantial handling or use of hazardous materials, hazardous substances, or hazardous waste that could result in potential adverse effects. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1-SP has been incorporated to ensure proper handling of unknown hazardous materials that may be encountered during grading activities. To the extent that such materials or substances may be 2686

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.9 -63
present during construction or operations they will be transported, stored, used and disposed of consistent with multiple and broad regulatory requirements. As with the Specific Plan, other related projects within the cumulative impact area would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, and such uses would be subject to additional review and permits from their local oversight agency. Therefore, the potential for release of hazardous materials into the environment, whether through accident or due to routine transport, use, or disposal of such materials would comply with regulatory requirements for each development and would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact.

Schools
Any future development located near schools would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations governing the safe handling of hazardous materials near existing or proposed schools. Furthermore, the areas of change are concentrated in the southern portion of the City, where there are no schools, and the Specific Plan area is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or planned school. Implementation of the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively-considerable impact associated with emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or planned school.

Therefore, hazards and hazardous materials impacts are less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable.

Airport Hazards
The areas considered for cumulative airport-related hazards impacts are the airport influence areas of ONT and CNO. Development proposed within the airport influence areas of ONT and CNO would be required to undergo evaluation under the ALUCP for ONT and the CNO Land Use Compatibility Plan to ensure that the projects comply with the land use regulations for the respective safety zones established by the responsible agencies. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant after compliance with such regulations and impacts of the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable.

Fire Hazards
The areas considered for cumulative impacts related to wildfires are fire hazard severity zones in the City. Projects within wildfire hazards zones are required to comply with applicable regulations, including the California Building Code Chapter 7A, California Fire Code Chapter 49, and California Public Resources Code Sections 4291, et seq. In addition, policies under the Policy Plan Amendment’s Safety Element would help reduce wildfire- and emergency-related risks. As a result, the risk of wildfire associated with the development under the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable.
2687

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 6 4
Emergency Response and Evacuation
The areas considered for cumulative impacts related to emergency response and evacuation are primarily the regional transportation networks (e.g., interstates) that support evacuation and emergency response in the City. Planned improvements to the City’s transportation infrastructure would accommodate increased population and facilitate emergency response and evacuation, with interstate highways serving as primary evacuation routes. The proposed project would not introduce or modify roadways in a manner that impedes emergency vehicle access, and City design review procedures ensure compliance with emergency access standards and adopted emergency response plans. Additionally, the OFD reviews development applications to ensure adequate emergency accessibility. Compliance with the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and the LHMP would further help maintain safe and accessible emergency routes for the community. Therefore, impacts to emergency response and evacuation are less than significant; and therefore, less than cumulatively considerable.

Cumulative impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials are less than significant. Cumulative Impacts: Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with other development in the city, would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to hazards and hazardous materials impacts.

3.9.7 References
CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 2026, February 10 (accessed). Cortese List Data Resources. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.

CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2025, October 30 (accessed).

Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer.
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/6a9cb66bb1824cd98756812af41292a0.

CAL FIRE. 2025b, December 5 (accessed). Fire Hazard Severity Zones. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-andmitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones.

Chino Airport Land Use Commission. 2023, May 2 (revised). Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CNO ALUCP). Reference I, Table I-1. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2024- 12/Reference%20I_Chino%20Airport%20Land%20Use%20Compatibility%20Plan_Rev%2 005.02.2023.pdf.

DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2025a, October 30 (accessed). EnviroStor. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
2688

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.9 -65
DTSC. 2025b, October 30 (accessed). Active Transporter Search Results. https://hwts.dtsc.ca.gov/Transporters/TRANSRCH02.cfm.

OFD (Ontario Fire Department). 2025, September 11. Information for fire protection services.

Completed by Sagar Patel, Fire Administrative Director.

ONT (Ontario International Airport). 2025a, October 29 (accessed). Statistics, Passenger and Fright Statistics, Year 2024. https://www.flyontario.com/corporate/statistics.

ONT. 2025b. Ontario Airport by the Numbers. https://www.flyontario.com/air-service/mapsinsights?airline=all.

Ontario, City of. 2018, July. Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP). City of Ontario Airport Compatibility Planning. https://www.ontarioca.gov/planning/ont-iac.

Ontario. 2022a. The Ontario Plan 2050. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2024- 12/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf.

Ontario. 2022b. Planning Commission Staff Report. https://legistarwebproduction.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/1480169/20220719_File_No._ PDCA22-004__02_PC_Back-up.pdf.

Ontario. 2023, November. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/migrated-files/OntarioFiles/Fire/Ready%2520Ontario/Ontario%2520LHMP.pdf.

Ontario. 2025a, October 29 (accessed). Office of Emergency Management. https://www.ontarioca.gov/residents-health-safety-disaster-preparedness/officeemergency-management.

Ontario. 2025b, October 29 (accessed). Fire Department. https://www.ontarioca.gov/Fire.

Ontario. 2025c, October 29 (accessed). Fire Prevention Bureau. https://www.ontarioca.gov/Fire/Prevention.

Riverside County ALUC (Airport Land Use Commission). 2008, September. Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). https://rcaluc.org/sites/g/files/aldnop421/files/2023- 06/Chino.pdf. San Bernardino County Airport Land Use Commission). 1991, November.

Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Chino Airport. https://lus.sbcounty.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/48/Airports/Chino.pdf. 2689

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .9 HA ZAR DS A ND HAZ ARDO US M AT ERIA LS
3 .9- 6 6
San Bernardino-Inyo-Mono Unit. 2025, May 1. 2025. Strategic Fire Plan for the San BernardinoUnyo-Mono Unit. https://34c031f8-c9fd-4018-8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdnendpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/osfm-website/what-we-do/community-wildfirepreparedness-and-mitigation/pre-fireplanning/bdu_fireplan_final_052025_1502.pdf?rev=b080d494426a4d4fb377707290613 d59&hash=7EC36DECA4A5693FCD4DD0DE5C689E50.

SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2025, October 29 (accessed). GeoTracker. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.

USDOT (US Department of Transportation). 2025, December 4 (accessed). National Pipeline Mapping System Public Viewer. https://pvnpms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer/.

USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. Map of Radon Zones. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-08/documents/california.pdf.

USEPA. 2025, October 29 (accessed). Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Toxics Tracker. Map of TRI Facilities: Reporting Year 2023. https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-triprogram.

USEPA. (n.d.). Groundwater Protection. epa.gov.
2690

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

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

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) evaluates the potential hydrology and water quality impacts associated with implementation of the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP (proposed project) in comparison to TOP (approved project) and the impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

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. Groundwater supply and management is discussed in Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems. The site-specific analysis for the EBPSP is based on the “Preliminary Hydrology Study for Ontario Ranch” prepared by JLC Engineering & Consulting, Inc. and considers both on-site and off-site impacts associated with the EBPSP (see Appendix H1). In addition, the “Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan” for the EBPSP is also provided (Appendix H2). The “Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment” includes the water demand and supply for the Specific Plan (Appendix L2).

The City received one comment letter for the NOP related to the San Bernardino County Flood Control District’s (SBCFCD) facilities. The relevant hydrology and water quality issues raised in this comment letter is addressed in this section. For a summary of the comment letters, refer to Table 1-1 in Chapter 1, Introduction, or to Appendix A for the full comment letters.

Terminology
BMPs: best management practices
Design capture volume: required amount of stormwater to be retained due to a development project
LID: low impact development
MS4: municipal separate storm sewer system
SWPPP: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TMDL: Total Maximum Daily Load. A TMDL is an estimate of the total load of pollutants from point, nonpoint, and natural sources that a water body may receive without exceeding applicable water quality standards, with a factor of safety included. Required by Clean Water Act for impaired water bodies.
■
■
■
■
■
■
2691

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
3 .10 - 2
100-year storm: rainfall total that has a 1 percent probability of occurring in a year.

3.10.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal, state and regional laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below.

FEDERAL
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) (Title 33 United States Code Sections 1251 to 1376) of 1972 is the primary federal law that governs and authorizes water quality control activities by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as well as the states. The statute’s goal is to restore, maintain, and preserve the integrity of the nation’s waters. The CWA regulates both the direct and indirect discharge of pollutants into the nation’s waters and sets water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. It is unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless a permit is obtained under its provisions. The CWA mandates permits for wastewater and stormwater discharges, requires states to establish site-specific water quality standards, and regulates other activities that affect water quality, such as dredging and the filling of wetlands. The CWA also funded the construction of sewage treatment plants and recognized the need for planning to address nonpoint sources of pollution. Section 402 of the CWA requires a permit for all point source (a discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, such as a pipe, ditch, or channel) discharges of any pollutant into waters of the United States.

Section 303 of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for all surface waters of the United States. As defined by the CWA, water quality standards consist of 2 elements: (1) designated beneficial uses of the water body in question and (2) criteria that protect the designated uses. Section 304(a) requires the EPA to publish advisory water quality criteria that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge on the kind and extent of all effects on health and welfare that may be expected from the presence of pollutants in water. Where multiple uses exist, water quality standards must protect the most sensitive use. In California, the EPA has delegated authority to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its 9 Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) to identify beneficial uses and adopt applicable water quality objectives.

When water quality does not meet CWA standards and compromises designated beneficial uses of a receiving water body, Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that water body be listed as “impaired,” and a total maximum daily load (TMDL) must be developed for the impairing pollutant(s). Once established, the TMDL allocates the load among the pollutant sources to the water body.
■
2692

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 0 -3
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program under Section 402 of the CWA was established to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States. Federal NPDES permit regulations include both point-source municipal waste discharge and nonpoint source stormwater runoff. All facilities that discharge stormwater into surface water from their municipal separate storm water systems (MS4s) are required to obtain an NPDES permit. Ontario lies within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB and is subject to the waste discharge requirements of the San Bernardino County MS4 permit, Order No. R8- 2010-0036, NPDES No. CAS618036.

Under NPDES Permit Provision XI, New Development (Including Significant Re-Development), the co-permittees are required to include appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures in new development and redevelopment projects to address stormwater runoff pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows from new development and redevelopment projects (SWRCB 2010). In addition, projects must address the potential for causing hydrologic conditions of concern if they disturb more than one acre of land and are not in an exempt area, as shown on the San Bernardino Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOC) Exemption Map (San Bernardino County 2025).

Federal Emergency Management Agency
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the National Flood Insurance Program to provide subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations limiting development in floodplains. FEMA also issues Flood Insurance Rate Maps (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.

STATE
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Water Code sections 13000 et seq.) is the basic water quality control law for California. This act established the SWRCB and divided the state into 9 regional basins, each under the jurisdiction of an RWQCB. The SWRCB is the primary State agency responsible for the protection of California’s water quality and groundwater supplies.

The RWQCBs carry out the regulation, protection, and administration of water quality in each region. Each regional board is required to adopt a water quality control plan or basin plan that recognizes and reflects the regional differences in existing water quality, the beneficial uses of the region’s ground and surface water, and local water quality conditions and problems. 2693

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
3 .10 - 4
The Porter-Cologne Act also authorizes the SWRCB and RWQCBs to issue and enforce waste discharge requirements, NPDES permits, Section 401 water quality certifications, and other approvals. Other State agencies with jurisdiction over water quality regulation in California include the California Department of Health Services for drinking water regulations, the CDFW, and the Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment.

The City of Ontario is in the Santa Ana River Basin, Region 8, in the Upper Santa Ana Watershed.

The Basin Plan was updated in October 2025 to comply with the current regulations and improve accessibility and Chapters 3 through 6 of the Basin Plan were updated to incorporate recent amendments effective on or before July 27, 2023 (Santa Ana RWQCB 2025a). It gives directions on the beneficial uses of the state waters in Region 8; describes the water quality that must be maintained to support such uses; and provides programs, projects, and other actions necessary to achieve the established standards (Santa Ana RWQCB 2025a).

SWRCB General Construction Permit
Construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land that could impact hydrologic resources must comply with the requirements of the newly reissued SWRCB Construction General Permit (CGP) (Order WQ 2022-0057-DWQ). Under the terms of the permit, applicants must file Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) with the SWRCB before the start of construction. The PRDs include a Notice of Intent, risk assessment, site map, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee, and a signed certification statement. The PRDs are submitted electronically to the SWRCB via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) website.

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

SWRCB General Industrial Permit
The Statewide General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities, Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ and amended by 2015-0122-DWQ (2018) implements the federally required storm water regulations in California for storm water associated with industrial activities that discharge to waters of the United States. This regulation covers facilities that are required by federal regulations or by the RWQCBs to obtain an NPDES permit. Dischargers are required to eliminate non-storm water discharges, develop SWPPPs that include BMPs, conduct 2694

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 0 -5
monitoring of stormwater runoff, and submit all compliance documents via the SWRCB’s SMARTS program.

SWRCB Trash Amendments
On April 7, 2015, the SWRCB adopted an amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California to control trash and Part 1, Trash Provisions, of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (SWRCB 2025a). They are collectively referred to as “the Trash Amendments.” The Trash Amendments apply to all surface waters of California and include a land use-based compliance approach to focus trash controls on areas with high trash-generation rates. Areas such as high-density residential, industrial, commercial, mixed urban, and public transportation stations are considered priority land uses.

The Trash Amendments provide a framework for permittees to implement their 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. The amendment mandates that the City needs to install catch basin filters on all City catch basins by December 2, 2030.

Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006
The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act includes the State of California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), which requires cities and counties to adopt landscape water conservation ordinances. The MWELO was revised in July 2015 via Executive Order B-29- 15 to address the ongoing drought and build resiliency for future droughts. State law requires all land use agencies, which includes cities and counties, to adopt a Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance that is at least as efficient as the MWELO prepared by the DWR. The 2015 revisions to the MWELO improve water conservation in the landscaping sector by promoting efficient landscapes in new developments and retrofitted landscapes. The revisions increase water efficiency by requiring more efficient irrigation systems, incentives for grey water usage, improvements in on-site stormwater capture, and limiting the portion of landscapes that can be covered in high-water-use plants and turf. New development projects that include landscape areas of 500 square feet or more are subject to the MWELO. This applies to residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional projects that require a permit, plan check, or design review. The size threshold for rehabilitated landscapes has not changed and remains at 2,500 square feet. The City of Ontario has enacted these provisions into its Landscape Development Guidelines.

Senate Bill 92
On June 27, 2017, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 92, which set new requirements focused on dam safety. As part of this legislation, dam owners must ow submit inundation maps to the DWR. After the maps are approved, the dam owner must submit an emergency action 2695

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
3 .10 - 6
plan to the California Office of Emergency Services. The dam owner must submit updated plans and inundation maps every 10 years, or sooner under certain conditions. The California Office of Emergency Services reviews and approves 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 2025).

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 Report forms to be filed with DWR within 60 days from the date that construction, alteration, abandonment, or destruction of a well is completed. Completed forms are sent to the DWR regional office whose boundaries include the well (DWR 2025a).

REGIONAL
Santa Ana RWQCB
The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB, Region 8) regulates water quality within the Santa Ana River watershed and adjacent coastal drainages. Its Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) is the region’s primary water quality planning document. The Basin Plan identifies the beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater, establishes water quality objectives necessary to protect those uses, and outlines an implementation program consisting of projects, policies, and actions designed to achieve and maintain compliance with state and federal water quality standards.

The Basin Plan was originally adopted in 1995 and has since been amended multiple times, most recently in October 2025, which incorporated updates to Chapters 3 through 6 and revisions to salt and nutrient management provisions. The Basin Plan guides the RWQCB’s permitting, enforcement, and monitoring programs and provides the regulatory basis for the issuance of the NPDES permits and other waste discharge requirements in Region 8 (Santa Ana RWQCB 2025a). Additional information regarding the NPDES permit is provided in the San Bernardino County Regional MS4 Permit section, below.

San Bernardino County Regional MS4 Permit
In the San Bernardino County area of the Santa Ana River Basin, management and control of the municipal separate storm sewer system is shared by a number of agencies, including the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, San Bernardino County, and the cities of Big Bear Lake, Chino, Chino Hills, Colton, Fontana, Grand Terrace, Highland, Loma Linda, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Rialto, San Bernardino, Upland, and Yucaipa. 2696

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 0 -7
On January 29, 2010, the Santa Ana RWQCB issued an area-wide MS4 permit to the San Bernardino County and municipalities in the county. Waste discharge requirements for stormwater entering municipal storm drainage systems are in the MS4 permit, Order No. R8- 2010-0036, NPDES No. CAS618036. This permit expired on January 29, 2015. On August 1, 2014, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District submitted a Report of Waste Discharge on behalf of San Bernardino County and its 16 incorporated cities. The submitted report serves as the permit renewal application for the MS4 permit.

San Bernardino County Stormwater Program
The Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) for the Region 8 area 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 early in the project development process and that a Final WQMP be submitted prior to the start of construction. A project specific WQMP is required to address the following (Santa Ana RWQCB 2013):

Develop site design measures using low impact development (LID) principles.

Establish project-specific design capture volume and applicable hydrologic conditions of concern 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
San Bernardino County Flood Control District
The San Bernadino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) is the regional drainage authority for San Bernardino County. The SBCFCD operates and maintains the county’s extensive flood control facilities, including dams, conservation basins, channels, and storm drains. The SBCFCD issues encroachment permits for development within its facility or rights-of-way.

Chino Basin Watermaster 2020 Optimum Basin Management Program Update Report
The Chino Basin adjudication is the 2020 Optimum Basin Management Program (OBMP) Update Report published by the Chino Basin Watermaster. This comprehensive report documents the update process of the OBMP, continuing the original program’s 9 core elements such as monitoring, recharge, water supply for impaired areas, and groundwater management. It also confirms the Chino Basin was adjudicated in 1978 by the San Bernardino County Superior Court, which established the legal framework including the Watermaster to oversee sustainable ■
■
■
■
■
■
2697

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
3 .10 - 8
groundwater management among agricultural, non-agricultural, and appropriative water users.

The adjudication established the physical solution to stop declining groundwater levels and mandated ongoing court jurisdiction for basin management, which led to the development of the OBMP (CBW 2020).

Sustainability Groundwater Management Act
The Chino Basin is exempt from the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requirements because it is an adjudicated basin with an established physical solution and court oversight for sustainable management. This exemption means that the basin does not need to develop a separate Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) under SGMA, as sustainable management is governed by the court judgment and implemented through the Watermaster and the OBMP. The court retains continuing jurisdiction to ensure beneficial use and avoid unreasonable groundwater use consistent with SGMA’s sustainability goals, effectively fulfilling the state’s groundwater sustainability objectives for this basin (DWR 2025b; CBW 2016).

LOCAL
City of Ontario Master Plan of Drainage
The City of Ontario’s Master Plan of Drainage is a planning level drainage study that includes the following (Ontario 2012):

Update and evaluation of inventory and capacities of the existing City-owned storm drain facilities.

Preparation of hydrology studies to quantify peak flow rates for runoffs during major storm events, that are based on built-out conditions as per the Land Use Plan adopted by City Council on January 27, 2010, and the current TOP.

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 ensures adequate flood protection.

Development of project costs and prioritization for the implementation of the recommended master plan facilities.
■
■
■
■
■
■
2698

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.1 0 -9
City of Ontario Capital Improvement Program
The City of Ontario regularly updates its CIP to prepare and budget for infrastructure improvements over a 5-year planning period. The CIP includes projects related to sewer improvements, storm drain improvements, and water system improvements.

City of Ontario Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City of Ontario Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) is a comprehensive planning document prepared in accordance with the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The LHMP identifies the natural and human-caused hazards that pose risks to the City, such as earthquakes, flooding, wildfires, drought, extreme heat, and hazardous materials incidents. The plan evaluates the City’s vulnerability to these hazards and establishes long-term strategies to reduce risks, enhance community resilience, and minimize future disaster-related losses.

The LHMP was developed through coordination with City departments, regional and state agencies, and community stakeholders to ensure a collaborative and inclusive approach to hazard mitigation. The plan is reviewed and updated every five years to reflect changing conditions, new data, and community priorities. Adoption of the LHMP maintains the City’s eligibility for federal and state hazard mitigation funding, which supports implementation of identified projects and programs that protect lives, property, and critical infrastructure. The current adopted version of the City of Ontario Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) was approved by the City Council in November 2023 (Ontario 2023).

City of Ontario Standard Conditions of Approval for New Development The City’s standard conditions of approval for new development for the Original Model Colony (OMC) and Ontario Ranch projects (Resolution No. 2017-027) include the following regulations (Ontario 2017):

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

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

SC 3.68 (OMC); SC 3.69 (Ontario Ranch): Prior to Grading Plan approval and the issuance of a grading permit, a completed WQMP shall be submitted to, and approved by, the ■
■
■
2699

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
3 .10 - 10
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 development project, in order to minimize any potential adverse impacts to receiving waters.

City of Ontario Municipal Code
Title 8, Chapter 13: Flood Damage Prevention Program
The City of Ontario’s Flood Damage Prevention Program is in Title 8, Chapter 13 of the City’s Municipal Code. The program applies to all areas of special flood hazards, areas of flood-related erosion hazards, and areas of mudflow hazards in the City. It includes standards for construction, for utilities, subdivisions, manufactured homes, and floodways. Construction standards include requirements for anchoring, floodproofing, and minimum elevations of floors.

Title 6, Chapter 6: Stormwater Drainage Systems
Section 6-6.206 prohibits specified types of discharges into the City’s stormwater drainage system or into any street leading to the drainage system. Section 6-6.208 requires that any persons conducting activities that could potentially contribute to stormwater pollution comply with all applicable BMPs as listed in the California Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbooks or the current San Bernardino County Stormwater Program’s “Report of Waste Discharge,” to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff and reduce non-stormwater discharges to the City’s stormwater drainage system to the maximum extent practicable or to the extent required by law. Sections 6-6.501 through 6-6.506 govern discharges into stormwater from construction activities.

City of Ontario Departments
The City has several departments that involve design, construction, and maintenance of the City’s storm drain system. The Engineering Department is responsible for the preparation and periodic revision of the MPD; developing storm drain standards and specifications; and reviewing and approving storm drain improvement plans provided by developers and businesses. The CIP and Field Services Divisions of the Engineering Department provides the planning, design, surveying, bidding, construction inspection, and project management functions for the City’s CIP projects. The work includes repairing and constructing storm drain improvements at various locations throughout the City. The Land Development Division of the Engineering Department is responsible for the development of all public infrastructure and improvements associated with new development within the public right-of-way, which includes storm drains. The Parks and Street Maintenance Division under the Public Works Agency services and cleans the City’s storm drains of debris and sediment. The City also collects development impact fees from project developers that are used to construct regional and local storm drain facilities and mitigate the impact of future development. 2700

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .10 -11
The City’s Environmental Services Section under the Engineering Department is responsible for implementation of the MS4 permit and education of residents, business owners, and developers on stormwater pollution issues and regulatory requirements. The Environmental Services Section conducts the following activities:

Represents the City as co-permittee of the San Bernardino County MS4 permit.

Regulates stormwater runoff as required by the MS4 permit.

Inspects commercial and industrial businesses identified as potential stormwater polluters and enforces the NPDES permit requirements.

Inspects construction sites for compliance with the Ontario Municipal Code, San Bernardino County MS4 permit, and the State’s General Construction Permit.

Requires new development/redevelopment projects to prepare a WQMP and SWPPP in compliance with the regional MS4 permit and State Construction General Permit and reviews and approves these documents prior to the issuance of grading permits.

Educates developers, contractors, business owners, residents, and municipal employees on stormwater BMPs.

Controls illicit connections to storm drains.

Controls or mitigates illegal discharges to storm drains.

Controls municipal facility operations and practices to prevent discharges of pollutants to storm drains.

3.10.2 Existing Conditions

POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
Regional Hydrology
The vast majority of the City of Ontario is within the Chino Creek subwatershed, which is part of the larger Santa Ana River Watershed. As shown on Figure 3.10-1, Subwatersheds, the Chino Creek subwatershed encompasses parts of San Bernardino 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 portion of Ontario east of Interstate 15 (I-15) is in the Middle Santa Ana River subwatershed, which encompasses 292 ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
2701

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
3 .10 - 12
square miles, including the cities of Fontana, Bloomington, Rancho Cucamonga, Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, Corona, Norco, and Riverside (Ontario 2012).

Local Hydrology
The City of Ontario is divided into 2 distinct areas generally divided by Riverside Drive: Original Model Colony (OMC) and Ontario Ranch (OR). 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 are the State-owned storm drains along Caltrans’s I-10 and 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. The City of Ontario 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 San Bernardino County Flood Control District. Zone 1 generally slopes toward the south. There are three major regional channels that convey stormwater from the City: San Antonio Channel, Cucamonga Channel, and Day Creek Channel. Areas located in the southwest portion of the City that do not drain to these areas are diverted via other regional and backbone facilities in the City of Chino to the Prado Flood Control Basin (Ontario 2012).

Surface Water Quality
Section 303(d) of the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act 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 EPA every 2 years. In addition to identifying the water bodies that do not support beneficial uses, the list 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 has been approved by the EPA and an implementation 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.

The Santa Ana RWQCB monitors surface water quality through implementation of the Basin Plan and designates beneficial uses for surface water bodies within the City. The Basin Plan lists Cucamonga Creek, Reach 1, Deer Creek (Valley Reach) and Day Canyon Creek as the only surface water body within the City of Ontario (Santa Ana RWQCB 2025c). The beneficial uses listed for Cucamonga Creek, Reach 1 are for groundwater recharge (GWR), limited warm freshwater habitat (LWRM), and wildlife habitat (WILD). The beneficial uses listed for Day Canyon Creek includes Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN), Industrial Process Supply (PROC), Water Contact Recreation (REC1), Non-contact Water Recreation (REC2), Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD), GWR, and WILD (Santa Ana RWQCB 2025c).
2702
- I
I

CITY OF

MONTCLAIR
I
I

CITY OF

CHINO HILLS

CITY OF
UPLAND
w rouRTH ST
W G ST
W DST
z
~ z
::i
0 :i:

CITY OF CHINO
"'
V,
E G ST
E D ST

E HOLT AVE
Chino Creek
Subwatershed
w
> <(
,.,,
V,

E CHINO AVE

E SCHAEFER AVE

E EDISON AVE
i i

CITY OF RANCHO

CUCAMONGA
z

E PHILADELPHIA ST

E RIVERSIDE DR
0 ..J
<(
m
:i::
u
a:
<(
"'
a:

LU
z
a:
::i
....

V,
z
w
>
<(
:i::
,.,,
0 RANCH RD ~~
o~~
.. ~
.. l _,,,,,,,., .. .,.,,,,.,,. - ~-·
L~·· EASTVALE
I
l
> <(
J:
u:,
z
:i:
<(
:i::
i
.. J
r··
I
I

E JURUPA ST
I
i
w
!
s
z
<(
:;
~ LU
::,
~ ,hi z

CITY OF

FONTANA

CITY OF

FONTANA
> : County of
,,_,,__:._,,,_ll;an.Bernard1no -··-_ •

NORCO I
County of Riverside
Middle Santa Ana
River Subwatershed

JURUPA VALLEY

NORCO RIVERSIDE

3.10 HYDROLOGY
Figure 3.10-1
Subwatersheds
c::::J EMPSP Boundary
I., "I Ontario City Boundary
I.. "I County Boundary
Rail Network
Chino Creek Watershed
Middle Santa Ana River Watershed
2·0·5·0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
fi l
0 2,500 5,000
Source: USGS 2012
IFT
10,000
Date: 12/8/2025
2703

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
3 .10 - 14
This page intentionally left blank.
2704

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .10 -15
The EPA denotes surface water bodies on its list of Water Quality Limited Segments pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. For 303(d) listed water bodies, a limit is established that defines the maximum amount of pollutants that can be received by that water body. Listed impaired water bodies to which stormwater from the City drains and their associated pollutants of concern are presented in Table 3.10-1, Listed Impaired Water Bodies. Table 3.10-1 Listed Impaired Water Bodies Name Pollutants of Concern
Cucamonga Creek, Reach
1 Zinc, copper, cadmium, lead
San Antonio Creek pH
Chino Creek, Reach 2 Indicator bacteria, pH
Chino Creek, Reach 1B Toxicity, pyrethroids, bifenthrin, nutrients, indicator bacteria, chemical oxygen demand
Prado Basin Management
Zone
pH
Prado Park Lake Microcystins, nutrients, indicator bacteria Sources: SWRCB 2025b.

Once a water body has been placed on the 303(d) list of impaired waters, states are required to develop a TMDL threshold to address each pollutant causing impairment. A TMDL defines how much of a pollutant a water body can tolerate and still meet water quality standards. A TMDL has been approved by the EPA for indicator bacteria in Chino Creek Reach 2, Chino Creek Reach 1B and Prado Park Lake.

Groundwater
The City of Ontario obtains its groundwater from the Chino Groundwater Basin. The Chino Basin is one of the largest groundwater basins in southern California and encompasses approximately 200 square miles of the Upper Santa Ana River watershed. It lies in portions of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles counties. The Chino Basin has approximately 6 million acre-feet of water in storage and an estimated one million acre-feet of additional unused storage capacity.

Since 1978, the Chino Basin has been managed via adjudication by the Chino Basin Watermaster. The Chino Basin Watermaster has determined the safe yield for the basin and has assigned individual pumping allocations to each water purveyor to ensure that the total groundwater production does not exceed the safe yield (CBW 2020; CDA 2025). Groundwater supply and management is discussed further in Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems. 2705

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
3 .10 - 16
Chino Basin Watermaster 2022 State of the Basin Report
The 2022 State of the Basin Report addresses groundwater supply and demand trends across the Chino Groundwater Basin. The report noted groundwater levels increased by between 10 to 40 feet in the western portion of Ontario and decreased by between 10 to 60 feet in the eastern portion of the City between 2000 and 2022. These groundwater-level changes are consistent with Watermaster groundwater modeling projections and reflect long-term basin management strategies, including desalter production in the southern Basin, controlled overdraft to achieve hydraulic control, subsidence management and mandatory supplemental water recharge in Management Zone 1, expanded use of recycled water and alternative water supplies, and facility improvements to enhance recharge of stormwater, recycled, and imported waters (CBW 2023).

Groundwater Quality
The groundwater quality in Chino Basin is described to have better quality in the northern portion of the basin where recharge occurs. Salinity, measured as total dissolved solids, exceeds 500 milligrams per liter, and nitrate concentrations exceed 50 milligrams per liter south of Riverside Drive (CBW 2023). This spatial pattern of water quality, where lower salinity and nitrate levels correspond with areas of active recharge in the northern basin and higher concentrations occur in the south, indicates that recharge processes help dilute and improve groundwater quality. There also are several groundwater contamination plumes that affect the City of Ontario’s groundwater supply—General Electric Flatiron, Alger Manufacturing Inc., General Electric Jet Engine Test Cell Plume, South Archibald, and Milliken Landfill (CBW 2023).

See Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, which discusses the effect of groundwater contamination on potable water supply for the City.

Flood Zones
FEMA identifies floodplain zones to assist cities with mitigating flooding hazards through land use planning. FEMA also outlines specific regulations for any construction within a 100-year floodplain. The 100-year floodplain is defined as an area that has a one percent chance of being inundated during a 12-month period. FEMA also prepares maps for 500-year floods, which means that in any given year, the risk of flooding in the designated area is 0.2 percent (FEMA 2020).

The portions of the City that are within the 100-year floodplain and 500-year floodplain are shown on Figure 3.10-2, Flood Hazard Zones. There are some portions of the City that are adjacent to areas with reduced flood risk due to levee within the 100-year floodplain. 2706
~L_f ... ---+
~' l
1 z CITY OF ~
MONTCLAIR ~ I
z
!
I

W FOURTH ST
z
~ W GS
z
::::>
~ W D S
z
= 1- + ~-·
~
7 ~
~!
0 "' z
ll.J
,:Q
"' I
J

W MISSION BLVD
w
~
z W PH
~ z
::::>
0 ~
V,

CITY OF
UPLAND
0 ::::;
u
::i
w
z
<(
z
~ ..,
::::>
V,
z
w
~
<(
z
~ ::::>
V)
V,
UJ
> <(
V)
::::>
a.
~
<(
u
z
"~ CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA \ I \ . ~ ·- .. - E- F.0WM>H- s;r . .. -~- ----"- "- " I w ~
c?
t,,,
;:;; ""
..j
-
t
I
J.-==----------=--=--'~•~=~~?4-Siiiiii~~ ~ ~~ "=ti.l'=~...1 z
w
~ :i:
z
z

E SANTA ANA ST

CITY OF

FONTANA
I County of
= San Bemardiiio
'~ ® ~i--l ~~t?C~~~-" -~~~---------E= P~H=l~=D=E-~P=H~IA=S,T- ~ ~ ; ' -
V,
_ ....., __ -----·-----'
Coun
---
ty of Rive ide
~ ~ >
L;;: • , ,ovrnsoo, o, i I
I ~ I I ' CHINO ,V[ ~
I E SCHAEFER AVE j
1 -- ONTARIO RANCH RD ~
E EDISON AVE !
I I I I_ E EUCALYPTUS AVE .. J .. /
L .. - "- """""''<-Av,_ .. _,,_ .. l ,.,,,,,../"'"_,,,,.,.,. EASTVALE : ,.,,,
L~ _,,,,,,,. .. \.

JURUPA VALLEY

3.10 HYDROLOGY
Figure 3.10-2
Flood Hazard Zones
c:::J EBPSP Boundary
I.. "I Ontario City Boundary
I.. "I County Boundary
Rail Network
Flood Zone
FEMA 100-Year Floodplain
FEMA 500-Year Floodplain
Area with Reduced Flood Risk Due to Levee
2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 .______, FT
0 2,500 5,000 10,000
Source: The City of Ontario 2025, FEMA 2025 Date: 2/17/2026 2707

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
3 .10 - 18
This page intentionally left blank.
2708

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .10 -19
Dam Inundation
Dam and levee failure can result from several causes, such as earthquakes, rapidly rising floodwaters, and structural design flaws (Ontario 2023). There are three dams that provide flood protection and water storage north of the City, and dam failure could potentially inundate parts of Ontario. These dams include (Ontario 2023):

San Antonio Dam. An embankment flood control and debris dam located along San Antonio Creek in San Bernardino County, approximately 6.5 miles northwest of Ontario. Dam construction was completed in 1956 and is owned and maintained by the USACE, which continues to monitor and improve the structure. The dam is 3,850 feet long, 160 feet above the foundation, and 130 feet above the riverbed. The reservoir behind the dam is usually dry but can fill up to 11,880 acre-feet of water after large flooding events. San Antonio Dam is classified as a High Urgency of Action dam by the USACE.

Jurupa Basin. A 29-foot-high earthen dam built in 2001 by the County of San Bernardino Department of Public Works. With a 7,000-foot crest length, this dam impounds up to 1,680-acre feet of water and is considered to have an extremely high downstream hazard classification. This basin is located west of Mulberry Avenue; east of Etiwanda Avenue; immediately north of Jurupa Avenue; and south of Santa Ana Avenue in the City of Fontana (IEUA 2001).

Hickory Basin. A 19-foot-high earthen dam built in 2001 by the County of San Bernardino Department of Public Works. With a 4,600-foot crest length, this dam impounds up to 220- acre feet of water, a significant downstream hazard. This basin is located south of Whittram Road; east of Etiwanda Avenue; and west of Cottonwood Avenue. (IEUA 2001).

The western and southern portions of the City are in the dam inundation zone for the San Antonio Dam, shown on Figure 3.10-3, Dam Inundation Zones. The Hickory and Jurupa Basin inundation zones only affect small areas of the City east of I-15.

There are no State or local restrictions for development in dam inundation zones; however, each dam owner is required to prepare an emergency action plan (EAP) and coordinate its response to a dam break with local authorities. The EAP is required to include warning and notification procedures that typically involve the Standard Emergency Management System, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, the County, the Ontario Police Department, and the Ontario Fire Department.

Seiches and Tsunamis
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. Seiches can be created by winds, earthquakes, or tsunamis. Bodies of water such as bays, harbors, lakes, reservoirs, or large aboveground storage ■
■
■
2709

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
3 .10 - 20
tanks can experience seiches. There are twelve (12) active reservoirs, combined for a total capacity of 75 million gallons (MG) (Ontario 2021). The nearest body of water is the San Antonio Dam, approximately 6.5 miles to the northwest. A seiche at San Antonio Dam would cover a much smaller area than a catastrophic failure of the dam, and it is highly unlikely that any flood waters would reach the City. Additionally, seismic activity at enclosed aboveground water tanks in the City are unlikely to result in a seiche. Seismic seiche generation requires sufficient water volume and geometry to sustain standing wave motion and is generally evaluated in larger water bodies in hazard analyses (USGS 2025).

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 therefore not at risk of flooding from a tsunami.

SPECIFIC PLAN
The existing topography of the Specific Plan area is relatively flat with a north-to-south sheet flow drainage pattern. The Specific Plan area currently receives flows from properties to the north. The Specific Plan area is located within three City of Ontario Master Drainage Plan (MDP) areas: Area XII, Area XIII, and Area XIV. There currently are no improved drainage facilities other than earthen ditches located within the Specific Plan area.

3.10.3 Standards for Analysis

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to hydrology if it would:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
c) 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 a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite.
2710

E EUCALYPTUS

E EDISON

E SCHAEFER

E CHINO

E RIVERSIDE

E MERRILL

E PHILADELPHIA ST

W FRANCIS ST E MISSION BLVD
E HOLT
E D ST
E G ST

W PHILADELPHIA ST N MOUNTAIN AVE N GROVE AVE

W FOURTH ST E SAN ANTONIO AVE N HAVEN AVE

E EIGHTH ST N EUCLID AVE N SULTANA AVE N CAMPUS AVE S SULTANA AVE S CAMPUS AVE S EUCLID AVE S GROVE AVE S TURNER VE S HAVEN AVE S ARCHIBALD AVE

E FOURTH ST N BENSON AVE S BENSON AVE S MOUNTAIN AVE S VINEYARD AVE N VINEYARD AVE

E INLAND EMPIRE BLVD

E AIRPORT DR

E SANTA ANA

E JURUPA ST S MILLIKEN AVE S WINEVILLE AVE S ETIWANDA AVE N ETIWANDA AVE S MILLIKEN AVE S SUMMER City of
Montclair ~
uptana
,]
City of
Ontario
Clty of
Rancho
Cucamonga -----11---~- --
-
-
--
•-

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Figure 3.10-3
Dam Inundation Zones
D EBPSP Boundary
D Ontario City Boundary
+-+ Rail Line
D Park
Dam Inundation Areas
D San Antonio Dam - Hickory Basin - Jurupa Basin 2 · 0 · 5 · 0

THE ONTARIO PLAN
@~

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 0.5 1 Miles
Source: The City of Ontario 2023 Date: 10/30/2025
2711

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
3 .10 - 22
This page intentionally left blank.
2712

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .10 -23
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

METHODOLOGY
Specific Plan
Information from the Specific Plan’s Preliminary Hydrology Calculations, Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), Water Supply Assessment (WSA), and FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) were utilized in the analyses of the Specific Plan’s potential impacts to hydrology and water quality. Hydrologic and hydraulic calculations were performed per the San Bernardino County Rational Method program (AES Software). The Specific Plan’s preliminary WQMP was prepared in accordance with the requirements of State of California Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ.

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

3.10.5 Environmental Impacts
2022 CERTIFIED EIR (APPROVED PROJECT)
The Certified EIR concluded that the approved project would increase impervious surfaces in the City and surface-water flows into drainage systems within the watershed. The Certified EIR also identified that the approved project would increase pollutant concentrations during construction activities. The approved project would comply with federal, state, and local regulations, and stormwater infrastructure would be designed to accommodate flows in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. Additionally, construction and post-construction related pollutant discharges would be minimized through implementation of BMPs specified in the Statewide CGP and the County’s Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans.
2713

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
3 .10 - 24
The Certified EIR identified that the increase of impervious surfaces in the City would not hinder the groundwater supply or recharge efforts of the Chino Basin Watermaster. Lastly, the Certified EIR identified that portions of the City are in the 100-year flood hazard zone, but the City would require structures to be above the base flood elevation. Portions of the City are within the inundation area for the San Antonio Dam, but the probability of catastrophic failure is low, especially when coupled with existing emergency evacuation procedures. The Certified EIR concluded that with compliance with state, County, and local regulations, all hydrology and water quality impacts would be less than significant.

PROPOSED PROJECT
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? The Certified EIR identified less than significant impacts related to water quality from development activities associated with the approved project.

Policy Plan Amendment
Construction
The proposed project involves the designation of commercial, industrial, and residential land uses in Ontario, as well as continued redevelopment and large amounts of infill development.

The potential buildout of the proposed project would increase the number of populations, dwelling units, non-residential building square footage, and employment compared to the approved project (refer to Table 2-4, Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment). Buildout in accordance with the proposed project would result in an increase in construction activities, which could impact water quality and waste discharge throughout the City of Ontario.

Clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with proposed project have the potential to impact water quality through soil erosion and by 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 on-site 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, future development associated with proposed project would require compliance with the SWRCB CGP (Order WQ 2022-0057-DWQ). The SWRCB mandates that projects that disturb one or more acres of land must obtain coverage under the Statewide CGP. The CGP also requires that prior to the start of construction activities, the 2714

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .10 -25
project applicant must file PRDs with the SWRCB, which includes notice of intent, risk assessment, site map, annual fee, signed certification statement, and 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 construction contractor is always required to maintain a copy of the SWPPP at the site and implement all construction BMPs identified in the SWPPP during construction activities. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant is required to provide proof of filing of the PRDs with the SWRCB, which include preparation of SWPPP.

In addition, the City of Ontario requires that an ESCP be submitted prior to grading plan approval and the issuance of a grading permit (Ontario 2017). Implementation of the erosion control plan would address any potential erosion issues associated with proposed grading and site preparation activities associated with future buildout under the proposed project. Submittal of the PRDs, implementation of the SWPPP, and the erosion control plan throughout the construction phase of the proposed project would address anticipated and expected pollutants of concern as a result of construction activities.

While the proposed project would accommodate additional development intensity and associated construction activity, compliance with existing state and local regulatory requirements—such as the CGP, preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, and submittal of ESCP —would ensure that construction-related pollutants are effectively managed. The City’s established regulatory framework, combined with BMPs, would continue to minimize potential erosion, sedimentation, and contaminant discharges during construction.

Operation
Pollutants commonly generated during the post-construction phase of urban development include sediment, metals, nutrients, pesticides, hydrocarbons, and other contaminants associated with vehicular use, landscaping, and impervious surfaces. Under the proposed project, future development would continue to comply with the City’s adopted stormwater quality policies and applicable regional and state water quality regulations. Specifically, the Policy Plan Amendment incorporates policies ER-1.5, ER-1.6, and ER-1.7 from the approved project, which direct the City to protect and enhance water quality through coordinated water resource management, implementation of LID strategies, and management of urban runoff in accordance with RWQCB requirements:

ER-1.5: Water Resource Management. Environmental justice areas are prioritized as we coordinate with local agencies to protect water quality, prevent pollution, address existing contamination, and remediate contaminated surface water and groundwater. ■
2715

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
3 .10 - 26
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.

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

In addition, new development under the proposed project would be required to comply with NPDES Permit No. CAS618036 through the preparation of a WQMP. Each WQMP must identify and integrate BMPs to minimize pollutant discharges and protect receiving waters during the operational phase. These measures include:

Site Design BMPs: Incorporation of permeable surfaces, preservation of natural drainage features such as swales, and use of detention and retention basins to reduce runoff volumes and promote infiltration.

Source Control BMPs: Minimizing pollutant exposure through impervious paving in fueling and trash storage areas, directing run-on away from pollutant sources, implementing spill containment, and ensuring proper waste handling.

Non-structural BMPs: Public education, employee training, operational restrictions (e.g., prohibiting fertilizer, pesticide, and waste discharges to streets or storm drains), and routine inspection and maintenance programs.

Treatment Control BMPs: On-site pollutant removal through vegetated biofiltration swales, infiltration systems, and hydrodynamic separators, designed in accordance with the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for WQMPs (Santa Ana RWQCB 2013).

These regulatory mechanisms and engineering controls would ensure that urban runoff is managed to meet or exceed applicable water quality standards. Implementation of these requirements would minimize pollutant loads to the City’s storm drain system and prevent degradation of surface water or groundwater quality.

The SEIR evaluates whether the proposed project would result in new or more severe operational water quality impacts compared to the approved project. While the proposed project would accommodate additional development intensity and associated increases in impervious surfaces, all new development would remain subject to the same comprehensive regulatory framework governing stormwater quality. Mandatory preparation and implementation of project-specific WQMPs, adherence to LID principles, and enforcement of NPDES permit requirements would continue to ensure that post-construction discharges are effectively controlled and treated prior to entering the storm drain system. ■
■
■
■
■
■
2716

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .10 -27
Although the proposed project could incrementally increase the potential for pollutant generation, compliance with existing regulations, City policies, and RWQCB standards would prevent violations of water quality objectives or substantial degradation of water resources.

The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe operational water quality impacts compared to the approved project and that was identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
Construction
Construction of the Specific Plan would require compliance with the CGP, which requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. Additionally, the City requires the implementation of an ESCP, which would ensure that appropriate BMPs are implemented to prevent, to the maximum extent practicable, pollutants from reaching the City’s storm drain system. Examples of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydroseeding. Submittal, review, and approval of the ESCP by the City are required prior to the issuance of grading permits for development.

Mandatory compliance with the CGP, SWPPP, and ESCP would ensure that implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in a violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities.

Operation
The applicant would be required to implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to demonstrate compliance with the City’s NPDES municipal stormwater permit, and to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters. As identified within the preliminary WQMP (Appendix H2), the Specific Plan has been designed to include onsite structural-source control BMPs, as well as operationalsource controls. Submittal, review, and approval of the WQMP by the City are required prior to the issuance of grading permits for development.

The Specific Plan would be required to comply with all State, County, and local regulations regarding stormwater runoff during operations. Compliance with these existing requirements would ensure 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. The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify any significant water quality 2717

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
3 .10 - 28
impacts. Accordingly, the Specific Plan would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

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

New Mitigation Measures
Impacts are less than significant and mitigation measures are not required. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The 2022 Certified EIR identified less than significant impacts related to groundwater recharge and supply for the approved project.

Policy Plan Amendment
Buildout of proposed project is forecast to increase residential units by 7,225 and increase nonresidential square footage by 4,334,416 square feet compared to the approved project.

Future development would increase the amount of impermeable surfaces in the City and reduce the amount of permeable surfaces available for groundwater recharge. Projects considered for approval under the proposed project, like the approved project, would have to meet the following requirements for limiting impacts to groundwater recharge:

BMPs for compliance with NPDES regulations, for instance, preservation of existing vegetation.

Preparation of project-specific hydrology studies estimating project impacts on drainage, in accordance with procedures in the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for WQMPs (2013).
■
■
2718

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .10 -29
In addition, TOP 2050 includes policies that would promote infiltration of runoff and groundwater recharge, including Policies ER-1.5 and ER-1.6. Policy ER-1.5 prioritizes environmental justice areas in coordination with local agencies to protect water quality, prevent pollution, address existing contamination, and remediate contaminated surface water and groundwater. Policy ER-1.6 encourages the use of LID and green infrastructure to intercept runoff, slow discharge rates, increase infiltration, and reduce discharge volumes to traditional storm drain systems. Groundwater supply and management are discussed further in Section

3.19, Utilities and Service Systems. The Chino Basin Watermaster Rules & Regulations require monitoring, reporting, and limiting groundwater extractions to ensure sustainable yield of the basin (CBW 2022). New or modified wells must comply with Watermaster rules and state/county permitting requirements, ensuring that project operations would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge in a manner that impedes sustainable groundwater management.

With the implementation of policies that promote LID and infiltration for new development projects and compliance with the Chino Basin Watermaster’s safe yield restrictions, the potential for the proposed project to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin, is considered less than significant.

The Chino Groundwater Basin is adjudicated and is considered by DWR to be a very low priority groundwater basin (GE 2025). Each water purveyor has an allotted amount of water that can be pumped from the basin so that the safe yield is not exceeded. The City has access to additional water supplies that can accommodate the proposed increase in growth. Buildout of the proposed project would not interfere with sustainable management of the groundwater basin.

Therefore, this impact is less than significant. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts to groundwater supply or recharge compared to the approved project and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.

Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
Construction
Direct additions or withdrawals of groundwater are not proposed by the Specific Plan. Further, construction would not involve substructures or other intrusions at depths that would significantly impair or alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater. 2719

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
3 .10 - 30
Operation
Water is provided to the Specific Plan area by the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC).

According to the Specific Plan’s Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared by the OMUC, the projected operational water demand for the Specific Plan is 572.6 acre-feet per year (AFY). The OMUC has determined that it can meet Citywide water demands (including the Specific Plan) during normal, dry year, and multiple dry years through 2045 (OMUC 2025) Groundwater which may be consumed by the Specific Plan, and the service area as a whole, would be recharged pursuant to the OMUCs policies and programs. The Specific Plan area is not a designated groundwater recharge area. The Specific Plan does not propose or require facilities or operations that would otherwise adversely affect designated recharge areas.

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Specific Plan to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that sustainable groundwater management of the basin may be impeded is considered less than significant. The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify any significant groundwater supply or recharge impacts.

Accordingly, the Specific Plan would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact HYD-2: Buildout of the proposed project would not interfere with sustainable management of the groundwater basin.

New Mitigation Measures
Impacts are less than significant and mitigation measures are not required. 2720

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .10 -31
c) 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 that would:
i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or offsite?
iii) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
The 2022 Certified EIR identified less than significant impacts related to increased surface runoff, flooding, stormwater drainage, and flood flows for the approved project.

Policy Plan Amendment
Erosion and Siltation
Similar to the approved project, future development associated with the proposed project would involve site improvements that require grading, excavation, and soil exposure during construction, with the potential for erosion or siltation to occur. If not controlled, the transport of these materials to local waterways could temporarily increase suspended sediment concentrations and release pollutants attached to sediment particles. To minimize this impact, future projects under the proposed project would be required to comply with the requirements in the State’s Construction General Permit, including preparation of a notice of intent and SWPPP prior to the start of construction activities (see Impact a). The SWPPP would describe the BMPs to be implemented during the project’s construction activities. The implementation of the BMPs during the construction phase would include the following measures to minimize erosion and siltation:

Minimize disturbed areas of the site.

Install on-site sediment basins to prevent off-site migration of erodible materials.

Implement dust control measures, such as silt fences and regular watering of open areas.

Stabilize construction entrances/exits.

Install storm drain inlet protection measures.
■
■
■
■
■
2721

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
3 .10 - 32
Install sediment control measures around the site, including silt fences or gravel bag barriers.

In addition, the City of Ontario requires preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan and implementation of BMPs to control erosion, debris, and construction-related pollutants.

This would further reduce the potential for erosion and siltation during the construction phase.

For post-construction, projects approved under the proposed project would be required to control stormwater discharges under NPDES Permit No. CAS618036 through preparation of a WQMP identifying BMPs for reducing or eliminating runoff (see Impact a). Additionally, the Policy Plan Amendment would follow policies ER-1.5 through ER-1.7 which collectively direct the City to incorporate strategies to capture, slow, or treat run-off that would reduce the potential for erosion and siltation during the operational phase of future development projects.

Collectively, implementation of BMPs outlined in SWPPPs, erosion and sediment control plans, WQMPs, and TOP 2050 policies would address anticipated erosion and siltation impacts.

Flooding On- and Off-Site
Buildout of proposed project is forecast to increase residential units by 7,225 and increase nonresidential square footage by 4,334,416 square feet compared to the approved project (refer to Table 2-4, Comparison of Approved TOP 2050 to Policy Plan Amendment). Future development would increase the amount of impermeable surfaces in the City, which could result in future onand off-site flooding.

As discussed above, under “Erosion and Siltation,” future development projects would implement BMPs outlined in SWPPPs to reduce flooding impacts due to runoff during construction and BMPs included in WQMPs to reduce the potential for post-construction flooding impacts. The City’s standard conditions of approval for new development also require the preparation of hydrology studies and drainage analyses that document the peak runoff rates from the developed site and evaluate the capacity of the storm drain system to accept these flow rates.

Additionally, the Policy Plan Amendment would continue and implement the following TOP policies:

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.

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. ■
■
■
2722

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .10 -33
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.

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.

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.

These policies direct the City to incorporate strategies to capture, slow, or treat runoff and to reduce the flooding potential down-gradient of new development. These policies would reduce the potential for on- and off-site flooding during the operational phase of future development projects.

Surface Runoff and Capacity of Storm Drain System
There are three major regional drainage channels that convey stormwater runoff from the City’s storm drain system—San Antonio Channel, Cucamonga Channel, and Day Creek Channel. There are also several flood retentions and spreading basins in the City that are used to retain flood flows and recharge the Chino Groundwater Basin.

Projects considered for approval under the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s standard conditions of approval for new development under Resolution No. 2017-027, such as prepare project-specific hydrology and hydraulic studies following the methodology in the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, which describes the approach for estimating stormwater runoff and peak flow rates, for the 100-year storm event (San Bernardino County 1986). In compliance with the MS4 Permit and San Bernardino County Stormwater Program, new development projects would also be mandated to install stormwater treatment BMPs that retain the 2-year, 24-hour rainfall event (Santa Ana RWQCB 2013).

Furthermore, new development under the Policy Plan Amendment would continue and comply with TOP 2050 policies, such as Policy ER-1.6, which encourages the use of LID strategies to intercept runoff, slow the discharge rate, increase infiltration, and ultimately reduce discharge volumes to traditional storm drain systems. In addition, Policy S2-5 would maintain the storm drain system to convey a 100-year storm, when feasible, and encourage environmental site design practices to minimize flooding, thus reducing the impacts of any increases in surface water flows that enter the storm drainage systems.
■
■
■
2723

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
3 .10 - 34
Although the proposed project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces and potentially increase surface runoff, development in the City would follow the same regulations as identified in the Certified EIR for the approved project, such as preparing a hydrology study and drainage analysis, following the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program, and continuing to follow TOP 2050 policies.

Flood Flows
As shown in Figure 3.10-2, there are 100-year and 500-year flood zones throughout the City.

FEMA periodically updates its FIRMs to incorporate improved topographic data, updated hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, and revised flood risk information. As a result, floodplain boundaries may shift between map versions. These updates do not necessarily indicate an increase in flood risk but reflect improved mapping accuracy. Future development under the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable flood hazard regulations and policies based on the most current FEMA mapping.

Flood hazards are among the most significant environmental concerns in the Ontario Ranch area. New development within Ontario Ranch is assumed to implement the Ontario Master Plan of Drainage, which outlines the regional facilities needed to manage stormwater and reduce flood risk. The San Bernardino County Flood Control District’s comment letter identifies a parcel (APN 1052-161-03), which is owned by the District and cannot be developed at this time because it is currently occupied by the Grove Basin flood control facility, which provides flood protection for downstream properties (see full comment letter in Appendix A). This indicates that regional drainage improvements, including the Grove Basin project, are active components of flood management within Ontario Ranch.

In addition, the Policy Plan Amendment would not change policies established in the approved project. Therefore, the City would take the following actions to reduce impacts of potential developments within 100-year and 500-year flood zones:

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.

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

S-2.3: Facilities that Use Hazardous Materials. We comply with state and federal law and do not permit facilities using, storing, or otherwise involved with substantial quantities of onsite hazardous materials to be located in the 100-year flood zone or 500-year flood zone ■
■
■
2724

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .10 -35
unless all standards of elevation, flood-proofing, and storage have been implemented to the satisfaction of the Building Department.

S-2.4: Prohibited Land Uses. We prohibit the development of new essential and critical facilities in the 100-year floodplain and discourage the development of new essential and critical facilities in the 500-year floodplain unless all standards of elevation and flood proofing demonstrate that a facility can be safe and operational during a flood event, implemented to the satisfaction of the Building Department.

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.

In addition to these policies, the Ontario Municipal Code, Chapter 13, Flood Damage Prevention Program, requires that a development permit be obtained prior to development in a special flood hazard area to ensure that the site is reasonably safe from flooding and flood hazards. The City requires that all new structures in a special flood hazard area have elevations above the base flood elevation.

Summary
Implementation of TOP 2050 policies and existing regulations would ensure less than significant impact associated with erosion and siltation, flooding on- and off-site, surface runoff and capacity of the storm drain system, and flood flows. The proposed project would not result in a new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts related to flood hazards compared to the approved project and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
Construction
During site preparation activities, any existing groundcover would be removed from the Specific Plan area, exposing the area to increased wind and water erosion potential. Further, construction site runoff may carry increased loads of sediment, heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons (from machinery) which could degrade water quality. As previously mentioned, in accordance with NPDES requirements, the applicant would be required to prepare and implement an ESCP to alleviate potential erosion, sedimentation and stormwater discharge contamination impacts.
■
■
2725

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
3 .10 - 36
The applicant would also be responsible for compliance with the CGP by filing a Notice of Intent to Commence Construction Activities. Under the CGP, discharge of materials other than stormwater is prohibited. The CGP stipulates further that the applicant shall prepare, retain at the construction site, and implement a SWPPP which identifies the sources of sediments and other pollutants that affect the quality of stormwater discharge, and implement practices to reduce sediment and other pollutants to stormwater discharge. SWPPP requirements include identification of construction and post-construction BMPs that would act to reduce sediments and other pollutants.

Implementation of the SWPPP and compliance with applicable NPDES and RWQCB requirements would ensure that potential construction-source erosion and water quality impacts of the Specific Plan are reduced to levels that would be less than significant.

Operation
The Specific Plan would implement a storm drainage system to convey stormwater runoff. The storm drainage system would include a series of detention and underground filtration systems.

Water quality features within the proposed system include hydrodynamic separators and biofiltration units. Flows would then be routed to existing City storm drain lines located in Campus Avenue, Bon View Avenue, Grove Avenue, and Walker Avenue. In larger storm events, the underground detention systems, located downstream of the underground infiltration systems and upstream of the City’s storm drain lines would detain excess runoff. Final design, configuration, and locations of proposed drainage system improvements will be reviewed and approved by the City prior to, or concurrent with, application for grading permits.

Over the life of the Specific Plan, contaminants such as oil, fuel and grease that are spilled or left behind by vehicular traffic collect and concentrate on paved surfaces. During storm events, these contaminants are washed into the storm drain system and may potentially degrade receiving water quality. Stormwater runoff from paved surfaces within the developed Specific Plan area could carry a variety of urban wastes, including greases and oils and small amounts of metals which are common by-products of vehicular travel. In addition, storm runoff will likely contain residual amounts of fertilizers and plant additives washed off from landscaped areas.

Recognizing the potential hazards of such urban runoff, the EPA has issued regulations which require municipalities to participate in the NPDES program. Compliance with applicable NPDES requirements and performance standards would be achieved through implementation of the WQMP. To ensure adequate and appropriate treatment of stormwater discharges, the stormwater management concept and associated WQMP would implement water quality BMPs that would treat stormwaters onsite prior to release to the regional stormwater system or infiltration to groundwater.
2726

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .10 -37
In combination, implementation of the SWPPP, on-site stormwater management system and associated WQMP, and compliance with NPDES Permit requirements, act to protect local and regional water quality by preventing or minimizing potential stormwater pollutant discharges to the watershed.

The Specific Plan would construct portions of four City MDP facilities, including portions of the Walker Storm Drain System, Grove Storm Drain System, Bon View Storm Drain System, and the Campus Storm Drain System. To assess the capacity of these facilities to accommodate flows from the Specific Plan, the design flow rates were compared to the rates that would be expected from the developed Specific Plan, as presented in Table 3.10-2, Flow Rates for MDP Facilities to be Constructed by the Specific Plan. Table 3.10-2 Flow Rates for MDP Facilities to be Constructed by the Specific Plan Storm Drain System Name MDP Facility Name
Design Flow Rate
(ft3/second)
Proposed Condition
Flow Rate
(ft3
/second)1 Walker Storm Drain System WLKR-XII-1 928 947.3 Grove Storm Drain System GROV-XIII-1 1050 1025.6
Bon View Storm Drain System BNVW-XIV-1 746 727.6
Campus Storm Drain System MERL-XIV-2 124 129.5
Source: Appendix H1
1 It is noted that proposed condition flow rates include flows from properties located to the north, outside of the Specific Plan boundary.

As shown in this table, the proposed flow rate of WLKR-XII-1 would be 19.3 cubic foot per second (ft3
/s) higher than the design flow rate. This increase represents approximately 2 percent of the design flow rate. Additionally, the proposed flow rate of MERL-XIV-2 would be 5.5 ft3
/s higher than the design flow rate. This increase represents approximately 4 percent of the design flow rate. The RWQCB allows for 10 percent error on hydromodification criteria. As such, the increases under the proposed condition are within the acceptable range for hydrological error tolerances and are considered negligible. Proposed flow rates for all other facilities would be less than their respective design flow rates.

Summary
The Specific Plan would incorporate necessary drainage and stormwater management systems, and would comply with stormwater system design, construction, and operational requirements mandated under the City Development Code, and with regulations established by other agencies, including the RWQCB and California Department of Water Resources. Based on the preceding, the Specific Plan would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner 2727

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
3 .10 - 38
that would result in substantial erosion, water quality, flooding, or downstream capacity impacts. Impacts would be less than significant. Similarly, the 2022 Certified SEIR did not identify any significant impacts in this regard.

Accordingly, the Specific Plan would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified SEIR.

Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact HYD-3: Implementation of BMPs outlined in project SWPPPs, erosion and sediment control plans, WQMPs, and adherence to TOP policies would address hydrology and water quality impacts related to erosion and flooding.

New Mitigation Measures
Impacts are less than significant and mitigation measures are not required. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The 2022 Certified EIR determined that the approved project would result in less-thansignificant impacts related to flood hazards, tsunamis, seiches, or dam inundation.

Policy Plan Amendment
Flood Hazard
As shown in Figure 3.10-2, portions of the city are in the 100-year and 500-year floodplains.

FEMA periodically updates its Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) using improved topographic and hydrologic data, which may shift floodplain boundaries. These updates primarily reflect enhanced mapping accuracy rather than increased flood risk.

Development associated with the proposed project would continue to implement existing City flood hazard policies, including:
2728

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .10 -39
S-2.2: Floodplain Mapping. We require any new development partially or entirely in 100- year flood zones to provide detailed floodplain mapping for 100- and 200-year storm events as part of the development approval process.

Future development under the proposed project would be required to comply with the most current FEMA flood hazard regulations and applicable City policies.

Tsunami
The City is located approximately 30 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and is not subject to tsunami inundation hazards.

Seiche
There are no large natural water bodies within or adjacent to the city that could generate a seiche during seismic activity. Existing reservoirs and aboveground storage tanks are enclosed and engineered to prevent sloshing or overflow, minimizing any potential for seiche-related impacts.

Dam Inundation
The western and southern portions of the City are in the dam inundation zone of San Antonio Dam (see Figure 3.10-3). The dam is owned and operated by the USACE and functions as a flood control and debris dam for San Antonio Creek. Additionally, there are 2 debris basins in the surrounding areas that impact small areas of the City east of I-15.

The probability of dam failure is very low (Ontario 2023). Dam owners are required to maintain emergency action plans 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, such as the Ontario Fire Department. Because the likelihood of dam or debris basin failure is low and emergency response and notification procedures are in place, the potential for the release of pollutants due to inundation is less than significant.
■
■
2729

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

CITY O F ON TARIO
3 .10 HYDR OL OG Y A ND WA TE R Q UALIT Y
3 .10 - 40
The proposed project would not increase exposure to flood zones, tsunami, seiche, or dam inundation hazards beyond what was evaluated in the 2022 Certified EIR. With continued implementation of applicable City policies, FEMA regulations, and emergency management procedures, impacts related to the release of pollutants due to project inundation would remain less than significant. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. The proposed project would not increase exposure to flood hazards compared to the approved project and impacts identified in the Certified EIR.

Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Specific Plan
Dam Inundation
The Specific Plan area is located within the dam inundation zone of San Antonio Dam.

According to the 2022 Certified EIR, the probability of dam failure is very low, and Ontario has never been impacted by a major dam failure. 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, such as the Ontario Fire Department (Ontario 2022).

Flood Hazard, Tsunami, and Seiche
The Specific Plan area is not within a 100-year floodplain, nor are there nearby water bodies or streams that would result in flooding at the Specific Plan area (Ontario 2023). The Specific Plan area is located approximately 30 miles inland; as such, tsunamis are not a concern at the Specific Plan area. The nearest large body of surface water (Lake Norconian) is located approximately 5.5 miles southeast of the Specific Plan area. At this distance, seiches are not a concern.

Ontario City CouncilJune 16, 2026

Ontario City Council
June 16, 2026